Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Voice of Reason and Faith Issue 2

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:26:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Then the next obvious question is, what is the difference between a universe with or without any God according to this?

I would claim no difference at all.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:17:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The concept of the universe having a beginning was an uncomfortable position even for Albert Einstein to accept. Yes, creation points to a beginning, but this does not necessitate a beginning for the Creator. And you're right Pitbull, what exactly the Creator did to bring about the beginning, be it the Big Bang or otherwise, we don't know.

IMO there are some mysteries that we are incapable of discovering by scientific means. One of them is the afterlife. That is a closed door. Whatever God, the Creator prohibits becomes an impossibility. Scientists will never be able to provide an answer as to what exactly happens to our soul when we pass on. Never. All science will accomplish in that regard is provide scratch-surfacing discoveries. The area of the afterlife is an issue between man and his Creator.

And another mystery is what happened at the beginning. Science will not answer that question in a grass roots sense. Did God mix A with B, sprinkling in a little bit of C to get D? Or did God merely will us into existence with just what we can only describe as a thought? That's something that science itself will not answer. However, God created science, so we can continue to learn within His limitation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:44:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You ran away from issue 1 what's the point of issue 2.

Have you got a different escape route for your running away?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 7:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The idea of a metaphysical being creating something in a realm it is not able to be recognized, while expecting to be via a means that would contradict all rational thinking in is a notion that is nonsensical from the get go.
It's implicitly understood that this appeal to the unknown as a means to explain why unknown things happen is just admitting WE DON'T KNOW and we know WE DON'T KNOW.

some of us are scared WE DON'T KNOW and uses this non explanation to explain what ultimately leads us to....WE DON'T KNOW, others are inspired and QUESTION AUTHORITY and have discovered many many empirical truths that has changed the world.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 10:48:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

When the Big-Bang Theory was first proposed it caused a dilemma for atheist thinkers, for they had long claimed that the universe was eternal, and therefore could not have had a creator. Showing that the universe had a beginning opened the door to the possibility of creation. Today most scientists make a pretty big deal of the fact that they are willing to admit what they don't know, so why shouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? The human mind is encased in flesh and bone, never seeing the light of day. It excels at one very specific thing: creating models based upon electrical signals supplied to it from outside sources. We each have unique models, though the models may be similar.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 11:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

So, in other words, space and time came from that which is nonspatial and atemporal?
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:26:13 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Then the next obvious question is, what is the difference between a universe with or without any God according to this?

I would claim no difference at all.

Perhaps not in its present state. But the beginning is what matters most. I think a good revision of the question is would there be a universe if it weren't for God?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:18:17 AM, etherealvoyager wrote:
Have you ever considered writing a blog?

Lol this is my blog. As far as DDO goes, of course. The site has many intelligent people that are hard to find anywhere else, so I picked here to write.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:36:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:17:33 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
The concept of the universe having a beginning was an uncomfortable position even for Albert Einstein to accept. Yes, creation points to a beginning, but this does not necessitate a beginning for the Creator. And you're right Pitbull, what exactly the Creator did to bring about the beginning, be it the Big Bang or otherwise, we don't know.

IMO there are some mysteries that we are incapable of discovering by scientific means. One of them is the afterlife. That is a closed door. Whatever God, the Creator prohibits becomes an impossibility. Scientists will never be able to provide an answer as to what exactly happens to our soul when we pass on. Never. All science will accomplish in that regard is provide scratch-surfacing discoveries. The area of the afterlife is an issue between man and his Creator.

Yes, that's right. Even science has its own limitations. IMO it's not very productive to spend a lot of time thinking about the afterlife, as such things are beyond human comprehension.

And another mystery is what happened at the beginning. Science will not answer that question in a grass roots sense. Did God mix A with B, sprinkling in a little bit of C to get D? Or did God merely will us into existence with just what we can only describe as a thought? That's something that science itself will not answer. However, God created science, so we can continue to learn within His limitation.

Exactly. Science is here to give us the answers to everything physical and to answer the questions of what's physically here. That's where metaphysics would come in and when mixed with science and philosophy, can give us possible answers. Although as humans we'll never know for sure.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:38:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 7:41:29 PM, perplexed wrote:
The idea of a metaphysical being creating something in a realm it is not able to be recognized, while expecting to be via a means that would contradict all rational thinking in is a notion that is nonsensical from the get go.
It's implicitly understood that this appeal to the unknown as a means to explain why unknown things happen is just admitting WE DON'T KNOW and we know WE DON'T KNOW.

