#Proving the Existence of God
Kurt Nicklas
the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
personal God?
September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proving-the-existence-of-god/?singlepage=true
In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid —
proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed
this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.
So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God’s existence, remain an
atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his
proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof
are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions
did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics,
mainly Einstein’s theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his
early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-
Time, Hawking wrote:
It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a
physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no
longer provides a correct description of observations.
Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would
be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God
was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in
Einstein’s theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design,
Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory
with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics
at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically
consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-
theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He
is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein’s gravity, and
in quantum gravity.
In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it’s looking bad
for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like
Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.
The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking
did not actually use the word “God.” But this is what he really
meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word “God” means.
Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: “We believe
in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and
invisible.” These words give the basic definition of “God” used by
Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself
has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way,
Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient)
Cause, and Aquinas concludes, “to which all give the name ‘God’ (quam
omnes Deum nominant).”
So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By
following the history of the universe back into time — in other words,
by following the causes of the current universe back into time —
Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common
cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an
Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics,
beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire
universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.
In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word “create,” we can
say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades
ago by Hawking, “created” the universe.
Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a “singularity.”
But given the properties of this “singularity,” it is God. So I have
replaced the word “singularity,” which Hawking actually used in the
above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.
To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause —
can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I
have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in
Hawking’s proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the
proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God’s
personal nature.
The interesting thing about Hawking’s existence proof for God is that
it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally
confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics
journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment
will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for
equipment.
So don’t despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling
books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is
their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: “First they
ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
win.”
We theists are now at stage three.
Runge 124
"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtn...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
05e08a80-4f93-496b...@q9g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer
>Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>personal God?
>September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
No
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
MarkA
> Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> personal God?
> September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proving-the-existence-of-god/?singlepage=true
>
News Flash Mr Tipler: Even if you could demonstrate and "Uncaused Cause"
in physics, it would not prove the existence of a personal god.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
archie dux
> Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> personal God?
> September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
Ah, yes, Frank "Omega Point" Tipler, the boy who
thinks that, while God does not exist yet, he
will sometime in the future when intelligent
beings convert the entire Universe into
one single enormous computer, thus enabling
the "resurrection of the dead" to be realised
in some Matrix-like all-encompasing virtual
reality.
Good call, Kurt
archie
Christopher A. Lee
...and then goes back in time to creat ethe universe.
>Good call, Kurt
>
>
>archie
Larry
@reader.news.orange.fr:
>> We theists are now at stage three.
>>
>
Aren't grand delusions wonderful?
panam...@hotmail.com
> Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> personal God?
> September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
Oh, but he would have gotten away with it, If it weren't for us
meddling kids.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Kurt Nicklas
Except for yours.
Kurt Nicklas
> Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> >the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> >personal God?
> >September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
> No
Oh, lookee, a monosyllabic hero of the atheist left.
Hahaha.
Kurt Nicklas
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:31:26 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> > the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> > personal God?
> > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
>
> News Flash Mr Tipler: Even if you could demonstrate and "Uncaused Cause"
> in physics, it would not prove the existence of a personal god.
If you'd bothered to read further than the first sentence you would
have seen that the author dealt
exactly with that problem.
But, being an atheist, you're probably prone to Cerebral Overload when
you actually have to deal with more than 1 concept per day.
> --
> MarkA
>
> If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
If you can read this you can hear me laughing at you.
Kurt Nicklas
An this Atheist Hero(sic) reads the first sentence and proceeds to
construct a cerebellic diatribe containing no material relevant to the
article.
Will wonders never cease!
> Good call, Kurt
In that I can see there's one of nature's perfect vacuums between your
ears, yes, it was a good call.
Kurt Nicklas
Liar.
Kurt Nicklas
> You'll just have to prove the existence of
> the creators creator next dontchaknow .... :-)
>
> And them pretend you know all about it and
> what it wants of us .....
Why?
archie dux
> On Sep 15, 11:57 am, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> > > the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> > > personal God?
> > > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
> > Ah, yes, Frank "Omega Point" Tipler, the boy who
> > thinks that, while God does not exist yet, he
> > will sometime in the future when intelligent
> > beings convert the entire Universe into
> > one single enormous computer, thus enabling
> > the "resurrection of the dead" to be realised
> > in some Matrix-like all-encompasing virtual
> > reality.
>
> An this Atheist Hero(sic) reads the first sentence
"reads the first sentence"? Sonny boy, I've been
watching the intellectual misadventures of Frank TIpler
with varying degrees of head-shaking bemusement
for years now. Martin Gardner's 1992 essay on Tipler
was the best, but not the first, discussion of his rather...
original... ideas to get my attention.
> and proceeds to
> construct a cerebellic
"Cerebellic"? Sorry, but my cerebellum was
entirely tied up with the act of typing, and told
my frontal cortex to go figure it out for itself.
Whereupon my cerebral cortex proceeded
to take the lazy way out, and merely sum
up Tipler's ideas. Sort of like quoting
ten headlines from the Weekly World News,
but not as much fun.
archie
Ray Fischer
MarkA
> On Sep 15, 11:01 am, MarkA <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:31:26 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to
>> > explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of
>> > a personal God?
>> > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>>
>> >http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proving-the-existence-of-god/?singlepage...
>>
>> News Flash Mr Tipler: Even if you could demonstrate and "Uncaused
>> Cause" in physics, it would not prove the existence of a personal god.
>
> If you'd bothered to read further than the first sentence you would have
> seen that the author dealt
> exactly with that problem.
Are you referring to the part where he says that "...to show how this
Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest
itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written."?
I notice that he is claiming that the First Cause *can* manifest
itself as a personal God, while in the title he claims he can *prove* the
existence of a personal God.
I have more gratifying ways to waste my time than to read a book written
by someone who can't distinguish between a "possible" explanation and a
proof. Or by someone who thinks that Aquinas proved anything.
>
> But, being an atheist, you're probably prone to Cerebral Overload when
> you actually have to deal with more than 1 concept per day.
It can be a real challenge to unravel the so-called "logic" of cretins
like you and Tipler. Attempting it more than once a week is probably too
much.
>
>> --
>> MarkA
>>
>> If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
>
> If you can read this you can hear me laughing at you.
Glad to hear that I amuse you as much as you do me.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Planet Visitor II
You insult... you lose, Zippy.
