Evidences of God
Jeremy
-----
I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
I believe that God does exist.
I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
believe in God.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
that I believe support these statements.
I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
made a mistake.
As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
debating whether or not I exist.
This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
beginning.
So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
then it would have had to come from nothing.
The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
in an very odd position.
So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
feel free to spin off a thread on that.
Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
This being was the designer of the universe.
This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
applied later.
If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
around us.
And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
in the universe.
I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
[note this isn't the last step in my argument, just a nice breaking point]
Jos Flachs
wrote:
>I believe that God does exist.
We didn't ask what you believe, we asked you to proof that god's
existence.
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
Again, what you personally believe is not relevant. Proof the bible to
be god's word.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
And you proof that by .... ?
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein was at best a deist.
>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
>that I believe support these statements.
So far, you haven't.
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
Theology is not a science. Just like astrology isn't.
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
It might. We assume it to be the big bang. With good reason.
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning?
Here you go wrong: if the universe has a beginning, so has your god.
Who created your god? Who created the god who created your god?
>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
But you can't proof that at all, can you?
>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>around us.
Not necessarily. Your premises: see that tree/flower/whatever? Is is
not perfect? Surely, it must be designed by god!
Look at a cancer colony, or the way the aids virus avoids destruction.
Surely, god designed it beautifully!
>I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
Please do. So far you haven't.
Jeremy
>>I believe that God does exist.
>
> We didn't ask what you believe, we asked you to proof that god's
> existence.
Just an introduction.
>>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>>would be was there a cause to the beginning?
>
> Here you go wrong: if the universe has a beginning, so has your god.
> Who created your god? Who created the god who created your god?
I was going to get to that later, but if you want me to start it now, I
can. Just say so.
>>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>>around us.
>
> Not necessarily. Your premises: see that tree/flower/whatever? Is is
> not perfect? Surely, it must be designed by god!
Please do not assume my premises before I have posted them.
Dave Oldridge
news:UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01:
Reality is considerably weirder than we tend to notice at first blush.
The fact is, the smaller the nothing, the more chance of something the
size of the universe emerging from it.
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of
> science in an very odd position.
Actually they don't really show this. In fact the laws of science are
really nothing more than very persistent observations. In the case of
matter coming from nothing, this observation may turn out to not be all
that persistent.
> So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning
> of the universe. If you want to debate this second step further,
> again, feel free to spin off a thread on that.
Anyway, that's one direction in which your causality theorem seems to
lack rigor.
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was
> the cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know
> about yet?
Your analysis seems to be embedded in a four-dimensional perspective.
And yes, the emergence of the universe at the beginning of time seems to
emanate from a state so small and so dense that none of the known laws of
physics are applicable. This makes analysis difficult, since you cannot,
therefore, invoke those laws until you can show that they even apply.
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was
> created by a being that is personal, that this being created the
> physical world.
That, of course, is the opening statement of most of the ancient Creeds
of the Christian faith and it is what we believe as Christians, though a
more careful reading of scripture shows that it says He IS CREATING the
universe, not in the past but in a present tense kind of way.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
Not was, but IS.
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can
> be applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
But we could "see design" and be totally mistaken as to its origin.
Indeed, if the entire universe is the product of the mind of God, then we
have nothing NOT the product of His mind to compare it with.
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is
> design in the universe.
And I rather suspect your evidence will fail to be cogent, not because
your conclusion is wrong but because the system is rigged against you!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
info
"Jeremy" <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01...
Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
-----
I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
I believe that God does exist.
I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
believe in God.
---
Volume-01
ftp://info-01:inf...@65.127.169.45/info.html
Volume-02
ftp://info-02:inf...@65.127.169.45/info.html
Volume-03
ftp://info-03:inf...@65.127.169.45/info.html
---
Ghost Rider
If the laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing, then
what's the problem accepting the idea that it has always existed? For if
the universe needed a cause, then so did your so-called designer.
Science does not know the cause of the universe. I believe it is much
better to wait until it does, than to assign a designer. Because for each
designer created by one society, another is created elsewhere. The stakes
are too high for one or the other to back off from their designers, and
bitter, horrible wars have been the result.
--
Ghost Rider
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
"How can you just obey?"
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
Ikyoto
<dgepr...@hotmail.com> posted:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>-----
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
>I believe that God does exist.
This is your belief, not evidence.
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
Unless there are several independant sources which verify who wrote
these books and under what circumstances, this is hearsay only. you
have been taught that this collection of stories is from the supposed
creator of the universe. This does not consitute evidence of it's
origin, nor the exsistance of this entity.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
A belief is not logical.
>
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
>
I am unfamiliar with this quote. Source please.
>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
>that I believe support these statements.
>
Very well. Thank you for the disclaimer on deceiving anyone. If there
are deceptions in your posts they will be assumed to be from honest
ignorance and misinformation given to you and not willful deception on
your part.
>I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
>am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>made a mistake.
>
That is a point in your favor. The real issue is if you are willing to
follow up on that. Honesty in reguard to one's religious views is not
easy.
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
>
>This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
>going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
>
>The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
>logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
>
This is assumed form the measured drift of the galaxies and the speeds
at which they are moving.
>There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
>was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
>and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>beginning.
>
Agreed so far.
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
Logical thinking would dictate that one does not assume what there is
no evidence for. Here is where human desire for an answer to fit the
question rather than a truth comes into play.
>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>in an very odd position.
>
>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
>
But this IS the crux of your thread - that you have evidence of
something you refer to as god. If so then you have evidence of the
very force which is responsable for everything we percieve.
>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
>
>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
>This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
>applied later.
>
>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>around us.
>
Incorrect on many points. You propose to test a hypothesis by looking
for proof of it and not for any balance for other explinations for the
same evidence. This invalidates the very idea of testing.
>And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
>in the universe.
>
>I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
>
>[note this isn't the last step in my argument, just a nice breaking point]
At no point do you present any evidence, only a hypotheis. Your thread
was supposed to give evidence - which can be tested. You present
NOTHING to prove your hypotheis.
Woden
news:UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01:
> Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this
> post.
>
> -----
>
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
> I believe that God does exist.
Why? What leads you to this conclusion?
> I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
Why? What objective reason is there to believe that the bible is the word
of some god?
> I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> believe in God.
What is rational, logical or intelligent about belief in gods?
>
> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
> -Albert Einstein
I guess he had his opinion too. I also suspect, based on reading various
statements of his about religion and gods, that he had a very different
belief in gods than your xian biblical god.
>
> I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
> this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
> that I believe support these statements.
>
> I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
> am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
> made a mistake.
>
> As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
> Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
> assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
> reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free
> to start your own thread. I personally have other things to do
> besides debating whether or not I exist.
OK. I'll go along with accepting that reality exists as we observe and
sense it.
>
> This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
> going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
>
> The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
> logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate
> together.
>
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of
> a beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
>
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
Ok. Whatever we call it, our best scientific evidence supports the theory
that the universe as we know it started about 14-15 bya.
>
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to
> ask would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
Ok. That seems like a reasonable start. But we could get into a long
discussion of what me mean by "caused" and "uncaused" and how we humans
semantically interpret and generalize about what we observe.
>
> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as
> a logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be
> created, then it would have had to come from nothing.
So you don't accept that it could have started from an "uncaused" or
"random" event? Why not, other than your own personal bias?
>
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of
> science in an very odd position.
Actually, our scientific understanding of the universe shows that
theoretically, matter can come from "nothing". So you have already
destroyed your basic argument.
>
> So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning
> of the universe. If you want to debate this second step further,
> again, feel free to spin off a thread on that.
Well, you haven't demonstrated that this conclusion is valid, so any
further reasoning based on this is invalid as well.
>
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was
> the cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know
> about yet?
Why couldn't the universe have resulted from something that we don't know
about? Surely none of us think that science knows everything do we?
>
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was
> created by a being that is personal, that this being created the
> physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
Other than years of religious indoctrination, what leads you to form this
hypothesis?
>
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can
> be applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
How do you distinquish between "designed" and "naturally organized"
phenomenon?
>
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is
> design in the universe.
>
> I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
>
> [note this isn't the last step in my argument, just a nice breaking
> point]
>
>
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Jeremy
>>I believe that God does exist.
>
> This is your belief, not evidence.
Just an introduction.
>>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>>believe in God.
>
> A belief is not logical.
A belief can be based on logic.
>>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>>-Albert Einstein
>>
>
> I am unfamiliar with this quote. Source please.
>
Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970).
>>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>>this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
>>that I believe support these statements.
>>
>
> Very well. Thank you for the disclaimer on deceiving anyone. If there
> are deceptions in your posts they will be assumed to be from honest
> ignorance and misinformation given to you and not willful deception on
> your part.
Thank you.
>>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>>then it would have had to come from nothing.
>>
>
> Logical thinking would dictate that one does not assume what there is
> no evidence for. Here is where human desire for an answer to fit the
> question rather than a truth comes into play.
I believe I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that to say
something does not exist simply because their is no evidence to support
is not logical?
I would suggest that if something can come from nothing, than it would
require us to rethink a lot of science.
>>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>>in an very odd position.
>>
>>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
>>
>
> But this IS the crux of your thread - that you have evidence of
> something you refer to as god. If so then you have evidence of the
> very force which is responsable for everything we percieve.
I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make on this one.
Could you please explain?
>>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
>>
>>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
>> This being was the designer of the universe.
>>
>>This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
>>applied later.
>>
>>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>>around us.
>>
> Incorrect on many points. You propose to test a hypothesis by looking
> for proof of it and not for any balance for other explinations for the
> same evidence. This invalidates the very idea of testing.
As I present each item, I will look at other possible explanations. At
that time, feel free to come up with other possible explanations.
I will not claim that other valid explanations exist, but when I am
done, I believe that the sum of the evidence will point in pretty much
one direction... toward a designer.
> At no point do you present any evidence, only a hypotheis. Your thread
> was supposed to give evidence - which can be tested. You present
> NOTHING to prove your hypotheis.
I have only just begun.
David
>
> I believe that God does exist.
That's not evidence.
> I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
That's not evidence.
> I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and
> intelligently believe in God.
That's not evidence.
> I do not intend to deceive anyone...
Then why haven't you posted any evidence?
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Jeremy
>> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as
>> a logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be
>> created, then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
>
> So you don't accept that it could have started from an "uncaused" or
"random" event? Why not, other than your own personal bias?
Partially based upon items that I will be posting.
Theoretically most anything that one can conceive of is at least, no
matter how minute, a possibility.
I assume you are using "uncaused" or "random" as synonymous in this case.
I am sitting here trying to answer this question, and I can't come up
with one. A random even forming the entire universe just doesn't make
sense to me. Maybe it is personal bias, but my gut feeling is that it
would be more reasonable to believe in unicorns, than to believe that a
random event occurred.
We can discuss this further, but I think everything I will be posting
regarding the next point, will be applicable against a random beginning
as well. Allow me the luxury of moving on, and then, if you want, to
come back to this.
>> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If
I accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of
>> science in an very odd position.
>
>
> Actually, our scientific understanding of the universe shows that
theoretically, matter can come from "nothing". So you have already
destroyed your basic argument.
Theoretically, anything is possible. I would suggest, however, that one
of the basics of chemistry and physics is that matter can not come from
anything. If we were to discover that it did, we would really have to
take another look at chemistry and physics.
>> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was
>> the cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know
>> about yet?
>
>
> Why couldn't the universe have resulted from something that we don't
know about? Surely none of us think that science knows everything do we?
I don't think that science knows everything. I believe my future posts
will take this position into consideration. I will make sure I address
this in my posts. BTW, the next one will probably be tomorrow, as I
don't have them written in advance.
>> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was
>> created by a being that is personal, that this being created the
>> physical world. This being was the designer of the universe.
>
>
> Other than years of religious indoctrination, what leads you to form
this hypothesis?
Some of the items I will be posting caused me to do more research,
discovering others.
David
>
> Theoretically most anything that one can conceive of is
> at least, no matter how minute, a possibility.
Not really. It is impossible for the chair I am sitting on
to design, build, and fly, a large jet airplane. Other
things you may imagine might be a possibility, but what
about the PROBABILITY? It might be possible that this god of
yours exists, but the probability of it existing are about
as close to zero as you can get.
JDub
> Jos Flachs wrote:
>
>>> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to
>>> ask would be was there a cause to the beginning?
>>
>> Here you go wrong: if the universe has a beginning, so has your god.
>> Who created your god? Who created the god who created your god?
