774 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

mikeinnaples

I asked you how you would like me to reword my beliefs so you don't find it offensive. See the bold text above. You seem to be unwilling to do so. At this point I simply have to believe you are simply baiting. Saying that I believe religions are superstitious beliefs isnt name calling any more than you saying that god is real. We are just opposite sides of a coin.

I think you have made your unsupported beliefs clear.

Regarding evidence or proof, I already responded to you a few pages back on that. Feel free to reread it at your leisure.

Hardly. I have read them and there is no proof of anything on your part.. You don’t even know who you are talking to. Your posts are extremely confused.

"Personal unproved experience" .... How can my own experience be unproven to me? Regarding your video, I couldnt watch it even if I wanted to from work, so I am not sure what you expect? I am certain I mentioned that already. If you want me to respond to the content, you will quite simply have to provide me a summary.

Waste of time.

If you look through all my posts you will see that I claim that I cant rationally make myself believe in something without evidence of its existence. I also state that there is absolutely no way for me to prove to 'you' that a god doesnt exist any more than 'you' can prove to me that a god does. From my perspective, I can rationalize belief in a 'god' as much as I can rationalize belief in 'santa claus'. I can't scientifically prove that santa doesn't exist or 100% rule out the possibility, but growing up and never actually seeing santa or having him come down my chimney or give me presents or directly influence me in any way, as a rational person I cannot have faith in his existence. Therefor I do not believe in santa.... nor can I believe in a god.

Again what kind of proof do you accept? So you irrationally choose to believe there is no god. That is your faith. You want to call baseless names. OK. You have given no evidence. By the way, there was a real Santa. I think this exchange, such as it was, has run its course.

[platypus]

Shadowhawk, it's the people who claim that there are ghosts, unicorns, invisible teapots or gods who need to substantiate their claims. So far I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of active personified deities that couldn't be better explained by non-supernatural causes. Therefore, the atheist-agnostic viewpoint is very much vindicated and you cannot call it "irrational", as you just did to mikeinnaples. Extraordinary claims demand for extraordinary evidence, so where is it for gods?

[shadowhawk]

All you have is your personal unproved experience? I know you don’t look at videos but here is one that is on this very subject. Short, come on it won’t hurt you. You claim you can’t rationally make yourself believe in God. Can you rationally make yourself not believe in God or are you irrational?

That video is still stuck with the idea that one has to "prove" absolutely that gods do or don't exist, which may well be impossible (depends if the gods are hiding or not). From a probabilistic viewpoint there plenty of negative evidence about gods - i.e. there's no phenomena that require gods as their explanation -> strong probabilistic evidence for the non-existence (or non-visibility) of gods.

You can’t absolutely prove anything if totally a skeptic of everything. Theists do not try to prove absolutely anything but neither do atheists. If such proofs are demanded, then they are demanded of both sides despite atheists attempts to clothe themselves in the coat of rationality. No proof is exhaustive and you are right, the issues are probabilistic. Theists feel it is more probable there is a God than not and like atheists, supply faith to the gaps in absolute proof. By the way there are many real things that are not visible but probable. Such we feel is God.

[platypus]

You can’t absolutely prove anything if totally a skeptic of everything. Theists do not try to prove absolutely anything but neither do atheists. If such proofs are demanded, then they are demanded of both sides despite atheists attempts to clothe themselves in the coat of rationality.

Agreed completely.

No proof is exhaustive and you are right, the issues are probabilistic. Theists feel it is more probable there is a God than not and like atheists, supply faith to the gaps in absolute proof. By the way there are many real things that are not visible but probable. Such we feel is God.

Yes but a "feeling" as such is not an argument for or against, you'd have to be more specific. Please refer to external observable evidence instead of your internal mental states (like feelings).

Edited by platypus, 26 October 2011 - 06:37 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I think you have made your unsupported beliefs clear.

You have made your unsupport beliefs clear!?

Hardly. I have read them and there is no proof of anything on your part.. You don’t even know who you are talking to. Your posts are extremely confused.

You are calling my posts confused when you responded to comment a explicitly directed towards Drus as if I directed it towards you, despite quoting it. I am not sure I understand where you are coming from. Please note that I dont claim to be able to prove that a god exists nor do I claim to prove that a god doesn't. I have stated as such several times. There absolutely is no proof that god exists and because there has been no evidence to make me believe on a personal level either.