I agree with most of what you said. Although I want to add whether or not it's within human comprehension at the moment doesn't have much to do with it being true.

some of us are scared WE DON'T KNOW and uses this non explanation to explain what ultimately leads us to....WE DON'T KNOW, others are inspired and QUESTION AUTHORITY and have discovered many many empirical truths that has changed the world.

So what do you mean by that? I did mention that religion doesn't claim to know everything and explained why.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:40:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 10:48:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

When the Big-Bang Theory was first proposed it caused a dilemma for atheist thinkers, for they had long claimed that the universe was eternal, and therefore could not have had a creator. Showing that the universe had a beginning opened the door to the possibility of creation. Today most scientists make a pretty big deal of the fact that they are willing to admit what they don't know, so why shouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? The human mind is encased in flesh and bone, never seeing the light of day. It excels at one very specific thing: creating models based upon electrical signals supplied to it from outside sources. We each have unique models, though the models may be similar.

And most of the time when they make a big deal out of it it's when they compare themselves to religious people. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? I've met people that think the exact opposite and coincidentally, are very closed-minded.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 11:05:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

So, in other words, space and time came from that which is nonspatial and atemporal?

It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe. I don't see any logical absurdities or contradictions here. Time, however, is metaphysical by its nature.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 2:52:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe.

Why?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:23:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 11:05:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

So, in other words, space and time came from that which is nonspatial and atemporal?

It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe. I don't see any logical absurdities or contradictions here. Time, however, is metaphysical by its nature.

Since this nonphysical being existed alone, from where did it get these physical devices to bring about our universe?

Secondly, how does something that is atemporal act in time?

Thirdly, to say time is metaphysical is a contradiction, in terms; metaphysical simply means beyond space and time.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:38:14 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 7:41:29 PM, perplexed wrote:
The idea of a metaphysical being creating something in a realm it is not able to be recognized, while expecting to be via a means that would contradict all rational thinking in is a notion that is nonsensical from the get go.
It's implicitly understood that this appeal to the unknown as a means to explain why unknown things happen is just admitting WE DON'T KNOW and we know WE DON'T KNOW.

I agree with most of what you said. Although I want to add whether or not it's within human comprehension at the moment doesn't have much to do with it being true.
exactly so why hold people accountable for something they don't comprehend?

some of us are scared WE DON'T KNOW and uses this non explanation to explain what ultimately leads us to....WE DON'T KNOW, others are inspired and QUESTION AUTHORITY and have discovered many many empirical truths that has changed the world.

So what do you mean by that? I did mention that religion doesn't claim to know everything and explained why.

so what is so special about religion?
since believers and non believers are capable of doing the exact same things..
both get sick, are subject to accidents, have loved ones that die, are capable of love and are capable of forgiving, recognize their short comings, value loyalty, are compassionate...
the list of similarities far out weigh the differences where people are judged more harshly by....their belief system i.e. religion
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 8:45:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

Apart from who can and can't do various things.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts.

Doesn't work, I'm afraid; the physical mechanisms were what was supposedly being created. If they were a tool of their own creation, they already existed and didn't need to be created. A metaphysical entity that 'preceded' physical reality would have to use metaphysical tools to 'create' that physical reality. Otherwise it would be a physical entity.

"I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this.

Which is the answer that many atheists give re: the existence of god or the possible origins of reality.

So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

Because there are many religious people who are anti-scientific. For the creationists and social fascists amongst religion, it very much does contradict scripture. These people are the problem and if they disappeared then I don't think you'd find atheists really cared at all about religious believers.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 9:51:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:32:38 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:26:13 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Then the next obvious question is, what is the difference between a universe with or without any God according to this?

I would claim no difference at all.

Perhaps not in its present state. But the beginning is what matters most. I think a good revision of the question is would there be a universe if it weren't for God?

Which god?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 11:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:


Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

it claims to be representing an all encompassing authority and this authority's will

so i strongly disagree with that sentiment.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 10:04:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:40:17 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 10:48:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

When the Big-Bang Theory was first proposed it caused a dilemma for atheist thinkers, for they had long claimed that the universe was eternal, and therefore could not have had a creator. Showing that the universe had a beginning opened the door to the possibility of creation. Today most scientists make a pretty big deal of the fact that they are willing to admit what they don't know, so why shouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? The human mind is encased in flesh and bone, never seeing the light of day. It excels at one very specific thing: creating models based upon electrical signals supplied to it from outside sources. We each have unique models, though the models may be similar.