>
> I was going to get to that later, but if you want me to start it now,
> I can. Just say so.
Jeremy:
I'd like it very much if you addressed this question now.
I've posed this question to numerous theists (mostly Christians), and never
received anything resembling a good answer.
Doesn't starting at the beginning make sense? If you fail to address this
question, then why bother discussing anything else?
--
Josh
JDub
> Woden wrote:
>
> >> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see
> this as >> a logical option. If something did not cause the
> universe to be >> created, then it would have had to come from
> nothing. >
> >
> > So you don't accept that it could have started from an "uncaused"
> or "random" event? Why not, other than your own personal bias?
>
>
> Partially based upon items that I will be posting.
> Theoretically most anything that one can conceive of is at least, no
> matter how minute, a possibility.
>
> I assume you are using "uncaused" or "random" as synonymous in this
> case.
>
> I am sitting here trying to answer this question, and I can't come up
> with one. A random even forming the entire universe just doesn't make
> sense to me. Maybe it is personal bias, but my gut feeling is that it
> would be more reasonable to believe in unicorns, than to believe that
> a random event occurred.
So you can't answer this question with anything other than a gut feeling?
Are you familiar with cognitive disonance?
--
Josh
Jeremy
> So you can't answer this question with anything other than a gut feeling?
> Are you familiar with cognitive disonance?
I believe so. In a simple way (not necessarily an accurate definition),
it is a psychological phenomenon, where people tend to (initially)
reject something that goes against they think they already know. I have
seen this a lot in these forums.
Because of this, that is why I also asked that we come back to it at a
later point. When I come across something like this, that I don't have
an answer for, it does set me back. I need some time to think about it.
That is one reason I post in these forums. I want people to challenge
my thinking, to make me re-think things through. Usually it forces me
to do more research.
How would history be different if people did not have challenges?
People might still be in Europe thinking the world is flat.
johac
Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
> -----
>
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
<snip>
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
>
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
I'm getting tired of posting this, but Smith says it so much better
than I can:
Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism
Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
>
If the universe were designed, wouldn't be be able to see the
designer? If you are going to invoke either creation or design, I
think that the appropriate place to start is to show evidence for a
creator or a designer, and then show by what mechanism they created or
designed a material universe.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
raven1
wrote:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>-----
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
>I believe that God does exist.
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
That's nice. Your point was?
>
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
-- Albert Einstein
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
As far as we know, it did.
>
>There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
>was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
>and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>beginning.
And most people would agree.
>
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
It would be more economical to say that the universe is either caused
or uncaused, but why quibble...
>
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option.
Your opinion is duly noted.
> If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
And...?
>
>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>in an very odd position.
>
Hello?!? McFly? Ever heard of QM?
>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
Nope. You don't make the rules here, God boy.
>
>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
Was it a quantum fluctuation? Or perhaps it's more believable to think
it was all by the fiat of some magical being who somehow doesn't need
a cause when the universe does, according to certain logically
challenged theists...
>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
>This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
>applied later.
>
>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>around us.
And as we don't...?
Denis Loubet
post.
>
> -----
>
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
"Logical Evidences"? There's no such thing as logical evidences. Do you mean
logical arguments?
Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
> I believe that God does exist.
> I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
> I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> believe in God.
So by these admissions do you abandon any claim that what you are doing is
scientific? Science does not start with claims, it starts with observations.
> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
> -Albert Einstein
>
> I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
> this claim).
But you have already done so. You have claimed to have evidence when in fact
all you have is arguments. You act as though this is a scientific
examination yet assume your results before you start.
This does not bode well.
> I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
> that I believe support these statements.
>
> I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
> am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
> made a mistake.
>
> As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
You are not doing science, good or otherwise, so this warning is irrelevant.
> Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
> assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
> reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
> start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
> debating whether or not I exist.
Granted. Note that this is a two-edged sword.
> This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
> going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
Good.
> The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
> logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
> beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
That's not a step, that's a question.
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
I concure.
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
Ok....
> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
> logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
> then it would have had to come from nothing.
Cause and effect is a feature of the universe. We have no data concerning
the features of the absence of a universe, so we have no idea what is
possible or impossible, logical or illogical, in the absence of a universe.
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing.
Science observes that particles are appearing and disappearing all the time.
But even if we granted that matter can not come from nothing, that would be
another feature of the universe, not necessarily a feature of the absence of
a universe.
> If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> in an very odd position.
You will have to spell out the odd position.
> So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
> the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
> feel free to spin off a thread on that.
You could more honestly say you don't know where the universe came from.
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
> cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
Was it a feature of the absence of a universe?
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
Where did this being come from? How was it created? Who designed it?
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
You will have to defend your hypothesis from other hypothesis. For instance,
the universe could have been created by invisible magic elves. Your designer
hypothesis will have to better fit the facts than my magic elf hypothesis.
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
> in the universe.
Indeed, the magic elves have been very busy.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Maverick
post.
>
> -----
>
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
> I believe that God does exist.
Why?
> I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
What would support this belief?
> I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> believe in God.
>
> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
> -Albert Einstein
Some people take this quote as some sort of proof that science and religion
somehow are related. Some people also take this and other Einstein quotes as
proof that Einstein believed in god or something, ignoring the quotes saying
he was an atheist and that he thought the idea of a personal god to be
childlish. I'm sure the above quote wasn't meant to imply anything like
that, of course.
[...]
What observational data would suggest such a hypothesis?
Since we don't know for sure how the big bang even happened, it's difficult
to be sure of any hypothesis that someone might come up with. The idea that
an intelligent entity did it, is a bit difficult to accept for me. I see
intelligence as a result of biological evolution. Exactly how intelligent
would your designer be?
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
But we don't, unless we choose to. And that's not enough.
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
> in the universe.
It is not necessary to add a designer to the equation, since there are
several problems with doing that. First of all, there is absolutely nothing
that suggest a designer. Secondly, who says there has to be a designer?
Thirdly, why must your designer be the one in the bible? A lot of people
have designed their own designers, and then decided they are right and
everyone else are wrong. Ridiculous, of course. Why not just wait for
science to find out?
Jeremy
>>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
> "Logical Evidences"? There's no such thing as logical evidences. Do you mean
> logical arguments?
>
> Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
Arguments might be a better term, but I intend to back up those
arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
>>I believe that God does exist.
>>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>>believe in God.
>
>
> So by these admissions do you abandon any claim that what you are doing is
> scientific? Science does not start with claims, it starts with observations.
No. I just have seen people try to present arguments from "an entirely
scientific standpoint" before, and then you kind of find out later what
their beliefs are. I figured I would be upfront about the matter. Can
my beliefs skew my interpretation? Possibly. Everyone has to deal with
that -- trying to keep your convictions and preconceived ideas from
interfering with objectivity.
>>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>>this claim).
>
> But you have already done so. You have claimed to have evidence when in fact
> all you have is arguments. You act as though this is a scientific
> examination yet assume your results before you start.
>
> This does not bode well.
No it doesn't. :)
I wanted to be upfront about it. I am headed in a direction with my
posts. I expect challenges to this, some of which I probably won't have
an answer to. I do not pretend to have all of the answers, just some
items that I have not seen presented before, or have not seen accurately
presented before. Some points may be repeats, but are necessary for the
argument.
>>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>>debating whether or not I exist.
>
>
> Granted. Note that this is a two-edged sword.
True, but I believe that most people live their life day-to-day as if
they exist. I your building catches on fire, you do not stand there and
ponder if you really exist or not, you usually get out of the building.
>>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing.
>
>
> Science observes that particles are appearing and disappearing all the time.
I would like to know more about this. Are they appearing and
disappearing, or are they being converted to/from energy?
> But even if we granted that matter can not come from nothing, that would be
> another feature of the universe, not necessarily a feature of the absence of
> a universe.
>
>
>>If I
>>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>>in an very odd position.
>
>
> You will have to spell out the odd position.
Mainly that several scientific disciplines rely on the principle of
conservation of matter/energy. That principle would need to be reevaluated.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
Would that be the post in which you posted no evidence? Now you are
posting yet another introduction. Still no evidence.
snip
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>-----
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
No, start with the evidence that you promised or admit that you have
none.
snip
Thomas P.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>-----
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
>I believe that God does exist.
Your problem. What has that got to do with proving it or shutting up
when you realise you can't?
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
Your problem. What has that got to do with proving it or shutting up
when you realise you can't?
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
Where did he say this and in what context? I've heard religious quote
miners cite is though this were some kind of "proof". But even if he
did say it AT MOST it would be argument from authority: Einstein said
this therefore that makes it so.
But in any case, what has that got to do with proving it or shutting
up when you realise you can't?
>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
>that I believe support these statements.
We believe you when you say you believe. But these statements have
nothing whatsoever to do with "logical evidence of God's existence".
>I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
>am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>made a mistake.
You've made plenty already.
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
And we've got better things to do than "debate" whether or not some
figment of your imagination exists outside your mind.
You have to put up or shut up. It is very revealing that instead of
coming up with something convincing, you go into a pretty poor
argument that is nothing more than an exercise in spotting fallacies.
Which if you actually had any evidence you would not need to do.
>This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
>going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
>
>The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
>logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
Don't try to invent a beginning where there is no evidence for or
against one. The problem with these kinds of argument is that they try
to generate information where there is none.
Astronomy, cosmology and physics have taken us back to almost
immediately after the big-bang, an almost infinitessimal fraction of a
second known as Planck time. It is premature at the moment to say this
is "the beginning". It might be or it might not be. Science doesn't
work that way. It simply investigates a step at a time from what is
known, and IF we find it was the beginning then it will be called the
beginning.
It COULD be. But "could" is neither "is" nor "is not".
There are postulations about what could have happened before the tiny
fraction of a second after it, which is the current limit of our
understanding. Which satisfy the limitations and conditions imposed by
out current knowledge, without having to pluck "new sciences".
Current understanding is that the universe has a zero sum: that matter
plus energy plus antimatter plus gravity (anti-energy) add up to zero.
So even the big bang does not break any laws.
>There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
>was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
>and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>beginning.
There is nothing to discuss until the evidence takes us in that
direction. Because there is no information to base it on. Any
discussion on this is at most total speculation.
"Feel" isn't "logical evidences for God". You have to give this
alleged evidence instead of telling us your feelings about it.
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
False dichotomy. Demonstrate that it actually had a beginning and that
this beginning was caused.
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
Argument from personal ignorance.
>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>in an very odd position.
No. They don't. Take a course in quantum mechanics.
>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
No, you don't. Not if you are being honest.
>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
Trying to generate information you don't have.
>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
There is no reason to "put forth this hypothesis" - and it's not even
a hypothesis. And it doesn't match observed evidence.
Your _only_ reason for coming up with this is your pre-existing belief
that. Because there is nothing that leads to this conclusion.
The big bang happened - whether you like it or not. Cosmologists and
physicists know what happened since 10^-43 seconds after it. They find
no designer.
>This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
>applied later.
What "hypothesis"? There hasn't been one. You don't pluck one out of
thin air as you are trying to do.
Where are these "evidences for God"? that you were going to give?
>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>around us.
We don't. There is no way to "see design" at that level.
Ask yourself how you determine design. There are two things at work:
we know how WE design things based on knowledge of ourselves, and we
also have natural things that weren't designed for comparison.
But if the entire universe were designed by a designer we would
already have to know enough about this designer to recognise design
from how it designs things. Which presupposes what you are trying to
prove. Besides which, if _everything_ was designed there is nothing
natural to compare with.
>And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
>in the universe.
I doubt it.
>I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
>
>[note this isn't the last step in my argument, just a nice breaking point]
There hasn't been any argument yet.
Before you go any further you have to get all the points so far,
settled.
Jeremy
>>I believe that God does exist.
>
> Your problem. What has that got to do with proving it or shutting up
> when you realise you can't?
It is a simple introduction.
>>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>>-Albert Einstein
>
> Where did he say this and in what context? I've heard religious quote
> miners cite is though this were some kind of "proof". But even if he
> did say it AT MOST it would be argument from authority: Einstein said
> this therefore that makes it so.
Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970)
I quote it primarily because I believe the statement to have a lot of
value. Again, just part of the introduction.
[ other areas cut, to be split into a future post ]
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>
>>>I believe that God does exist.
>>
>> Your problem. What has that got to do with proving it or shutting up
>> when you realise you can't?
>
>It is a simple introduction.
It is nothing whatsoever to do with it, and only gets in the way.