Waste of time.

Correct, you posting videos as a response to someone who has repeatedly said they cannot view them IS in fact a waste of time.

Again what kind of proof do you accept? So you irrationally choose to believe there is no god. That is your faith. You want to call baseless names. OK. You have given no evidence. By the way, there was a real Santa. I think this exchange, such as it was, has run its course.

Like I said, read through my posts again. There is nothing irrational about refusing to accept something for fact based on 0 evidence. Call baseless names? Please quote where I did. How exactly do you propose that I provide proof of nonexistence given the vastness of the universe and my inability to leave the planet to search for it? lmao. Come now, you know where i was going with my reference to Santa, don't be silly. I was referring to the cocacola version in red and white that has apparently been alive for hundreds of years, lives at the north pole, and somehow manages to deliver presents to all the good children in the world. I wonder how that would work out in some place like ...lets say Iran. heh

[mikeinnaples]

I absolutely did NOT deliberately, falsely, or slanderously misquote you. I made it perfectly clear that I switched the word atheist out with another words to make a point several times, so you saying that I tried to pass them off as what you said is more than a little silly.

It can be considered so when you directly change the words within their quote, while still leaving the time stamp on and their name and the visual indication that it is a full quote.

I've changed the older posts to make it more clear.

Please also see our user guidelines: http://www.longecity...18#imm_bya_art2

Fair enough. Please note that I did go out of my way repeatedly to make it perfectly clear that I was not trying to impersonate him and even prefaced my initial post with a statement to such.

By the way Shannon, I did attempt to use the quote functionality originally in the editor but it doesnt seem to be working, at least in my browser. It is throwing a javascript error for me.

(Attempt to put a quote around this text)

Sadly this led me to simply cut and paste (which included timestamps etc.)

Edited by mikeinnaples, 26 October 2011 - 06:51 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

• 
  

  Manually using the tags or running in compatability mode seems to work though

[Shannon Vyff]

Thanks mikeinnaples, I know there can always be a debate as to posting rules under our bylaws. I just thought using the official quote with timestamp and user name included, was a bit confusing even though you said you'd changed it. I thought making it clear that it was not a direct quote made it easier to see that for anyone reading through the thread

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, it's the people who claim that there are ghosts, unicorns, invisible teapots or gods who need to substantiate their claims. So far I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of active personified deities that couldn't be better explained by non-supernatural causes. Therefore, the atheist-agnostic viewpoint is very much vindicated and you cannot call it "irrational", as you just did to mikeinnaples. Extraordinary claims demand for extraordinary evidence, so where is it for gods?

People who say no one made the teapot, or the things in the artists mind who drew the unicorn (horses, horns etc) have little proof. We know them and create them from our real experience of real things. Nothing truly made is without underlying reality. Everything that makes up an artists concept of a unicorn is real. The artist saw a horse and horn, etc. We know what a picture of a unicorn is and even have a dictionary definition of them. They are made up of real things. They were created by men who used real things they didn’t create. In fact you can’t even think of something that has no reality in experience of real things. The people who say there are no ghosts, teapots, unicorns or God remind me of those who said there were no dinosaurs not that long ago. No evidence then so they are not real. They are perhaps real even if I lack evidence of them..

Why is there something rather than nothing? A question we all get to ask. The greatest thing I can think about is God. In someway, everything I can think of is real. I clam the extraordinary cosmos exists which does not explain itself. My extraordinary explanation for its existence, is God. Humans everywhere can and do think this though they put different faces to Him. What is your view. Do you have extraordionary evidence?

[shadowhawk]

I think you have made your unsupported beliefs clear.

You have made your unsupport beliefs clear!?

Hardly. I have read them and there is no proof of anything on your part.. You don’t even know who you are talking to. Your posts are extremely confused.

You are calling my posts confused when you responded to comment a explicitly directed towards Drus as if I directed it towards you, despite quoting it. I am not sure I understand where you are coming from. Please note that I dont claim to be able to prove that a god exists nor do I claim to prove that a god doesn't. I have stated as such several times. There absolutely is no proof that god exists and because there has been no evidence to make me believe on a personal level either.

Waste of time.

Correct, you posting videos as a response to someone who has repeatedly said they cannot view them IS in fact a waste of time.