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Kurt Nicklas <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sep 15, 3:33 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>>>> >the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>>>> >personal God?
>>>> >September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>>Oh, lookee, a monosyllabic hero of the atheist left.
>>
>>Oh look, a mindless drone of the fascist reich.
>
>You insult... you lose
Then kurt lost.
Are you in 5th or 6th grade this year?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kurt Nicklas
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:23:40 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 11:01 am, MarkA <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:31:26 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >> > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to
> >> > explain the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of
> >> > a personal God?
> >> > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
> >> >http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proving-the-existence-of-god/?singlepage...
>
> >> News Flash Mr Tipler: Even if you could demonstrate and "Uncaused
> >> Cause" in physics, it would not prove the existence of a personal god.
>
> > If you'd bothered to read further than the first sentence you would have
> > seen that the author dealt
> > exactly with that problem.
>
> Are you referring to the part where he says that "...to show how this
> Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause — can manifest
> itself as a personal God would require a book, which I have written."?
>
> I notice that he is claiming that the First Cause *can* manifest
> itself as a personal God, while in the title he claims he can *prove* the
> existence of a personal God.
>
> I have more gratifying ways to waste my time
I'm sure you do. And I'm sure I don't care to hear about them,
atheist.
>
>
> > But, being an atheist, you're probably prone to Cerebral Overload when
> > you actually have to deal with more than 1 concept per day.
>
> It can be a real challenge to unravel the so-called "logic" of cretins
> like you and Tipler. Attempting it more than once a week is probably too
> much.
Writing a simple declarative sentence is probably stretching your
cognitive powers
to the breaking point.
Dont strain yourself, atheist. Better take a break.
Planet Visitor II
You insult... you lose again. You seem to be in a rut.
Velociraptor
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>personal God?
>September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
>http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proving-the-existence-of-god/?singlepage=true
>
>In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid —
>proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed
>this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.
This needs a reference. What publications?
So that is why Tipler did not give a refference for Hawking's proofs
of the existence of God - Hawking never published such a proof. Also,
I doubt very much that he ever used a phrase such as 'Uncaused Cause'
or 'common cause that did not itself have a cause'.
>To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause —
>can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I
>have written. Indeed, the personal nature of God is not obvious in
>Hawking’s proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the
>proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God’s
>personal nature.
I found "The Physics of Immortality no more convincing than this short
essay, so I'll pass on that.
>The interesting thing about Hawking’s existence proof for God is that
>it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally
>confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics
>journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment
>will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for
>equipment.
>
>So don’t despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling
>books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is
>their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: “First they
>ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
>win.”
>
>We theists are now at stage three.
Frank Tipler is extremely intelligent - but every now and then he
comes out with something as incredibly stupid as this. Gandhi's words
were about a movement that began small and gradually grew - till it
transformed society. Theism is going in the opposite direction. There
never was a time when there were so few theists that the atheist
majority just ignored it.
--
velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk
Velociraptor
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 15, 11:57 am, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>> > the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>> > personal God?
>> > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>>
>> Ah, yes, Frank "Omega Point" Tipler, the boy who
>> thinks that, while God does not exist yet, he
>> will sometime in the future when intelligent
>> beings convert the entire Universe into
>> one single enormous computer, thus enabling
>> the "resurrection of the dead" to be realised
>> in some Matrix-like all-encompasing virtual
>> reality.
>
>An this Atheist Hero(sic) reads the first sentence and proceeds to
>construct a cerebellic diatribe containing no material relevant to the
>article.
'no material relevant'? - archie just posted a perfectly decent
summary of Frank J. Tipler's "Omega Point" theory. It is a bit odd
that you should post an article by Tipler without knowing anything
about it. If you go back to the web page you quoted and read some of
the discussion, you will soon learn more - look for James Redford's
comments. Or read Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality".
BTW, I found his theory entertaining, though I was not convinced. Even
if something like the Omega Point should one day emerge - which is
entirely possible - it does not make sense to me to call that God.
>Will wonders never cease!
>
>> Good call, Kurt
>
>In that I can see there's one of nature's perfect vacuums between your
>ears, yes, it was a good call.
Whose ears?
--
velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk
Ray Fischer
>On 16 Sep 2010 17:14:57 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Kurt Nicklas <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sep 15, 3:33 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>>>>>> >the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>>>>>> >personal God?
>>>>>> >September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, lookee, a monosyllabic hero of the atheist left.
>>>>
>>>>Oh look, a mindless drone of the fascist reich.
>>>
>>>You insult... you lose
>>
>>Then kurt lost.
>>
>>Are you in 5th or 6th grade this year?
>
>You insult... you lose again.
"I know you are but what am I"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Larry
44c8c9...@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
Burst my bubble! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.....which is NOT that novel you
point to.
MarkA
What a scathing response to my points! Name-calling is what you do
when you have nothing of substance to contribute. I graciously accept
your admission of defeat. Now, go read a book or two.
Conan the bacterium
<velociraptor_nice_reptile_EATS_SPAMM...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
>
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 15, 11:57 am, archie dux <architeuthis0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> >> > the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> >> > personal God?
> >> > September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
> >> Ah, yes, Frank "Omega Point" Tipler, the boy who
> >> thinks that, while God does not exist yet, he
> >> will sometime in the future when intelligent
> >> beings convert the entire Universe into
> >> one single enormous computer, thus enabling
> >> the "resurrection of the dead" to be realised
> >> in some Matrix-like all-encompasing virtual
> >> reality.
> >An this Atheist Hero(sic) reads the first sentence and proceeds to
> >construct a cerebellic diatribe containing no material relevant to the
> >article.
>
> 'no material relevant'? - archie just posted a perfectly decent
> summary of Frank J. Tipler's "Omega Point" theory. It is a bit odd
> that you should post an article by Tipler without knowing anything
> about it.
Yeah, well, that's the danger of "proving" some point using a
cut-n-paste of something that you think sounds good, even though
you yourself don't actually understand it -- you might just
run into someone who *does* understand it.
This being Usenet, it's not much of a danger, though.
> If you go back to the web page you quoted and read some of
> the discussion, you will soon learn more - look for James Redford's
> comments. Or read Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality".
> BTW, I found his theory entertaining, though I was not convinced. Even
> if something like the Omega Point should one day emerge - which is
> entirely possible - it does not make sense to me to call that God.
