121 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

YOU MEAN THIS LAWRENCE KRAUSS? This is what you call correction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMXK7M-HMXs


What a joke. I watched all three debates. I see you have the BELIEF that possibly the universe cane from nothing. Krauss shoed nothing to back up his atheism. Surely with your views of proof, this must seem extremely weak. By the way, you answered none of my earlier questions. Shall I repeat them? How did Krauss get into this?

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

It appears to me you do hold to many beliefs. Do you now expect us to believe you despite the evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 September 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[By the way, I like your stack.

Thank you...

Now you are talking about subjective evidence which is something else you will never convince an Athiest of. You have to transfer subjective proof to another to convince them of it. They may believe you believe your proof is real.

Are you telling me there is nothing subjective about evidence? When you accept it, it becomes subjective. When you see it, it is subjective. I wasn’t talking about subjective evidence alone.
I love my objectively true wife. Belief alone is not enough, the scripture says the devil believes. You must walk by faith across the road to experience God who is there. It involves all your being.

No, in fact the evidence is purely objective. How you perceive it is subjective. We see evidence of things all the time. Our perception can draw wrong conclusions on this evidence based upon our subjective reasoning. What happens when there is no link between what is objective and the subjective conclusions we make? You have faith.

I think the issue you are realy dancing around is that not all faith is blind faith. We see what others choose not to see. They on the other hand choose to believe we are drawing wrong conclusions subjectively from the objective evidence. What they cannot deny is the change in us. They can deny our experiences are valid expressions of God but they cannot deny we are different people because of it.

As far as proving God is concerned, I can not prove to somebody the evidence that exists when they fail or deny our subjective conclusion. This is the problem with athiests. We claim that nature declares and they respond with, "no it doesn't." We say, "He has proved himself to me." They respond, "No he hasn't, your dillusional."

I can bring the athiest to God but I can not make him accept Him. It is not my responsibility to prove God to him. It's my responsibility to present Him to them. Only God can prove Himself to them. Then they will have a subjective experience and their minds will be changed. Why does God not prove Himself to everyone? Not everyone believes what they experience is real or they are closed to the experience from the onset. Their bias is so strong they would not believe even if a miracle were to take place before their eyes.

Not all people of faith have had an "experience." They simply believe in God.

I also want to appologize to both of you for not being fully committed to this discussion. I'm kind of bored arguing with athiests and for the reasons I just posted. I can not make them believe and they will never make me disbelieve. Why? I had an experience... We have argued for centuries and while it is amusing at times it is getting old. I will keep presenting God and they will either accept or reject.

I can't disagree with most of this. we have limited determinism and in that free choice. I share my faith because I love God. (also, an experience). Thanks for sharing.

[N.T.M.]

Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

What a crock... How can you be so intellectually disinginuous.

I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

Then you are compelled by something/someone outside of yourself to believe something? It sounds to me like you doubt your own free will.

Of course time had no meaning prior to the existence of the universe. Time exists only from a reference. Time is not eternal. What caused vacum to fluctuate? If there is a reaction, there must have been an action. You would be hard pressed to explain how what came from nothing (your vacum) became something. No explaination can escape the chicken before the egg problem. The premis you propose is not novel and has been hashed around for some time. Then of course you would deny the Ontological problem of design. There is too much complex design for EVERYTHING to be just accidental.

Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority.

Obviously, because you have narrowed the definition of a god to something super human and not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The bias you have chosen to accept (there is not god) is the starting point of your argument. Your hypothesis might begin from a different point but it only exists in argument of your bias. My bias is my belief in God. I can admit that.

My whole point is the fact that there are absolutes is strong evidence of a standard for those absolutes. If anything is relevant it is only relevant because of our perceptions. Standards don't exist by accident. They are created. They exist outside of our perceptions. The creation of absolute standards demands for the creator to also be absolute. You might be able to identify absolute standards but you nor I can create them. They are already in existence. How they got here can by no means be explained by a vacume of standards. There is a logical break in that premis.

Good luck trying to disprove God. I'm sure He's not ammused. Perhaps we can argue how many angels can stand on the end of pin while your at it.