Again what kind of proof do you accept? So you irrationally choose to believe there is no god. That is your faith. You want to call baseless names. OK. You have given no evidence. By the way, there was a real Santa. I think this exchange, such as it was, has run its course.

Like I said, read through my posts again. There is nothing irrational about refusing to accept something for fact based on 0 evidence. Call baseless names? Please quote where I did. How exactly do you propose that I provide proof of nonexistence given the vastness of the universe and my inability to leave the planet to search for it? lmao. Come now, you know where i was going with my reference to Santa, don't be silly. I was referring to the cocacola version in red and white that has apparently been alive for hundreds of years, lives at the north pole, and somehow manages to deliver presents to all the good children in the world. I wonder how that would work out in some place like ...lets say Iran. heh

Not interested.

[shadowhawk]

You can’t absolutely prove anything if totally a skeptic of everything. Theists do not try to prove absolutely anything but neither do atheists. If such proofs are demanded, then they are demanded of both sides despite atheists attempts to clothe themselves in the coat of rationality.

Agreed completely.

No proof is exhaustive and you are right, the issues are probabilistic. Theists feel it is more probable there is a God than not and like atheists, supply faith to the gaps in absolute proof. By the way there are many real things that are not visible but probable. Such we feel is God.

Yes but a "feeling" as such is not an argument for or against, you'd have to be more specific. Please refer to external observable evidence instead of your internal mental states (like feelings).

I am not making feelings the same as other kinds of evidence. Feelings are just one kind of evidence. They are internal but so are most/all of our other senses used to detect external evidence. Evidence must be made internal to be known. This is a major problem in the Philosophy of Science. Don’t tell me that everything you claim to know is not internal. If I did not feel God, wouldn’t you be claiming that was evidence nothing was there. So who is rational and who takes all the evidence into consideration?

[Brainbox]

God is not a tangible object that possesses features like "existence". It is a concept that originates from the human property (or maybe quality) of psychological projection. It has been (and still is) used as a projection of the combined fear of the unknown.

Since our knowledge will always be limited, some of us will always have the urge to project that notion on some form of god concept to avoid to have to deal with this fear.

After recognition of this concept, it has been embedded in our culture. Subsequently, it has been cleverly used to attach all kind of solutions for difficult problems to. Solutions for social problems like lack of respect, criminal behaviour, big difference in wealth, unlimited and unwanted suffering, etc. The kind of problems some members of humanity have the answer to, the answers that the majority does not understand nor intend to implement in their life voluntarily. The concept became a place holder for attaching these answers or "rules of human existence" to in order to communicate them to the masses in an easy to understand way. Once in a while this concept was (and still is) used to create some "healthy" fear for those who do choose not to comply to these rules. These rules did become the higher values of life itself. Tadaaa, religion is born. All that with the best imaginable set of intentions of cource.

But religion itself, nor the good intended supporting humans, were capable of preventing the misuse of the god concept by some clever non complying humans. Different religions were created all over the place and not only personal fear was projected on the accompanying gods, but also used to project fears of society. Fear for the societal unknowns such as strange races, far away societies that intend to take fertile hunting grounds or growing fields. It developed into something very close to a political tool.

I could continue to describe this juicy and greasy history of religion provided I had the time.

To summarize:

God is a psychological concept. The question if it exists is quite mute.

While it exists for one, it might not for another. And it might manifest itself in many forms, that, of course, are completely disjunct to another, introducing a principle differences that are worthy of starting bloody wars. Apparently inevitable, the greatest human fear is uncertainty about the god model that is perceived and adhered to.

As a result, the question if religion exists is, however. quite relevant. We all know the answer to that is "yes".

But an even more important question is if individuals should have the freedom to follow their religion of choice, create a new one or to choose to not follow any religion at all. The answer to that should be "yes", but for some unimaginable reason that freedom nor it's notion is very hard to obtain. Why that is? I honestly do not understand. Probably only god knows........................

Edited by Brainbox, 26 October 2011 - 09:10 PM.

[platypus]

[...]The people who say there are no ghosts, teapots, unicorns or God remind me of those who said there were no dinosaurs not that long ago. No evidence then so they are not real. They are perhaps real even if I lack evidence of them..

Well, I need evidence for believing in something. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Why is there something rather than nothing? A question we all get to ask. The greatest thing I can think about is God. In someway, everything I can think of is real. I clam the extraordinary cosmos exists which does not explain itself. My extraordinary explanation for its existence, is God. Humans everywhere can and do think this though they put different faces to Him. What is your view. Do you have extraordionary evidence?

