Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.
How do you use logic to convince someone that an illogical idea is false?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That doesn't make much sense. Is it supposed to?
I get it. You're doing nose hits. Man you're headed for serious sinus problems. But what the hey, snot is part of the holy art of God's intelligent design. And I guess when somebody else's nose smells like a dead animal, you know, because those tissues trap shit but don't flush themselves too well . . . well that's God's way of telling you "stand back". I once saw a guy stuff a handkerchief in his sinus cavities but that's pretty small compared to the universe and that hanky just barely fit up in there, so I don't see how a whole universe would make it. Unless you got it within the first Planck time of the Big Bang when it was pretty small. Still, that would definitely hurt.
Oh I see, God sneezed and out came the universe. And He gave us snot and pus, etc., to remind us of how important creation is to Him.
Yeah, I'll go with that.
Yeah the Devil is in the details. Kewl how you just evaded everything I posted though. Kinda like God turning his back on his sorry little snotwad of a creation. I get it though. I mean: I feel you, man. The Personal God is, like, Aqualung or something.
Perhaps Pachomius could show that the universe had a beginning, as there is no scientific evidence for that. The total energy of the universe is practically zero, meaning that no energy was needed to create it. It could have arose, as many things do on the quantum level, spontaneously, without cause.
Huh? Where have you been for the past hundred years? There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. It's not conclusive yet, but it's quite extensive. No other hypothesis comes close.
Actually the total is exactly zero. All the pluses and minuses exactly cancel each other. The Big Bang is nothing more or less than a spatially and/or temporally local reversal of entropy, which does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The sudden appearance of a huge bunch of subatomic particles with various levels of energy and a tendency to organize does not violate any of the laws of nature--so long as their organization eventually starts to break down, which is happening as we speak.
The zero-energy universe may be a currently popular and highly regarded hypothesis, possibly even believed by a number of eminent physicists of our time to be undeniable (rather than merely held to be a likely possibility) but my understanding is that it is far from certain. It does have an elegant simplicity about it, but I would still urge caution before stating it as fact.
But perhaps my understanding is out of date, and it has been proven? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Was the Big Bang the origin of this particular space-time continuum, or the origin of everything that exists?
I'm dissatisfied with that kind of answer. It doesn't answer the something-rather-than-nothing question so much as it peremptorily denies it. Everything just appeared and that's that.
And the universe just popping into existence not violating the laws of physics (I'm skeptical about that) still doesn't tell us what accounts for those laws of physics.
My own view is that there's a profound mystery here, probably the profoundest mystery that there is.
This particular space-time continuum IS everything that exists.
I know in popular culture it would seem as though the Big Bang were a beginning, but that is not actually the case. There is no reason whatsoever to conclude that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The universe could be infinitely old. The cause of the Big Bang could be another universe. We just don't know.
Also, you are incorrect about the total energy of the universe being exactly zero, it's not exact, there are some minor differences, but not enough to change the basic equation.
Goddammit! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well theres always duct tape.
Thanks everyone for your posts.
Now, please as I asked you all atheists, work on your information in regard to the concept of God in His most greatest credit, namely, as I put it:
In concept, God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Now as regards atheists just lacking belief in God, please then as with children who still lack belief in God, no need to blaspheme God with bad mouthing Him in comparing Him to flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapot in space, tooth fairy, pie in the sky, invisible pink unicorns, etc., etc., etc.
Just say, the concept of God is not valid.
But since your motivation against God is founded on grudges against Him, it is understandable in your personal psychology that you will resort to bad mouthing Him, and then claim that you are only lacking belief in God, and you mean no hatred, anger, etc.
That is why, if you just lack belief in God, so that you will get the correct God to lack belief in, I invite you to work on the concept of God in the Abrahamic faiths in his relation to the universe and man, a concept that will do God the greatest supreme credit, namely,
that God is the [in concept] creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
So, dear atheist confreres here, when you write next, tell me and readers here what is your information of the concept of God in the Abrahamic faiths, in His relation to the universe and man, namely, His role in the creation of the universe and its operation and of everything with a beginning.
Don't bring up anymore your hostility against God but disregarding to mention that in concept to His greatest supreme credit, in concept He is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
I suggest you do it this way, examine the concept of an entity that is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, and determine that insofar as concepts go, is it a valid concept?
Just from reading the bible and looking at the world the abrahamic god seems an evil prankster.
And he didnt create anything, not only because he doesnt exist, but because beginnings and endings of the kind humans imagine mean less than nothing on the universal scale. God is just a big daddy figure whose existence in the mind of his worshipers stems mainly from a lack of imagination, bravery and good sense on their part.
In my opinion anyway.
Why does the universe require an operator?
Why does god not require a creator?
Who said the universe had a beginning?
In light of those questions I find your concept of god to be irrelevant.
Show that the universe had a beginning that requires an anthropomorphised creator.