I'll summarize a few problems I found in your response:

1.) My inability to choose what to believe shows that I, by nature, can only follow logic. This has nothing to do with free will. Moreover, your suggesting that it does shows that your thought processes lack continuity (That's not a personal attack; it's just what I've observed.).

2.) Discounting the god hypothesis doesn't mean that you have to impute chance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without god you rely on change over time through natural forces and selective pressures. Your use of the word accidental shows that you do not understand simple biological concepts (i.e., evolution).

3.) You implied that the problem of infinite regression that god poses is just as consequential as the "problem" of the origin of vacuum fluctuations. This is not true from the simple premise of differences in complexity, which I mentioned in my first post. Again, your response suggests that you've missed key points in my argument.

4.) You're accusing me of first identifying an outcome that I'd like to reach (atheism), and then trying to find some form of logical countenance. This implies that I want there to be no god, which explicitly contradicts what I said earlier.

5.) "Good luck trying to disprove God." I've already said that I can't do this.

In summary, you seem to be a very emotionally motivated person (most are), so you're really just appealing to an emotion that I do not have. That being said, I feel compelled to tell you, again, that nothing I said should be construed as a personal attack. I've provided reasons for all of my conclusions. I'm sure that even Shadowhawk, despite his conflict of interest, would have to agree with most of them (There's one point in particular that I know we disagree on.).

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

YOU MEAN THIS LAWRENCE KRAUSS? This is what you call correction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMXK7M-HMXs


What a joke. I watched all three debates. I see you have the BELIEF that possibly the universe cane from nothing. Krauss shoed nothing to back up his atheism. Surely with your views of proof, this must seem extremely weak. By the way, you answered none of my earlier questions. Shall I repeat them? How did Krauss get into this?

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

It appears to me you do hold to many beliefs. Do you now expect us to believe you despite the evidence?

You're neglecting the key point, and that's probability. It's more plausible that the universe never had any divine guidance. And, "despite the evidence"? That's ridiculous. How can you claim to be logically bound and simultaneously contend that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent? As I said before, if you're going to ascribe a god at all, he's necessarily deistic. Christopher Hitchens has provided many logical proofs on this point. My point is that claiming to support logic while also subscribing to the Christian faith severely damages your credibility.

[solarfingers]

Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

What a crock... How can you be so intellectually disinginuous.

I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

Then you are compelled by something/someone outside of yourself to believe something? It sounds to me like you doubt your own free will.

Of course time had no meaning prior to the existence of the universe. Time exists only from a reference. Time is not eternal. What caused vacum to fluctuate? If there is a reaction, there must have been an action. You would be hard pressed to explain how what came from nothing (your vacum) became something. No explaination can escape the chicken before the egg problem. The premis you propose is not novel and has been hashed around for some time. Then of course you would deny the Ontological problem of design. There is too much complex design for EVERYTHING to be just accidental.

Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority.

Obviously, because you have narrowed the definition of a god to something super human and not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The bias you have chosen to accept (there is not god) is the starting point of your argument. Your hypothesis might begin from a different point but it only exists in argument of your bias. My bias is my belief in God. I can admit that.

My whole point is the fact that there are absolutes is strong evidence of a standard for those absolutes. If anything is relevant it is only relevant because of our perceptions. Standards don't exist by accident. They are created. They exist outside of our perceptions. The creation of absolute standards demands for the creator to also be absolute. You might be able to identify absolute standards but you nor I can create them. They are already in existence. How they got here can by no means be explained by a vacume of standards. There is a logical break in that premis.

Good luck trying to disprove God. I'm sure He's not ammused. Perhaps we can argue how many angels can stand on the end of pin while your at it.

I'll summarize a few problems I found in your response:

1.) My inability to choose what to believe shows that I, by nature, can only follow logic. This has nothing to do with free will. Moreover, your suggesting that it does shows that your thought processes lack continuity (That's not a personal attack; it's just what I've observed.).

2.) Discounting the god hypothesis doesn't mean that you have to impute chance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without god you rely on change over time through natural forces and selective pressures. Your use of the word accidental shows that you do not understand simple biological concepts (i.e., evolution).

3.) You implied that the problem of infinite regression that god poses is just as consequential as the "problem" of the origin of vacuum fluctuations. This is not true from the simple premise of differences in complexity, which I mentioned in my first post. Again, your response suggests that you've missed key points in my argument.