You start with an unanswerable philosophical dilemma "why is there something rather than nothing?" and then somehow reply with "God". It's not a very satisfactory answer as it raises unanswerable questions about the nature of such gods and their origins. We can always speculate that a god or gods created our universe but is there any proof for this? I'd say we must leave the question about cosmological gods open for the foreseeable future. Are there more practical arguments/evidence for the existence of gods in our time?

[shadowhawk]

[...]The people who say there are no ghosts, teapots, unicorns or God remind me of those who said there were no dinosaurs not that long ago. No evidence then so they are not real. They are perhaps real even if I lack evidence of them..

Well, I need evidence for believing in something. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Why is there something rather than nothing? A question we all get to ask. The greatest thing I can think about is God. In someway, everything I can think of is real. I clam the extraordinary cosmos exists which does not explain itself. My extraordinary explanation for its existence, is God. Humans everywhere can and do think this though they put different faces to Him. What is your view. Do you have extraordionary evidence?

You start with an unanswerable philosophical dilemma "why is there something rather than nothing?" and then somehow reply with "God". It's not a very satisfactory answer as it raises unanswerable questions about the nature of such gods and their origins. We can always speculate that a god or gods created our universe but is there any proof for this? I'd say we must leave the question about cosmological gods open for the foreseeable future. Are there more practical arguments/evidence for the existence of gods in our time?

We have already agreed we don’t have absolute evidence for anything. I agree, we do need some evidence. For example I belive in Plato and have some reasons for that. The question is how much evidence?

Many argue against the possibility of god as follows.
If as theists say:
God is all powerful
God is all loving
God wants all people to know about him
Some people don’t know about him
Therefore, there is no God.

Basically, the atheist is saying that he’s looked for God real hard and that if God were there, he should have found him by now. After all, God can do anything he wants that’s logically possible, and he wants us to know that he exists. To defeat the argument we need to find a possible explanation of why God would want to remain hidden when our eternal destination depends on our knowledge of his existence.

It seems your objection is simular to this. Not sure of the details of your view. Here is one argument.



Unless God reveals it seems that the vastness of the cosmos leaves us incapable of comprehension. God is hidden in the vastness of the cosmos, Why would that be?

[platypus]

What's the deal with all the video's - is it too difficult to just list the evidence in bullets? The evidence based on the Big Bang & physics have been shown to be not absolutely valid and philosophy-based proofs in general have so far always failed.

[shadowhawk]

Brainbox

God is not a tangible object that possesses features like "existence". It is a concept that originates from the human property (or maybe quality) of psychological projection. It has been (and still is) used as a projection of the combined fear of the unknown.

How do you know this? How do you know God does not exist? How do you know God is only a psychological projection?

Since our knowledge will always be limited, some of us will always have the urge to project that notion on some form of god concept to avoid to have to deal with this fear.

Some theists believe in God because of fear, and I suppose some atheists disbelieve in God because they project their parents of onto God and fear Him also. So what? Even the demons believe in God and tremble in fear the Bible says. Yet they don’t respond in faith. I didn’t become a Christian because of fear and know of many others like me.

Fear isn’t a bad motive and I suppose it depends on what you are afraid of. Look at how many Atheists are afraid of death! Is the existence of LONGECITY the result of fear? Hardly!

After recognition of this concept, it has been embedded in our culture. Subsequently, it has been cleverly used to attach all kind of solutions for difficult problems to. Solutions for social problems like lack of respect, criminal behaviour, big difference in wealth, unlimited and unwanted suffering, etc. The kind of problems some members of humanity have the answer to, the answers that the majority does not understand nor intend to implement in their life voluntarily. The concept became a place holder for attaching these answers or "rules of human existence" to in order to communicate them to the masses in an easy to understand way. Once in a while this concept was (and still is) used to create some "healthy" fear for those who do choose not to comply to these rules. These rules did become the higher values of life itself. Tadaaa, religion is born. All that with the best imaginable set of intentions of cource.

I don’t know how respond to this. Certainly at best is an overstatement. At worst, empty projections.