>>>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>>>-Albert Einstein
>>
>> Where did he say this and in what context? I've heard religious quote
>> miners cite is though this were some kind of "proof". But even if he
>> did say it AT MOST it would be argument from authority: Einstein said
>> this therefore that makes it so.
>
>Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970)
Context? Ie the surrounding paragraphs.
>I quote it primarily because I believe the statement to have a lot of
>value. Again, just part of the introduction.
It is irrelevant to providing evince for your deity.
Jeremy
>>Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970)
>
> Context? Ie the surrounding paragraphs.
I don't own a copy of the book myself. I was just using it as good
statement. Now that you mention it, though, I really would like to read
it in context. I will have to go check-out a copy.
*Nemo*
Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
> am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
> made a mistake.
Yeah, I really doubt that. But do carry on with your "first cause"
argument if you care to. It's flawed and has been shown to be flawed for
a very long time.
Will you admit the error when it's shown to you? I doubt that, because
you'll have to admit that belief in your sky-daddy is not rational. And
for some reason, believers want to at least appear rational.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You should have done that before you used it.
But it's par for the course among fundamentalists and others. They
mine quotes that appear to support them. As though this "proved"
anything.
But there was no point in citing it because it had nothing to do with
what you are suppose dto be proving.
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> >>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> >>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
> >
> > "Logical Evidences"? There's no such thing as logical evidences. Do you
mean
> > logical arguments?
> >
> > Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
>
> Arguments might be a better term, but I intend to back up those
> arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
Don't you think that you've "intended" enough already? Put your
"evidence" where your mouth is.
-n
Liz
in news message
<nemo0037-50512A...@news03.east.earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01>,
> Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
>> am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>> made a mistake.
>
>Yeah, I really doubt that. But do carry on with your "first cause"
>argument if you care to. It's flawed and has been shown to be flawed for
>a very long time.
>
>Will you admit the error when it's shown to you? I doubt that, because
>you'll have to admit that belief in your sky-daddy is not rational. And
>for some reason, believers want to at least appear rational.
I'm unsure if believers want to appear rational so much as they want
to "feel" that their own belief is rational and that others are either
too stupid or uneducated to appreciate this fact. This feeling gives
them a sense of comfort and superiority that is necessary to propound
the irrational as if it were commonplace knowledge.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
Craig McDonald
wrote:
<snip>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
<snip>
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
<snip>
This was taken (almost verbatim) from episode one of "Does God Exist",
covering the exact same ground as episode one. Are you waiting until
you've seen episode two to continue your "argument"?
Is plagiarism highly regarded within christianity?
Come back when you can speak with your own words rather than parroting
a TV show.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
Christopher A. Lee
I'm wondering at what point he'll claim he's given it to us. It's an
old trick.
> -n
>
Craig McDonald
wrote:
>Jos Flachs wrote:
>
>>>I believe that God does exist.
>>
>> We didn't ask what you believe, we asked you to proof that god's
>> existence.
>
>Just an introduction.
Episode 1 of "Does God Exist"
>>>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>
>>>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>>>would be was there a cause to the beginning?
>>
>> Here you go wrong: if the universe has a beginning, so has your god.
>> Who created your god? Who created the god who created your god?
>
>I was going to get to that later, but if you want me to start it now, I
>can. Just say so.
So you've watched past episode 1 of "Does God Exist"
>>>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>>>around us.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Your premises: see that tree/flower/whatever? Is is
>> not perfect? Surely, it must be designed by god!
>
>Please do not assume my premises before I have posted them.
Or, just watch other episodes of "Does God Exist".
Ian Braidwood
I think it only fair that Jeremy is able to put forward his own case,
before we criticise.
Besides, you know as well as I do that he couldn't answer that
question even if he was right, so it's no test of his veracity.
After all, we can't say where the Big Bang came from, can we?
No, this man is acting in good faith, respect that.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Graham Kennedy
Sorry, this both the same misrepresentation of the atheist
position that has been throughout this article, and flat out
wrong on the science front.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html
Quotes :
"The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously
come into existence and go out of existence all of the time."
"Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these
small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles)
which exists for a short time and then disappears."
Creation from nothing, without cause! Amazing, isn't it?
>> But even if we granted that matter can not come from nothing, that
>> would be
>> another feature of the universe, not necessarily a feature of the
>> absence of
>> a universe.
>>
>>
>>> If I
>>> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>>> in an very odd position.
>>
>>
>>
>> You will have to spell out the odd position.
>
>
> Mainly that several scientific disciplines rely on the principle of
> conservation of matter/energy. That principle would need to be
> reevaluated.
They were, a long time ago. From the same source :
"The particles produced in this manner are not arbitary. What
happens is that pairs of particles are produced -- a particle
and its anti-particle twin are produced. This allows certain
properties of the Universe to be preserved. Also, an
interesting note is that the particles cannot be measured
directly (hence the name virtual pairs) and so no physical
laws such as the conservation of energy are seen to be violated!"
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
MarkA
> Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this
> post.
>
Why? Is that where you have hidden the substantive arguments?
> -----
>
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of God's
> existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
<snip>
Sounds like you are off to an excellent start re-hashing the "Argument
from Ignorance" and the "First Cause" argument. I'll try to save you some
trouble: both have been articulated by more experienced philosophers than
you, and been refuted. You are unlikely to make any converts here.
But hey, if you lived your life according to what actually works, as
opposed to believing in things because you just want them to be true,
you'd be an atheist, too.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Graham Kennedy
> Sorry, this both the same misrepresentation of the atheist
> position that has been throughout this article, and flat out
> wrong on the science front.
Uh, this bit wasn't supposed to be here. Don't know how
it got there, presumably a copy and paste error. Sorry.
Craig McDonald
wrote:
<snip>
>I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
>am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>made a mistake.
>
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
"Does God Exist" presented by John Clayton - Public Highschool Teacher
Lecture 1
The Cosmos: A Logical Proof of God's Existence
<begin excerpt>
Now, I'm not a philosopher. Well, we're all philosophers in a sense,
but that's not my field of expertise and so I just want to make one
sort of generalised philosophical persepective to get you to
understand a little bit about where we're coming from.
I'm making one assumption, philisophically, about the things that
we're going to be talking about.
And this is an assumption. I admit that. I won't debate it with you. I
won't argue it with you. If you want to debate this you'll have to
argue it with somebody else. Now, before you get to feeling that this
is going to be some heavy, difficult subject. Let me show you what it
is:
Graphic: "Assumption - You Exist"
Yeah. I just want you to be willing to admit that you exist; that
there is reality.
Now if you're watching this set of videos and if you don't believe you
exist... you have bigger problems than I want to deal with.
<end excerpt>
<snip>
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
John Clayton then goes on to discuss whether or not the universe had a
beginning, exactly as you have done, using the same strawmen, the same
weak-kneed, limp-wristed arguments that the universe cannot have come
from nothing.
<plagiarised "arguments" snipped>
Thanks for playing.
Craig McDonald
wrote:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
Alternatively, skip directly to the source of Jeremy's "information":-
Don Kresch
<dgepr...@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
>
>-Albert Einstein
>
>that I believe support these statements.
>
>am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>made a mistake.
>
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
>
>going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
>
>The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
>logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
The spatiotemporal continuum did. The universe did not.
Now then, if you wish to use the cosmological argument, you need
to provide the ontology for something to exist apart from the
universe, and you need to define "create" as apart from the universe.
Tall order.
"Caused" the universe is meaningless. Causality only makes sense
within the naturalistic framework of the universe. Step apart from it,
and you divorce terms from their base, and you then speak nonsense.
Oh--about nothing. Nothing isn't an ontologically valid concept.
It's a contradistinctory one.
Design? Need to have a non-designed universe as a contrary to be
able to tell the difference. Otherwise, you're just begging the
question.
Well--that wraps up the refutation of your claim. You cannot win
this.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Christopher A. Lee
<r...@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:39:48 GMT, Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>Alternatively, skip directly to the source of Jeremy's "information":-
>
>http://www.doesgodexist.org/
This is one of the things that bug me. They can't come up with
anything themselves, and simply copy something else they don't
understand well enough to defend.
Roger Johansson
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
Your way of proving the existence of God has been tried millions of
times earlier, and failed.
You would have much more chance of succeeding if you started from
reality and looked for signs of God.
Now you start from theories, and try to prove theories with theories,
that doesn't work.
Just like in science you have to start from data, from reality, find
patterns, see how things in reality are connected, form theories,
prove those theories against reality.
If we find in reality that to be God is something special, not just
being human, then we can analyze this "God" state of mind, and maybe
find what it is based on.
If it is based on a will power, an "angst", a suffering, a fear, a
pain, or something like that, then being God is not natural, it is
something you have to be trained in a special way to be.
That would of course explain why God is such a speeded state of mind,
why it is an obsessed state of mind, it would explain the
restlessness, the need for christians to convince others, to crusade.
If we can prove than believers are not natural beings but are created,
then we can prove that somebody must have created them.
For example we have indications that both girls and boys are regularly
mistreated before they are allowed to marry, so their happiness is
built upon a foundations of pain.
That creates a happiness with an extra quality, some extra energy.
And religion has a lot to do with marriage, so I think this is an
important area to investigate. God is probably hiding here somewhere,
if he exists at all in reality.
In my country people still get married in church, even though they
never visit the church otherwise.
So we may assume that marriage has something to do with church.
Marriage is the last thing the church gives up its grip on.
Even if church has lost its grip on people in all other parts of life,
it still has some significance when people get married.
Think about the reality of the people who invented the idea of God,
thousands of years ago, what can we find in their reality.
They did marry in those days too.
So God could be something that has something to do with marriage, and
love.
It is often said that God is love. That is another clue.
Love exists, so that could prove that God exists.
What kind of love? How did they prepare girls and boys for marriage
thousands of years ago?
Did they make girls and boys feel bad before marriage in those days
too?
Is God some sort of happiness with pain built into it?
If some people learn to be very devious and manipulative in the social
field, and strong willed compared to the naive and natural people,
will they become some kind of supermen then?
Does all this have something to do with social dominance?
--
Roger J.
Robibnikoff
>
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
>
>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
>I believe that God does exist.
>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
>believe in God.
Hey, whatever blows your dress up. However, your opinion isn't evidence that
this god exists.
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
>
>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
>this claim). I simply want to honestly post some ideas and concepts
>that I believe support these statements.
Where's your evidence?
>I do not pretend to be an expert at anything that I am presenting, nor
>am I going to claim I am perfect. You will see me admit when I have
>made a mistake.
Where's your evidence?
>As with most good science, you need a point of reference.
>
>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
>debating whether or not I exist.
Where's your evidence?
>
>This is should be thought of as a discussion, and as such, I am not
>going to try to make a single post and put everything in it.
Where's your evidence?
>The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
>logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
>
>There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
>was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
>and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>beginning.
Where's your evidence?
>
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>in an very odd position.
Where's your evidence?
>
>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
>
>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
>
>I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
>This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
>applied later.
>
>If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
>around us.
>
>And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
>in the universe.
>
>I will be replying to this post with the start of those arguments.
Look, I'm not interested in a long-winded bullshit discussion. You said that
you had evidence that proved your god's existence. Where is it?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
>>beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
>
>Your way of proving the existence of God has been tried millions of
>times earlier, and failed.
>
>You would have much more chance of succeeding if you started from
>reality and looked for signs of God.
Exactly. What they do puts the cart before the horse.
And they can't actually disconnect their pre-existing belief.
Eg even if quantum mechanics hadn't disproved the premise that
everything is caused, the first cause argument hasn't actually shown
one but only extrapolated it (which violates their original premise
anyway) and makes the unjustified leap from there to God.
It's not even an argument, just a statement of what they believe.
>Now you start from theories, and try to prove theories with theories,
>that doesn't work.
>
>Just like in science you have to start from data, from reality, find
>patterns, see how things in reality are connected, form theories,
>prove those theories against reality.
If they could do that they wouldn't need to argue it instead. But all
the arguments for it have always failed because they attempt to
generate information where there isn't any - eg that there is a
hypothetical first case - which they call God.
>If we find in reality that to be God is something special, not just
>being human, then we can analyze this "God" state of mind, and maybe
>find what it is based on.
Exactly.
>If it is based on a will power, an "angst", a suffering, a fear, a
>pain, or something like that, then being God is not natural, it is
>something you have to be trained in a special way to be.
>
>That would of course explain why God is such a speeded state of mind,
>why it is an obsessed state of mind, it would explain the
>restlessness, the need for christians to convince others, to crusade.
>
>If we can prove than believers are not natural beings but are created,
>then we can prove that somebody must have created them.