I've heard, in person, a perfectly sane and well-regarded cosmologist
repeat the argument that if there is any chance at all of this
happening, then in the fullness of time it must happen --
and thus the odds are virtually certain that it "has"
happened, and we're all entities in a universe-wide
computer simluation. Tipler's idea, but backed up
by a mathematical argument, an argument it
was surprisingly hard to find a flaw in.
True or false, I rather doubt that this was the
"God" Kurt thought he was "proving".
conan
Brian E. Clark
ca...@optonline.net says...
> >Ah, yes, Frank "Omega Point" Tipler, the boy who
> >thinks that, while God does not exist yet, he
> >will sometime in the future when intelligent
> >beings convert the entire Universe into
> >one single enormous computer, thus enabling
> >the "resurrection of the dead" to be realised
> >in some Matrix-like all-encompasing virtual
> >reality.
>
> ...and then goes back in time to creat ethe universe.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Asimov's "The Last
Question"?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
But that is all theists have. They have no evidence, no proof, all
they can do is call names.
Harry K
Planet Visitor II
>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On 16 Sep 2010 17:14:57 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Kurt Nicklas <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sep 15, 3:33 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
>>>>>>> >the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
>>>>>>> >personal God?
>>>>>>> >September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, lookee, a monosyllabic hero of the atheist left.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh look, a mindless drone of the fascist reich.
>>>>
>>>>You insult... you lose
>>>
>>>Then kurt lost.
>>>
>>>Are you in 5th or 6th grade this year?
>>
>>You insult... you lose again.
>
>"I know you are but what am I"?
Your question mark should go inside of your quotation marks, Ray.
Which rather answers your question of "who you are and what am
I?"
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds like you are in about the 3rd grade...at least from what I see
through the entire thread.
Harry K
Bill Bonde
There is no proof that "God" doesn't exist. When someone claims that the
universe could self create, that isn't proof of this supposed self
creation. The fact that you can come up with a self-consist possible
explanation for something doesn't mean it is automatically true. It's
also not evidence that it is true.
Andre Lieven
> harry k wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 5:25 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:34:12 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >>> On Sep 16, 9:20 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Writing a simple declarative sentence is probably stretching your
> >>> cognitive powers
> >>> to the breaking point.
> >>
> >>> Dont strain yourself, atheist. Better take a break.
> >>
> >> What a scathing response to my points! Name-calling is what you do
> >> when you have nothing of substance to contribute. I graciously accept
> >> your admission of defeat. Now, go read a book or two.
> >
> > they can do is call names.
> >
> There is no proof that "God" doesn't exist.
Fallacy of Demanding A Negative Proof. Claim thus fails.
Got any *EVIDENCE* that your asserted sky pixie DOES exist ?
Uh huh.
> When someone claims that the
> universe could self create, that isn't proof of this supposed self
> creation. The fact that you can come up with a self-consist possible
> explanation for something doesn't mean it is automatically true. It's
> also not evidence that it is true.
Thus, you admit that you have NO evidence FOR any deity existing.
I accept your total concession.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just as there is no proof that God exists. One can _claim_ (weakly)
that the lack of evidence for a god is a bit of evidence that there is
no god.
Harry K
Bill Bonde
> One can _claim_ (weakly)
> that the lack of evidence for a god is a bit of evidence that there is
> no god.
>
But there's no evidence for the various coherent ideas about the
universe that various folks are postulating. All they are is internally
consistent. But the God postulate is that.
thomas p.
news:4c94...@news.x-privat.org...
Above you said:
"When someone claims that the universe could self create..."
Who made that claim? The "Big Bang" is certainly not the universe
self-creating. Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence for it. There
is not one bit of evidence for any god only a great number of claims. There
we have the major difference - We do not fully understand the "Big Bang",
but we have evidence that it happened; while, on the other hand, we have
absolutely no understanding and absolutely no evidence for the "God
postulate". In short the two concepts are not equally valid.
John Rennie
Just as you have no 'evidence' for God not existing. Agnosticism
is the only sensible stance in this world.
thomas p.
news:hKOdnW6eavmw4QnR...@giganews.com...
Agnosticism says that objective knowledge of the existence or non-existence
of God is not possible. Since atheism is merely not believing in any god,
and we agree that there is no evidence for such a thing, non-belief is a
completely logical position. By the way, there are theists who are
agnostics if they (according to one Christian doctrine) agree that no
objective knowledge of god is possible but believe anyway (Faith). Finally,
I have never understood why, if some god actually existed, there could not
be objective evidence for it and therefore do not see why the agnostic
assertion that no evidence is necessarily true. Atheism remains the most
logical position.
snip
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Seems weird. You have an omnipotent and omnipresent entity that hides
itself from a skeptical creature and then demands belief.
And will punish for not getting it.
Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
Bill Bonde
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>> harry k wrote:
>>> On Sep 17, 5:25 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:34:12 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 16, 9:20 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Writing a simple declarative sentence is probably stretching your
>>>>> cognitive powers
>>>>> to the breaking point.
>>>>
>>>>> Dont strain yourself, atheist. Better take a break.
>>>>
>>>> What a scathing response to my points! Name-calling is what you do
>>>> when you have nothing of substance to contribute. I graciously accept
>>>> your admission of defeat. Now, go read a book or two.
>>>
>>> But that is all theists have. They have no evidence, no proof, all
>>> they can do is call names.
>>>
>> There is no proof that "God" doesn't exist.
>
> Fallacy of Demanding A Negative Proof. Claim thus fails.
>
doesn't exist. There's also no proof that there aren't many universes
and the other things that Hawking is babbling on about. Do you think
he's using fallacious reasoning?
Instead of attacking people for trying to figure out possible solutions,
even though there is no evidence for them, e.g. string theory, why don't
you just watch some more MTV?
> Got any *EVIDENCE* that your asserted sky pixie DOES exist ?
> Uh huh.
>
Your mistake here is that I didn't assert the existence of God or "sky
pixies". If you can't respond to what I say and have to invent crap that
I didn't write, you are the one committing the fallacy. That is called a
strawman.
>> When someone claims that the
>> universe could self create, that isn't proof of this supposed self
>> creation. The fact that you can come up with a self-consist possible
>> explanation for something doesn't mean it is automatically true. It's
>> also not evidence that it is true.