And most of the time when they make a big deal out of it it's when they compare themselves to religious people. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? I've met people that think the exact opposite and coincidentally, are very closed-minded.

Everything should apply to "both sides." In fact, when it comes to identifying the truth there is only one side, and what we believe as individuals does nothing to change it. What perplexes me is why so many people seem so quick to judge others based on such minor things. Everyone has the capacity to contribute to the world in some way, if only they have the will to really try.
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:42:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 8:23:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 11:05:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

So, in other words, space and time came from that which is nonspatial and atemporal?

It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe. I don't see any logical absurdities or contradictions here. Time, however, is metaphysical by its nature.

Since this nonphysical being existed alone, from where did it get these physical devices to bring about our universe?

If it's an all-powerful being, it would have to create them, of course. I still don't see anything wrong with that.

Secondly, how does something that is atemporal act in time?

If a being is omnipotent, I see no reason why it can't. If the being created time, one can suppose it can act in and out of it.

Thirdly, to say time is metaphysical is a contradiction, in terms; metaphysical simply means beyond space and time.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

Like I said, we can't know everything; and while it may sound like a cop-out, that includes God. An all-powerful deity would probably be beyond total human comprehension. But that doesn't mean we can't learn about Him.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:44:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 2:52:57 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe.

Why?

Because there's evidence of all the physical devices that happened to bring about the universe, but we don't know everything behind them. There aren't any logical absurdities with my statement.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:55:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 8:45:35 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

Apart from who can and can't do various things.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts.

Doesn't work, I'm afraid; the physical mechanisms were what was supposedly being created. If they were a tool of their own creation, they already existed and didn't need to be created. A metaphysical entity that 'preceded' physical reality would have to use metaphysical tools to 'create' that physical reality. Otherwise it would be a physical entity.

And physical reality being the devices that brought our universe into being? Not sure I see what you're getting at here...

"I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this.

Which is the answer that many atheists give re: the existence of god or the possible origins of reality.

So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

Because there are many religious people who are anti-scientific. For the creationists and social fascists amongst religion, it very much does contradict scripture. These people are the problem and if they disappeared then I don't think you'd find atheists really cared at all about religious believers.

There's plenty of congenial and open-minded believers, luckily.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:57:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 9:51:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:32:38 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:26:13 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Then the next obvious question is, what is the difference between a universe with or without any God according to this?

I would claim no difference at all.

Perhaps not in its present state. But the beginning is what matters most. I think a good revision of the question is would there be a universe if it weren't for God?

Which god?

Irrelevant.

Once it's established that a supernatural intelligent force created the universe, it can be narrowed down to which one. That deserves its own debate entirely and would be debated presuming that there is a deity to begin with.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:59:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:17:27 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:


Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

it claims to be representing an all encompassing authority and this authority's will

so i strongly disagree with that sentiment.

So what are you getting at here? It still doesn't claim to know everything about everything. Even in the Bible, it's mentioned that God would be beyond total human comprehension.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:02:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 10:04:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:40:17 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 10:48:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

When the Big-Bang Theory was first proposed it caused a dilemma for atheist thinkers, for they had long claimed that the universe was eternal, and therefore could not have had a creator. Showing that the universe had a beginning opened the door to the possibility of creation. Today most scientists make a pretty big deal of the fact that they are willing to admit what they don't know, so why shouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? The human mind is encased in flesh and bone, never seeing the light of day. It excels at one very specific thing: creating models based upon electrical signals supplied to it from outside sources. We each have unique models, though the models may be similar.

And most of the time when they make a big deal out of it it's when they compare themselves to religious people. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to both sides? I've met people that think the exact opposite and coincidentally, are very closed-minded.

Everything should apply to "both sides." In fact, when it comes to identifying the truth there is only one side, and what we believe as individuals does nothing to change it. What perplexes me is why so many people seem so quick to judge others based on such minor things. Everyone has the capacity to contribute to the world in some way, if only they have the will to really try.

A good example of what you're talking about is how many Christians fight over the age of the Earth and whatnot.

Ravi Zacharias got it right when he said we need to direct more of our focus on bigger issues of Christianity.

And yes, everyone has the potential to make a difference, but the difference lies in in their will.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 5:12:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:55:14 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
And physical reality being the devices that brought our universe into being? Not sure I see what you're getting at here...

