1818 replies to this topic

[johnross47]

There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."

[hathor]

There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."

i don't know all the answers, but i do know that high~ranking members of religions know more about the nature of reality here than the average person, and they love to hide their knowledge from anyone who doesn't spend sufficient time and money aligning with their particular cause or sect.

i know this is a simulation and that it was intended to emulate as scientifically closely as possible the conditions that it was believed that our ancestor's planet had that allowed original human life to form.

[shadowhawk]

OTHER EVIDENCES RELATED TO FINE TUNING BEFORE I TURN TO THE LAST ONE, MATH. This list is from Wintery Knight.

Notice the Atheists put up not one reasoned rebuttal argument. These evidences so far presented argue for the reasonableness of Belief in God but we have not dealt with the question of Pluralism. We will, in due time.

The kalam cosmological argument and the Big Bang theory
http://winteryknight...cience-journal/
The fine-tuning argument from cosmological constants and quantities
Thhttp://www.closertotruth.com/blog-entry/Why-a-Fine-Tuned-Universe-by-Robin-Collins/11e origin of life, part 1 of 2: the building blocks of life
The origin of life, part 2 of 2: biological information
http://winteryknight...blocks-of-life/
The sudden origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion
http://winteryknight...rian-explosion/
Galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones
http://winteryknight...abitable-zones/
Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
http://www.ideacente...ails.php/id/840
The creative limits of natural selection and random mutation
http://www.leaderu.c...ocs/natlim.html
Angus Menuge’s ontological argument from reason
http://winteryknight...nt-from-reason/
Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological argument from reason
http://www.calvin.ed...c_arguments.pdf
The unexpected applicability of mathematics to nature
http://winteryknight...tics-to-nature/

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 December 2013 - 07:56 PM.

[shadowhawk]

There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."

i don't know all the answers, but i do know that high~ranking members of religions know more about the nature of reality here than the average person, and they love to hide their knowledge from anyone who doesn't spend sufficient time and money aligning with their particular cause or sect.

i know this is a simulation and that it was intended to emulate as scientifically closely as possible the conditions that it was believed that our ancestor's planet had that allowed original human life to form.

Sounds like you and Johnross47 are on the same page. Both are off topic, I assume for the same reasons. Why don't you start another topic that meets both your interests rather than attempting to derail this one.

[johnross47]

There is something quite self deluding about the believers claim to know what lies beyond current knowledge. The fact that science cannot answer the question might be regarded as a warning sign by sensible people, but the believer steps right in and says " We know the answer."

i don't know all the answers, but i do know that high~ranking members of religions know more about the nature of reality here than the average person, and they love to hide their knowledge from anyone who doesn't spend sufficient time and money aligning with their particular cause or sect.

i know this is a simulation and that it was intended to emulate as scientifically closely as possible the conditions that it was believed that our ancestor's planet had that allowed original human life to form.

Sounds like you and Johnross47 are on the same page. Both are off topic, I assume for the same reasons. Why don't you start another topic that meets both your interests rather than attempting to derail this one.

Do you know which page you are on?

[hathor]

Sounds like you and Johnross47 are on the same page. Both are off topic, I assume for the same reasons. Why don't you start another topic that meets both your interests rather than attempting to derail this one.

I'd say that simulism is very strong evidence for Christianity; it may not be the evidence Christians are looking for, but it certainly answers the question being posed by the topic itself, so I argue that I'm definitely on~topic not off~topic.

[shadowhawk]

A summary video on the Kalam and Fine Tuning

[platypus]

The universe is quite possibly eternal, so all arguments depending on the universe having some kind of a beginning are null and void. Please move on. No valid "proofs" for the existenxe of geds have been presented.

[shadowhawk]

The universe is quite possibly eternal, so all arguments depending on the universe having some kind of a beginning are null and void. Please move on. No valid "proofs" for the existenxe of geds have been presented.