But religion itself, nor the good intended supporting humans, were capable of preventing the misuse of the god concept by some clever non complying humans. Different religions were created all over the place and not only personal fear was projected on the accompanying gods, but also used to project fears of society. Fear for the societal unknowns such as strange races, far away societies that intend to take fertile hunting grounds or growing fields. It developed into something very close to a political tool.

I could continue to describe this juicy and greasy history of religion provided I had the time.

To summarize:

God is a psychological concept. The question if it exists is quite mute.

Why spend so much energy on it, if it is, “mute?”

While it exists for one, it might not for another. And it might manifest itself in many forms, that, of course, are completely disjunct to another, introducing a principle differences that are worthy of starting bloody wars. Apparently inevitable, the greatest human fear is uncertainty about the god model that is perceived and adhered to.

As a result, the question if religion exists is, however. quite relevant. We all know the answer to that is "yes".

But an even more important question is if individuals should have the freedom to follow their religion of choice, create a new one or to choose to not follow any religion at all. The answer to that should be "yes", but for some unimaginable reason that freedom nor it's notion is very hard to obtain. Why that is? I honestly do not understand. Probably only god knows........................

I think this a lot of projection off onto theism that deserves little or no response. To many charges.

[shadowhawk]

What's the deal with all the video's - is it too difficult to just list the evidence in bullets? The evidence based on the Big Bang & physics have been shown to be not absolutely valid and philosophy-based proofs in general have so far always failed.

The last video is a tremendous debate, on subject, well argued by both sides. This is a complex discussion and a poor medium to write a book. I think you should feel free not to listen to the many video's referenced in the forums in LONGECITY. That is what I do. On the other hand I have found many great videos on the forums and look at many when interested. I always think the best when I see a video and being a theist have no fear. Do you have any video's on subject? I would love to watch.

[platypus]

What's the deal with all the video's - is it too difficult to just list the evidence in bullets? The evidence based on the Big Bang & physics have been shown to be not absolutely valid and philosophy-based proofs in general have so far always failed.

The last video is a tremendous debate, on subject, well argued by both sides. This is a complex discussion and a poor medium to write a book. I think you should feel free not to listen to the many video's referenced in the forums in LONGECITY. That is what I do. On the other hand I have found many great videos on the forums and look at many when interested. I always think the best when I see a video and being a theist have no fear. Do you have any video's on subject? I would love to watch.

On I'll watch this one but after this I'd expect you to argue your issue point-by-point instead of referring to 10-minute videos. Comments:

- the points related to infinity are (again) philosophical and doomed to failure. If the age of the universe is infinite, the number of past events is infinite as well, whether this is difficult to grasp or not.
- Big Bang argument has been rebutted already (there are valid cosmological theories that require that a previous universe (or a straing of universes) existed before the big bang).
- The rest of the BB argument fails because the cause for the BB could have been the conditions of the preceding universe.
- The problems with this universe being tuned for life are neatly solved by the multiverse theory - the universes that do not support life will never be observed by conscious observers like us.
- Dr. William Lane Craig is not a natural scientist but a philosopher/theologian who has studied human thought more than the natural world - one can clearly hear this in his argumentation.

So, what are your arguments for the existence of gods, the philosophical ones referring to the origin of the universe do not hold water. Is there something that you have personally observed that cannot be explained without gods?

ps. what do you mean that as a theist you have no fear? you don't fear God?

Edited by platypus, 27 October 2011 - 05:23 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

Not interested.

Well that is an excellent response. I should have expected as much.

[mikeinnaples]

On I'll watch this one but after this I'd expect you to argue your issue point-by-point instead of referring to 10-minute videos.

Good luck with that.

[shadowhawk]

What's the deal with all the video's - is it too difficult to just list the evidence in bullets? The evidence based on the Big Bang & physics have been shown to be not absolutely valid and philosophy-based proofs in general have so far always failed.

The last video is a tremendous debate, on subject, well argued by both sides. This is a complex discussion and a poor medium to write a book. I think you should feel free not to listen to the many video's referenced in the forums in LONGECITY. That is what I do. On the other hand I have found many great videos on the forums and look at many when interested. I always think the best when I see a video and being a theist have no fear. Do you have any video's on subject? I would love to watch.