4.) You're accusing me of first identifying an outcome that I'd like to reach (atheism), and then trying to find some form of logical countenance. This implies that I want there to be no god, which explicitly contradicts what I said earlier.

5.) "Good luck trying to disprove God." I've already said that I can't do this.

In summary, you seem to be a very emotionally motivated person (most are), so you're really just appealing to an emotion that I do not have. That being said, I feel compelled to tell you, again, that nothing I said should be construed as a personal attack. I've provided reasons for all of my conclusions. I'm sure that even Shadowhawk, despite his conflict of interest, would have to agree with most of them (There's one point in particular that I know we disagree on.).

N.T.M,

You missed my intention all together. I don't give a crap what you think or have to say.. I think you, like all atheists, are on a fool’s errand. No amount of your intellectual manutia will convince anyone but your own audience of atheists. I don't feel any need to engage you on your terms. I doubt few if any atheists will be trying to convince anyone that God does not exist while on their death bed. You all remind me of a huddle of squirrels self motivating themselves, "NUTS, NUTS GETTUM." I think it is ridiculous that 20% of the planet thinks the other 80% is delusional. You assume your an intellectual and attack my intellect by assurting that I'm an "emotionally motivated person." You are attempting to elevate yourself through this device to a place of intellectual superiority and boldly lie saying it isn't an attack. It is obvious to me that you are an idiot. Smart people don’t have to hide their personal attacks. Only girly boys engage in that kind of silly behavior.

[N.T.M.]

Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.

To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

What a crock... How can you be so intellectually disinginuous.

I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).

Then you are compelled by something/someone outside of yourself to believe something? It sounds to me like you doubt your own free will.

Of course time had no meaning prior to the existence of the universe. Time exists only from a reference. Time is not eternal. What caused vacum to fluctuate? If there is a reaction, there must have been an action. You would be hard pressed to explain how what came from nothing (your vacum) became something. No explaination can escape the chicken before the egg problem. The premis you propose is not novel and has been hashed around for some time. Then of course you would deny the Ontological problem of design. There is too much complex design for EVERYTHING to be just accidental.

Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority.

Obviously, because you have narrowed the definition of a god to something super human and not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The bias you have chosen to accept (there is not god) is the starting point of your argument. Your hypothesis might begin from a different point but it only exists in argument of your bias. My bias is my belief in God. I can admit that.

My whole point is the fact that there are absolutes is strong evidence of a standard for those absolutes. If anything is relevant it is only relevant because of our perceptions. Standards don't exist by accident. They are created. They exist outside of our perceptions. The creation of absolute standards demands for the creator to also be absolute. You might be able to identify absolute standards but you nor I can create them. They are already in existence. How they got here can by no means be explained by a vacume of standards. There is a logical break in that premis.

Good luck trying to disprove God. I'm sure He's not ammused. Perhaps we can argue how many angels can stand on the end of pin while your at it.

I'll summarize a few problems I found in your response:

1.) My inability to choose what to believe shows that I, by nature, can only follow logic. This has nothing to do with free will. Moreover, your suggesting that it does shows that your thought processes lack continuity (That's not a personal attack; it's just what I've observed.).

2.) Discounting the god hypothesis doesn't mean that you have to impute chance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without god you rely on change over time through natural forces and selective pressures. Your use of the word accidental shows that you do not understand simple biological concepts (i.e., evolution).

3.) You implied that the problem of infinite regression that god poses is just as consequential as the "problem" of the origin of vacuum fluctuations. This is not true from the simple premise of differences in complexity, which I mentioned in my first post. Again, your response suggests that you've missed key points in my argument.

4.) You're accusing me of first identifying an outcome that I'd like to reach (atheism), and then trying to find some form of logical countenance. This implies that I want there to be no god, which explicitly contradicts what I said earlier.

5.) "Good luck trying to disprove God." I've already said that I can't do this.

In summary, you seem to be a very emotionally motivated person (most are), so you're really just appealing to an emotion that I do not have. That being said, I feel compelled to tell you, again, that nothing I said should be construed as a personal attack. I've provided reasons for all of my conclusions. I'm sure that even Shadowhawk, despite his conflict of interest, would have to agree with most of them (There's one point in particular that I know we disagree on.).

