The Super Bull Shuffle, opinion about Hitch out of the windbag city.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Super Bull Shuffle, opinion about Hitch out of the windbag city.

Out of the Chicago Tribune, we find this nice article full of stereotypes, dead philosophy and chichi bible quotes. If Mike Ditka ran the Bears like this dope makes arguments, the Bears wouldn't have won one game that year.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-201112191330--tms--cthomastq--b-a20111220dec20,0,2376108.column

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
My head hurts from banging it on my desk...

Quote:
Why? Your PREMISE IS FALSE. The point is, that NOT everything that has a 'beginning' has a cause. This has been pointed out to you before. Radioactive decay for example has NO CAUSE. The universe began, since there was no BEFORE there can BE NO CAUSE.

Let me repeat... your PREMISE IS FALSE. Get it?

 

LC >:-}>

Quote:
What caused the universe to begin?

 

I get it, you aren't just stupid, you are BLIND.

Quote:
The universe began, since there was no BEFORE there can BE NO CAUSE.

 

There now... can you read THAT?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
When it gets this ridiculous

When it gets this ridiculous I start getting more amused than irritated.  I'm actually going to bust out laughing if he still doesn't get it.

It's like watching the movie Idiocracy but in real life.

I wonder what Lee would be like as a doctor...

Lee wrote:

Right, kick ass. Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. What I'd do, is just like... like... you know, like, you know what I mean, like...

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Vastet

Lee2216 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
I didn't say anything about a Big Bang Theory or a singularity I said according to your belief system nothing created the universe. You don't understand?
This is comedy gold. You should do standup. You're so ignorant you can't even communicate.

If I didn't communicate properly why the response? Crap, I almost forgot, your response was just a random chemical reaction in your brain so I'll excuse your childish insults.

Rofl. You just keep deluding yourself, and I'll keep laughing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If everything

Brian37 wrote:
If everything has a beginning then what caused God and what caused that and what caused that and what caused that.

To ask where someone who is eternal, someone who had no beginning, came from is like asking "To whom is the bachelor married?" It's an irrational question.

Brian37 wrote:
IT'S CALLED THE PROBLEM OF INFINITE REGRESS. Assuming a god creates more problems than it solves. Because if god is infinitely more complex than we are and the universe is, then what caused that god would have to be infinitely even more complex than the god it started. THAT IS if you want to argue that everything has a beginning.

Since God is eternal that solves the problem of infinite regress. The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes i.e. infinite regresses. The cause of the universe's beginning must have been super-natural, non-material or spirit. A cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. The cause had to be eternal spirit. The cause of the universe had to be incredibly powerful. The sheer size and energy seen in the universe together speak of that power. There had to be a cause. That sounds like the God of the bible to me.

Brian37 wrote:
You stupidly assume complexity and cognition are required as a starting point when everything in the universe has been shown to go from simple to complex not the other way around.

Even the simplest single-celled life is stupendously complex. The cause must be incredibly intelligent, far beyond our intelligence.

Brian37 wrote:
A GOD IS NOT REQUIRED to explain the universe PERIOD!

How else would you explain how the universe came into existence? Those who reject the Creator not only have to believe that matter came into being without any cause; they also have to believe that life itself popped into existence without an adequate cause. That is utterly foolish. Brian, you continue to suppress the truth.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Lee2216

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Ok, you agree with me the universe had a beginning. What caused the universe to begin? If there were nothing before the universe existed we would still have nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.

In order for something to have caused the beginning there had to be the dimension of Time before the beginning.

But there wasn't.

Cause and Effect do not apply.

DO NOT APPLY.

CAUSE DOES NOT APPLY.

EFFECT DOES NOT APPLY.

Cause and Effect can only happen in the dimension of Time.

There was NO TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF the UNIVERSE.

Holy fuck, if you still can't understand this simple concept I'm just going to give up on you on this subject.

Your getting warmer! The universe had a beginning because the laws of thermodynamics demand it. Since there was no time before the universe existed, whatever caused the universe to come into existence had to be super-natural, non-material or spirit. A cause outside of matter-space-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit. Makes more sense than "nothing" created the universe.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So if it is possible then

So if it is possible then that something can have no beginning all you are proving is that yet still a God is not required. A cognition is not required.