On I'll watch this one but after this I'd expect you to argue your issue point-by-point instead of referring to 10-minute videos. Comments:

- the points related to infinity are (again) philosophical and doomed to failure. If the age of the universe is infinite, the number of past events is infinite as well, whether this is difficult to grasp or not.
- Big Bang argument has been rebutted already (there are valid cosmological theories that require that a previous universe (or a straing of universes) existed before the big bang).
- The rest of the BB argument fails because the cause for the BB could have been the conditions of the preceding universe.
- The problems with this universe being tuned for life are neatly solved by the multiverse theory - the universes that do not support life will never be observed by conscious observers like us.
- Dr. William Lane Craig is not a natural scientist but a philosopher/theologian who has studied human thought more than the natural world - one can clearly hear this in his argumentation.

So, what are your arguments for the existence of gods, the philosophical ones referring to the origin of the universe do not hold water. Is there something that you have personally observed that cannot be explained without gods?

ps. what do you mean that as a theist you have no fear? you don't fear God?

1. The points related to infinity are indeed philosophical. An example of this are an “infinite,” multi verse.

2. Science itself is philosophical. How did science prove science is the only reasonable approach to truth? Prove that something being philosophical dooms it to failure. Why isn’t that a philosophical statement?

3. An infinite chain of events is impossible. Using science alone prove it is.

4. No one but a scientist can speak of science? That would mean Science itself is impossible. Many scientific discoveries were made by non scientists. Show, using science - what ever that is - why your claim that only scientists can speak of science.

5 I can’t explain the existence of this universe without God. Neither can you. No philosophy! No faith. Only reason.

Fear? Only joking about another post. Shouldn't have said it.

[platypus]

1. The points related to infinity are indeed philosophical. An example of this are an “infinite,” multi verse.

Nothing stops universe being infinite, really. You can try proving the opposite of course - good luck with that.

2. Science itself is philosophical. How did science prove science is the only reasonable approach to truth? Prove that something being philosophical dooms it to failure. Why isn’t that a philosophical statement?

This is not even worth commenting. Philosophy gets boring and pointless quickly, unlike science.

3. An infinite chain of events is impossible. Using science alone prove it is.

Care to elaborate why that is impossible in infinite time? I'm all ears.

4. No one but a scientist can speak of science? That would mean Science itself is impossible. Many scientific discoveries were made by non scientists. Show, using science - what ever that is - why your claim that only scientists can speak of science.

This is not worth commenting either. I'm just wondering why you're constantly linking to the videos of some theist philosophist instead of thinking or arguing for yourself.

5 I can’t explain the existence of this universe without God. Neither can you. No philosophy! No faith. Only reason.

"God" doesn't explain jack shit. How can you explain the existence of "God"? Need "universe" to "explain" him or what?

But seriously, don't you have anything more tangible to back up your belief in the existence of gods?

[shadowhawk]

------------ QUESTIONS OF SHADOWHAWK ----------

1. The points related to infinity are indeed philosophical. An example of this are an infinite multi verse.
-----------------------------
playpus:

Nothing stops universe being infinite, really. You can try proving the opposite of course - good luck with that.

Time is an aspect of the universe. It is sequential where one moment follows another. Every aspect of the cosmos is affected by it. If you are saying the multiverse is not affected by it where is the science. Reason dictates if there is an infinite past like this one, you could never get to the present. Now your turn... Why isn’t your statement “Nothing stops the universe being infinite,” philosophical? Is this an absolute? Science???

------------ QUOTE ----------
2. Science itself is philosophical. How did science prove science is the only reasonable approach to truth? Prove that something being philosophical dooms it to failure. Why isn’t this quote of you, a philosophical statement?
-----------------------------

This is not even worth commenting. Philosophy gets boring and pointless quickly, unlike science.

What is this! You said it! You are being so unscientific! You don’t get to do this...

------------ QUOTE ----------
3. An infinite chain of events is impossible. Using science alone prove it is.
-----------------------------

Care to elaborate why that is impossible in infinite time? I'm all ears.

Careful, I may quote another video! A truly infinite chain of events has no beginning. If the past is infinite, then you could never reach the present. If it has a beginning, you have a creation.

------------ QUOTE ----------
4. No one but a scientist can speak of science? That would mean Science itself is impossible. Many scientific discoveries were made by non scientists. Show, using science - what ever that is - why your claim that only scientists can speak of science.
-----------------------------

This is not worth commenting either. I'm just wondering why you're constantly linking to the videos of some theist philosophist instead of thinking or arguing for yourself.