N.T.M,

You missed my intention all together. I don't give a crap what you think or have to say.. I think you, like all atheists, are on a fool’s errand. No amount of your intellectual manutia will convince anyone but your own audience of atheists. I don't feel any need to engage you on your terms. I doubt few if any atheists will be trying to convince anyone that God does not exist while on their death bed. You all remind me of a huddle of squirrels self motivating themselves, "NUTS, NUTS GETTUM." I think it is ridiculous that 20% of the planet thinks the other 80% is delusional. You assume your an intellectual and attack my intellect by assurting that I'm an "emotionally motivated person." You are attempting to elevate yourself through this device to a place of intellectual superiority and boldly lie saying it isn't an attack. It is obvious to me that you are an idiot. Smart people don’t have to hide their personal attacks. Only girly boys engage in that kind of silly behavior.

Topic aside (Pretend we're talking about finger painting; it really doesn't matter.), I was merely saying that your responses were not coherent. In addition, I cited reasoning for every accusation I made. I also said that you're an emotionally motivated person, which you promptly confirmed. And, again, I have made no personal attacks (Show me one, and I will sincerely apologize.).

As it stands, you've clearly shown that your position is not one open to discussion. At least Shadowhawk--although I disagree with most of his points--makes a sincere intellectual effort and, quite unlike you, never stoops to using derision as a debate tactic.

Good day, sir.

[solarfingers]

Topic aside (Pretend we're talking about finger painting; it really doesn't matter.), I was merely saying that your responses were not coherent. In addition, I cited reasoning for every accusation I made. I also said that you're an emotionally motivated person, which you promptly confirmed. And, again, I have made no personal attacks (Show me one, and I will sincerely apologize.).

As it stands, you've clearly shown that your position is not one open to discussion. At least Shadowhawk--although I disagree with most of his points--makes a sincere intellectual effort and, quite unlike you, never stoops to using derision as a debate tactic.

Good day, sir.

I have a fair amount of time in higher circles of academia and my friends don't sound as pompous as you do. For all we know you are more likely a sixth grader clutching his Spock doll at mom and dad's laptop. I'm not debating you because I have no wish to listen to what you have to say. You will prove nothing. Suddenly, you show up on the scene and are going to settle the issue that philosophers have been arguing over since the dawn of spoken language? Your main purpose here is not the pursuit of truth but the thrill of a fight. I see right through you and I have made the decision not to fall for this foolishness.

Good day indeed

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.[/size], You're neglecting the key point, and that's probability. It's more plausible that the universe never had any divine guidance. And, "despite the evidence"? That's ridiculous. How can you claim to be logically bound and simultaneously contend that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent? As I said before, if you're going to ascribe a god at all, he's necessarily deistic. Christopher Hitchens has provided many logical proofs on this point. My point is that claiming to support logic while also subscribing to the Christian faith severely damages your credibility.

I again notice you answer none of my questions or relate to what we are talking about. You skip/change from one subject to the next as soon as you find yourself in a ringer. We are not having a discussion but just you jumping from one subject to the next each time you are caught.. You produced no evidence much less logic. All you seem cable of doing is calling names over and again.. Ho Hummm. Now we are on to poor Christopher but I prefer his brother Peter. You know, Peter Hitchens the Christian. Peter is very logical. Why not listen to hin?

And we lost such a good topic with Krauss and his phoney dishonest, presentation of Vilenknin’s view. http://winteryknight...awrence-krauss/

You are not going to teach anyone good arguments for Atheism this way.

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 September 2013 - 12:30 AM.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.[/size], You're neglecting the key point, and that's probability. It's more plausible that the universe never had any divine guidance. And, "despite the evidence"? That's ridiculous. How can you claim to be logically bound and simultaneously contend that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent? As I said before, if you're going to ascribe a god at all, he's necessarily deistic. Christopher Hitchens has provided many logical proofs on this point. My point is that claiming to support logic while also subscribing to the Christian faith severely damages your credibility.