Where is your evidence? And how have you made what has been said so far null and void? Nonsense,

[hathor]

null and void?

Interesting choice of words there.

(off~topic?) http://www.reddit.co...e_devnull_v01d/

Edited by katimaya, 27 December 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[shadowhawk]

MATH AS EVIDENCE FOR GOD
http://en.wikipedia....atural_Sciences
1. The correspondence of natural phenomena to mathematical law

All observations of physical phenomena in the universe, such as throwing a ball up in the air, are described by a few simple, elegant mathematical equations. There is an uncanny effectiveness of mathematics in describing natural phenomena. The theist enjoys a considerable advantage over the naturalist in explaining the uncanny success of mathematics.

Math is not physical nor does it cause anything to happen yet it can be used to describe the physical world from the greatest to the smallest part. It doesn’t cause it but it can be used to describe it. In order to believe that the physical world has the nature that empirical science assigns to it, I have to believe that there are causally inert mathematical objects, existing outside of space-time,” an idea which is inherently implausible. The Atheist has to say, this is a result of blind random chance while the Theist claims this shows intelligence and God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result.

Why does the physical world exhibits so complex and stunning a mathematical structure in the first place? The theistic has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen. God has chosen to create the cosmos according to the abstract model He had in mind. Explain this from an Atheist perspective. No God, no math.

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 December 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[platypus]

It's logic. Since it's evidently possible that the universe does not have a beginning, one cannot prove the existence of anything starting from a premise that presupposes that the universe has a beginning.

[hathor]

It's logic. Since it's evidently possible that the universe does not have a beginning, one cannot prove the existence of anything starting from a premise that presupposes that the universe has a beginning.

sounds a bit chicken vs egg to me

[shadowhawk]

It's logic. Since it's evidently possible that the universe does not have a beginning, one cannot prove the existence of anything starting from a premise that presupposes that the universe has a beginning.

Logic??? Start from any premise you want. Saying it may be possible is not evidence. Probable?? Did the Universe have a beginning?

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 December 2013 - 11:29 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[hathor]

I don't think I really have anything much to contribute to this debate. Jesus has never once made the slightest effort to contact me, even when I tried contacting him. Yet plenty of humans, living and dead, as well as many entities taking the names of various mythological gods and such have contacted me and interacted with me in ways from very subtle to extremely direct (RA being an example of the extreme direct).

I don't doubt that for others, they have a connection with Jesus, on par with the connection I have with Gaia. And I am in the process of soul~merging with the goddess Hathor. So I'm okay without Jesus. And I do think there is plenty of evidence for Christianity, it's just not the evidence most Christians want to here (e.g. simulism). But frankly, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever, I feel more aligned with Santa than with Jesus...I think that Santa actually does exist in some spiritual form, and that kids who are sufficiently aligned with him will see him flying thru the sky.

So although I believe Jesus is real, and does exist, in some spiritual form, and no doubt influences those around me in a positive way that I've indirectly benefited from, I just don't feel like Jesus has any interest in me whatsoever. I have to believe that this is because I'm not looking for a savior and chose to take my own spiritual evolutionary path.

I feel bad for Dawkins because it seems like he's closed himself off to the slightest of possibilities of spirituality, and IMO spirituality is one of the important things worth living for.

[platypus]

So are there any "proofs" of the existence of gods that do not rely on dubious and shaky premises? I doubt it.

[hathor]

*hear

[shadowhawk]

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
Dr. Michael Strauss, physicist.