The questions came in response to your own statements last post. Are you trying to change the subjects which you brought up? You asked for no videos and I presented points. Yet you bring up videos again?? Why? What evidence do you have I am not thinking for myself?

You clammed Craig was not a scientist yet present no reasonable evidence where do you think he is wrong? No answer? This is irrational don’t you think?

------------ QUOTE ----------
5 I can’t explain the existence of this universe without God. Neither can you. No philosophy! No faith. Only reason.
-----------------------------

"God" doesn't explain jack shit. How can you explain the existence of "God"? Need "universe" to "explain" him or what?

But seriously, don't you have anything more tangible to back up your belief in the existence of gods?

----------------------------------
There are many evidences for the existence of God. You are not being part of the process. Did we agree you don’t have to answer anything but only play skeptic to everything as long as you can think up another question? Atheism explains nothing. You have explained nothing. Atheism believes there is no god. Seriously you also have the same burden of proof as I do and you are part of exploring reasons. You don’t accept my reasons, where are yours?

[shadowhawk]

Let me address the issue of big bang cosmology again as it applies to the existence of God. This is somewhat confused by our past discussions. The origin of the universe is confirmed by philosophical arguments and scientific evidence. Humans can’t escape philosophy when dealing with the question of science as I have pointed out, even atheists do in the arguments above . Playpus can't escape this no matter how hard he want's to put it all off onto the theist. This is not a bad thing unless smeone trys to clajm anyone who is philosophical lacks proof as has been done.

There cannot be an actual infinite number of past events, because mathematical operations like subtraction and division cannot be applied to actual infinities. Actual infinitives do not exist in the physical cosmos we know.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, cannot be eternal into the past.

Even speculative alternative cosmologies do not escape the need for a beginning.

The cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural. It must be uncaused, because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be eternal, because it created time. It must be non-physical, because it created space. There are only two possibilities for such a cause. It could be an abstract object or an agent. Abstract objects cannot cause effects. Therefore, the cause is an agent, or what I call God.

[Brainbox]

God is a psychological concept. The question if it exists is quite mute.

Why spend so much energy on it, if it is, “mute?”

Because it has certain side effects that affect development of science, technology and economy. In development of human knowledge and capabilities, a clean and open notion of ethics is of utter importance.

But sorry, I don't want to derail this thread....

Edited by Brainbox, 29 October 2011 - 12:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Brainbox:
Yes, "uncertainty" would be a more subtle way to describe the human condition that asks for reassurance of all kinds of in-comprehendible aspects of existence. "Faith" and "believe" are human behavioral concepts that are almost completely high-jacked by the religious context they are used in. "Demon" and "hell" are invented concepts to polarize non-compiance by setting a bad example. I haven't met one, so I really don't know how they would respond to anything. I know the realm of Tartarus must be a fearsome place as well. Could there be any parallels in the way's the notions of the Greek underworld and hell came into existence? Or for instance Beelzebub? This guy has a somewhat ambiguous history; is he god? Is he the uber-satan? Ambiguity and inconsistency is all over the place. But probably that's just due to the lack of accurate Xerox machines in medieval times that we are allowed to compensate and interpret at will nowadays.

The way of science is to try to obtain knowledge by testing concepts using experimenting and reasoning. Using experiments to guide reasoning and fantasy. Sure, there are some very bold goals defined in hardboiled H+ that could very well be labeled faith in unproved dreams and projections. The major difference is that religion does not sufficiently endorse forming of unbounded concepts and scientific experimenting to try to discover what lies beyond the boundaries of our knowledge.

Having “faith,” and “belief,” are part of the human condition for all humanity, and the religious have not “high-jacked,” them any more than anyone else. Demons and hell were invented only as long as they are not true. Where is your evidence for believing they were invented to polarize non complacence? You have never meet a ghost or UFO alien? Neither have I but I have no evidence they are not real. I remain open to the question because many claim to have experienced them. In the face of this evidence such as it is, why not be agnostic about it rather than to dismiss it with such pseudo science. You “haven’t meet one.”

Science is a process not a position. The evidence remains out, Your view of Science and Christianity is False. I could provide you with much evidence that denies your thesis but people complain when you present them with modern forms of electronic evidence. Theists are not strangers to science.

I will deal with the rest of your post, Monday.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics

http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers

http://www.asa3.org/...ics/index.html.