>
> Thus, you admit that you have NO evidence FOR any deity existing.
>
Since I've not claimed otherwise, why is this remarkable?
> I accept your total concession.
>
I'm used to a little more capabilities from alt.atheism. Could you turn
up your Bunsen burner a notch?
Bill Bonde
be required. In fact, a universe with a "god" that made itself openly
known would be entirely different to us than the one we live in now.
> And will punish for not getting it.
>
> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>
If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>>> One can _claim_ (weakly)
>>> that the lack of evidence for a god is a bit of evidence that there is
>>> no god.
>>>
>> But there's no evidence for the various coherent ideas about the
>> universe that various folks are postulating. All they are is internally
>> consistent. But the God postulate is that.
>
Try responding to the conclusion I drew from all of what I wrote. You
almost always skip that. I guess it's because you can't refute it.
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Santa Claus is a god-like being. Do you entertain doubts as to whether
he exists or not?
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
And that is absurd on the face of it.
>
>
>
>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>
>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>
> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
We're lucky he isn't.
John Rennie
Bill Bonde
generally unknown (or unknowable) whether or not any "god" at all
actually exists, not in the sense that one cannot draw specific
conclusions about specific possible entities. Even if all human
religions are wrong, there still could be a "god".
SkyEyes
Indeed: one cannot prove a negative.
However, when one is talking about a supernatural being that
supposedly created and now controls the entire universe...one would
*think* there would be evidence, here and there, that it actually
exists.
> Agnosticism is the only sensible stance in this world.
And you will find that (with a few notable exceptions) the atheists on
alt.atheism are *also* agnostics. The two positions are not, after
all, incompatible. Agnosticism is a statement about *knowledge*,
whereas atheism is a statement about *belief*.
I am an agnostic - in that I have no knowledge suggesting the
existence of any god - and *therefore* I am also an atheist - in that
I *lack belief* in any god or gods.
Should some evidence of a god come to light, both my agnosticism and
my atheism would undergo major change.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> On 18/09/2010 14:16, thomas p. wrote:
>
There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
unicorns?
I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
Don Kresch
wrote:
Sure you can. I can prove that there are no square circles. I
can also prove that there is no largest prime number.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
SkyEyes
wrote:
What is the virtue of "believing in" when defined as "thinking a god
exists"? The virtue is in the "believing is" defined as "willing to
follow the precepts of" the god-thingy.
And for that reason, I think this argument about belief is the single
silliest one that theists and agnostics have *ever* come up with.
Yes, if there was evidence that a god actually exists, there wouldn't
be must question that we would "believe in" it's existence, much the
same way as there's no reason for me not to "believe in" the existence
of, say, Vladimir Putin. The only question left would be "does this
god that exists set forth precepts that it wants me to follow?" If
the answer is "Yes," then I would be able to make an informed choice
about whether or not to follow those precepts.
> In fact, a universe with a "god" that made itself openly
> known would be entirely different to us than the one we live in now.
And probably a better one, inasmuch as people would have a clearer
idea of what was actually expected of them. We wouldn't constantly be
having wars or whether or not Jesus wore a purse, or whether or not
God had a son or not, etc.
>
> > And will punish for not getting it.
>
> > Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>
> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
But it would be *exceedingly* unlucky for us, would it not?
>
> >>> One can _claim_ (weakly)
> >>> that the lack of evidence for a god is a bit of evidence that there is
> >>> no god.
>
> >> But there's no evidence for the various coherent ideas about the
> >> universe that various folks are postulating. All they are is internally
> >> consistent. But the God postulate is that.
>
> Try responding to the conclusion I drew from all of what I wrote. You
> almost always skip that. I guess it's because you can't refute it.
Here's the real meat of the question: it doesn't matter *what* god
you believe in, as long as you believe in one of them.
That's because humans evolved socially and those inclined genetically
to "believe in" an alpha male and do what he says unquestioningly are
perceived as being less of a threat to the safety of the group. The
question of a god, of course, is just elevating that need for an alpha
male to that of a Super Alpha Male, one whose orders you damn well
*better* obey, because he has the ability to alter time/space and defy
the natural laws. And he will punish you for your lack of submission
to him. Instead of banishment from the troup in this life, why, after
you're dead you'll be banished to a place of torment for ever and
ever.
My devout christian parents were stunned when I came out as an
atheist. In our long talks, they declared that they would be
perfectly happy if I were to convert to judaism, islam, krishna-
worship, *anything* - just please, Brenda, don't say you're an
atheist!
It doesn't matter *what* you believe *in*, the only thing the troup
cares about is that you have the mindset that permits belief.
thomas p.
news:mu1a965e4mbefd6kd...@4ax.com...
You are playing games with words. "Proof" in mathematics is not the same as
in proof for an asserted non-abstract entity, which would be impossible. I
have no doubt that you know this, so why even bring it up?
Don Kresch
liberal
<velociraptor_nice_reptile_EATS_SPAMM...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:31:26 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>
> <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is it possible to postulate the "Uncaused Cause" in physics to explain
> >the beginning of the universe, thus proving the existence of a
> >personal God?
> >September 14, 2010 - by Frank J. Tipler
>
>
> >In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first — completely valid —
> >proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed
> >this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.
>
> This needs a reference. What publications?
>
>
>
>
>
> >So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God’s existence, remain an
> >atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his
> >proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof
> >are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions
> >did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics,
> >mainly Einstein’s theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his
> >early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-
> >Time, Hawking wrote:
>
> >It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a
> >physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no
> >longer provides a correct description of observations.
>
> >Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would
> >be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God
> >was even more prominent — and unavoidable — in quantum gravity than in
> >Einstein’s theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design,
> >Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory
> >with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics
> >at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically
> >consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-
> >theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He
> >is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein’s gravity, and
> >in quantum gravity.
>
> >In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it’s looking bad
> >for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like
> >Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.
>
> >The alert reader will have noticed that in the above quote, Hawking
> >did not actually use the word “God.” But this is what he really
> >meant. To see this, let us recall just what the word “God” means.