>
>For example we have indications that both girls and boys are regularly
>mistreated before they are allowed to marry, so their happiness is
>built upon a foundations of pain.
Well.... There are historical reasons. Eg I'm pretty sure that the
Catholic waiting period for counselling etc, is to make them
irrepressibly horny when they finally do get married. Couple that with
the absence of birth control and what is the result going to be?
>That creates a happiness with an extra quality, some extra energy.
>
>And religion has a lot to do with marriage, so I think this is an
>important area to investigate. God is probably hiding here somewhere,
>if he exists at all in reality.
>
>In my country people still get married in church, even though they
>never visit the church otherwise.
Is SE Sweden? I'm from England, living in the USA. In England
Christenings, weddings and funerals were typically the only time most
people went to church. Now Christenings are rare except among the
minority that take religion seriously, most weddings take place in the
registrar's office and secular funerals are becoming more common.
>So we may assume that marriage has something to do with church.
>Marriage is the last thing the church gives up its grip on.
>
>Even if church has lost its grip on people in all other parts of life,
>it still has some significance when people get married.
>
>Think about the reality of the people who invented the idea of God,
>thousands of years ago, what can we find in their reality.
>
>They did marry in those days too.
>
>So God could be something that has something to do with marriage, and
>love.
Interesting theory, but IMO it started as anthropomorphising the
unknown to give it a "human" face. Question: Why does it rain? Answer:
Because a superbeing up there is crying/urinating/etc. Question: Why
is he crying? Answer: because he is upset with you.
>It is often said that God is love. That is another clue.
>
>Love exists, so that could prove that God exists.
That's just one facet.
>What kind of love? How did they prepare girls and boys for marriage
>thousands of years ago?
I suspect that once upon a time they just did it.
>Did they make girls and boys feel bad before marriage in those days
>too?
>
>Is God some sort of happiness with pain built into it?
>
>If some people learn to be very devious and manipulative in the social
>field, and strong willed compared to the naive and natural people,
>will they become some kind of supermen then?
>
>Does all this have something to do with social dominance?
I suspect that came afterwards. The "human" face of the unknown came
first, and was then used to control behaviour. It's a lot easier for a
more observant primitive to who has noticed that bad hygiene after
crapping has something to do with sickness after eating, to explain it
as "the guy up there who cries and causes rain says don't do it". From
there it's not far to the guy up there telling people what to do.
Alex
wrote:
>There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
>was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
>and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>beginning.
That is the indication, so far, from the evidence.
>
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
Entirely possible. The latest from quantum physics (iirc) shows that
the universe could have sprung up from the quantum foam.
And, since this beginning happened entirely by chance - it was
uncaused. Or, it could have been uncaused.
Josef Balluch
with
the following:
...
> I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
>
> So if the universe had a beginning, ...
So, ummmmmm ...... where's the evidence for a beginning? You did
claim that you were going to present evidence.
> ... the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
> logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
> then it would have had to come from nothing.
Why is that a problem?
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> in an very odd position.
> So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
> the universe.
Not at all. You seem to be confusing matter with the universe. The
universe is more than matter.
> If you want to debate this second step further, again,
> feel free to spin off a thread on that.
IOW, you are saying that it is an assumption that you do not intend to
support here.
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
> cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
That would be a reasonable assumption.
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
Only if you have something for comparison that you know is not
designed.
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
> in the universe.
The Argument from Design has been dead for more than 200 years. It was
trashed by David Hume. Do you have a refutation for Hume's argument?
http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/RS/ID1.htm
http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/RS/ID2.htm
Regards,
Josef
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
-- David Hume
Steve Knight
wrote:
snip
>I believe that God does exist.
Believe is the operative word. Then it's followed by 'the argument
from insert evidence here__________'.
There has never been a compelling evidence for a god or gods. If
there were, we would all be believers of the same religion and you
wouldn't have to waste your time looking for converts.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Roger Johansson
>>You would have much more chance of succeeding if you started from
>>reality and looked for signs of God.
>Exactly. What they do puts the cart before the horse.
>>Now you start from theories, and try to prove theories with theories,
>>that doesn't work.
>>
>>Just like in science you have to start from data, from reality, find
>>patterns, see how things in reality are connected, form theories,
>>prove those theories against reality.
>If they could do that they wouldn't need to argue it instead. But all
>the arguments for it have always failed because they attempt to
>generate information where there isn't any - eg that there is a
>hypothetical first case - which they call God.
>>If we find in reality that to be God is something special, not just
>>being human, then we can analyze this "God" state of mind, and maybe
>>find what it is based on.
>Exactly.
>>If it is based on a will power, an "angst", a suffering, a fear, a
>>pain, or something like that, then being God is not natural, it is
>>something you have to be trained in a special way to be.
>Is SE Sweden?
Yes.
>I'm from England, living in the USA. In England
>Christenings, weddings and funerals were typically the only time most
>people went to church. Now Christenings are rare except among the
>minority that take religion seriously, most weddings take place in the
>registrar's office and secular funerals are becoming more common.
Same here. The funerals are still a monopoly for the church, so
everybody have to go to church once in a life.. or rather after life.
>>So we may assume that marriage has something to do with church.
>>Marriage is the last thing the church gives up its grip on.
>>
>>Even if church has lost its grip on people in all other parts of life,
>>it still has some significance when people get married.
>>
>>Think about the reality of the people who invented the idea of God,
>>thousands of years ago, what can we find in their reality.
>>
>>They did marry in those days too.
>>
>>So God could be something that has something to do with marriage, and
>>love.
>
>Interesting theory, but IMO it started as anthropomorphising the
>unknown to give it a "human" face. Question: Why does it rain? Answer:
>Because a superbeing up there is crying/urinating/etc. Question: Why
>is he crying? Answer: because he is upset with you.
You still assume that the word God stands for the supernatural being
which permeates the whole universe, etc..?
Remember that the universe was not known to the people who used the
word God first.
They must have meant something, or somebody, in the world they knew
about.
>>It is often said that God is love. That is another clue.
>>
>>Love exists, so that could prove that God exists.
>
>That's just one facet.
Yes, but an important one.
Others say that God is a state of mind.
Others seem to mean that some people are gods, others are normal
people.
All these explanation are within the human sphere, in the field of
emotions and social stuff.
>>What kind of love? How did they prepare girls and boys for marriage
>>thousands of years ago?
>
>I suspect that once upon a time they just did it.
Remember that both boys and girls are often taken on a strange party
night by their friends of the same gender before they are married.
These parties may be the modern rests of earlier traditions.
They used more violent traditions earlier.
>>Did they make girls and boys feel bad before marriage in those days
>>too?
>>
>>Is God some sort of happiness with pain built into it?
>>
>>If some people learn to be very devious and manipulative in the social
>>field, and strong willed compared to the naive and natural people,
>>will they become some kind of supermen then?
>>
>>Does all this have something to do with social dominance?
>
>I suspect that came afterwards.
I think it came before. Look at the social dominance behavior in
flocks of apes. Young males run around screaming and use branches of
trees to scare the other males, and impress the females.
Our modern social traditions may be modern variants of such social
dominance, using violence to get respect from the other males, and to
impress the females.
>crapping has something to do with sickness after eating, to explain it
>as "the guy up there who cries and causes rain says don't do it". From
>there it's not far to the guy up there telling people what to do.
You are still assuming a supernatural being although the stories we
analyze may be equally well explained by powerful people in the social
environment.
The talk about heaven and hell may be about social situations.
"Heaven and hell" could become "heaven and earth" if somebody
translated it without knowing what it really meant.
If you are being mobbed in school you are in hell.
If you are a leader socially and have a nice girl you are in heaven,
and you have social and mental power.
If we assume that the religious stories were about secrets, so they
were deliberately written in a symbolic way, then we can also assume
that there has been a lot of misunderstanding of these stories.
The initiated people knew what the stories meant, others
misunderstandings were encuraged, to keep it a secret.
This led to lots of misunderstandings and faulty translations.
Only the people who know from their own social experiences what is
going on in the human society has any chance of interpreting these
stories fairly correctly.
If you have studied hundreds of creation myths from all over the world
you can compare them to the creation stories in the old testament, and
you will see what is standard creation myth material and what are new
details and additions which only exist in the bible.
Several details are the same details which originated in Egypt and was
adopted by the jews.
The monoteism is an egyptian idea. Other creation myths talk about how
the Gods create men, and thereby create new Gods.
Typical creation myth:
God took some clay, formed to look like himself and then he blew life
into it. That is how than man became a God.
It is about an initiation rite, were boys are transformed into men.
Or humans are transformed into Gods.
The terminology has many forms.
--
Roger J.
Daniel T.
> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>
> I believe that God does exist.
> I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
> I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> believe in God.
Jeremy,
I believe this is the first time I have ever read any of your posts.
Thank you for stating your position up front, in response, I will state
mine.
"The universe is all that is, was or ever will be." This isn't so much
opinion as my definition of the word "universe".
Nothing exists but matter and void.
> The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
> logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
> beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
By the definition above, the universe cannot have a beginning. Even the
existence of the "void" is part of the universe. If God exists, it is
part of the universe.
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
What evidence?
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
We're already stuck... You apparently have a different definition for
the word "universe" than I do. Your definition seems to allow "things"
to exist outside the "universe", mine does not. So where do we go from
here?
Mark Nutter
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
> beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
It might be interesting to parallel this discussion with a discussion
of whether God had a beginning. If not, where did he come from? Does
every philosophical discussion of origins ultimately involve assuming
that *something* must have always existed? Does calling that
something "God" really explain the evidence any better than calling it
"the universe" or "the singularity" or what have you?
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
What exactly do you mean by "a beginning"? Do you include all of time
and space as being that which had a beginning? What does "beginning"
mean in the phrase "the beginning of time"?
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
Or there was more than one cause.
> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
> logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
> then it would have had to come from nothing.
Or it could have "condensed" or "evolved" out of some other
pre-existing condition.
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> in an very odd position.
>
> So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
> the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
> feel free to spin off a thread on that.
Should you not say "some thing or some things had to cause the
beginning of the universe"? So far you have not given any reason to
limit the origin of the universe to a single cause.
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
> cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
>
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
Why do you limit it to a singular designer?
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
What exactly do you mean by "design"? Do you mean "that which is
intended to achieve a particular goal"? Don't you have to know what
the goals are in order to test whether a particular facet of the
universe is "designed" to achieve that goal? How do you propose to
objectively and non-tautologically determine whether such goals exist
and what those goals actually are? If you don't have objective
evidence of the goals, how can you tell whether any particular
function you observe is actually intentional or not?
> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
> in the universe.
There is much evidence in nature of conflicting goals, compromises,
and competition. Will you be considering the possibility that these
evidences show conflicting designs, and thus the possibility of
multiple designers?
Why do you have to go all the way back to the dim mists of cosmic
origins in order to come up with "evidence" of God? If there really
existed a loving, personal, omnipotent and omniscient God who wanted a
personal relationship with each of His children, would you not (should
you not) have an abundance of much more immediate evidence available?
Why would a loving, personal, self-sacrificial God hide himself from
those he allegedly loves and wants a relationship with? Why would he
use his omnipotence to so stifle all evidence of his existence that he
can only be inferred by difficult--and highly debatable--analyses of
alleged "design" in his alleged creation? If God were only going to
leave one type of evidence of his existence, why would it be only in
an area that requires some fairly weighty science to explore, and even
then tends to support polytheism better than monotheism?
I look forward to your discussion.
m
aa#2115
Ikyoto
>>
>> This is your belief, not evidence.
>
>Just an introduction.
>
Accepted, but the very fact that you start out with a premise (God
exsists) and intend to prove it, causes your evidence to be tainted.
You should approach it form the point of view "what caused this" and
allow for all evidence to be gathered and THEN form a conclusion based
on any evidence found. Anything else is bad science at best.
>>
>> A belief is not logical.
>
>A belief can be based on logic.
>
That belief must be tested and if found faulty should be discarded. If
evidence that does NOT support the concept is found and ignored or
discounted, then logic has nothing to do with it - The matter then
becomes a subject of human arrogance (we must be able to understand
the universe because we are the pinical of it), fear (if there is no
god then we have no purpose), or a combination of the two. Neither of
these is acceptable as we are NOT the greatest thing int he universe
and we can easily define our own reasons for living without a ythical
crutch.
>> I am unfamiliar with this quote. Source please.
>>
>
>Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970).
Thank you.