Experimental evidence for the origin of the universe:

#1: Hubble discovered that the universe expands because of redshifting of light from distant galaxies
#2: Measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation show the universe had a beginnning
#3: Measurements of the light element (hydrogen and helium) abundances confirm an origin of the universe
The best explanation for an absolute origin of space, time, matter and energy is a supernatural cause

Experimental evidence for the design of the universe:

#1: The amount of matter: a bit less = no stars and galaxies, a bit more = universe recollapses
#2: The strong force: a bit more = only hydrogen, a bit more = little or no hydrogen
#3: Carbon resonance level: a bit higher = no carbon, a bit lower = no carbon

Experimental evidence for galactic, stellar and planetary habitability:

#1: Galaxy: produces high number of heavy elements and low radiation
#2: Star: long stable lifetime, burns bright, bachelor star, third generation star (10 billion years must elapsed),
#3: Planet: mass of planet, stable orbit, liquid water, tectonic activity, tilt, moon

[platypus]

The antropic principle neatly explains why this part or the multiverse is habitable, therefore arguments based on "fine-tuning" do not work. It seems that no working proofs for gods/goddesses have been presented.

[hathor]

Christianity, is illogical and makes no sense. This is intentional. It is satire. It is a litmus test.

The Catholic Cross, for instance, is a symbol of violence. It's basically saying "don't be a bleeding~heart martyr like the Zombie Jesus guy, and don't be one of the assholes who murdered him, either"

The catechism is where one [le]terally eats Jesus' flesh and drinks Jesus' blood? A bit of word~play if you will, now that "literally" literally no longer means literally. (literally).

When the word literally can mean the exact opposite of what it itself means, it is a paradox, just like Christianity.

The whole point of that as a litmus test is to allow one to advance the ranks so that those who learn how to discern information who align with the higher ranking members of the various religions and cults are then given more direct access to the mechanisms that control the physical reality of the simulation itself.

But if you fall out of alignment with your sect or cult, you're branded a "sinner" or a "heathen"...it is through this that the mechanism is controlled.

If you need evidence of something, do enough digging and I'm sure you'll find it. But in a nutshell, Christianity is a shell game where those at the top create their own reality, the way they see fit, and their ability to do so is largely dependent upon how well they can propagate their various memes to their followers.

If you're in charge at a certain level, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't disrupt others from doing the same.

If you're running around in circles looking for proof of this or that then you're missing the point. The point is to learn how to discern reality better, so that you can create your own reality in a way that is harmonious with others.

It's somewhat of an unwritten rule that you're not supposed to talk about this openly, because it can spoil the immersion of the game a bit. But here's a cookie for your browser. Realize you've had enough internet for the day and that you don't really buy into any of this simulism stuff.

Edited by katimaya, 31 December 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[shadowhawk]

The antropic principle neatly explains why this part or the multiverse is habitable, therefore arguments based on "fine-tuning" do not work. It seems that no working proofs for gods/goddesses have been presented.

There is no proof of a multi verse. Present one. If there was a multi verse you would still have the same issue of fine tuning. I notice, all you do is play the skeptic, like a little child asking “why,” but never being able to accept the evidence nor answer any questions of their own.
The video I gave:
http://www.longecity...240#entry633046
Presented the following scientific evidence for God:

Experimental evidence for the origin of the universe:

Experimental evidence for the design of the universe:

Experimental evidence for galactic, stellar and planetary habitability:

All of these (among the many others I have given), fit in nicely with there being a God. And your evidence to the negative, non existent.

REALITY CHECK
Which view, Theism or Atheism fits reality? Theists live in the real world. http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

BEGGING THE QUESTION
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Example: There is no God. We know that because we say so. We can’t see touch or smell God, therefore we speak truly. You should not question what is true. There is a multi verse. How do we know? Fine tunning. The universe has to explain itself.

DECLARATION FALLACY
Here, someone simply declares themself the winner or someone else the looser, without ever having a discussion or playing the game. I win.