>
> >Consider the opening words of the (original) Nicene Creed: “We believe
> >in one God, the omnipotent Father, Maker of all things visible and
> >invisible.” These words give the basic definition of “God” used by
> >Christians and Jews: God is the Cause of everything, but He Himself
> >has no cause. God is the Uncaused First Cause. In his Second Way,
> >Thomas Aquinas proves the existence of the Uncaused First (efficient)
> >Cause, and Aquinas concludes, “to which all give the name ‘God’ (quam
> >omnes Deum nominant).”
>
> >So now let us return to the theorems of the young Hawking. By
> >following the history of the universe back into time — in other words,
> >by following the causes of the current universe back into time —
> >Hawking proved that all of these causes had a common cause; a common
> >cause that did not itself have a cause. This common cause was an
> >Uncaused Cause that was beyond the control of the laws of physics,
> >beyond the control of any possible laws of physics. Rather, the entire
> >universe began at this Uncaused First Cause.
>
> >In exactly the same way that Aquinas used the word “create,” we can
> >say that the Uncaused First Cause, whose existence was proven decades
> >ago by Hawking, “created” the universe.
>
> >Hawking called this Uncaused First Cause a “singularity.”
>
> >But given the properties of this “singularity,” it is God. So I have
> >replaced the word “singularity,” which Hawking actually used in the
> >above quote, with what it really means according to Aquinas.
>
> So that is why Tipler did not give a refference for Hawking's proofs
> of the existence of God - Hawking never published such a proof. Also,
> I doubt very much that he ever used a phrase such as 'Uncaused Cause'
> or 'common cause that did not itself have a cause'.
>
> >To show how this Cosmological Singularity — the Uncaused First Cause —
> >can manifest itself as a personal God would require a book, which I
> >Hawking’s proof of His existence. But neither is it obvious in the
> >proof of Aquinas, and Aquinas also required a book to establish God’s
> >personal nature.
>
> I found "The Physics of Immortality no more convincing than this short
> essay, so I'll pass on that.
>
> >The interesting thing about Hawking’s existence proof for God is that
> >it can be tested experimentally, since it is based on experimentally
> >confirmed physical law. I published a paper in a refereed physics
> >journal a few years ago pointing this out. Eventually the experiment
> >will be done, but it will require tens of thousands of dollars for
> >equipment.
>
> >So don’t despair, my fellow theists! The recent slew of best-selling
> >books by atheists attacking religion, supposedly using science, is
> >their last gasp. Remember the great words of Gandhi: “First they
> >ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
> >win.”
>
> >We theists are now at stage three.
>
> Frank Tipler is extremely intelligent - but every now and then he
> comes out with something as incredibly stupid as this. Gandhi's words
> were about a movement that began small and gradually grew - till it
> transformed society.
Well, someone once said, Arthur C. Clarke?, about the three phases of
scientific breakthrough concepts: First, they deride it as impossible;
then they call it possible but unlikely, or too difficult, or useless;
finally, they claim, "I knew it was a great idea all the time."
Not the exact words, but the tone is right.
> Theism is going in the opposite direction. There
> never was a time when there were so few theists that the atheist
> majority just ignored it.
>
> --
> velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk- Hide quoted text -
liberal
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, there's no way to prove anything exists, even the universe.
Our minds do not directly sense the universe, at best our minds sense
electrical impulses delivered by nerves. We can now send pulses of
electricity into the brain which interprets those impulses as sound or
light.
I, or you (but not Bonde, that would be too disgusting a possibility)
may be dog..or god...just imagining the universe and all the
inhabitants. One reason I know I'm not dog...or god...is I can't
imagine an imaginary universe where I'd tolerate the exisence of Bonde.
liberal
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, how, if a dog...oops, god, exists, how could there not be
proof? Too many inconstancies would exist. The only way a
dog...god...could exist in a comprehensible (logical) universe is if
that entity has no interaction with that universe.
liberal
OTOH, if the pixie hasn't made itself "known," how do we know it
demands belief?
> In fact, a universe with a "god" that made itself openly
> known would be entirely different to us than the one we live in now.
DUH???? Ain't that "universe" the one bible-literalists claim we live
in?
>
> > And will punish for not getting it.
>
> > Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>
> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>
> >>> One can _claim_ (weakly)
> >>> that the lack of evidence for a god is a bit of evidence that there is
> >>> no god.
>
> >> But there's no evidence for the various coherent ideas about the
> >> universe that various folks are postulating. All they are is internally
> >> consistent. But the God postulate is that.
>
> Try responding to the conclusion I drew from all of what I wrote. You
> almost always skip that. I guess it's because you can't refute it.- Hide quoted text -
liberal
Of course, one can prove a negative. I can prove it's not raining by
seeing a blue sky. I can prove a 180 degree angle isn't a 90 degree
right angle.
>
> However, when one is talking about a supernatural being that
> supposedly created and now controls the entire universe...one would
> *think* there would be evidence, here and there, that it actually
> exists.
>
> > Agnosticism is the only sensible stance in this world.
>
> And you will find that (with a few notable exceptions) the atheists on
> alt.atheism are *also* agnostics. The two positions are not, after
> all, incompatible. Agnosticism is a statement about *knowledge*,
> whereas atheism is a statement about *belief*.
>
> I am an agnostic - in that I have no knowledge suggesting the
> existence of any god - and *therefore* I am also an atheist - in that
> I *lack belief* in any god or gods.
>
> Should some evidence of a god come to light, both my agnosticism and
> my atheism would undergo major change.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net- Hide quoted text -
Bill Bonde
thought before.
>>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>>
>> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>
> We're lucky he isn't.
>
How do we know that? And, really, how do we know that he has issues? All
you are going on is your human reasoning about why this or that might be
the case. It would seem beyond you to see the big picture.
Don Kresch
<liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, there's no way to prove anything exists, even the universe.
>Our minds do not directly sense the universe, at best our minds sense
>electrical impulses delivered by nerves. We can now send pulses of
>electricity into the brain which interprets those impulses as sound or
>light.
And yet discourse certainly shows that things exist.
MarkA
I would call that "malevolent", not passive-aggressive. People who
believe that God punishes people for non-belief are worshiping an evil
deity.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
I expect the universe to be stranger than I can imagine. I expect it to
be random.
I do not expect it to be capricious, let alone passive-agressive.
>
>
>
>>>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>>>
>>> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>>
>> We're lucky he isn't.
>>
> How do we know that? And, really, how do we know that he has issues? All
> you are going on is your human reasoning about why this or that might be
> the case. It would seem beyond you to see the big picture.