You are falsely inserting a needless complexity as a cause. And completely missed my point about what problems are caused by inserting an infinite god.

Infinite regress IS a valid objection to a god claim. It causes you to back off "everything has a creator" bullshit argument.

If everything has a creator, to be logically consistent you have to apply that to your god claim as well, otherwise you are cherry picking what is or is not "created". If not everything needs a creator, then the universe doesn't either.

The claimed cognition of an "all powerful" infinite being CAUSES problems because you blindly stop at "god is" without considering the implications of such a naked assertion.

If an all powerful l infinite being can have no cause, then the less complex universe wouldn't need one either.

CUT IT EITHER WAY,

There is no need for an invisible friend, be the universe caused or uncaused. Cognition did not cause the universe EITHER WAY.

Furry is Jewish, she too has a pet god and tries to argue science too. But you are not Jewish.

You want to lead me to magic babies and zombie god claims, and she wants to pull me into Kosher superstitions.

So just because you argue for a Christian myth as the cause of the universe is hardly impressive. You both could be arguing that Yoda started the universe and it would make as much sense.

Both you the Christian and Furry the Jew, accept, or should at least, accept that an ocean god named Neptune is not responsible for hurricanes. Hurricanes start out as less complex smaller parts that are not cognitive, but the conditions that lead to the hurricane produce a complex storm. There you have an example of non cognitive event leading to more complexity without the aid of Neptune.

Our universe is complex, but all that complexity arose out of a simple and smaller singularity. I would simply view the unknown as to before being just as much a non-cognitive process as the simple weather conditions that lead to a complex hurricane.

None of nature needs a thinking being to cause it, nor does the universe. If you can accept that the sun is not a god, then you should be able to accept that the sun and the universe and everything in it is a result of a WHAT, a non thinking process of conditions.

Otherwise every god claimed including the Jewish one, the Muslim one, the Hindu one, and the sun being a god as a cause should fit in just as well as your magic baby super hero claim.

Try understanding why you reject all other pet god claims besides yours and you'll understand why I reject your pet god claim as well.

Both you and Furry insert an invisible friend claim needlessly into nature and the universe. And whats worse is that these myths were started when we didn't have the scientific knowledge of the universe we do today.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Lee, maybe infinite regress isn't a problem.  Why does there have to be a bottom floor? 

 

And about the universe coming from nothing, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo  It's a lecture by Lawrence Krauss, a physicist, about how the universe could have come from nothing. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Watcher

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Ok, you agree with me the universe had a beginning. What caused the universe to begin? If there were nothing before the universe existed we would still have nothing. From nothing, nothing comes.

In order for something to have caused the beginning there had to be the dimension of Time before the beginning.

But there wasn't.

Cause and Effect do not apply.

DO NOT APPLY.

CAUSE DOES NOT APPLY.

EFFECT DOES NOT APPLY.

Cause and Effect can only happen in the dimension of Time.

There was NO TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF the UNIVERSE.

Holy fuck, if you still can't understand this simple concept I'm just going to give up on you on this subject.

Your getting warmer! The universe had a beginning because the laws of thermodynamics demand it. Since there was no time before the universe existed, whatever caused the universe to come into existence had to be super-natural, non-material or spirit. A cause outside of matter-space-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit. Makes more sense than "nothing" created the universe.

 

Please tell me HOW thermodynamics justifies a magic baby who was born without a second set of DNA?

"Poof, abracadabra, God did it", thats all you got, you back up a naked assertion with another naked assertion

Would you buy a Jew's argument of thermodynamics if they were arguing for a Jewish god and not yours? Would you buy this thermodynamic argument if a Muslim were claiming it proved Allah to be the one true god?

So the "super natural" has to exist. Who says that science, even if it proved that the super natural were possible, why would it automatically lead to your pet diety". How convenient that it just so happened in this world of 7 billion that lucky you found that science proves magic baby claims despite all the various god claims humans invent. Despite the universal science of DNA that we can all learn puts a damper on magic baby claims in the SCIENTIFIC FACT that it takes two sets of DNA to make a human baby.

Try some Occam's Razor and law of probability on for size.

Your god is actually real.

Or

Just like the Muslim god and Jewish god and sun god, humans are merely superstitious sugar pill gap fillers who allow their emotions and egos to fill in nature with their wishful thinking.