I again notice you answer none of my questions or relate to what we are talking about. You skip/change from one subject to the next as soon as you find yourself in a ringer. We are not having a discussion but just you jumping from one subject to the next each time you are caught.. You produced no evidence much less logic. All you seem cable of doing is calling names over and again.. Ho Hummm. Now we are on to poor Christopher but I prefer his brother Peter. You know, Peter Hitchens the Christian. Peter is very logical. Why not listen to hin?

And we lost such a good topic with Krauss and his phoney dishonest, presentation of Vilenknin’s view. http://winteryknight...awrence-krauss/

You are not going to teach anyone good arguments for Atheism this way.

I certainly don't want to appear evasive, so let me explain. When I broached the idea of a universe from nothing, I didn't see it as an argument worth advancing when you wouldn't even concede its most basic premises, one of which I've even seen you employ (Occam's razor). If one party cannot at the very least acknowledge an argument's foundation, it's pointless to pursue it further.

On a separate note, I seem to be accused of name-calling quite a bit. Apart from that instance with WLC, which I admitted openly, would you be so kind as to refer me to one such example? Name-calling is something I absolutely don't want to do, so I would greatly appreciate a constructive reference that way I don't repeat the mistake.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.[/size], You're neglecting the key point, and that's probability. It's more plausible that the universe never had any divine guidance. And, "despite the evidence"? That's ridiculous. How can you claim to be logically bound and simultaneously contend that god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent? As I said before, if you're going to ascribe a god at all, he's necessarily deistic. Christopher Hitchens has provided many logical proofs on this point. My point is that claiming to support logic while also subscribing to the Christian faith severely damages your credibility.

I again notice you answer none of my questions or relate to what we are talking about. You skip/change from one subject to the next as soon as you find yourself in a ringer. We are not having a discussion but just you jumping from one subject to the next each time you are caught.. You produced no evidence much less logic. All you seem cable of doing is calling names over and again.. Ho Hummm. Now we are on to poor Christopher but I prefer his brother Peter. You know, Peter Hitchens the Christian. Peter is very logical. Why not listen to hin?

And we lost such a good topic with Krauss and his phoney dishonest, presentation of Vilenknin’s view. http://winteryknight...awrence-krauss/

You are not going to teach anyone good arguments for Atheism this way.

I certainly don't want to appear evasive, so let me explain. When I broached the idea of a universe from nothing, I didn't see it as an argument worth advancing when you wouldn't even concede its most basic premises, one of which I've even seen you employ (Occam's razor). If one party cannot at the very least acknowledge an argument's foundation, it's pointless to pursue it further.

On a separate note, I seem to be accused of name-calling quite a bit. Apart from that instance with WLC, which I admitted openly, would you be so kind as to refer me to one such example? Name-calling is something I absolutely don't want to do, so I would greatly appreciate a constructive reference that way I don't repeat the mistake.

Well you do appear evasive. I wonder if it is an appearance??? The issues of something from nothing is far from something that can be solved by a misuse of Occam’s razor. It doesn’t have the explanatory power to deal with this yet another issue. Occam’s razor is not a foundation for this issue. Tell me how. As I remarked earlier all you are doing is vomiting out one subject after another without ever dealing with any of them. Boring!

Anyone interested in your repeated pejorative remarks can read them for themselves. Of corse you are sincerely joking?

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 September 2013 - 11:21 PM.

[DukeNukem]

>>> The issues of something from nothing is far from something that can be solved by a misuse of Occam’s razor.

When believers use the something from nothing argument, it's more amazing to me that they believe a god is exempt from this same logic. In fact, it's far far far easier to believe that a universe can come from nothing, than a fully omnipotent god. That truly takes imagination!

Science will one day solve the origin-of-the-universe question. And then what will believers have to say to still convince themselves that gods are a useful concept.

The whole idea of gods is such a very strange, illogical thing to believe in. But, all research shows that belief in deities is on a reliable decline, and before this century is out, in modern countries believers will be in the minority.

[solarfingers]

>>> The issues of something from nothing is far from something that can be solved by a misuse of Occam’s razor.

When believers use the something from nothing argument, it's more amazing to me that they believe a god is exempt from this same logic. In fact, it's far far far easier to believe that a universe can come from nothing, than a fully omnipotent god. That truly takes imagination!