>> Logical thinking would dictate that one does not assume what there is
>> no evidence for. Here is where human desire for an answer to fit the
>> question rather than a truth comes into play.
>
>I believe I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that to say
>something does not exist simply because their is no evidence to support
>is not logical?
>
>I would suggest that if something can come from nothing, than it would
>require us to rethink a lot of science.
>
No. What I am trying to say could best be described as not assuming
something exsists before there is evidence of it. If you come across a
large hole in the ground that looks like a footprint, then claim "I
found a giant" you are assuming based on something that could be far
different. Learn more and find evidence that is verifyable and then
make a claim.
>>>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>>>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>>>in an very odd position.
>>>
>>>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>>>the universe. If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>>>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
>>>
>>
>> But this IS the crux of your thread - that you have evidence of
>> something you refer to as god. If so then you have evidence of the
>> very force which is responsable for everything we percieve.
>
>I don't think I understand the point you are trying to make on this one.
> Could you please explain?
You're claiming to have evidence for the exsistance of a creature that
caused the creation of everything. If there is evidence that can be
tested, not debated, then present it.
>
>> Incorrect on many points. You propose to test a hypothesis by looking
>> for proof of it and not for any balance for other explinations for the
>> same evidence. This invalidates the very idea of testing.
>
>As I present each item, I will look at other possible explanations. At
>that time, feel free to come up with other possible explanations.
>
>I will not claim that other valid explanations exist, but when I am
>done, I believe that the sum of the evidence will point in pretty much
>one direction... toward a designer.
>
You then intend to discount other possible theroies and avinues of
investigation, thus you are set on one possible exlination for any
evidence you present. You are not proving anything only discounting
other views, reguarless of how much more validity they hold.
>> At no point do you present any evidence, only a hypotheis. Your thread
>> was supposed to give evidence - which can be tested. You present
>> NOTHING to prove your hypotheis.
>
>I have only just begun.
"I will not claim that other valid explinations exsist, but when I am
done I believe that the sum of the evidence will point pretty much in
one direction..."
But will you also be willing to admit if shown that the evidence
points towards one of the following that you were wrong:
1 - there is not a single entity in charge but a combination of
conditions that we either have yet to fully comprehend?
2 - that there may have been a single starting point to the universe
and everything that has happened since has been a progress of logical
and understandable events that lead to our coming to have this
conversation?
3 - that the universe is simpley what it is and that the search for
god is mankind's attempt to put an understandable face on things and
that religion has turned that search into a dead end by limiting
exploration of alternative answers to myth?
Mekkala
face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01:
First I'd like to point out that you're making these arguments
as if we'd never heard them before, and that these arguments,
precisely as you're putting them her, have been repeatedly and
thoroughly debunked.
Anyways, I just want to respond to one point of your post and
see how you'd like to revise your arguments.
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from
> nothing.
Ever studied quantum mechanics? Quantum theory allows
particles to appear from nothing and disappear into nothing,
and this has been observed happening by competent scientists.
So, no, the laws of science do not "show that matter can not
come from nothing".
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I
suddenly realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
Denis Loubet
"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "JDub" <jwhip...@attbi.the_pooch.com> wrote in message
news:<JuY0b.62381$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > Jeremy wrote:
> > > Jos Flachs wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to
> > >>> ask would be was there a cause to the beginning?
> > >>
> > >> Here you go wrong: if the universe has a beginning, so has your god.
> > >> Who created your god? Who created the god who created your god?
> > >
> > > I was going to get to that later, but if you want me to start it now,
> > > I can. Just say so.
> >
> >
> > Jeremy:
> > I'd like it very much if you addressed this question now.
> > I've posed this question to numerous theists (mostly Christians), and
never
> > received anything resembling a good answer.
> >
> > Doesn't starting at the beginning make sense? If you fail to address
this
> > question, then why bother discussing anything else?
>
> I think it only fair that Jeremy is able to put forward his own case,
> before we criticise.
But his case ends here unless he has an answer that isn't special pleading.
His whole case concerning the necessity of a designer hinges on his
insistence that something can't come from nothing. In order to continue, he
MUST address why this rule does not apply to the designer, or the designer
vanishes along with the universe, and we have nothing to discuss.
> Besides, you know as well as I do that he couldn't answer that
> question even if he was right, so it's no test of his veracity.
If he can't answer it, then any further discussion is pointless.
> After all, we can't say where the Big Bang came from, can we?
He's saying he knows.
> No, this man is acting in good faith, respect that.
I don't think he is acting in good faith. He lied concerning evidence, he
lies by presenting this as a "scientific" examination. And now, unless he
has a REAL good answer to where the designer came from, he's utilizing
logical fallacies that he's probably had explained to him before. So far
this has been a litany of dishonesty.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Daniel T.
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:39:48 GMT, Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
>
> Alternatively, skip directly to the source of Jeremy's "information":-
>
> http://www.doesgodexist.org/
I just read the website above and take exception to all three of the
so-called proofs that the universe has a beginning.
Their first proof, the expansion of the known universe, proves no such
beginning. I could go out to any major highway and measure the distance
between two cars going in opposite directions, then measure them again a
second latter and find they they are moving away from each-other. I
could then say that this proves that they must have come into existence
a some point between the two, and I would be wrong...
Their second proof, the consumption of hydrogen in the universe, proves
no such beginning. It may be the case that the sun, or any particular
star or stars has not been burning hydrogen forever, that each star had
a "birth" and will have a "death", however the universe without stars is
still the universe.
Their third proof cites the second law of thermodynamics. It goes on to
say, "Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again
forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it
expanded and rebounded." This is obviously false, there is nowhere for
the light and heat to go so the universe would not loose heat and light.
Stephen Hawking has already taken the steps necessary to show that the
so called big bang singularity isn't all that singular but simply a
particular event in the routine cycle of the workings of the universe.
(He mentioned it in "A Brief History of Time" and I'm sure he has
developed it further since.)
Their conclusion, "The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal
is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a
beginning is scientifically correct." does not follow from the
evidence...
Maria Underwood
>
Jeremy,
First let me say it is very bold, maybe even brave, of you to come to
Alt.Atheism with such an argument. But I, at least, appreciate the
effort. I've searched for a healthy forum where atheists and theists
can respectfully discuss/debate their differences without digression
into ad hominem attacks, insults, and plain 'ole meaness. I've yet to
find it, but I welcome your argument here.
Having said that...argument by design is not a new argument; and
though it proves nothing, it is an interesting exercise in philosophy.
My first response to your argument is: how do you come to the
conclusion that the universe had a beginning but "god" did not? If
the universe was designed and created by *god when did he/she/it
begin? Who designed him/her/it? It seems to me that the same logic
that forbids you from accepting the possibility that universe always
existed should be the same logic that applies to the "designer" - thus
logic would dictate that he/she/it should similiarly have had a
beginning.
How can you ignore the blatant question of "when/where/how did god
begin" - but consider first the question of design "when/where/how did
the universe begin"?
Crafty
<snip>
Mekkala
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
> Woden wrote:
>
> >> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't
see this as
> >> a logical option. If something did not cause the universe
to be
> >> created, then it would have had to come from nothing.
> >
> >
> > So you don't accept that it could have started from an
"uncaused" or
> "random" event? Why not, other than your own personal bias?
>
>
> Partially based upon items that I will be posting.
> Theoretically most anything that one can conceive of is at
least, no
> matter how minute, a possibility.
>
> I assume you are using "uncaused" or "random" as synonymous
in this case.
>
> I am sitting here trying to answer this question, and I can't
come up
> with one. A random even forming the entire universe just
doesn't make
> sense to me. Maybe it is personal bias, but my gut feeling
is that it
> would be more reasonable to believe in unicorns, than to
believe that a
> random event occurred.
>
> We can discuss this further, but I think everything I will be
posting
> regarding the next point, will be applicable against a random
beginning
> as well. Allow me the luxury of moving on, and then, if you
want, to
> come back to this.
>
> >> The laws of science show that matter can not come from
nothing. If
> I accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the
rest of
> >> science in an very odd position.
> >
> >
> > Actually, our scientific understanding of the universe
shows that
> theoretically, matter can come from "nothing". So you have
already
> destroyed your basic argument.
>
>
> Theoretically, anything is possible. I would suggest,
however, that one
> of the basics of chemistry and physics is that matter can not
come from
> anything. If we were to discover that it did, we would
really have to
> take another look at chemistry and physics.
I tell you, matter has been *repeatedly* observed appearing
from nothing by many compentent particle physicists. This has
been theoretically explained by the nature of probability waves
(although the common scientific conception of probability waves
is another point of science that I, as a student of physics,
have my doubts about -- but that's a discussion for another
time).
david asman
> <snip>
>
> The way I would like to begin this discussion, is to go through a
> logical progression -- a series of steps that we can evaluate together.
>
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
> beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
>
> There has been and can be a lot of discussion on whether or nor there
> was a beginning, and if you want to break out and discuss that, we can
> and that is ok. I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
> beginning.
>
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
> logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
> then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> in an very odd position.
>
>
A few ideas, Jeremy:
If you plan to use Kalam's argument, you might want to try something like
this:
Everything that *begins* to exist needs a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
If you simply state that "everything that exists" needs a cause, you include
the deity that you are attempting to esbalish the existence of. Which leads
the person questioning your argument to ask, "what caused your god?"
Your answer would be, "God has always existed." At least, that is what I'm
assuming that your argument will be. If I have misstated what your response
would be, I apologize in advance.
This eliminates one step in the debate process, where as the person with
whom you are debating can go about attacking your premises on other
grounds, instead of asking the almost obligatory question, "what created
god?"
Also I don't know if "laws of sciecne" is the best phrase to use. It implies,
at
least to me,that there is something unchanging and immutable in science,
when I don'tthink that is the case. Science can and does change as new
evidenceis observed. You might want to tone it down to something like,
"science has observed that. . ."
Dave
soCode
> After all, we can't say where the Big Bang came from, can we?
Which is itself begging the question; why do you assume that there
was something, for which "where" can be a meaningful representative,
from which the big bang could have "come" from for some as yet
undefined meaning of the word "come"?
soCode
Mekkala
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> I would like to know more about this. Are they appearing and
> disappearing, or are they being converted to/from energy?
They appear and disappear from *absolutely nothing*.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>How would history be different if people did not have challenges?
>People might still be in Europe thinking the world is flat.
or that
-He is a miserable sinner because someone ate the wrong fruit.
-a pair of every species of animal entered a ship before a big
rainstorm.
-A virgin gave birth to a jewish charismatic leader who created fish
and bread out of nothing, revived a corpse, and came back to life
three days after being executed.
-that there is a god who created the universe's largest concentration
camp out of sheer love.
-etc. etc.
...no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
-Albert Einstein
Anybody have any evidence for this supposed quote? I'm skeptical
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Arguments might be a better term, but I intend to back up those
>arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
You've been saying this for the last ten messages. Cut the bullshit
and state your evidence.
Bet he doesn't!
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> >>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> >>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
> >
mean
> > logical arguments?
> >
> > Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
>
> Arguments might be a better term, but I intend to back up those
> arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
It's the evidence we're still waiting to see.
> >>I believe that God does exist.
> >>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
> >>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> >>believe in God.
> >
> >
> > So by these admissions do you abandon any claim that what you are doing
is
> > scientific? Science does not start with claims, it starts with
observations.
>
> No. I just have seen people try to present arguments from "an entirely
> scientific standpoint" before, and then you kind of find out later what
> their beliefs are. I figured I would be upfront about the matter. Can
> my beliefs skew my interpretation? Possibly. Everyone has to deal with
> that -- trying to keep your convictions and preconceived ideas from
> interfering with objectivity.
But your beliefs basically constitute your entire hypothesis. If that's not
abject bias, then nothing is.
> >>I do not intend to deceive anyone (for those who are inclined to make
> >>this claim).
> >
> > But you have already done so. You have claimed to have evidence when in
fact
> > all you have is arguments. You act as though this is a scientific
> > examination yet assume your results before you start.
> >
> > This does not bode well.
>
> No it doesn't. :)
> I wanted to be upfront about it. I am headed in a direction with my
> posts. I expect challenges to this, some of which I probably won't have
> an answer to.
If you can't answer our challenges, will you abandon your beliefs?
After all, if you provide unambiguous concrete evidence that a god exists,
I'll abandon my atheism in a heartbeat.
> I do not pretend to have all of the answers, just some
> items that I have not seen presented before, or have not seen accurately
> presented before. Some points may be repeats, but are necessary for the
> argument.
If the points constitute logical fallacies, we will not be impressed.