>
And you, of course, can, because you have hidden, secret knowledge,
right?
MarkA
I consider myself to be an atheist, as I do not believe that God exists.
I am also an agnostic, as I don't believe it is possible to know if God
exists or not. Some of my in-laws really don't like to hear me call
myself an atheist, so to them, I'm an agnostic.
DanielSan
I've always equated such deities to the abusive spouse. "Love me or
you'll pay. Do everything I say or you'll suffer. Don't you leave me
or I'll kill you."
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Alex W.
Another reason offers itself.
Faced with a believer in a different deity, a god-botherer will
disagree (possibly violently so) but he will understand and share
the fundamental mindset of belief.
Faced with an atheist, he is confronted with someone who does not
share a core aspect of his worldview. It is quite alien. And
this is a threat. Here is someone whose world operates not on
variations of known and understood paradigms but on completely
different principles. it is living, walking, talking proof that
the believer's understanding of the ways the universe functions
is not as universal as he always thought. The very possibility
that a world without a god may exist is a direct attack on his
being. This is very hard to tolerate.
Don Kresch
wrote:
>Faced with an atheist, he is confronted with someone who does not
>share a core aspect of his worldview. It is quite alien. And
>this is a threat. Here is someone whose world operates not on
>variations of known and understood paradigms but on completely
>different principles. it is living, walking, talking proof that
>the believer's understanding of the ways the universe functions
>is not as universal as he always thought. The very possibility
>that a world without a god may exist is a direct attack on his
>being. This is very hard to tolerate.
Now let's re-write it just a touch, and something interesting
shows:
>Faced with an anarchist, the statist is confronted with someone who does not
>share a core aspect of his worldview. It is quite alien. And
>this is a threat. Here is someone whose world operates not on
>variations of known and understood paradigms but on completely
>different principles. it is living, walking, talking proof that
>the believer's understanding of the ways the universe functions
>is not as universal as he always thought. The very possibility
>that the state is illegitimate is a direct attack on his being.
>This is very hard to tolerate.
And that's just as true. The psychopathology of the theist and
statist are identical.
Don Kresch
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I've always equated such deities to the abusive spouse. "Love me or
>you'll pay. Do everything I say or you'll suffer. Don't you leave me
>or I'll kill you."
The same can be said of agents of the state.
Don
DanielSan
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:59:38 -0700, DanielSan
> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> I've always equated such deities to the abusive spouse. "Love me or
>> you'll pay. Do everything I say or you'll suffer. Don't you leave me
>> or I'll kill you."
>
> The same can be said of agents of the state.
Stop reifying.
Bill Bonde
> I do not expect it to be capricious, let alone passive-agressive.
>
What if the universe is a schema therapy for someone working through
issues. If we subscribe to the infinite worlds theory, then wouldn't
this have to be true in at least one of those universes? Why not in ours?
>>>>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>>>>
>>>> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>>>
>>> We're lucky he isn't.
>>>
>> How do we know that? And, really, how do we know that he has issues? All
>> you are going on is your human reasoning about why this or that might be
>> the case. It would seem beyond you to see the big picture.
>>
> And you, of course, can, because you have hidden, secret knowledge,
> right?
>
Of course not, I didn't claim to understand the mind of "God".
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Really? Don't tell Schroendinger that.
>
>
>
>> I do not expect it to be capricious, let alone passive-agressive.
>>
> What if the universe is a schema therapy for someone working through
> issues. If we subscribe to the infinite worlds theory, then wouldn't
> this have to be true in at least one of those universes? Why not in
> ours?
I look at Sarah Palin, and consider that yes, the Universe could be
nothing more than a primal scream therapy session.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If "god" has issues, I guess he's lucky he's in charge.
>>>>
>>>> We're lucky he isn't.
>>>>
>>> How do we know that? And, really, how do we know that he has issues?
>>> All you are going on is your human reasoning about why this or that
>>> might be the case. It would seem beyond you to see the big picture.
>>>
>> And you, of course, can, because you have hidden, secret knowledge,
>> right?
>>
> Of course not, I didn't claim to understand the mind of "God".
>
Ah, so this is a big picture you can't see either, but for some reason
you want me to believe exists.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have long felt that about 50% of the theists believe for that very
reason - fear of what happens if they don't.
Harry K
harry k
Errmmm...but atheism 'works'. anarchism does not. Just look at any
example of an isolated group, A leader will always arise, sometimes
for the good, sometimes for the bad but one will always be there.
Harry K
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
>On Sep 18, 1:45 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
That was not quite a "negative." The true negative that one is not
capable of proving is the statement "God does not exist." Which is
equally as unprovable as is the statement "God does exist." Since
there is the fact that the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
The question of the existence of a "God" is obviously beyond the
capacity of mankind to determine (at the very least, not able to
determine at this time in our evolution) . It appears, that no matter
how finely we determine how the universe or multverse (if you will)
was first created it is obvious that we are unable to determine what
caused this creation, unless a "God" happens to reveal its
existence to us in an unmistakable form. No reasonable person
expects that to happen, but the fact that it might never happen,
or has never happened as far as we are humanly able to determine,
is not sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility.
Indeed, with physicists presently arguing the existence of an
"infinity" of universes (multiverse), the question of the existence of
a "God" is made even more complex when one considers exactly
what an "infinity" means. It means that in every slice of the entire
existence of this universe an infinity of other universes are created
in somewhat like an infinite fractal, each breaking off into another
infinite fractal... See --
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ifu.htm
Of course the philosophical questions regarding this presumed
possibility are staggering, to say the least. As only one biological
being from what is obviously an infinite number of biological beings,
each fraction of a second in your life creates an infinite number of
different universes, each creating an infinity of "you," now existing
in a totally different universe, and a fraction of a second later in
each of those infinite number of universes, yet another infinite
number of different universes are created, etc... etc... etc... never
ending. You are simply one of an infinite number of infinite
universes, each carrying a different "you." While this "one" universe
among what would be considered an infinite number of infinities of
infinite universes is itself created of 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,
stars, similar to our own sun.
And the same infinite number of universes for every biological
form of life, each different from this infinite number of infinite
universes would also be created, each resulting in yet another
infinity of universes, ad infinitum. The question then is not only
philosophical but practical when considering what "infinity" actually
means. Of course if the original conditions are that dice with one
side having six dots on each of them, one cannot presume that 13 can
ever be the result of throwing those dice, even if one can assume
that in one of those infinite number of universes those same dice
could be thrown an infinite number of times and each time one die
could remain on a tip, and the other die land its tip on the top tip
of the first die for an infinite number of consecutive times.