[Brainbox]

Even speculative alternative cosmologies do not escape the need for a beginning.

The cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural. It must be uncaused, because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be eternal, because it created time. It must be non-physical, because it created space. There are only two possibilities for such a cause. It could be an abstract object or an agent. Abstract objects cannot cause effects. Therefore, the cause is an agent, or what I call God.

Why are we so obsessed with creation / beginnings?

And is time a parameter of the universe that we directly perceive, or is it an interpretation that we derive from more generic properties or dimensions of the universe?

I cannot find any evidence that physical matter has any discontinuities in the world that I perceive. What we perceive as creations are merely rearrangements of existing matter. A keyboard function can be created, or more accurate, an instance of a keyboard function can be created by harvesting and configuring existing matter in such a way that pressing a button activates flow of existing electrons. And that typing, that activates existing electrons in such a way that we are able to create communication through the physical and functional medium with one-another?

It seems that assuming that a keyboard, or any physical object, can be created is at least a somewhat infantile interpretation of what actually takes place. Only abstract functions seem to be able to be created. Or probably more accuratly: be activated.

Could it be possible that we completely misunderstand the concept of creation? And based on this misunderstood concept incorrectly think that the (matter of) physical universe must have been created and hence that the universe must have a cause? And subsequently dream op god, the mighty creator, as an explanation for this cause that in fact is completely irrelevant?

Along this line of thought, wouldn't it be more likely, that if a god, which is an abstract, non-physical function existed, that it would have been caused by the physical universe in stead of the other way round? And if that were true, what would the function, the justification of the existence of this god be?

Edit: made small change to express myself more accurately

Edited by Brainbox, 29 October 2011 - 09:19 AM.

[Brainbox]

I will deal with the rest of your post, Monday.

Thanks for your reaction. I did remove the greater part of my post because afterwards I got the feeling it did not belong in this thread...... I also lost the text in the process of deleting it.

Edited by Brainbox, 29 October 2011 - 02:02 AM.

[Slahzer]

The idea is that 'god', not quite in the classical sense, is the sum of all the information contained within the multi-verse, which is an ever-expanding hologram

This is more along the lines of a pantheistic god for which I really dislike calling it 'god', as it is misleading, especially towards creationists.

[shadowhawk]

Brainbox\
Why are we so obsessed with creation / beginnings?

Because it is one of the first questions we ask when we look at the cosmos. Why is there something rather than nothing? The thread is about the possibility of the answer being God. Have you ever asked this question?

And is time a parameter of the universe that we directly perceive, or is it an interpretation that we derive from more generic properties or dimensions of the universe?

Most scientists refer to a four dimensional universe,
Time, hight, width, depth. There are other dimensions but they didn’t unfold as the cosmos unfolded. Do you have a different view?

I cannot find any evidence that physical matter has any discontinuities in the world that I perceive. What we perceive as creations are merely rearrangements of existing matter. A keyboard function can be created, or more accurate, an instance of a keyboard function can be created by harvesting and configuring existing matter in such a way that pressing a button activates flow of existing electrons. And that typing, that activates existing electrons in such a way that we are able to create communication through the physical and functional medium with one-another?

How about a big one, the edge of the expanding cosmos? Indeed matter is changing and rearranging itself but it has a discontinuity. Change implies a cause.

It seems that assuming that a keyboard, or any physical object, can be created is at least a somewhat infantile interpretation of what actually takes place. Only abstract functions seem to be able to be created. Or probably more accurately: be activated.

A keyboard creation implies more than activation. It requires an intelligent designer. We know what that is. A bigger question is who designed the designer?

Could it be possible that we completely misunderstand the concept of creation? And based on this misunderstood concept incorrectly think that the (matter of) physical universe must have been created and hence that the universe must have a cause? And subsequently dream op god, the mighty creator, as an explanation for this cause that in fact is completely irrelevant?

Because you are asking the wrong questions and making incorrect observations I think your conclusions are in error.

Along this line of thought, wouldn't it be more likely, that if a god, which is an abstract, non-physical function existed, that it would have been caused by the physical universe in stead of the other way round? And if that were true, what would the function, the justification of the existence of this god be?

The universe can’t explain itself. It is called a “necessary cause.” Anything caused needs a cause. The universe and every thing in it was caused.. The cosmos is caused.