> >>Now, I have said it before in previous discussions, but I am making an
> >>assumption here. I assume that there is reality, and that you (the
> >>reader) and I both exist. If you want to debate that, then feel free to
> >>start your own thread. I personally have other things to do besides
> >>debating whether or not I exist.
> >
> >
> > Granted. Note that this is a two-edged sword.
>
> True, but I believe that most people live their life day-to-day as if
> they exist. I your building catches on fire, you do not stand there and
> ponder if you really exist or not, you usually get out of the building.
That's not what I mean. I'm saying if we agree to your stricture, YOU must
not attempt to dilute the importance of concrete evidence by playing the
solipsism card.
> >>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing.
> >
> >
> > Science observes that particles are appearing and disappearing all the
time.
>
> I would like to know more about this. Are they appearing and
> disappearing, or are they being converted to/from energy?
I see that another poster has answered this. I will point out that since
these particles appear as pairs, a particle, and an anti-particle, they
cancel each other out, and the total energy content is a big fat zero. So
the law of conservation is preserved.
> > But even if we granted that matter can not come from nothing, that would
be
> > another feature of the universe, not necessarily a feature of the
absence of
> > a universe.
> >
> >
> >>If I
> >>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> >>in an very odd position.
> >
> >
> > You will have to spell out the odd position.
>
> Mainly that several scientific disciplines rely on the principle of
> conservation of matter/energy. That principle would need to be
reevaluated.
Virtual particles appear and disappear and do not violate it.
Now, if I ignore virtual particles, and grant that your claim that something
cannot come from nothing were true, I would be forced to stop your argument
at the point where you propose a designer being because it must be held to
the same rule. If you arbitrarily exempt the being from this rule, then your
argument hangs on nothing more than the logical fallacy of special pleading,
and he can conclude that you're wrong, and we're done.
Are we done?
Therion Ware
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:28:39 -0400 in alt.atheism, Mani Deli (Mani
Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
>
>Anybody have any evidence for this supposed quote? I'm skeptical.
He apparently said it at "Science, Philosophy and Religion: A
Symposium. New York Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in
their relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc.," in 1941.
I'd be interested to see the context that surrounds the quotation, but
as yet haven't managed to locate it. That said, given Einstein's
apparent pantheism, I'd be willing to bet that he's using "religion"
to mean reverence for the universe, or similar.
The Library of Congressdata is:
LC Control Number: 41001640
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Meeting Name: Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their
Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, 1st, New York, 1940.
Main Title: Science, philosophy, and religion; a symposium.
Published/Created: New York, 1941.
Description: viii, 443 p. 21 cm.
Subjects: Civilization, Modern--20th century--Congresses.
Civilization--Philosophy--Congresses.
Democracy--Congresses.
LC Classification: CB425 .C57 1940
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
duke32
wrote:
>> I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
>> God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
>"Logical Evidences"? There's no such thing as logical evidences. Do you mean
>logical arguments?
>Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
That would make evidence a lot more persuasive than an argument but
certainly no less than the argument.
ar·gu·ment (är“gy…-m…nt) n. 2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at
demonstrating truth or falsehood
ev·i·dence (µv“¹-d…ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a
conclusion or judgment
*****
Evidence of God - duke32, circa 2002AD
1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined.
One could hypothesize an astronomical event such as a prior universe
that collapsed on itself and has now exploded outward to form our new
present universe. If this did happen, it would have happened again
and again for the same reason as the latest occurrence, thereby
suggesting that the universe always was, is, and always will be. Yet
another equal suggestion is that the universe was birthed out of
another universe, or another dimension.
The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all things lack a
beginning, and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.
The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.
2. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain)
supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump
(heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste
disposal system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to
transfer necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity
(same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of
minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and control the
body.
3. The conception equation contained in animal forms is divided 50%
in the male and 50% in the female. We only mix the chemicals.
4. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.
Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.
What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.
We knowlingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.
As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.
As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.
If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.
Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.
How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.
So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.
Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****
>But you have already done so. You have claimed to have evidence when in fact
>all you have is arguments. You act as though this is a scientific
>examination yet assume your results before you start.
>This does not bode well.
You digress.
>But even if we granted that matter can not come from nothing, that would be
>another feature of the universe, not necessarily a feature of the absence of
>a universe.
Yet matter can come from energy. Or have you forgotten.
>> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
>> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
>> This being was the designer of the universe.
>Where did this being come from? How was it created? Who designed it?
He always was. Which is logical. You've essentially already admitted
that an infinitely small point of infinitely dense matter suddenly
appeared out of nothing. Hence matter was created. We can't look
back before then, but a cause is clearly evident for the creation of
matter.
We call that cause "almighty God".
>You will have to defend your hypothesis from other hypothesis. For instance,
>the universe could have been created by invisible magic elves. Your designer
>hypothesis will have to better fit the facts than my magic elf hypothesis.
The creator could have been a magic elf - we don't know, but a creator
is now clearly called for. The creator could have been anything, but
a creator is there none the less.
>> And this is where I will begin to present evidence that their is design
>> in the universe.
>Indeed, the magic elves have been very busy.
Them too. He has you locked down so far.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
AE
I'd like to reduce the discussion to facts and conclusions so I'll snip
the parts where you are talking about believes and comment the rest of
it :-)
Jeremy wrote:
> Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
> ...
> The first step that I would like us to walk through is the question of a
> beginning? Did the universe have a beginning?
> ...
There's no final evidence universe had a beginning while Hubble's
observations seem to be an important hint.
So let's assume universe had a beginning :-)
> So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
> would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
> options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
> universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
> ...
I think we can accept the
> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
> accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
> in an very odd position.
Not necessarily since we don't know anything about the pre-universal
conditions, but don't let us discuss this part.
> ...
> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
> cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
Very likely.
> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was created
> by a being that is personal, that this being created the physical world.
> This being was the designer of the universe.
>
> This is how I propose we first test this hypothesis. Other tests can be
> applied later.
>
> If the universe had a designer, then we should see design in the world
> around us.
I fear there's no way to prove the presence of a designer:
If there's a multiverse "testing" all possible natural laws there will
finally be the one or other universe producing conditions where
intelligent beings can exist.
Well - so far we've agreed to the hypothesis that (1) universe had a
beginning and (2) this beginning didn't happen by random.
I'm already curious to see how you are going to prove your hypothesis.
AE
Jeremy
>
> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html
>
> Quotes :
>
> "The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously
> come into existence and go out of existence all of the time."
>
> "Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these
> small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles)
> which exists for a short time and then disappears."
>
> Creation from nothing, without cause! Amazing, isn't it?
>
I read the article, but it says nothing about something from nothing.
This talks about matter from energy. We see matter changed into energy
all of the time, so energy in to matter makes sense as well.
Nuclear reactors take matter into energy. I am talking about
matter/energy being created from nothing, not from each other.
Pope Dilbert
"Jeremy" <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AO_0b.161781$It4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> >>I have been asked by other posters to show some logical evidences of
> >>God's existence. Let me start by stating my position on the matter.
> >
> > "Logical Evidences"? There's no such thing as logical evidences. Do you
mean
> > logical arguments?
> >
> > Arguments are a lot less persuasive than evidence.
>
> arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
>
> >>I believe the Bible to be God's word to us.
> >>I believe that a person can logically, reasonably, and intelligently
> >>believe in God.
> >
> >
> > So by these admissions do you abandon any claim that what you are doing
is
> > scientific? Science does not start with claims, it starts with
observations.
>
> No. I just have seen people try to present arguments from "an entirely
> scientific standpoint" before, and then you kind of find out later what
> their beliefs are. I figured I would be upfront about the matter. Can
> my beliefs skew my interpretation? Possibly. Everyone has to deal with
> that -- trying to keep your convictions and preconceived ideas from
> interfering with objectivity.
>
Bwahahhaaaaaaa....................
Try to keep your preformed religous beliefs from interfering with
objectivity, fool!
You have BELIEFS!!!!
That automatically colors ANY claims about "evidence" you may pretend to
have!
Jeremy
> I'm getting tired of posting this, but Smith says it so much better
> than I can:
>
>
> Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism
> Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists
>
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
I read your article. I would first note that the article describes a
theory, "that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave
Function of the Universe", based on known items in science. Other
people reading this post will probably want to read the article
mentioned above, first.
Here is a section, near the end, of that article:
[Begin Quote]
Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the
universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a
timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of
the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller
than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more
needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere
is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than
an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe
that is still expanding.
[End Quote]
Lets stop there for a moment. Mr. Hawking's basic idea is that there is
a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of
the universe.
How is that any more or less of an answer than a God that exists outside
of our three-dimensional world, that exists outside of time?
Other possibilities:
-- God exists in that hypersphere
-- The hypersphere itself was created by God
If you don't understand how God exists outside of time, please wait for
my post on "What is God?".
Let me go on with how the author uses this theory as an evidence against
God's existence.
[Begin Quote 2]
Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No.
For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95%
probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God
created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two
ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into
existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because
of any supernatural forces. [break]
Here is a problem with the way the author writes the article. Here he
now appeals to the scientific law, that earlier he acknowledged was a
theory. He than goes on to say that it's mathematical, not
supernatural, so it can't be God.
But the Bible describes God "creating the heavens and the earth". If
this statement is true, then God would have created the environment
itself. I believe that a God of this nature would certainly understand
mathematics, and how one item would affect another. Let me continue
with the quote, though and you can see more of what I mean.
[continuing]
Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that
the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe,
the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because
God is all powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence,
his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.
[End Quote 2]
Here, the author assumes to know how God would done things. If God
created the universe, and its rules, God could also have used the rules
he set in place to create the existence we have now.
No where in the article does it address why all of the possible
universes came in to existence in order to cancel themselves out. If
God wanted to create all possible universes to create the world this
way, He could.
On another point, the author here also claims that if the odds are
better than 95%, that it couldn't be true. I ask you to think about
that for a moment. He is basically saying that it is impossible for
someone to be rigging the roulette wheel. Does this sound like a
logical statement.
It seems as though the author of the article uses the theory of Stephen
Hawking specifically to support his preconceived idea that God does not
exist. I understand the premise of a persuasive essay, which this
article appears to be. I sometimes use persuasive essays myself. This
essay, although it works well to back up his point, also does not
eliminate other possibilities, although it tries.
In summary, the theory (based on the article you presented) does give a
possible explanation for how this universe came in to being, but does
not successfully eliminate God as a possible explanation for the
creation of the universe.
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
Virtual particles appear and disappear from *nothing* at all.
-n
Jeremy
> John Clayton then goes on to discuss whether or not the universe had a
> beginning, exactly as you have done, using the same strawmen, the same
> weak-kneed, limp-wristed arguments that the universe cannot have come
> from nothing.
I never said I didn't use other references. You are correct that a lot
of my initial materials come from John Clayton's materials. You might
even notice the e-mail address I use when posting in these forums.
In Christianity, we often want to hand down knowledge. John Clayton
even offers courses so that people can use his materials.
I use much of his material, but do not always agree with him on all points.
Also, his video series was designed so broad-spectrum, for people from
all walks of life, that I don't feel it adequately works for the smaller
percentage of scientifically active atheists. He also works from his
knowledge of when he was an atheist long ago. Not necessarily what
atheists talk about now, which is how it is perceived as strawman arguments.
If people are interested in checking out John Clayton's materials, much
of them are available at www.doesgodexist.org
He publishes his bi-monthly publication there as well. There is a lot
of material there. The publication is free, and you can sign up to have
a copy delivered on the website as well.
Don't expect everything I post to be from his material, but the
base-line structure is borrowed from John.
Jeremy
> Their conclusion, "The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal
> is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a
> beginning is scientifically correct." does not follow from the
> evidence...
That is why I use them as a starting point only. I agree with much of
his arguments, but not all.
I always thought the "second law of thermal dynamics" argument was a
little weak myself.
Now, the discovery that the universe is accelerating instead of slowing
down, that is an interesting item.
Jeremy
>>
>>Nuclear reactors take matter into energy. I am talking about
>>matter/energy being created from nothing, not from each other.
>
>
> Virtual particles appear and disappear from *nothing* at all.
I am trying to understand this. I have no come across this before. Can
someone please explain virtual particles, and give me some place to
start researching this?
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
Google is your friend. Search for "virtual particles" without the
quotes; here are the first three links on the subject:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/oregon/imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/virtual_particles.html
-n
Nikolaos D. Bougalis
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
> > Their conclusion, "The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal
> > is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a
> > beginning is scientifically correct." does not follow from the
> > evidence...