Thus, the question of this being merely a phenomenon without cause
becomes a bit more complex, IMO. And is not as easily sloughed
off as irrelevant in respect to "no cause to this effect."
Impossibilities remain impossibilities but the question of whether
there is or is not a God cannot be considered an "impossibility"
without a reasonable explanation of why it IS an "impossibility."
I don't consider Stephen Hawking's claim that "Gravity is our God,"
a sufficient explanation of why God is an "impossibility."
And I feel that those who do consider it sufficient would not need
Stephen Hawking's argument to insist "God is an impossibility."
They believe it is so... and their belief is as unshakeable as that
of any Islamic fanatic believing there is an Allah.
>However, when one is talking about a supernatural being that
>supposedly created and now controls the entire universe...one would
>*think* there would be evidence, here and there, that it actually
>exists.
Ah... but we are not allowed to "think" in such an argument. There
is either proof or no proof. And neither resolves the issue, since
it has been factual shown that the absence of proof is not proof of
absence.
>> Agnosticism is the only sensible stance in this world.
>
>And you will find that (with a few notable exceptions) the atheists on
>alt.atheism are *also* agnostics. The two positions are not, after
>all, incompatible. Agnosticism is a statement about *knowledge*,
>whereas atheism is a statement about *belief*.
And "belief" is what religion is based upon.
>I am an agnostic - in that I have no knowledge suggesting the
>existence of any god - and *therefore* I am also an atheist - in that
>I *lack belief* in any god or gods.
I don't see where "lacking belief" in any gods or gods, is any
different than "having belief" in any gods or gods. I think there
is a vast difference between "practicing a belief in a particular
god," and either believing or not believing in a "first cause"
to the universe (or multiverse, if you will). Most of the more
secular population (and I include myself among the secular
population) find "church going" in any religion, a hypocrisy, in
moral, ethical, practical, and even theological ways. It certainly
has proved over recorded history to be the cause of more
murders and killings than any other belief. Concerned more with
their own, and their church-going neighbor's "souls," than with
the vast multitude of starving and disadvantaged humanity
outside of their tight little circle, which might as well be called
a "coven."
>Should some evidence of a god come to light, both my agnosticism and
>my atheism would undergo major change.
That's hardly relevant. As the saying goes... a conservative is a
liberal who's just been mugged.
Suppose your mind conjured up this "evidence" of a god, who called
upon you to sacrifice your first born, as this "god" of the Old
Testament called upon Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
Would you comply? In fact, there was a movie (which went directly
to video) based slightly upon that very subject -- The Rapture --
starring Mimi Rogers.
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
thomas p.
news:pan.2010.09.18....@somewhere.com...
And they very likely comfort themselves by convincing themselves that an
agnostic is someone who is not sure whether or not there is a god. I think
that particular definition arose so that theists could avoid facing the
obvious fact that there is no objective reason for believing. We see in the
theist posts that this idea upsets them greatly, which also indicates that
they really do not completely accept the idea of belief depending completely
on Faith, which is a fundamental doctrine of the three major monotheist
religions - very revealing that.
Sean Edwards
<snip>
>Of course not, I didn't claim to understand the mind of "God".
Then I suggest you not plan a future as a television evangelist.
Sean Edwards
wrote:
>On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>
>There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
>offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
>unicorns?
To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
>I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
>because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
>indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
>is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
nothing.
Sean Edwards
<spam...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT), liberal
><liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, there's no way to prove anything exists, even the universe.
>>Our minds do not directly sense the universe, at best our minds sense
>>electrical impulses delivered by nerves. We can now send pulses of
>>electricity into the brain which interprets those impulses as sound or
>>light.
>
> And yet discourse certainly shows that things exist.
Are you sure you're not schizophrenic?
harry k
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>
> >There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
> >offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
> >unicorns?
>
> To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
> denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
Just how is declaring oneself an atheist a denegration of religion?
Granted I do my share of 'denigration'.
>
> >I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
> >because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
> >indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
> >is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
>
> What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
> they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
> nothing.
And that is different from the theists just how? In my experience it
is almost always a theist who starts the 'discussion' and they are far
more rabid than any atheist.
Harry K
Bill Bonde
Michael Gray
<sed...@operamail.net> wrote:
:
>What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
>they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
>nothing.
By your apposition of atheists, and your self-identified "us poor
benighted fools", I presume tht you claim that you know better than
"some" atheists, ie: that they are incorrect in that their assertion
that no gods have been shown to exist, anmd that you are able to shed
a brilliant light upon them and, for the first time in recorded
history, show that a god or gods demonstrably exist?
How fucking arrogant will that prove to be when revealed to be no more
than infantile bluster?
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Bill is already our resident Arctic Penguinologist.
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
The problem is that for every intelligent and well-educated Christian out
there, there is a noisy yahoo demanding that Creationism be taught as
science. And they are five times as visible.
And for every intelligent and tolerant atheist out there, there are the
ones who are convinced that the Catholic church are creationists, and
have never bothered to find out what the truth actually is.
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Yes and no.
Of course.
thomas p.
news:678c96hftgl1v4fs3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>>
>>There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
>>offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
>>unicorns?
>
> To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
> denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
Not agreeing with them is not denigration. Furthermore if they did not tell
us how evil we were and try to get the authority of the state to enforce
their beliefs, they might not have their feeling hurt so often. The word
"hypocrisy" comes to mind.
>
>>I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
>>because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
>>indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
>>is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
>
> What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
> they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
> nothing.
What offends me about_some_theists is their insistence in distorting what
atheists are saying. Pointing out that there is no objective evidence for
any deity is not claiming to know the truth or that others know nothing.
Perhaps you could name one atheist who has made the assertions you claim for
"some".
Bill Bonde
Times got your butts kicked into something to attack me with.
Bill Bonde
> "Sean Edwards"<sed...@operamail.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:678c96hftgl1v4fs3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes<skye...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie<john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>>>
>>> There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
>>> offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
>>> unicorns?