Science will one day solve the origin-of-the-universe question. And then what will believers have to say to still convince themselves that gods are a useful concept.

The whole idea of gods is such a very strange, illogical thing to believe in. But, all research shows that belief in deities is on a reliable decline, and before this century is out, in modern countries believers will be in the minority.

Duke,

I am certainly on the other side of the argument and in a way could not agree more. On the other hand it takes a greater imagination, IMHO, to believe that everything came from a vacume that it did God. Atheism is not without it's own share of faith.

[sthira]

The whole idea of gods is such a very strange, illogical thing to believe in. But, all research shows that belief in deities is on a reliable decline, and before this century is out, in modern countries believers will be in the minority.

Maybe you're right. But I think there's a difference between religion declining and spirituality rising. We're dumping the stiff, organized religio-mess in favor of something else.

Evidence exists that belief in "god" is naturally selected, and "god" is in our brain chemistry whether we like it or not. That's not to argue god exists or god doesn't. But the yearning is true enough, and it seems to have physical realities within our physiology as a species.

One thing I'm curious about is what happens to me when I'm on shrooms. When tripping, god exists with such obvious, clear certainty that to question that "wholeness" feels goofy. God just is. Obviously. And god's is-ness is clearly irrational but feels no less real. When using practices and substances to deepen the spiritual quest, I wonder: what is really "god" and what is simply more intimate access to this naturally selected gift in my brain? Even if god is pure fantasy and delusion, it may have sacred space within us that's often quite beneficial.

[N.T.M.]

Well you do appear evasive. I wonder if it is an appearance??? The issues of something from nothing is far from something that can be solved by a misuse of Occam’s razor. It doesn’t have the explanatory power to deal with this yet another issue. Occam’s razor is not a foundation for this issue. Tell me how.

It's very easy to understand, and it's been explained here numerous times, most recently by DukeNukem. I shouldn't be surprised though; contortions like this are actually a prerequisite to taking your position.

Anyone interested in your repeated pejorative remarks can read them for themselves. Of corse you are sincerely joking?

Name-calling is something I absolutely don't want to do, so I would greatly appreciate a constructive reference that way I don't repeat the mistake.

Any one at all will do. I promise I won't be picky.

Atheism is not without it's own share of faith.

It's a matter of probability. To say that atheism requires faith is to imply that they're on equal footing. In other words, when you say that they both require faith, you discredit your own argument.

[solarfingers]

Atheism is not without it's own share of faith.

It's a matter of probability. To say that atheism requires faith is to imply that they're on equal footing. In other words, when you say that they both require faith, you discredit your own argument.

You have to be kidding! Faith is the premise for God. How does that discredit my argument? I think you are inebriated with exuberant verbosity and just like to see your words in print.

[N.T.M.]

You have to be kidding! Faith is the premise for God. How does that discredit my argument? I think you are inebriated with exuberant verbosity and just like to see your words in print.

I'd like to invite you to read what you just wrote. Faith is the premise for God, but atheism requires faith, too (according to you). If faith unambiguously supports god, then it can't also support its opposite, atheism. Put simply, if two conclusions are derived from the same premise and they can't coexist with accuracy, then the premise can't be used as support for either. Or, put differently, if a leads to b and c, but b and c can't coexist, then the connection from a (faith) is faulty.

This must be embarrassing. :/ I'll take an apology from you whenever you're ready.

[solarfingers]

You are incorrect. Both atheism and God can both be based on premises by which an individual cannot prove. They choose to believe the premise despite the lack of proof. They are both taken by faith in that regard. BTW, your arrogance is showing again. I would tuck it in if I were you :/ just want to make sure your not going to be embarrassed by that display.

[shadowhawk]

>>> The issues of something from nothing is far from something that can be solved by a misuse of Occam’s razor.

When believers use the something from nothing argument, it's more amazing to me that they believe a god is exempt from this same logic. In fact, it's far far far easier to believe that a universe can come from nothing, than a fully omnipotent god. That truly takes imagination!

Science will one day solve the origin-of-the-universe question. And then what will believers have to say to still convince themselves that gods are a useful concept.

The whole idea of gods is such a very strange, illogical thing to believe in. But, all research shows that belief in deities is on a reliable decline, and before this century is out, in modern countries believers will be in the minority.