>
> That is why I use them as a starting point only. I agree with much of
> his arguments, but not all.
>
> I always thought the "second law of thermal dynamics" argument was a
> little weak myself.
It is "thermodynamics." Not "thermal dynamics."
-n
Therion Ware
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:39:48 GMT in alt.atheism, Jeremy (Jeremy
<dgepr...@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>Please read the post "Evidences of God - Preface" before reading this post.
[snip]
>So if the universe had a beginning, the next question that I see to ask
>would be was there a cause to the beginning? I see basically two
>options... either there was something that caused the beginning of the
>universe, or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.
>
>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>in an very odd position.
But....!
What you've said above implicitly posits that causality exited "prior
to" (whatever the hell that means given that time is a property of the
universe) and independently of this universe.
If causality is a property of the universe, like time, and the other 3
dimensions, then the necessity for the universe to have been caused
vanishes in a puff of smoke!
Are there any grounds for supposing that causality is a property of
the universe? I think there might be: it is, for instance, tricky to
see how things could be causal in the absence of time ("if this, then
that" doesn't gel is "then" has no meaning) and the physicists tell us
that at a very fundamental level events are acausal. If causality
existed "prior to" the universe and gave rise to the universe then I
would have thought that the universe would be causal all the way down.
But this does not appear to be the case.
Given this, I think there are legitimate grounds for being seriously
suspicious of your assertion that the universe was caused.
[snip]
Jeremy
> "Jeremy" <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>That is why I use them as a starting point only. I agree with much of
>>his arguments, but not all.
>>
>>I always thought the "second law of thermal dynamics" argument was a
>>little weak myself.
>
>
> It is "thermodynamics." Not "thermal dynamics."
My mistake. Shows me that I should proofread first! Thank you for the
correction.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
>-Albert Einstein
>
>Anybody have any evidence for this supposed quote? I'm skeptical
In one of his responses to me Jeremy says it's from:
Out of My Later Years, ch. 8, pt. 1 (1950, rev. 1970)
I haven't located this yet.
He also admits he has only seen the quote, thought it was a good one
and decided to include it.
Which is par for the course.
Like you I'm skeptical given Einsten's other comments on religion.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What is the "second law of thermal dynamics"?
Jeremy
previous post then please do so as it sets the way for this one.
-----
The argument I am trying to make at this point is that we can see
evidences of a designer in the world around us. This is the first post
of several posts where I want to look at some animals that exist here on
earth.
I thought I would start with one of my personal favorite examples -- the
Arctic Tern.
Now the arctic tern is a bird that lives on the north slopes of Alaska
and Canada during the summer months in the northern hemisphere, and then
migrates to the southern tip of South America during the summer in the
southern hemisphere. That is a round trip of up to 24,000 US miles each
year.
Groups have done research on the arctic tern to determine how it knows
the route. They have tried confusing its sense of smell, its sense of
sight, used magnetic scramblers, and host of other things, but the birds
still make the north to south migration.
Eggs have been taken out of the nests of the terns, incubated, and then
released after the migration had occurred. They took the birds and
released them in their habitat on the north slopes of Canada, and the
birds made the journey.
The researchers released them from Wisconsin, and they made the journey
successfully.
From what I understand, they even took a bird and released it in
Australia. Even though no arctic tern (that we know of) ever made a
migration from Australia to South America, this tern was able land in
South America, not far from the rest of its flock.
These birds couldn't have learned the behavior. It had to be instinct
in them.
There are a number of possible explanations of how the terns gained this
instinct. Many of you reading this are probably thinking to yourselves
that the obvious reason for this would be evolution -- survival of the
fittest. But why would the tern need to make this long journey to survive?
Many animals migrate to escape the cold... but why would the arctic tern
need to go from one extreme to another? Why couldn't they just stop
somewhere else?
Ok, if it is not cold, what about food supply? Maybe hey had to evolve
and make the journey because they have a narrow diet and you can only
get that food in those areas during the summer months. Makes sense, but
the tern eats lots of things. They have a very wide diet, much like a
seagull.
Now some may say that you would have to throw out a designer as well.
Why would someone like an all-knowing, all-powerful being make a little
bird fly thousands of miles round trip?
There is a bigger picture here, though. If you zoom out a little bit
you might realize that the arctic tern is part of the food chain. The
fact of the matter is that many plants and animals in two remote,
isolated, very delicate ecosystems rely on the arctic tern for food and
nutrients.
It may not be in the tern's best interest to make the journey. It may
not help the species survive at all. If the tern didn't make the
journey, though, several species of plants an animals in those isolated
ecosystems would go into extinction.
I would suggest that the best explanation would be that the system was
designed that way.
Again, this is only one example.
Christopher A. Lee
This looking less and less promising with every one of his posts.
John Hattan
It's a law of fizzicks.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Jeremy
>>What is the "second law of thermal dynamics"?
>
> It's a law of fizzicks.
LOL :)
Mani Deli
wrote:
> The latest from quantum physics (iirc) shows that
>the universe could have sprung up from the quantum foam.
Why bother!
Suppose god is some kind of mystical miasma or whatever. The fact is
that nobody knows anything about it and religious baloney doesn't
follow. There is no connection between any theoretical god and
religion.
Even if you give the god exists crowd the benefit of the doubt.
Anything else they say about it is utter nonsense as there is no
evidence. Theology is pure baloney. Nobody can study god.
The real bullshit starts after theists say god exists and they start
their take on religion, Christianity etc.
Frankly I don't give a damn whether or not god exists but it is
obvious that anyone who claims to know anything about god is as they
say, full of crap.
"So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of
evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is
likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or
dishonest charlatans." Bertrand Russell
Woden
news:__X0b.213744$uu5.38613@sccrnsc04:
> Woden wrote:
>
> >> When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as
> >> a logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be
> >> created, then it would have had to come from nothing.
> >
> >
> > So you don't accept that it could have started from an "uncaused" or
> "random" event? Why not, other than your own personal bias?
>
>
> Partially based upon items that I will be posting.
You've been saying this long enough. Why don't you get around to posting
this "evidence" you claim to have.
> Theoretically most anything that one can conceive of is at least, no
> matter how minute, a possibility.
Yeah, and most of what people can conceive of, is so unlikely that the
difference between "minute" and "zero" possibility doesn't exist.
>
> I assume you are using "uncaused" or "random" as synonymous in this case.
>
> I am sitting here trying to answer this question, and I can't come up
> with one. A random even forming the entire universe just doesn't make
> sense to me. Maybe it is personal bias, but my gut feeling is that it
> would be more reasonable to believe in unicorns, than to believe that a
> random event occurred.
Your "gut feeling" is meaningless to anyone other than you.
>
> We can discuss this further, but I think everything I will be posting
> regarding the next point, will be applicable against a random beginning
> as well. Allow me the luxury of moving on, and then, if you want, to
> come back to this.
>
> >> The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If
> I accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of
> >> science in an very odd position.
> >
> >
> > Actually, our scientific understanding of the universe shows that
> theoretically, matter can come from "nothing". So you have already
> destroyed your basic argument.
>
>
> Theoretically, anything is possible. I would suggest, however, that one
> of the basics of chemistry and physics is that matter can not come from
> anything. If we were to discover that it did, we would really have to
> take another look at chemistry and physics.
So you demonstrate you lack of understanding of modern quantum physics. In
fact, one of the basics of our current understanding of the universe is
that matter can indeed come from "nothing".
>
> >> Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was
> >> the cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know
> >> about yet?
> >
> >
> > Why couldn't the universe have resulted from something that we don't
> know about? Surely none of us think that science knows everything do we?
>
>
> I don't think that science knows everything. I believe my future posts
> will take this position into consideration. I will make sure I address
> this in my posts. BTW, the next one will probably be tomorrow, as I
> don't have them written in advance.
Take your time. It gives us more time to think of witty insults and
smartass answers.
>
> >> I would like to put forth a hypothesis -- That the universe was
> >> created by a being that is personal, that this being created the
> >> physical world. This being was the designer of the universe.
> >
> >
> > Other than years of religious indoctrination, what leads you to form
> this hypothesis?
>
> Some of the items I will be posting caused me to do more research,
> discovering others.
>
Well, you might as well get to it.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Arguments might be a better term, but I intend to back up those
>arguments with evidence. Take your pick of a term.
You've been saying this for the last ten messages. Cut the bullshit
and state your evidence.
Bet he doesn't!
Mani Deli
-Albert Einstein
Anybody have any evidence for this supposed quote? I'm skeptical
...no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
wrote:
>How would history be different if people did not have challenges?
>People might still be in Europe thinking the world is flat.
or that
-He is a miserable sinner because someone ate the wrong fruit.
-a pair of every species of animal entered a ship before a big
rainstorm.
-A virgin gave birth to a jewish charismatic leader who created fish
and bread out of nothing, revived a corpse, and came back to life
three days after being executed.
-that there is a god who created the universe's largest concentration
camp out of sheer love.
-etc. etc.
Maria Underwood
> On 20 Aug 2003, Jeremy <dgepr...@hotmail.com> screwed up his
> face,
> groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
> news:UhW0b.212229$YN5.146347@sccrnsc01:
>
> First I'd like to point out that you're making these arguments
> as if we'd never heard them before, and that these arguments,
> precisely as you're putting them her, have been repeatedly and
> thoroughly debunked.
>
> Anyways, I just want to respond to one point of your post and
> see how you'd like to revise your arguments.
>
> > The laws of science show that matter can not come from
> > nothing.
>
> particles to appear from nothing and disappear into nothing,
> and this has been observed happening by competent scientists.
>
> So, no, the laws of science do not "show that matter can not
> come from nothing".
Interesting...do you have a source for that?
Therion Ware
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:43:27 GMT in alt.atheism, Jeremy (Jeremy
<dgepr...@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>This is a post in a series of postings. If you haven't read the
>previous post then please do so as it sets the way for this one.
>-----
>
>The argument I am trying to make at this point is that we can see
>evidences of a designer in the world around us. This is the first post
>of several posts where I want to look at some animals that exist here on
>earth.
[snip]
>I would suggest that the best explanation would be that the system was
>designed that way.
>
>Again, this is only one example.
Here's another: the Ichneumon fly.
A particularly nasty variety of insect.
Ichneumons parasitise most insect groups - especially moths and
butterflies and other Hymenoptera, as well as spiders.
The females lay their eggs in or on the larvae or pupae (rarely eggs
or adults) of the host. The ichneumon larva feeds on the fats and body
fluids of the host until fully grown, then usually spins a silken
cocoon. The species that parasitise hosts in open habitats usually
develop as internal parasites; those that attack hosts in concealed
places, such as wood burrows, usually feed on the host externally. In
most cases a single larva develops in one host; in some cases,
however, many larvae develop in a single host.
It is difficult to imagine a good or beneficent God designing such a
means of reproduction, where life is brought forth by the literal
eating alive of another living entity. Such a design may be efficient,
but it is by no means beneficent.
As Darwin said:
I am bewildered. I have no intention to write atheistically. But I own
that I cannot see as plainly as others, and as I should wish to do,
evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to
me much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York, Basic Books, 1958,
vol.1 p105
Pope Dilbert
There is no more fraudulent pro-god" argument than asking "why things
happen - and then proposing a "goddidit!"
You can pose the question "Why does snot hang at the end of your nose ... do
a few paragraphs of deranged guesses, and then clain "goddidit".
Then, someone with an EDUCATION comes along .. and tells you a scientific,
vlaid, and supported resaon of why it happens ... and even points to how it
evolved.
Does that stop you?
No. You merely wask "why is htere a lump of wax growing in my ear"? .......
and then conclude "goddidit"!
The tern scenario has been brought up before .. and it has been
scientifically explained before.
We really need to start numbering these insane creartionist/zealot
arguments. Insted of boring us again with yet another regurgitation of the
same garbage .. they could then just say ....Well There's #1 .... and #4 ...
and #6....
Jeremy
>>Again, this is only one example.
>
> Here's another: the Ichneumon fly.
>
> A particularly nasty variety of insect.
>
> Ichneumons parasitise most insect groups - especially moths and
> butterflies and other Hymenoptera, as well as spiders.
>
> The females lay their eggs in or on the larvae or pupae (rarely eggs
> or adults) of the host. The ichneumon larva feeds on the fats and body
> fluids of the host until fully grown, then usually spins a silken
> cocoon. The species that parasitise hosts in open habitats usually
> develop as internal parasites; those that attack hosts in concealed
> places, such as wood burrows, usually feed on the host externally. In
> most cases a single larva develops in one host; in some cases,
> however, many larvae develop in a single host.