You're joking, right? If god is metaphysical then he had to create the physical. At some juncture this would require that there be nothing physical and there be something physical. Since god is being held as metaphysical (distinct from the physical), he must have used metaphysical mechanisms to create the first physical ones.

There's plenty of congenial and open-minded believers, luckily.

I don't see how this has anything to do with anything; the fact that there are people who are not a problem has no bearing on the fact that there are a large number of people who ARE a problem.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:28:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:59:06 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:17:27 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:


Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

it claims to be representing an all encompassing authority and this authority's will

so i strongly disagree with that sentiment.

So what are you getting at here? It still doesn't claim to know everything about everything.

hmmm...so what is the purpose of claiming to know the will of an all encompassing authority?

"Even in the Bible, it's mentioned that God would be beyond total human comprehension."

how can that claim be established unless one was god and knew god's intentions.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:42:35 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 8:23:24 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/7/2014 2:42:11 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/5/2014 11:05:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:25:03 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
According to many skeptics of religion, theists will and must claim to know everything from the beginnings of the universe to what morals each of us should follow in order to argue their position. This is what's called "Religion and the Impossible Claim", and that's exactly what I'm going to argue against this week.

Religion, at its core, never claims to know everything.

I get it; most of you probably think that "Goddidit" is the explanation the Bible and other holy books have to offer for the universe's origins. And many more of you probably think that we aren't willing to admit our ignorance on this subject of the universe's beginnings. If you're an atheist reading this, an educated theist, or someone who's not sure what to think about religion's claims, then I have an argument that may interest you.

What I think is that as far as origins is concerned, there are two separate realms: physical and metaphysical. As most of us know already, God is/would be metaphysical by His very nature, so it would only be reasonable to assume that when He created the physical universe, He used a physical mechanism of sorts. The Big Bang? Maybe. After all, the holy books don't say what physically caused creation, they just mention that God caused it to happen. We don't know for sure what happened physically to cause the universe; but metaphysically, God would be behind it all. It's up to us and science to find out what happened to cause the universe on a physical level. So from an educated and logical point of view combined with theism, this would make more sense than just claiming to know the answers to every little thing. "I don't know" can be an acceptable answer when it comes to this. There is no way that we, as earthly humans, can possess all the knowledge and wisdom; so if you are one of the faithful and lack knowledge on subjects like these, there's nothing wrong with admitting it. After all, you're not alone; nobody still knows for sure what physically happened to start the universe. So why don't we keep searching and grow as a civilization while hopefully making new advancements in technology in our search? That's one of the core ideas behind science, and the best part is that it doesn't contradict scripture in any way.

I kept this week's topic short because I wanted to engage more in a conversational forum debate this time. So if you have any questions and comments, just post here.

Next week, I'm going to need to address the topic of whether or not the Bible condones rape, genocide, and slavery. For many of you more highly educated theists and atheists, the answer to that should be as obvious as the computer screens you're looking at; but the answers to that question need to go out to as many people as possible, which is why it will be the subject matter next week.

Thanks for reading! =D

So, in other words, space and time came from that which is nonspatial and atemporal?

It depends. I am positing that a metaphysical being used physical devices to bring about our universe. I don't see any logical absurdities or contradictions here. Time, however, is metaphysical by its nature.

Since this nonphysical being existed alone, from where did it get these physical devices to bring about our universe?

If it's an all-powerful being, it would have to create them, of course. I still don't see anything wrong with that.

All-powerful means all the power there is; it doesn't mean all the power there isn't; that doesn't make sense. Yet, God's being metaphysical would be metaphysical in power. (Whatever that means.) You're trying to get something from nothing, and that's a violation of logic. According to most theists, God is not a physical being; so, therefore, to take physicality from something that doesn't have it to give is a violation of the law of noncontradiction.


Secondly, how does something that is atemporal act in time?

If a being is omnipotent, I see no reason why it can't. If the being created time, one can suppose it can act in and out of it.

Again, omnipotent doesn't mean all the power there isn't; it means all the power there is. Needless to say, God's being atemporal is void of temporality; zero plus zero will always equal zero; to say otherwise contradicts logic.


Thirdly, to say time is metaphysical is a contradiction, in terms; metaphysical simply means beyond space and time.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

Like I said, we can't know everything; and while it may sound like a cop-out, that includes God. An all-powerful deity would probably be beyond total human comprehension. But that doesn't mean we can't learn about Him.

We know that which we know, and if that which we know contradicts that which we know, then, that which we know doesn't make sense.