Which of the two choices fits reality more? An actual invisible friend BY ANY NAME, exists. Or, humans invent gods?

Thermodynamics does not lead scientists to defaulting to the Christian god. Faith is not a litmus test in scientific knowledge and does not require belief in Jesus or Buddha or Vishnu or invisible pink unicorns.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your naturalistic

Quote:
Your naturalistic philosophy can't provide any basis for ethics

The hell it cant. So the ethic of women being treated equally is magic? So which magician gives women equal rights? The magic man Allah? Seems to me their women constantly have to fight that superstition to gain equal rights?

The Christian magic man God? Susan B Anthony "I distrust what god believers say what God wants because it coincides with their desires". But what would she know, she only fought right wing bible thumpers who sold the ethic that women are too stupid to vote". Still have many LDS and Amish and right wing baptists and Cahtolics that still see women as second class. Most of those Christian sects wont allow a woman to lead a church. You find that kind of bullshit "ethical"?

Gays too have to fight in every culture for equal treatment under government. My so called lousy natural ethic gives them equal rights in spite of the bigoted homophobes who base their lunacy on their respective holy books. I don't find bigotry ethical at all.

Religion in all its forms takes natural human behavior and belittles it to comic book status. It is only because humans shed these superstitions that women's rights more and more all over the world are becoming the norm. Religion has retarded this constantly and held back humanity.

You want to talk to me about ethics when you are part of a gang who has had a history of human rights violations and still today wont let women lead Churches. Teaches society to hate people because of their sexuality. Keep Galileo under wraps because of their own childish insecurities.

And constantly tries to turn science classes into comic book conventions via creationism and ID?

No, the world needs less sexism, not more. The world needs less bigotry, not more. The world needs more science, not less. I want no part of your "ethics". It holds humanity back and teaches them to falsely accept fantasy as fact.

Your "ethics" teach you to buy myth and fictional gods and blinds you to the harm that belief in that myth has done to society and continues to do to society even today. No thank you. I think the world would be less violent, less divided, and more human without your "ethics'.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So if it is

Brian37 wrote:

So if it is possible then that something can have no beginning all you are proving is that yet still a God is not required. A cognition is not required.

You are falsely inserting a needless complexity as a cause. And completely missed my point about what problems are caused by inserting an infinite god.

Infinite regress IS a valid objection to a god claim. It causes you to back off "everything has a creator" bullshit argument.

To bad an infinite regress can't occur in a space-time-matter universe. There can't be an infinite series of births and deaths because each cycle must have less energy than the one before it. If this had been happening for eternity the death of everything would have already happened. So, infinite regress IS NOT even valid conceptually.

Brian37 wrote:
If everything has a creator, to be logically consistent you have to apply that to your god claim as well, otherwise you are cherry picking what is or is not "created". If not everything needs a creator, then the universe doesn't either.

I guess you don't read very well or you conveniently left out the word "beginning." I said everything that "has a beginning has a cause." God is ETERNAL therefore logically He has no cause.

Brian37 wrote:
If an all powerful infinite being can have no cause, then the less complex universe wouldn't need one either.

No!! The universe had a beginning = cause. God is eternal = no cause. It's a very easy concept. You just choose to suppress the truth because you don't want there to be a God that you are accountable to.

Brian37 wrote:
There is no need for an invisible friend, be the universe caused or uncaused. Cognition did not cause the universe EITHER WAY.

Where is your scientific evidence?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Please tell me

Brian37 wrote:
Please tell me HOW thermodynamics justifies a magic baby who was born without a second set of DNA?

What does thermodynamics have to do with the virgin birth

Brian37 wrote:
Would you buy a Jew's argument of thermodynamics if they were arguing for a Jewish god and not yours? Would you buy this thermodynamic argument if a Muslim were claiming it proved Allah to be the one true god?

Technically, the God the Jew's worship and the God I worship are one in the same.

Brian37 wrote:
So the "super natural" has to exist. Who says that science, even if it proved that the super natural were possible, why would it automatically lead to your pet diety".

Science can't falsify things super-natural. It's an illogical question, just like your "who created God?" question.