[hathor]

~~~ eternal life ~~~ is super fun ~~~ and if you let us in we'll show you how it can be done ~~~

[platypus]

There's no "proof" that gods exist either. The multiverse is a valid hypothesis in physics, which perhaps will be proved right or wrong some day. Still, just the possibility of a multiverse is needed to nullify "proofs" that are based on fine-tuning. You need to keep believing without a scientific or logical basis for your beliefs.

[hathor]

i forgot how it goes, i was too busy listening to music to read some boring old book and debate with people over semantics of the english language.

but i remember it being something to the effect of:

beware false profits, and by your lifetime updates of fruity loops you shall know them.

i think, i'm not really sure, what do you think?

i generally just listen to the songs and try to align with the melodies and vibrations of them, rather than getting too focused on the english language.

i mean i think dancing and making music and watching funny cartoons on sunday is more fun than going to some stuffy meeting house and listening to boring people lecture on how they interpret The Message based on their understanding of the semantics of the english language.

what do you think?

the red pill or the blue pill?

do you want to go back to sleep or do you want to wake up and re~member? it's up to you.

i think a bit of each is probably good to balance out your yin~yang.

the red pill is steam, and here is the energy aligned with it:



go take a hot shower and see if that resonates with you. as hot as you can handle. run the water over yourself for a few minutes before messing with cleaning products.

the blue pill is ice, and here is the energy aligned with it:



go drink an ice cold refreshing glass of ice tap water. just make sure it's cooooooooold. and see how that resonates with you.

if you're not getting it, go do a detox, and only eat fresh fruit and/or fresh eggs from a local farmer's market, only drink tap water, only take your prescribed medications, and avoid exposure to any and all media or people until you start having clarity. chances are it will not take you long to start re~membering your obligations, to start re~membering to either give people in your life a second chance or cut ties with them, start re~membering that you've been putting off doing something that is really important to you, or spending time with someone that is really important to you, because you've been busy doing stuff that isn't really important to you and focusing on stuff that doesn't really matter to you.

if you do it right your intuition should guide you and help release you of all the Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt and give you clarity on what you need to do.

i'm really tired of writing in english; i want The Message to just be encoded in music. the book of mormon musical is a bit of both, but i can understand if that doesn't resonate well with you. that's why i'm going to work on my own album, probably entitle it something like:

The Book of More Women, another testament of ???

If you've seen south park you get the reference, but basically the business plan is:

Step 1. start a business
Step 2. do something or the other in your business
Step 3. ???
Step 4. profit!

So the ??? can be replaced with "if true", as in, are you profits in harmony with helping others, or are you just looking for a fat payday?

I'm thinking for a tagline:
"I'm just not sure when we'll be profitable, we're still stuck at ???"

What do you think? Are you in debt, working a job you hate? Maybe it's time to pay off your debts or declare bankruptcy. Maybe it's time to start shopping around for a better job.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather get lucky with IndieGoGo than with Wall Street.

And I define L.U.C.K. as:

love, unity, compassion, kindness

So yeah this is longecity, where we're supposed to be focused on eternal life, right? Making it fun for everyone to play nice here and get to experience the things they really want to experience in life?

That's what i re~member, is that what U re~member?

If christianity is so appealing to you, why not start your own church, or go back to the church you're currently aligned with and change up the things you don't like about it? You chose the path of "playing god", so how are you going to create a reality that pleases you, while playing nice with others in the sandbox of life?

Let me know if i'm missing something. i'm genuinely trying to help. you wanted evidence for christianity, well go manufacture the evidence you need to make the religion you think it should be, to fix the problems you see as issues. just try to do it in a way that doesn't step on anyone's toes, and you can do things YOUR way.

Edited by katimaya, 02 January 2014 - 12:05 AM.

[shadowhawk]

There's no "proof" that gods exist either. The multiverse is a valid hypothesis in physics, which perhaps will be proved right or wrong some day. Still, just the possibility of a multiverse is needed to nullify "proofs" that are based on fine-tuning. You need to keep believing without a scientific or logical basis for your beliefs.

You are the one that has no scientific evidence. Just the possibility of God in one multiverse is all that is needed to destroy your position that there is no God.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss debate.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed

