Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2008, 07:47 AM   #436
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
Seriously...I thought you guys knew the bible so you could reject it with knowledge, logic, and reason? Y'all don't seem to even understand the first 3 chapters. I seriously doubt you've read them much less any of the rest.

You asked about Adam and Eve. Gen 2:24-cleave; one flesh

See: Mal.2:14-16; Matt.19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12 for further reference which illustrates the following:

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
1 Cor.6:17

AND

Ephesians 4:3-6 (KJV)
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Oneness in unity.


The platypus wasn't created in God's image nor given dominion over the earth. The platypus does not marry, have a relationship with God, or face moral dilemma. The platypus does not sin or need forgiveness, atonement, or salvation.

Come to think of it, this applies to the worm and ant as well. I best include as a disclaimer, all of the animal kingdom, lest you be asking about kangaroos or sea urchins next.
A small problem with this: humans are members of the animal kingdom by sharing all of the indicative animal attributes. Your knowledge of biology is not improving, yet you continue to make biological statements. Jerk.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 10:42 AM   #437
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
If the universe had a beginning, it had to have been caused. I can hear the usual "so what caused God?" This is a faulty line of reasoning since there must have been some uncaused cause, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible or nothing would exist. We know that the universe itself was not uncaused, since it had a beginning. Only something with no beginning can be uncaused. Traditionally the uncaused cause is God. Now that is light years from Christianity but let's start with baby steps, first.
Your first premise is not in evidence. The most that you can say is "Everything whose beginning we have been able to examine, was a rearrangement of pre-existing material". The "creation" of a star, for example, is the condensation of existing material which process causes heat and eventual nuclear fusion, all under the universal law of gravitation.

From this we can infer that, as long as we lack the ability to examine the purported beginning of the universe, we cannot decide if there was a pre-existing state. We cannot even infer that, if the universe really did arise from absolutely nothing, that any agency was required to make it happen because there are no examples that can be tested or observed.

Concerning your second premise, many events at the quantum level are uncaused in the sense that, if an event is caused, its characteristics are determined by that cause and, for some subatomic events there is no determination. This is particularly important for your premise that God might be directing things from behind the curtain, so to speak. The actual statistical characteristics of these events eliminate a plan, a goal or any intelligent design.

In case you meant "self-caused" in your second premise, there is no reason that, if an object could be self-caused at all, it could not do so at any time and cease to exist at some later time, thus being completely finite in all particulars. There is currently no evidence against the possibility of a self-caused object from a single neutrino to a universe full of neutrinos. There is, indeed, evidence that some atoms may appear spontaneously in pairs and remain in the universe if they are separated from their partner by a black hole.

No supernatural realm or entity is shown to be necessary for the beginning of the universe. The tradition of attributing to God actions that do not belong to Him is not logically or scientifically valid.

Do you never tire of being comprehensively wrong, Bovina?

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 10:52 AM   #438
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 11:08 AM   #439
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
SSJ: Don't make me laugh! Multiverses and all that nonsense are elaborate fairy-tales to get around the worry that there really might be God at the beginning of it all. Now, as I think is obvious but I did not state it in so many words, God is a postulate. There must, logically, be an uncaused cause. An infinite regress of causes cannot explain the existence of anything.

I came across a really interesting quote from Hawking recently. He said (I am trusting my source that he really said this): “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”

This is a peculiar mistake of scientists (some of them) to think that if they can describe something with a mathematical equation, they’ve explained it. Hawking at least realizes this is not the case, nor even the right way to approach the question. Atheists simply say you can explain it all without any need for God but, of course, they haven't and can't. Long experience here suggests that at bottom the idea of God is so repugnant, that 40 angels polishing your test tubes and telescopes would not occasion anything other than the response: "we’ll keep trying, thanks very much".

Even I can't do anything more!
Mathematical models are not for explanation of a theory; they are for implementing the predictive capability of a theory. The theory is the explanation. The test of a theory is its ability to make predictions that pan out in real life. It might predict that Hydrogen and Oxygen will combine explosively or it might predict that fossils of a particular new kind might be found in a particular stratum in a particular geographic area.

Your understanding of science is dismal. It is still better than your purported understanding of the Bible that most Christians believe.

Watch where you step; Bovina has been this way recently.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 11:50 AM   #440
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
Correct. You, we, they don't know the mechanism, principles, particles, forces involved. Therefore you ascribe weight to SOME explanations and contempt for others depending upon what exactly?

Identify the criteria by which you accept or reject statements and determine plausibility.

I'm suggesting, that of you're honest with yourself, you will admit a prejudice and bias against a Creator for no other reason than you don't want to even consider what He may want or require of you since you would obviously have been created by Him.
What a wanker.

All your creator can want or require is something it does not have. That lack is not possible for a perfect entity. Either your God wants, wills, plans or designs nothing, or He is not perfect (by your own definition of perfection).

You do not know a great deal about reality yet you prefer, through bias and prior commitment, to ascribe what you do not know to a supernatural universe that you also do not know. By what criteria do you choose a supernatural (necessarily vague, untestable and unfalsifiable) explanation over a plausible, though currently unproven, necessarily concrete, testable and falsifiable natural explanation?