Brian37 wrote:
How convenient that it just so happened in this world of 7 billion that lucky you found that science proves magic baby claims despite all the various god claims humans invent. Despite the universal science of DNA that we can all learn puts a damper on magic baby claims in the SCIENTIFIC FACT that it takes two sets of DNA to make a human baby.

Logically speaking, since God created everything He could very easily create the other set of DNA required. It's much more logical than your "nothing created everything worldview."

Brian37 wrote:
Just like the Muslim god and Jewish god and sun god, humans are merely superstitious sugar pill gap fillers who allow their emotions and egos to fill in nature with their wishful thinking.

Actually, it's interesting that human being's have an innate desire to worship. It just so happens that most people choose to worship false gods and idols which the one true God prohibits.

Brian37 wrote:
Thermodynamics does not lead scientists to defaulting to the Christian god.

Not all scientists! Only the honest one's that are searching for the truth.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Your

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Your naturalistic philosophy can't provide any basis for ethics

You want to talk to me about ethics when you are part of a gang who has had a history of human rights violations and still today wont let women lead Churches. Teaches society to hate people because of their sexuality.

And what rights would these be? Actually, atheist's have killed more human being's in the 20th century than all other religions combined since we've been on this earth. Where is the bible verse that teaches society to hate people because of their sexuallity?

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
If an all powerful infinite being can have no cause, then the less complex universe wouldn't need one either.

No!! The universe had a beginning = cause. God is eternal = no cause. It's a very easy concept. You just choose to suppress the truth because you don't want there to be a God that you are accountable to.

Brian37 wrote:
There is no need for an invisible friend, be the universe caused or uncaused. Cognition did not cause the universe EITHER WAY.

Where is your scientific evidence?

 

Lee, give scientific evidence that there was a Creator.  Understand that the universe might not have had a beginning, that the big bang might have come from eternal laws of physics.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I guess you don't read

Quote:
I guess you don't read very well or you conveniently left out the word "beginning." I said everything that "has a beginning has a cause." God is ETERNAL therefore logically He has no cause.

No, I read fine. You however seem to be the one lacking reading comprehension.

I would assume by proxy of the standard omn-god attribute claims people like you and most monotheists typically make, that this alleged god critter would be infinitely more complex than the universe it allegedly started.

If we are going by that assertion, for argument's sake only, and your alleged god critter needs no cause, surely something less complex than this infinitely complex god wouldn't need a cause either.

I am not going to let you get away with trying to have it both ways.

If the universe had a beginning and thus has a cause, then an infinitely more complex thing such as your alleged god critter would beg for even more explanation, which IS what the problem called "infinite regress" address in this pet god claim of yours as a claim.

Now all this claptrap can be solved in short order by refraining from compiling a gap with a huge monster of an argument, but looking at the universe as not a manufactured thing, but a non cognitive process. No needlessly complex unexplainable god critter needed to explain it.

Occams Razor is a philosophy still used today as part of good science ethics. It demands that you problem solve with simplicity first. Just like if your car doesn't start you don't default to taking the engine apart first. You check the battery, then the battery cable, then the starter, and work your way up.

Your logic is ass backwords in that it assumes complexity is needed as a starting position and if such is the case something as complex as the fictional omni god claim you fawn over needlessly, that would beg even more complex answers to solve.

We simply do not know IF the universe was the product of a prior event(I personally lean that way), or if it simply came out of nothing. BUT either way the Omni God claim simply is use of bad logic and cannot fill that gap. It is adding needless baggage. And not only that your myth was not even written way prior to when scientists finally formulated the FACT of the big bang and proved it.

You are ultimately trying to defend a horrible myth written over a 1,000 year period by unscientific people.

Stephen Hakwins would know a little about science I'd think. Neil Degrees Tyson who studies the stars for a living would know a little about science and BOTH of them would say YOU got it wrong.

And not to mention DNA puts a damper on your magic baby claim. And rigor mortis puts a damper on the zombie god claim.

So even IF, which I dont, but even if I agreed that some sort of omni god was possible, which I dont, you are still stuck with denying that you are still trying to pull me into those two dedbunked myths you hinge your beliefs on. But on the alleged birth and death of Jesus you cant cop out to metaphor or allegory. The only way I can see Christianity surviving is if future generations re write these myths/

So if you want to make a better argument, start from scratch, dump your myth all together, and say something like "a super natural being is possible" because that, although still BS, would have less baggage than your ancient comic book.