4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414

6. NECESSARY BEING
http://www.longecity..._90#entry623130

7. BIG BANG http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862

8. SHAKESPEARE’S HAMLET
http://www.longecity...120#entry624716

9. TESTS FOR DISCOVERING THE REAL WORLD.
http://www.longecity...120#entry625613

10. EVIDENCE FOR GODS EXISTENCE.
http://www.longecity...150#entry625790

11. FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR GODS EXISTENCE. We have discussed two of these.
http://www.longecity...150#entry626289

12. RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545


6. SUMMARY OF FINE TUNING

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

I have shown that the cosmos has the appearance of being “Finely Tuned,” for life bu a designer. Dozens of constants (laws) exist and if they varied only slightly life would not exist.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629011
----------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence to the contrary? There is none no matter how loudly the Atheists scream or try to derail the discussion of the topic with logical fallacies or violations of the forum rules and guidelines, contrary evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I illustrated this by the “DART THROWER.” http://www.longecity...180#entry629199

The darts illustrate the constants that are aimed at the bull’s-eye of life. All of them are so finely aimed that it would be highly improbable that they could hit the target by blind random chance,
---------------------------------------------------------
Next I presented Dr. Walter L. Bradley, argument for Fine Tuning. He brought up the subject of math which we will turn to again, next.
http://www.longecity...180#entry629222
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I went off track with this argument, a variation of the Cosmological argument from Contingency,
http://www.longecity...180#entry629626
http://www.longecity...210#entry629767
1. I exist.
2. If I exist something must have always existed because you don’t get something from nothing.
3. There are only two choices for an eternal ‘something’: (a) The universe; (b) God.
4. The universe is not eternal.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Then I presented W.L. Craig’s additional defense of the Cosmological argument after the Lawrence Krauss.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630446

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I turned to Dr. Nancy Cartwright’s paper, “NO GOD, NO LAWS.” Which is directly related to the Fine Tuning argument.
http://www.longecity...210#entry630491
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATH AS FINE TUNING EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
http://www.longecity...240#entry632454
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEXT, THE MORAL ARGUMENT.

[platypus]

So it seems there are no proofs at all for the existence of gods. You are wasting your time spamming false proofs in a forum where people are as educated as they are over here.

[shadowhawk]

So it seems there are no proofs at all for the existence of gods. You are wasting your time spamming false proofs in a forum where people are as educated as they are over here.

Just the possibility of God in one multiverse is all that is needed to destroy your position that there is no God.

You have said nothing and refuted nothing that has been said so far. We have done this dance before. Not interested.

DECLARATION FALLACY
Here, someone simply declares themself the winner or someone else the looser, without ever having a discussion or playing the game. No evidence.

NAME CALLING FALLACY;
A calls B pejorative names as if this adds something to the discussion. This logical fallacy often is followed by further Ad-Hominem attacks.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Appeal to Popularity
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
http://www.nizkor.or...popularity.html

Appeal to Ridicule
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...o-ridicule.html

Bandwagon
1. Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection.
2. Therefore person P's claim X is false.
http://www.nizkor.or.../bandwagon.html

Begging the Question
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
http://www.nizkor.or...e-question.html

Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. http://www.nizkor.or...l-pleading.html

I could go on but why argue with a logical fallacy? You once claimed to be a scientist. Does science disprove God?

[johnross47]

"So it seems there are no proofs at all for the existence of gods. You are wasting your time spamming false proofs in a forum where people are as educated as they are over here."

"You have said nothing and refuted nothing that has been said so far. We have done this dance before. Not interested."
You are more guilty of all these logical errors than anyone else Shadowhawk. You are entranced by cheap semantic tricks and shabby failed old "proofs" that nobody takes seriously, except W L Craig, who nobody takes seriously. Additionally you constantly abuse people in the most gratuitously insulting way, and presume to know things about them that, really, you clearly don't.
"Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Get your face out of the mirror and try having a proper discussion.