In other words, one creature uses another creature for its survival.
> It is difficult to imagine a good or beneficent God designing such a
> means of reproduction, where life is brought forth by the literal
> eating alive of another living entity. Such a design may be efficient,
> but it is by no means beneficent.
Brining up whether or not it is beneficent is dealing with theology,
which breaks away from my main discussion about design and a designer.
I haven't covered what that designer might be like yet.
But since you brought up this theological point, let me address it.
Virtually every known species of animal uses other living things for
their own survival. That is the nature of life on this planet. Lions
eat other animals for food. Is that cruel to the other animals? Cows
eat grass. Is that cruel to the grass?
I can understand you point, but there is another theological concept
that can come into play here. Not all of God's creation was created equal.
The Bible clearly shows that man has value above the rest of creation.
We have a soul, created in the image of God. To have one animal preying
on another animal, or infecting another animal, or implanting its
offspring, does not show that God is not beneficent.
But about this fly itself. Often in nature we see a near balance of
things. If we did not have spiders, flies would most likely reproduce
unchecked.
And as for insects implanting their offspring into living organisms,
there are good things that we can easily come from this. Even now,
medial researchers are turning back to using maggots to cure some
conditions; specifically, non-wounds. One might even be able to argue
that this shows a beneficent God, that offers ways to cure our wounds
that we don't even have to apply... it applys itself.
--- Jeremy
Jeremy
> There is no more fraudulent pro-god" argument than asking "why things
> happen - and then proposing a "goddidit!"
The question is, can you give me another alternative?
> You can pose the question "Why does snot hang at the end of your nose ... do
> a few paragraphs of deranged guesses, and then clain "goddidit".
>
> Then, someone with an EDUCATION comes along .. and tells you a scientific,
> vlaid, and supported resaon of why it happens ... and even points to how it
> evolved.
Please do so?
(By the way, I suggest you look at your tone of the post. It certainly
does not add to credibility of your education)
> Does that stop you?
> No. You merely wask "why is htere a lump of wax growing in my ear"? .......
> and then conclude "goddidit"!
Have I done that? I don't think I would go to use that as an argument,
even if I believed it myself.
> The tern scenario has been brought up before .. and it has been
> scientifically explained before.
Then please do so.
--- Jeremy
John Vogel
"Pope Dilbert" <po...@nyc.com> wrote in message
news:lac1b.66828$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Jeremy" <dgepr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:22b1b.66397$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> scientifically explained before.
>
>
> We really need to start numbering these insane creartionist/zealot
> arguments. Insted of boring us again with yet another regurgitation of the
> same garbage .. they could then just say ....Well There's #1 .... and #4
...
> and #6....
That's really not a bad idea, Dilbert.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Jeremy poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
> This is a post in a series of postings. If you haven't read the
> previous post then please do so as it sets the way for this one.
Nice maneuver, Jeremy. Ignore the problems with your previous argument
and jus' keep on chuggin'.
[ snip an Argument from Ignorance ]
As I mentioned previously, the Argument from Design is a known fallacy.
Using another fallacy in support of it is considered bad form. This is
especially ironic considering your claim to having "logical evidences".
Regards,
Josef
Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.
-- Bertrand Russell
Daniel T.
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
> > Their conclusion, "The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal
> > is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a
> > beginning is scientifically correct." does not follow from the
> > evidence...
>
> That is why I use them as a starting point only. I agree with much of
> his arguments, but not all.
Well then, obviously if your "proof" is going to follow from this
starting point, we have a real problem because the starting point itself
is quite debatable.
Jeremy
>>I feel that evidence shows us that the universe had a
>>beginning.
>>
>>So if the universe had a beginning, ...
>
>
>
> So, ummmmmm ...... where's the evidence for a beginning? You did
> claim that you were going to present evidence.
Do you want me to go into this? I can, but a lot of other people seem
to already accept this as a true statement.
>>When I look at the option of it not being caused, I don't see this as a
>>logical option. If something did not cause the universe to be created,
>>then it would have had to come from nothing.
>
> Why is that a problem?
See next paragraph.
>>The laws of science show that matter can not come from nothing. If I
>>accept that matter can come from nothing, that puts the rest of science
>>in an very odd position.
>>So I come to the conclusion that something had to cause the beginning of
>>the universe.
>
>
>
> Not at all. You seem to be confusing matter with the universe. The
> universe is more than matter.
I should have said matter/energy. That is really what I am referring to
here. The universe is also made up of time.
>>If you want to debate this second step further, again,
>>feel free to spin off a thread on that.
>
> IOW, you are saying that it is an assumption that you do not intend to
> support here.
No, it is a discussion that I am more than willing to have, but because
I know a number of people will agree with this point, I want to move on.
Again, if you want to stop and discuss this, we can. Just say so.
>>Now, if something did cause the beginning of the universe, what was the
>>cause? Was it some mechanic of science that we know don't know about yet?
>
> That would be a reasonable assumption.
That takes faith in science that science alone can answer all questions.
> The Argument from Design has been dead for more than 200 years. It was
> trashed by David Hume. Do you have a refutation for Hume's argument?
>
> http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/RS/ID1.htm
>
> http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/RS/ID2.htm
Reading it now. I will post a response later.
Graham Kennedy
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>>
>> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html
>>
>> Quotes :
>>
>> "The vacuum is seething with activity. Particles continuously
>> come into existence and go out of existence all of the time."
>>
>> "Because of the equivalence between matter and energy, these
>> small energy fluctuations can produce matter (particles)
>> which exists for a short time and then disappears."
>>
>> Creation from nothing, without cause! Amazing, isn't it?
>>
>
> I read the article, but it says nothing about something from nothing.
Did you miss the second sentance of my quote?
"Particles continuously COME INTO EXISTENCE..."
> This talks about matter from energy. We see matter changed into energy
> all of the time, so energy in to matter makes sense as well.
>
> Nuclear reactors take matter into energy. I am talking about
> matter/energy being created from nothing, not from each other.
That's not what it is talking about.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Mark Nutter
> Now the arctic tern is a bird that lives on the north slopes of Alaska
> and Canada during the summer months in the northern hemisphere, and then
> migrates to the southern tip of South America during the summer in the
> southern hemisphere. That is a round trip of up to 24,000 US miles each
> year.
> ...
> Why would someone like an all-knowing, all-powerful being make a little
> bird fly thousands of miles round trip?
>
> There is a bigger picture here, though. If you zoom out a little bit
> you might realize that the arctic tern is part of the food chain. The
> fact of the matter is that many plants and animals in two remote,
> isolated, very delicate ecosystems rely on the arctic tern for food and
> nutrients.
>
> It may not be in the tern's best interest to make the journey. It may
> not help the species survive at all. If the tern didn't make the
> journey, though, several species of plants an animals in those isolated
> ecosystems would go into extinction.
>
> I would suggest that the best explanation would be that the system was
> designed that way.
Good example. Obviously, if the same designer had designed both the
tern and the polar ecosystems, (and if this designer had had a
reasonable amount of intelligence), he could have come up with a more
efficient and practical design that did not require the tern to make
such a long journey every year at no benefit to itself. He could have
designed the polar ecosystems to take advantage of a more local
species, or he could have designed a more robust polar ecosystem that
did not require "migrant labor" for its survival. Or he could have
simply designed it to do what so many other species have done: become
extinct.
Obviously, without knowing what goals any designer(s) may have had in
mind, it is not possible to determine whether the behavior of the tern
was deliberately designed or not, or whether its interactions with the
polar ecosystems were intentionally designed or not. We might,
however, speculate about what goals any designer(s) may have had, and
compare our observations with our speculations.
For example, suppose we have three separate designers with conflicting
goals. The first designer designed the tern to be a local species,
i.e. one that didn't make wastefully long voyages from one end of the
planet to the other at no benefit to itself. This first designer
would have designed the tern to be well-adapted to its environment,
efficient in its usage of resources, and generally native to a
particular ecosystem. Her design would be both pleasing and
practical, and wouldn't put any pointless burdens on the bird.
Now suppose the second designer wants to show how harsh and
inhospitable the polar regions are, so he designs a polar ecosystem
that is unstable and not self-sufficient, doomed to inevitable
extinction over a relatively short time frame. But the third designer
thinks that's too harsh, so she co-opts the tern, and makes some
modifications to its design that inspire it to make long and needless
(from its perspective) trans-global journeys twice a year, just so it
can prop up the polar ecosystems and compensate for their built-in
flaws.
This scenario allows us to see the scientific evidence in terms of at
least two goddesses and at least one god, who have some conflicting
ideas about what goals the tern should accomplish, and whether or not
the polar ecosystems should survive in their present form.
In the end, though, we are still left with the question, does the
evidence actually indicate that the phenomena we observe reflect an
actual design intended to achieve a particular goal? If we do not
know what the goal is, our speculations about whether a particular
phenomenon is intended to achieve the goal are just that: mere
speculation. How do we know that the alleged designer did not intend
for the polar ecosystems to collapse, and that the tern's behavior is
not actually frustrating the designer's design?
Just because we can imagine that the tern's behavior might have been
designed to accomplish an imagined goal, doesn't mean that it
necessarily was. Perhaps we are seeing a genuine design, or perhaps
not. Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Instead of inferring
purpose in the tern's trans-global voyage, we ought instead to notice
both the pointlessness of the tern's extensive range, and the
apparently random deterioration by which the polar ecosystems have
become so dependent upon the tern that they can no longer sustain
themselves without it. Did the tern's behavior actually encourage a
degradation in the ecosystems' robustness, and if it did, what does
that imply about any "design" we might infer from the tern?
To repeat what I said before, if there existed any loving, personal,
omnipotent and omniscient God who wanted to bring each of us to
salvation through a saving knowledge of Himself and His Gospel, why
would He so suppress the evidence of His existence that you would need
to follow artic terns to the most inhospitable regions on the planet
and make the kind of difficult scientific ecological studies needed to
be able to speculate that one or more designers may have played a role
in the tern's behavior? Why would He leave only *that* kind of
"evidence," and omit the more normal evidences of a genuine, loving
concern, like showing up now and then, saying "Hello" occasionally,
and spending some time in the tangible, personal interactions that are
an essential part of healthy relationships?
The fact that you have to go to the ends of the earth to find evidence
of God, and even then can only find speculative conclusions, is itself
pretty strong evidence *against* the idea that a loving, personal God
actually exists and wants to have a relationship with us.
m
aa#2115
Graham Kennedy
> Now some may say that you would have to throw out a designer as well.
> Why would someone like an all-knowing, all-powerful being make a little
> bird fly thousands of miles round trip?
>
> There is a bigger picture here, though. If you zoom out a little bit
> you might realize that the arctic tern is part of the food chain. The
> fact of the matter is that many plants and animals in two remote,
> isolated, very delicate ecosystems rely on the arctic tern for food and
> nutrients.
>
> It may not be in the tern's best interest to make the journey. It may
> not help the species survive at all. If the tern didn't make the
> journey, though, several species of plants an animals in those isolated
> ecosystems would go into extinction.
>
> I would suggest that the best explanation would be that the system was
> designed that way.
>
> Again, this is only one example.
I'm a little confused. Just what is it about this example
that gives any indication of a design at work?
I mean, if I understand you correctly, your argument is as
follows :
1) The Tern is really good at navigating by unknown means.
2) The journey is a lot of effort, and does not seem to benefit
the tern.
3) Therefore the journey must be designed benefit the other animals.
4) Therefore the tern was probably designed to fulfil that purpose.
I mean, I'm no biologist but I honestly can't see how this argument
makes any sense at all. Because you can't find any benefit to the
tern, you assume that the journey must be designed to benefit the
other animals. Why? What evidence supports this? Why isn't it just
as likely that the other animals are just taking advantage? You
are assuming that because no other answer exists (and I see only
your word on that), then your answer must be the reasonable one.
An analogy. Suppose a train crashes. All sorts of goods get thrown
all over the place. Some people come and steal those goods.
The accident board looks into the wreck and can find nothing wrong
with the train. They therefore conclude that a giant invisible
duck made the crash happen so that the people would be able to steal
the goods from the train. I then cite this as proof that giant
invisible ducks exist.
Would this conclusion make any sense at all? Of course not! The
people just took advantage of the opportunity, that's all. Same
with the animals that benefit from the tern - there's no reason
to suppose that somebody designed it that way, when they seem to
just be taking advantage of the tern's presence.