Both inside the bible and outside the bible you have nothing. If you think I am being unfair to you I am not. I think it would be equally absurd, for example, to claim that the universe itself, is a thinking entity as some pantheists with their modern superstition claim.

Trying to solve gaps with even bigger gaps that require even more explanation IS NOT how good science works. It isn't even good logic on a basic level.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To bad an infinite

Quote:
To bad an infinite regress can't occur in a space-time-matter universe. There can't be an infinite series of births and deaths because each cycle must have less energy than the one before it. If this had been happening for eternity the death of everything would have already happened. So, infinite regress IS NOT even valid conceptually.

It does NOT become a problem in a natural universe void of your magic man with a magic wand. It becomes a problem when you assume a magic wand is needed.

You can take a finite line and infinitely divide it. There is an example of infinity not being a problem, and even being finite at the same time, and BOTH without the extra baggage of a magic man.

So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event, but a super hero is not needed to explain either and will beg the question if you do try to  insert one. ESPECIALLY a super hero who was invented by human imagination thousands of years ago in a scientifically ignorant age.

Infinite regress addresses the god claim, not the universe itself.

Don't pull the thermodynamic crap trying to justify magic baby claims written thousands of years ago, it ain't going to cut it here. The best you MIGHT do is try to claim a more deistic generic god, but even that has baggage.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What does

Quote:
What does thermodynamics have to do with the virgin birth

Here is how you are trying to sell your poison pill of bad logic.

You know damned well you can come out and say "Jesus existed and he was the one true god"

So you try to avoid the bible at first to try to eventually lead people into that comic book.

Now I would see no reason whatsoever to be a Christian if it did not require you to believe that he was born of a virgin. Back peddle away from that it is mere metaphor. It is mere metaphor then it is no different or special than the other stories believers cherry pick selectively as being possible. If a virgin birth is not possible then why would the creation story or garden story be either? We are talking about "all" in "all powerful" which should, in theory allow this being (to be consistent in logic) to do anything it wants. If it cannot, then logically speaking, it cannot be described as "all powerful".

But if God is all powerful like you'd like to believe and created thermodynamics then "poof" magic baby should be possible and you should be able to defend it. And talking snakes and bushes should be because "all" would also allow this fictional character the ability to defy it's own laws of nature.

So was Jesus a magic baby? If not, then who did Mary fuck? Because all you got is "poof" god did it.

The point being thermodynamics do not justify magic babies. Thermodynamics does not justify surviving rigor mortis and it doesn't even justify a non material cognition with a magic wand.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So once again,

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

"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


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Louis_Cypher

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Watcher wrote:

You still don't understand!! Anything which has a BEGINNING has a CAUSE.

No, you don't understand.   In the dimension of Time first A happens and then B happens.   That's because with the dimension of Time you have past, present, and future.

Before the Universe started expanding there was no Height, Width, Breadth, or Time.   No before.  No after.

Cause and Effect don't apply.

The first second of time ticked by when the expansion started.

Oh my lord!! I'm trying  to be patient with you. Did the universe have a beginning? Give me a one word answer, yay or nay.

 

Why? Your PREMISE IS FALSE. The point is, that NOT everything that has a 'beginning' has a cause. This has been pointed out to you before. Radioactive decay for example has NO CAUSE. The universe began, since there was no BEFORE there can BE NO CAUSE.

Let me repeat... your PREMISE IS FALSE. Get it?

 

LC >:-}>

 

What caused the universe to begin?

WHY do you insist on a human like magical super hero?

If a magic man will fit in as an answer there are plenty of  magic man claims, besides yours people insert in as gap and by your standard, because we dont know, are equally as valid.

How about this. WE DONT KNOW, but we can rule out bullshit. We can rule out magic babies, we can rule out Gelgimesh, Osirus, Thor and zombie gods.

If not, then even more modern claims of "cause" like the universe being a thinking entity itself, has less baggage than your old superstition.

How about reality being that evolution and the universe are as natural as the cause of a non thinking hurricane which Neptune did not cause.