>>
>> To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
>> denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
>
> Not agreeing with them is not denigration. Furthermore if they did not tell
> us how evil we were and try to get the authority of the state to enforce
> their beliefs, they might not have their feeling hurt so often. The word
> "hypocrisy" comes to mind.
>
visible from the freeway, right?
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
What attack is that, Bill?
Bill Bonde
"Arctic Penguinologist"? You must recall that the discussion about ice
free areas at the North Pole, supposedly the first time in 50,000 years,
is what induced you to make up such silliness in the first place.
Ray Fischer
5693 Dead, 836 since 1/20/09
<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:39:43 -0400, Sean Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:14:31 +0100, Bill Bonde
>>> <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Of course not, I didn't claim to understand the mind of "God".
>>>
>>> Then I suggest you not plan a future as a television evangelist.
>>
>> Bill is already our resident Arctic Penguinologist.
> >
>It's remarkable how you turn around something where you and the New York
>Times got your butts kicked into something to attack me with.
The New York Times proved the existence of God? How'd I miss that?
Wasn't it on the front page?
Or did they find that penguins were melting all the ice?
5693 Dead, 836 since 1/20/09
<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:40:24 +0100, Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>>> 5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:39:43 -0400, Sean Edwards wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:14:31 +0100, Bill Bonde
>>>>> <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, I didn't claim to understand the mind of "God".
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I suggest you not plan a future as a television evangelist.
>>>>
>>>> Bill is already our resident Arctic Penguinologist.
>>> >
>>> It's remarkable how you turn around something where you and the New York
>>> Times got your butts kicked into something to attack me with.
>>
>> What attack is that, Bill?
> >
>What do you think you are talking about when you claim that I'm an
>"Arctic Penguinologist"? You must recall that the discussion about ice
>free areas at the North Pole, supposedly the first time in 50,000 years,
>is what induced you to make up such silliness in the first place.
Of course I remember. Body heat from penguins and from tourist boats
was what was melting all the ice. How could I forget?
SkyEyes
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>
> >There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
> >offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
> >unicorns?
>
> To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
> denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
Indeed, this is so. But agnosticism ought to generate similar
feelings, should it not? How close is "I have no knowledge of
[deity]" to "I have no belief in [deity]."
> >I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
> >because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
> >indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
> >is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
>
> What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
> they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
> nothing.
It's a trick we learned from you theists, Sugarbritches. Have you
actually read any of the theists' posts to alt.atheism???
Bill Bonde
position was utterly wrong, there are leads and other openings at the
North Pole regularly, completely normal and natural, no help needed from
man.
But to the issue, that the clear water was supposed at the exact North
Pole, my point that ships go there, nuclear powered ships, and spend
time there with tourists breaking up the ice and injecting hot reactor
cooling water, that that could be a reason for the hole being exactly at
that location, that's a valid point.
Bill Bonde
> Or did they find that penguins were melting all the ice?
>
You made that up, Zepp.
MarkA
> On 9/18/2010 12:40 PM, MarkA wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:27:29 -0500, 5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:30:41 +0100, Bill Bonde wrote:
>>>
>>>> harry k wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 17, 1:51 pm, Bill Bonde<trybootilltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> harry k wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 5:25 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:34:12 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 9:20 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Writing a simple declarative sentence is probably stretching your
>>>>>>>>> cognitive powers
>>>>>>>>> to the breaking point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dont strain yourself, atheist. Better take a break.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What a scathing response to my points! Name-calling is what you do
>>>>>>>> when you have nothing of substance to contribute. I graciously
>>>>>>>> accept your admission of defeat. Now, go read a book or two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> MarkA
>>>>>>>> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight
>>>>>>>> o'clock- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is all theists have. They have no evidence, no proof, all
>>>>>>> they can do is call names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no proof that "God" doesn't exist. When someone claims that
>>>>>> the universe could self create, that isn't proof of this supposed self
>>>>>> creation. The fact that you can come up with a self-consist possible
>>>>>> explanation for something doesn't mean it is automatically true. It's
>>>>>> also not evidence that it is true.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as there is no proof that God exists.
>>>> >
>>>> I thought we knew that.
>>>
>>> Seems weird. You have an omnipotent and omnipresent entity that hides
>>> itself from a skeptical creature and then demands belief.
>>>
>>> And will punish for not getting it.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a passive-aggressive little shit to me.
>>
>> I would call that "malevolent", not passive-aggressive. People who
>> believe that God punishes people for non-belief are worshiping an evil
>> deity.
>
> I've always equated such deities to the abusive spouse. "Love me or
> you'll pay. Do everything I say or you'll suffer. Don't you leave me
> or I'll kill you."
So, you've met my ex-girlfriend! Tell her I said Hi.
5698 Dead, 841 since 1/20/09
Oh, Bill, now you're just ashamed of your penguins. That's sad. They're
your friends, you know.
Alex W.
>
> What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
> they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
> nothing.
We don't know the truth.
What we certainly know for a fact is that anyone who claims to
know the truth is either very deluded or utterly full of himself.
Either way, they are dangerous.
DanielSan
Nah. I try to stay away from freakazoids like that. :-)
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
MarkA
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:39:30 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 18, 11:22 am, John Rennie <john-ren...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Agnostics just don't offend so many people :-)
>>
>>There's no reason that atheism should offend anyone. Is anyone
>>offended if I don't believe that leprechauns exist? Or orcs? Or
>>unicorns?
>
> To some people, religion is central to their self-identity. Any
> denigration of their religion is apt to be met with strong emotions.
>
But it goes much deeper than that. As an atheist, I am long accustomed to
accepting that people around me believe different things, and that's OK.
To many theists I know, however, it is intolerably offensive to be in the
same room as someone who sees no truth in their god belief. It is as if
the only way they can maintain their belief in god is if *everyone* agrees
to the belief. It is very much like the story of the Emperor's New
Clothes.
>>I suspect that theists (and some agnostics) are "offended" by atheists
>>because they know that their theism/hopeful agnosticism is
>>indefensible. All the bluster and trenchant rhetoric from that camp
>>is a smoke screen to obscure the fact that *they've got nothing*.
>
> What offends me about _some_ atheists is their arrogant belief that
> they know the truth and the rest of us poor benighted fools know
> nothing.
Yet that attitude is the norm for theists. At least, I don't consider
theist to be immoral, untrustworthy deviants who should not be allowed to
hold positions of responsibility.