I fail to see how it is easier to believe what we see around us has no cause. Everything around us has in fact, a cause and wouldn’t exist without a cause. That is the nature of the physical reality science teaches us. The only exception to this are abstract objects and that is another subject.

Given this glaringly obvious truth it is logical to ask, what is the cause of the caused cosmos. Tell me how Occam’s razor solves this question? Why is there something rather than nothing? So you ask, “why God?” Because in the physical world nothing is capable of explaining its own existence if it is caused. If it is caused, it needs a cause. Something else of a different nature that does not need a cause must have done it otherwise we end up in an infinite regress.

Suppose we find ourselves in a play, such as Shakspeare’s Hamlet. All the characters are interacting in the world of the play and the simplest explanation is to say the world they live in is all there is. There is no cause for the play, it just popped into existence. No imagination here!!!.

Certainly there is no physical evidence for Shakspears among the characters of hamlet. The reality is only paper and ink. That is all science is capable of studying.

But we have faith, science is going to give us the answer, there is no Shakspeare. We don’t use imagination like those dumb believers..

As for number of believers, we are living right now in the greatest expansion of the church in history. Strange, illogical believers.

[DukeNukem]

Evidence exists that belief in "god" is naturally selected, and "god" is in our brain chemistry whether we like it or not. That's not to argue god exists or god doesn't. But the yearning is true enough, and it seems to have physical realities within our physiology as a species.

Absolutely. There are many books that cover this, such as The Faith Instinct. I don't think there's any question that belief in the supernatural is hardwired into our genetics, as such beliefs gave early hominid and/or human tribal groups a survival advantage over groups without such beliefs.

And this genetic wiring for belief in gods goes a long way to explaining why reasonable, rational people still believe in the gods, which are entirely unreasonable and irrational. These people simply have a difficult time rising above their genetic heritage.

[N.T.M.]

You are incorrect. Both atheism and God can both be based on premises by which an individual cannot prove. They choose to believe the premise despite the lack of proof. They are both taken by faith in that regard. BTW, your arrogance is showing again. I would tuck it in if I were you :/ just want to make sure your not going to be embarrassed by that display.

You committed a logical fallacy. There's nothing arrogant about asserting what's obvious. If you were truly objective in your pursuit of truth you'd be appreciative.

[solarfingers]

You are incorrect. Both atheism and God can both be based on premises by which an individual cannot prove. They choose to believe the premise despite the lack of proof. They are both taken by faith in that regard. BTW, your arrogance is showing again. I would tuck it in if I were you :/ just want to make sure your not going to be embarrassed by that display.

You committed a logical fallacy. There's nothing arrogant about asserting what's obvious. If you were truly objective in your pursuit of truth you'd be appreciative.

It is arrogant when you continue to insist that I'm not being objective yet am emotionally based. Can you prove my so called "logical fallacy?"

[N.T.M.]

You are incorrect. Both atheism and God can both be based on premises by which an individual cannot prove. They choose to believe the premise despite the lack of proof. They are both taken by faith in that regard. BTW, your arrogance is showing again. I would tuck it in if I were you :/ just want to make sure your not going to be embarrassed by that display.

You committed a logical fallacy. There's nothing arrogant about asserting what's obvious. If you were truly objective in your pursuit of truth you'd be appreciative.

It is arrogant when you continue to insist that I'm not being objective yet am emotionally based. Can you prove my so called "logical fallacy?"

I already have:

Put simply, if two conclusions are derived from the same premise and they can't coexist with accuracy, then the premise can't be used as support for either. Or, put differently, if a leads to b and c, but b and c can't coexist, then the connection from a (faith) is faulty.

You claim to be logical and objective, but anybody with those qualities would be eager to uncover their own mistakes; it's an essential basis for self-improvement. You, on the other, shy away from criticism of any kind, which is the infallible proof of your wanting anything but the truth.

I'm reminded of a debate I once partook in years ago. My conclusions were logically founded, but my premises were wrong. Anyway, throughout the course of the debate I was met with derisive criticism and snide remarks, but the entire time I remained objective and rode on the premise that if I were wrong, the benefit would outweigh the discomfort of withstanding the negative comments. And, as it turned out, I was wrong, and as a result of acknowledging this I was able to correct errors in my argument.