Then we can move on to discuss whether such should be granted the label of God.
The concept may well be valid, but the issue is whether it is sound, and in the absence of soundness whether it should be believed as true, especially when compared against other valid concepts.
I'm assuming you know the difference between soundness and mere validity in relation to a logical argument?
At the moment your conclusion, valid or not, stems from a priori assumptions which have not been shown to be true. So at best you are left with a valid conclusion.
But then so is the FSM, the celestial teapot, et al. And especially the concept of a universe without the need for a God.
The question then is which valid argument to believe, or whether to believe in any of them at all. And if not believe in any of them as true, which to accept on a practical level.
Parsimony would favour the Godless universe.
If you see comparison between God and anything else we consider to have no evidence in its favour as blasphemy, that is your prerogative.
How can we be motivated against something we don't believe to exist? How can we hold grudges against what we consider to have no evidence for the existence of?
That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted - in so far as the Big Bang can be evidence for a "beginning". But we draw the distinction between a "natural" beginning and the anthropomorphised "creator and operator" that is implied by the label "God".
If you can show that the universe is "operated" rather than just left to its own devices, then you may be on to something.
Until then, enough with your whingeing, please.
Thanks for yours too!
I've done just that! My answer is: No! No it's not a valid concept. If the concept is that a universe must have been created by a creator, then the same logic applies to a creator of a universe that needed a creator in order to be created, no?
...and then there's the thing about the promise of Heaven. Why would someone want to go to Heaven, and more importantly, are there bathrooms there?
Some Gods are equivalent to invisible unicorns. Some aren't.
If yours is, that's something to notice and maybe change - also information deserving gratitude.
How do you propose one changes the nature of the God in which one believes?
If God IS equivalent (with regard lack of evidence) to invisible unicorns, how do you suggest we change the nature of God in that regard?
Are you proposing that some Gods are not equivalent? That there is evidence for them?
And how many Gods do you propose that there are?
Or is your view simply that if we think the concept of God is equivalent then our concept is wrong?
In which case - please provide the evidence for God that supports the correct concept, and of course detail what that concept is.
Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks everyone for your posts.
I am still waiting for you guys to tell readers and me whether the concept of God is valid or not, as I put it:
The creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Here, I will give you all a tip, you must examine the components of the concept and point out whether they are mutually consistent and coherent, if so then the concept is valid, otherwise it is invalid.
Please, unless we get to a valid concept of God and that in the Abrahamic faiths, we cannot go into the debate of whether God exists or not.
Do not read the post below, I wanted to send it, but I thought better and decided to just shelve it -- still if you are curious you can read it.
See you guys again tomorrow.
So that readers and the owners and operators of this forum will not suspect that I am just into dilly-dallying here, I will now present in advance the order of my argument for the existence of God, this procedure is also used by yours truly elsewhere.
Step 1 -- For the sake of argument theists and atheists concur that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Step 2 -- Theists concur among themselves that the universe has a beginning.
Step 3 -- Atheists concur among themselves that the universe has always existed.
Step 4 -- Theists invite atheists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence with a beginning and/or all instances of existence to have always existed.
Step 5 -- Atheists invite theists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence to have always existed and/or all instances of existence to not have a beginning at all.
Step 6 -- Will theists find all instances of existence in the universe and also the universe as a whole to have a beginning, and cannot find any instance at all in the universe to have always existed: and conclude God exists as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?
Step 7 -- Will atheists find all instances of existence in the universe to have always existed, in particular the universe as a whole has always existed, and cannot find any instance of existence that has not always existed: and conclude that God as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning is not needed at all?
Take the nose in our face, it is a part of the universe, does it have a beginning or it has always existed?
Starting from the nose in our face all will proceed farther and on to the deepest depths of sub-atomic space and to the most distant stars at the nth distant fringes of the universe.
That is the way of expedition, while the way of discussion is the preliminary work in our minds to concur for the sake of argument on the concept of God and the ideas of universe with a beginning or universe has always existed.
With critical comments from everyone here, we will revise my proposed argument system accordingly, so that when the conclusion is reached it will be accepted by everyone be he a theist or an atheist.
Atheists, if you care to avail yourselves of a template for your argument against God existing, you are welcome to freely employ the order of argument above, you can adapt it for proving the non-existence of God.
Again. see you guys tomorrow, in the meantime, please work on the validity of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Is this supposed to be a definition of the word 'God'? If so, then it needs to capture how theists typically use the word.
Your definition seems to leave out the most important thing: God's divinity, whatever it is that makes God a suitable object of religious feeling.
Technically, 'valid' is a logical term that applies to arguments. In a valid argument, if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.
You seem to be talking about a proposed definition of the word 'God'. The mere fact that a proposed definition isn't internally self-contradictory doesn't guarantee that it's a good definition.
Why must a proposed definition of the word 'God' restrict itself to the 'Abrahamic' faiths?
Separate names with a comma.