How about the reality that humans, old woo or new woo default to crap answers more often than not.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

 

Lee, just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they believe the universe came from nothing.  An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in deities; this doesn't imply any beliefs about the origin of the universe, life, morality, etc.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So, you have FAITH

Quote:
So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Do you have faith that an invisible pink unicorn didn't create the universe? Do you have faith that the universe was not the cause of a sun god? Do you have faith that hurricanes are not caused by Neptune?

I am no more a hypocrite in saying that a god is not needed as a gap answer as cheese is needed to explain the makeup of the moon.

The myths of Abraham are as valid as the neo myths of pantheism. They are just as valid as divining rods in finding water and just as silly as any other superstitious bullshit explanation.

Seriously, if your logic really worked on the proxy of mere utterance and popularity then you can literally look forward to having 72 virgins in a Muslim after life. I'd love to have 72 virgins. But that is as likely as getting a blow job from Angelina Jolie. Just as likely if we default to fantasy.

Two things.

"If ifs and butts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a party"

And

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"

You merely like your super hero claim. So what.  Get in line. Human fantasy is mundane and far to often undermines skepticism and keeps people like you stuck in the past.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

You are a Christian and believe in a God that you have no evidence that you can cite for his existence.

I don't think that you've stated Brian's position correctly. He may not know where the universe came from but I don't think he'd claim it came from nothing.

If he did, though, that would make your belief and his identical. 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lee2216

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

You are a Christian and believe in a God that you have no evidence that you can cite for his existence.

I don't think that you've stated Brian's position correctly. He may not know where the universe came from but I don't think he'd claim it came from nothing.

If he did, though, that would make your belief and his identical. 

EITHER WAY, a cognition their standards, which would create more begging for answers EITHER WAY, is needless baggage which does nothing to explain finite or infinite.

It is not identical. In his fantasy either way, a god is required. In scientific reality a god is not required either way.

How the gap of what science is attempting to fill in is the question. His tactic is to cling to the past and cling to wishful thinking. Scientific method in reality when the scientist uses it ethically is willing to discard bad data.

There is a difference. His is rooted in myth and wishful thinking. Our approach is not. EITHER WAY, finite or infinite a cognition is not required.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

You are a Christian and believe in a God that you have no evidence that you can cite for his existence.

I don't think that you've stated Brian's position correctly. He may not know where the universe came from but I don't think he'd claim it came from nothing.

If he did, though, that would make your belief and his identical. 

EITHER WAY, a cognition their standards, which would create more begging for answers EITHER WAY, is needless baggage which does nothing to explain finite or infinite.

It is not identical. In his fantasy either way, a god is required. In scientific reality a god is not required either way.

How the gap of what science is attempting to fill in is the question. His tactic is to cling to the past and cling to wishful thinking. Scientific method in reality when the scientist uses it ethically is willing to discard bad data.

There is a difference. His is rooted in myth and wishful thinking. Our approach is not. EITHER WAY, finite or infinite a cognition is not required.

 

If you believed the universe came from nothing (never said you did) your belief and Lee's would be identical.  Read stuff before you go off - it's better for you.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So once again, the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.

So, you have FAITH that the universe came from nothing or a prior event without any evidence, yet you make fun of people who have faith in a God that you claim there is no evidence for. You, Brian, are a hypocrit and an ignorant fool.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

You are a Christian and believe in a God that you have no evidence that you can cite for his existence.

I don't think that you've stated Brian's position correctly. He may not know where the universe came from but I don't think he'd claim it came from nothing.

If he did, though, that would make your belief and his identical. 

EITHER WAY, a cognition their standards, which would create more begging for answers EITHER WAY, is needless baggage which does nothing to explain finite or infinite.

It is not identical. In his fantasy either way, a god is required. In scientific reality a god is not required either way.

How the gap of what science is attempting to fill in is the question. His tactic is to cling to the past and cling to wishful thinking. Scientific method in reality when the scientist uses it ethically is willing to discard bad data.

There is a difference. His is rooted in myth and wishful thinking. Our approach is not. EITHER WAY, finite or infinite a cognition is not required.

 

If you believed the universe came from nothing (never said you did) your belief and Lee's would be identical.  Read stuff before you go off - it's better for you.

No I am skipping the guff and laying it on the line.

His position will always default to a god, be the universe always being or coming from nothing.

My position is that the universe does not need a god be it from a prior cause or coming from nothing.

Our positions are NOT identical.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37