My point is that when I found this out I sincerely appreciated all the criticism that I had received. I'm better because of it. As it seems, this is your antithesis.

[solarfingers]

Put simply, if two conclusions are derived from the same premise and they can't coexist with accuracy, then the premise can't be used as support for either. Or, put differently, if a leads to b and c, but b and c can't coexist, then the connection from a (faith) is faulty.

OK then. Let me break it down for you because it is clear you are caught up in your own loops of logic.

First, stop staring at your Spok doll. The conclusions are not derived from the same premise. Where are they the same? Secondly, you just proved my point. Your conclusions would be just as faulty because they both require faith to arrive at them. Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. Everybody lives by faith and you have sill PROVED nothing. Where is your so called thesis? ... Still in your subjective head. You emotional fool.

[N.T.M.]

Put simply, if two conclusions are derived from the same premise and they can't coexist with accuracy, then the premise can't be used as support for either. Or, put differently, if a leads to b and c, but b and c can't coexist, then the connection from a (faith) is faulty.

OK then. Let me break it down for you because it is clear you are caught up in your own loops of logic.

First, stop staring at your Spok doll. The conclusions are not derived from the same premise. Where are they the same? Secondly, you just proved my point. Your conclusions would be just as faulty because they both require faith to arrive at them. Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. Everybody lives by faith and you have sill PROVED nothing. Where is your so called thesis? ... Still in your subjective head. You emotional fool.

It's a simple logical fallacy. I'm sure it could be shown easily with formal logic, too. The problem, however, is that it's difficult to simplify it any further. If you can't grasp it at this level, that's fine. I can't blame you for not doing something outside of your capacity. But at least accept the possibility of being wrong. Your opposition to correction is appalling. As I said before, all this does is ensure that you never learn anything; that you never advance.

You use ad captandum vulgus arguments and then demean others when they sincerely want to correct their (pronoun referring to arguments) logical shortcomings.

[solarfingers]

Put simply, if two conclusions are derived from the same premise and they can't coexist with accuracy, then the premise can't be used as support for either. Or, put differently, if a leads to b and c, but b and c can't coexist, then the connection from a (faith) is faulty.

OK then. Let me break it down for you because it is clear you are caught up in your own loops of logic.

First, stop staring at your Spok doll. The conclusions are not derived from the same premise. Where are they the same? Secondly, you just proved my point. Your conclusions would be just as faulty because they both require faith to arrive at them. Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. Everybody lives by faith and you have sill PROVED nothing. Where is your so called thesis? ... Still in your subjective head. You emotional fool.

It's a simple logical fallacy. I'm sure it could be shown easily with formal logic, too. The problem, however, is that it's difficult to simplify it any further. If you can't grasp it at this level, that's fine. I can't blame you for not doing something outside of your capacity. But at least accept the possibility of being wrong. Your opposition to correction is appalling. As I said before, all this does is ensure that you never learn anything; that you never advance.

You use ad captandum vulgus arguments and then demean others when they sincerely want to correct their (pronoun referring to arguments) logical shortcomings.

Yeah, right. Just what I thought. Your just full of hot air.

[N.T.M.]

Yeah, right. Just what I thought. Your just full of hot air.

Compelling

[shadowhawk]

All this and no good arguments.

[cats_lover]

The interesting thing here is that who started the topic does not have a good argument to discredit the existence of God, he asks us to give him one.

He does not believe in its existence, but has no scientific basis for his belief.

This also happens to people who believe in God.

The existence of God is not scientifically analyzable

[shadowhawk]

The interesting thing here is that who started the topic does not have a good argument to discredit the existence of God, he asks us to give him one.

He does not believe in its existence, but has no scientific basis for his belief.

This also happens to people who believe in God.

The existence of God is not scientifically analyzable

All truth does not have to be scientifically analyzable what ever that means. Science itself is not scientifically analyzable nor proven as the way to truth. Science is a process, not a position. The only proof is in mathimatics no one knows what math is because it is an abstract object and immaterial.

The immaterial exists.

Edited by shadowhawk, 31 January 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[Deep Thought]

Just state that you were never convinced that God exists.