Plausibility is merely the closeness to reality of one possible explanation.

If an event was observed and verified which had a supernatural component, it would still be as welcome as any other natural fact and would be recorded as a natural fact and all relevant theories would have to accommodate it.

Many scientists would rejoice to find a bona-fide supernatural fact as it would open a whole new realm for objective observation, testing and theory-building. Possibly an entire technology, perhaps forthrightly called "Magic" could develop. What a boon to humanity it would be to harness all of those currently ill-employed demons, to power our factories and desalination units and farm equipment, not to mention cheap (free) transportation. It might even become possible to send a return-receipt message to God in place of this one-way situation.

Science, dealing in observation, does not reject any fact out of hand. It will rightly reject any observation, natural or super, that cannot be objectively verified. There is vanishingly small bias in this. If some scientist did discard information due to its supernatural origin, you can be sure that one of the Christian scientists that you all crow about so much, would grab it and make it known worldwide.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 11:56 AM   #441
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
And again I repeat myself....

God has produced the evidence Himself AND made it known within you that He exists. You choose to dismiss and deny the evidence.

I do not present evidence. I point to it.
There is no evidence where you point so you have contributed exactly nil.
Point to the Bible ... nope, nothing valid in there. Perhaps creation is evidence for God ... nope, existence is only evidence of existence; it does not identify its cause, if any.

You are a net loss here, jerk. Shuffle off now, before you make Jesus appear even more of a clown for choosing you as a messenger.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:00 PM   #442
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
I do not present evidence. I point to it.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:02 PM   #443
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Choobus wrote View Post
oh well, if you put it like that then you must be right.....

How does a cosmological argument for the existence of god end up with jesus? These are two separate belief systems and you can try to bridge that gap however you like, but it's still there.
Could it be that both the creator of the universe and Jesus were created by an itinerant uber-gott as the byproduct of a one-night-stand, with a slightly run-down, but once spiffy hyper-goddess, in this sleazy rural corner of the ultraverse?

Gap filled!

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:08 PM   #444
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
No kidding...

The only Gap argument is "The Scientist of the Gaps" who fills the unknown with "Amazing Stories of the Scientifically Fantastical!"

It's nothing more than putty, glue, and duct tape.
Happily, putty, glue and duct tape are all real and they are all effective. You would rather fill the gap with an invisible, immaterial, ineffective, inconceivable and noxious fantastic conceptual entity.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:11 PM   #445
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Missionary wrote View Post
The evidence in part is creation itself which you claim is explained by scientific theories as to origin. I point to the evidence God has provided and you explain it away.
Existence is only evidence of existence, it does not identify its causes.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:17 PM   #446
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Choobus wrote View Post
A Brain scan?
With a large hammer?

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:20 PM   #447
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
??? How so? There is a certain body of evidence for Christianity, which unlike any other religion grounds its belief in an historical event. This body of evidence can be argued, poked, prodded and discussed. The fact that there are unbelievers out there is suggestive that the evidence won't convince everyone. The presence of believers suggest that it does convince some.


ADT-- You have revealed to me my purpose in life. I was put on this earth to be your straight man (woman)!
... and it grounds the historical event in a belief.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:37 PM   #448
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Barney wrote View Post
The constant inclusion of theist scientists as a prop for creation and God is something, as Dawkins says, that really the theists ought to be quiet about.

The 19th century scientists were either working pre-darwin and hadnt access to the facts or were living in a age where you simply had to be a theist or face real punishment and ostrication.

Several studies including 1300+ of the royal fellows of science showed 9% as being theist.Other studies by theists showed a list of six nobel prize winning beliver-scientists. Six out of several hundred. 2% at the most by their own research.

These are not figures to proclaim. This is stuff to be embarressed about. People of reason and measurement dont beleive in the magic man.
I am embarrassed that so many (2% or 6%) scientists permit their brains to be damaged by a whole irrational belief set. You just know that a good scientist who is also Christian (or any other religion that makes scientific claims) must realize the incompatibility involved and deliberately filter his or her faith out of the equations.

It is like the Christian Texas oil-man who thinks the world is 4+Billion years old when drilling for oil and that it is 6000 years old at all other times.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:39 PM   #449
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote View Post
Could it be that both the creator of the universe and Jesus were created by an itinerant uber-gott as the byproduct of a one-night-stand, with a slightly run-down, but once spiffy hyper-goddess, in this sleazy rural corner of the ultraverse?

Gap filled!
That's what she said.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 12:45 PM   #450
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote View Post
I am embarrassed that so many (2% or 6%) scientists permit their brains to be damaged by a whole irrational belief set. You just know that a good scientist who is also Christian (or any other religion that makes scientific claims) must realize the incompatibility involved and deliberately filter his or her faith out of the equations.

It is like the Christian Texas oil-man who thinks the world is 4+Billion years old when drilling for oil and that it is 6000 years old at all other times.
One thing I can tell you about theist scientists is that their faith never shows up in their work. Astronomers do not posit theories of 6000 year old asteroid fields, and if they did they would be laughed out of town, and all the other astronomers would make fun of them. The fact is, scientists who believe in god leave their jeebus at home when they go to work. Those who don't don't have a problem, because they don't have jobs.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational