Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

the thing that created the whole universe!

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.

Objective means without emotional bias.

There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:13:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:31:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.

Objective means without emotional bias.

I am aware of no evidence that can be presented for god which does not rely on an emotional bias. Also, on a side note - I do not consider arguments for god to be evidence since they provide no certainty.


There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 9:21:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:13:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:31:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.

Objective means without emotional bias.

I am aware of no evidence that can be presented for god which does not rely on an emotional bias. Also, on a side note - I do not consider arguments for god to be evidence since they provide no certainty.

Evidence is merely the facts as observed. It takes argumentation to provide context for those observations. And sometimes to reconcile observation with other factors.

Argumentation for god certainly due have a level a confidence, and I say there is no emotional bias in arguments like the fine tuning argument.

And no hypothesis in the inductive method known as scientific inquiry is "Certain" it is all tentative.

Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 10:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 9:21:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:13:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:31:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.

Objective means without emotional bias.

I am aware of no evidence that can be presented for god which does not rely on an emotional bias. Also, on a side note - I do not consider arguments for god to be evidence since they provide no certainty.

Evidence is merely the facts as observed. It takes argumentation to provide context for those observations. And sometimes to reconcile observation with other factors.

Argumentation for god certainly due have a level a confidence, and I say there is no emotional bias in arguments like the fine tuning argument.

And no hypothesis in the inductive method known as scientific inquiry is "Certain" it is all tentative.

This is true, but physical evidence provides a higher level of certainty than that of logical arguments. I can measure a length of board and come to a objective conclusion that we can all agree on. Arguments for the length of board can be right or wrong, and we have no way of knowing which is correct (if any) without measuring it. So, in this way I am referring to 'objective' in the sense that we can all agree on it. There is no way to actually measure god, is there?

Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 10:29:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D : :

Our Creator who is totally invisible to His creation was the one who created a computing language called vibrations. From these vibrations, He was able to create characters called men and beasts along with all their life experiences in a program called Eternal Life. Each created being is like a computer processor that is used to form a well defined world for him to live in that he can observe, smell, taste, hear, touch, speak and feel emotionally. There are many other senses that the created being experiences in the flesh, also.

Each created being gets some information to process that puts him in the first age in a visible flesh. This being in the flesh can only observe a tiny portion of the earth that we're living on and when he shares his experiences with another created being in the flesh, the world gets bigger. The more created beings in the flesh who share their experiences together in the form of speaking to each other, writing books, producing movies, drawing pictures, artistic paintings, inventions, music, or whatever means they share their experiences with, the world keeps growing into a very big universe that appears to never end.

This age was only meant for our Creator to teach us who we are and that we're experiencing a virtual reality that started as dreams in the thoughts of our Creator. We don't know anything beyond our virtual reality we're experiencing because He hasn't taught us saints about Himself other than He's our Creator. At least He has taught us saints how He created and formed us before ending this part of His virtual reality.

All the flesh will die off in this first age and we created beings will awaken in new flesh in the New Heaven and Earth. However, we won't be looking up into the sky and see any objects such as a sun, moon, planets, stars, asteroids, etc. The whole sky will be lit up brightly for eternity without a day and night. In fact, the light will be 7 times brighter than the sunlit sky we observe in this universe.

This all means that our universe we're experiencing together in this age is only an illusion that isn't real at all. There's no such thing as time, space and matter. They are all illusions that can only be experienced by each created being in the flesh. In fact, in the next age, we won't understand what time means and we won't be asking any questions of how all the visible objects came into being. We will be taught that everything we observe are only visions and dreams.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 11:13:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 10:04:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:21:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 9:13:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:31:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:32:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:17:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 5:10:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:49:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

It's not a scientific question if epistemological the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe.

He said,"Scientist's tell us the universe came from nothing". That is false - scientists don't tell us that. If anything, scientists (through the Laws of thermodynamics) tell us that the energy the universe was derived from was here already when the universe began to expand in the BB. It would probably be better to state observations of the universe lead us to believe the energy was pre-existent when the BB started, but we're not sure.

But with our laws as they are even Steven Hawking says there could have been more energy, breaking the thermodynamic law of conservation you refer to.

..and that does not contradict "We're not sure". ;-)


Also, theists/deists are generally the ones who tell us the universe came from nothing and came to be by an omnipotent being who currently exists outside of this universe and is undetectable. If the thing that caused the universe is undetectable from within the universe, then we should admit to ignorance instead of claiming it must be a certain way. Overall, I merely object to his misrepresentation of what scientists say.

Even for theist to say the universe came ex nilo is a relatively new idea from the 1600's. Some Ancient Theist saw God as forming the universe from a formless and void filled material known as the primeval element.

It doesn't matter when the belief started - it is fairly prevalent now.

But scientist may say the universe came from something else but if this something else is undetectable than it is not scientific. This something being a God however is detectable from within the universe.

A scientist speaking beyond what we can know through observations or experimentation is not speaking of science, and they are no longer speaking with any authority on the matter - so we agree on this. However, I disagree there is any objective evidence of god in this universe.

I know some take a epistemological nihilist approach to God's existence, and I would agree with you any argument from that position for or against God's existence would be an argument from ignorance.

Objective means without emotional bias.

I am aware of no evidence that can be presented for god which does not rely on an emotional bias. Also, on a side note - I do not consider arguments for god to be evidence since they provide no certainty.

Evidence is merely the facts as observed. It takes argumentation to provide context for those observations. And sometimes to reconcile observation with other factors.

Argumentation for god certainly due have a level a confidence, and I say there is no emotional bias in arguments like the fine tuning argument.

And no hypothesis in the inductive method known as scientific inquiry is "Certain" it is all tentative.

This is true, but physical evidence provides a higher level of certainty than that of logical arguments. I can measure a length of board and come to a objective conclusion that we can all agree on. Arguments for the length of board can be right or wrong, and we have no way of knowing which is correct (if any) without measuring it. So, in this way I am referring to 'objective' in the sense that we can all agree on it. There is no way to actually measure god, is there?

But objective does not mean consensus. the act of measuring is comparing something to another thing. In the case of physically measuring a board even this has cuased problems in things such as weights, distances (like cubit) and even measuring time. In this modern era we have what we might call platinum standards of what a yard is or a meter. And then all our comparisons or measurements are +- from this "standard". It's really a system of consensus and arbitration.

As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?


Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.


BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?


If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 12:08:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is true, but physical evidence provides a higher level of certainty than that of logical arguments. I can measure a length of board and come to a objective conclusion that we can all agree on. Arguments for the length of board can be right or wrong, and we have no way of knowing which is correct (if any) without measuring it. So, in this way I am referring to 'objective' in the sense that we can all agree on it. There is no way to actually measure god, is there?

But objective does not mean consensus. the act of measuring is comparing something to another thing. In the case of physically measuring a board even this has cuased problems in things such as weights, distances (like cubit) and even measuring time. In this modern era we have what we might call platinum standards of what a yard is or a meter. And then all our comparisons or measurements are +- from this "standard". It's really a system of consensus and arbitration.

Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.


Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.


BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

I am willing to entertain a deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic type of god, but as I said before, an Abrahamic god is extremely implausible from my point of view.


If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:16:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 12:08:51 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This is true, but physical evidence provides a higher level of certainty than that of logical arguments. I can measure a length of board and come to a objective conclusion that we can all agree on. Arguments for the length of board can be right or wrong, and we have no way of knowing which is correct (if any) without measuring it. So, in this way I am referring to 'objective' in the sense that we can all agree on it. There is no way to actually measure god, is there?

But objective does not mean consensus. the act of measuring is comparing something to another thing. In the case of physically measuring a board even this has cuased problems in things such as weights, distances (like cubit) and even measuring time. In this modern era we have what we might call platinum standards of what a yard is or a meter. And then all our comparisons or measurements are +- from this "standard". It's really a system of consensus and arbitration.

Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations


I agree and I think some argumentation for God is of premises with a conclusion that logically follows and not distorted by emotions. Now all humans to some extent fail to fully compartmentalize, but with the same measure that a theist has in their arguments I think an atheist has to theirs. (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

Well Deist God as it is popular today has it's roots more in the french deist philosophers. But nothing about Deist, pantheistic or other make such a god necessarily impersonal or uninterested in human affairs.

you may want to read up on some of the English deist like Tindal, Hume, Locke. English Deism is more akin to Americas founding fathers as evident by Jefferson's Bible. Which I think followed in Newton's footsteps as removing anything miraculous or supernatural sounding.



BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

Which really only leads me to ponder what would you accept as evidence for God? (like the standard measure and seeing the corvette we should agree on what counts as evidence).

And then I would ask if such evidence is fair to suspend belief for?


I am willing to entertain a deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic type of god, but as I said before, an Abrahamic god is extremely implausible from my point of view.


If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:58:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It appears that the comments in this thread are going off topic. It's not about whether a God exists or not. It's whether or not the universe came into being from nothing.

No visible object can appear from absolutely nothing. For one thing, any visible object that man builds has to start out with invisible thoughts that come into the mind.

A visible tree has many details to it that's impossible for man to draw plans for and build. So if anyone believes this tree came into being from nothing has to be totally confused.

If it takes invisible thoughts for man to build a visible object, then where do these invisible thoughts come from?

Scientists called physicists have questions about the visible objects and how they came into being.

Philosophers and people who study meta-physics have questions about where thoughts come from.

If invisible thoughts are needed to design visible objects, then invisible thoughts come first before any visible objects appeared in this universe.

So the main question should be, "Where do thoughts come from?" If this question can be answered, then you would find the source of the universe.

Physicists understand that particles are only waves ( vibrational ) unless they are observed. This known fact should tell anyone that particles are only illusions and not something that is real and that visible objects we observe came from vibrations

This means the universe doesn't really exist unless it's observed by an observer. All that exists are invisible vibrations which a few physicists call the 11th dimension in their string theories.

Now the question is, "Where did these invisible vibrations come from?"

These invisible vibrations had to come from somewhere. They did not appear out of nothing. This means they had to be created by something.

I know this SOMETHING very well and He called Himself the CREATOR in my mind back in December of 1979. He's the ONE who has taught me about His created invisible computing language where His program called Eternal Life exists. Within this program, are characters called men and beasts along with all the visible objects that will appear while His program is played out through each of His created beings who are the only one's who can observe and experience visible objects with their created senses, which are illusions, also.

So the idea of the universe coming from nothing is a very stupid one.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:14:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

C'mon be nice. The Christians are doing this whole post a link [provocative title]. I would think the Muslims would be better.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Lawrence M. Krauss

http://www.amazon.co.uk...

Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:54:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing. : :

When someone puts all the scientists into one group and says that they claim the universe came from nothing, they have no idea what they're talking about.

It's better to say, "I don't know how the universe came into being" instead of trying to plagiarize what other's have written or said.

I was taught directly by our Creator of everything that's visible and invisible. I don't listen to men who haven't got a clue how we were created and formed.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:41:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations


I agree and I think some argumentation for God is of premises with a conclusion that logically follows and not distorted by emotions. Now all humans to some extent fail to fully compartmentalize, but with the same measure that a theist has in their arguments I think an atheist has to theirs. (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Atheists reject the claims of theists. What is illogical about that?

Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.

Exactly, and by what standard undistorted by bias and emotion can we all agree on in regards to weighing god? There is none, right?


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument is not evidence, but merely backward logic in order to argue for god. You and I have had a discussion before I believe. I don't find the fine tuning argument to be compelling.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

Well Deist God as it is popular today has it's roots more in the french deist philosophers. But nothing about Deist, pantheistic or other make such a god necessarily impersonal or uninterested in human affairs.

Could be, I will need to check that out.

you may want to read up on some of the English deist like Tindal, Hume, Locke. English Deism is more akin to Americas founding fathers as evident by Jefferson's Bible. Which I think followed in Newton's footsteps as removing anything miraculous or supernatural sounding.



BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

No, not at all. I am suggesting the lack of evidence we have reason to expect makes me reject the god of the Bible. If there were verifiable objective evidence then I would have to re-evaluate my position. There are other issues I have with the claims of the Bible, so those would need to be addressed as well, but this would be a start.

Which really only leads me to ponder what would you accept as evidence for God? (like the standard measure and seeing the corvette we should agree on what counts as evidence).

And then I would ask if such evidence is fair to suspend belief for?



I am willing to entertain a deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic type of god, but as I said before, an Abrahamic god is extremely implausible from my point of view.


If god were as obvious as your right hand, that might satisfy you. Such prima facie conclusions are seldom as accurate as they appear or more the rarity than the general situation.



There are arguments for the existence of God that cite objective evidence.

I think you are using the word objective as solid and irrefutable. Which it does not mean, and doesn't apply to all the truths and theories science puts forward or what most humans accept each day.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:51:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Yes, I have. Laurance Krauss' nothing suggests space already exists, and the nothing in the Bible really means nothing.


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Yes, in space. Not outside of space.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.

Good try, but it is a different nothingness, unless theists are claiming space already existed before god did his thing. To which I would then point to Laurence Krauss' nothing and suggest god is not necessary if we presuppose space.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 9:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This video is very interesting indeed. Everytime the guy says "how can you explain that something came from nothing?", the people can't stand saying "I don't know", therefore they quickly say "God!", like if that would make them look less silly...A279;
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 12:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 8:51:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Yes, I have. Laurance Krauss' nothing suggests space already exists, and the nothing in the Bible really means nothing.


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Yes, in space. Not outside of space.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.

Good try, but it is a different nothingness, unless theists are claiming space already existed before god did his thing. To which I would then point to Laurence Krauss' nothing and suggest god is not necessary if we presuppose space.

Hold on, You Sa"d

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

To which I responded that indeed they do,

As Lawrence Kraus has a book titled a universel from nothing, i also state that he is eqivocating the word nothing, as nothing in the true sens" of the Word, is the absence of anything and has no causal proph"ties,

But doesn't stop him making the claim that the universel cames from nothing, in his search for attention
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 12:18:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 12:04:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:51:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Yes, I have. Laurance Krauss' nothing suggests space already exists, and the nothing in the Bible really means nothing.


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Yes, in space. Not outside of space.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.

Good try, but it is a different nothingness, unless theists are claiming space already existed before god did his thing. To which I would then point to Laurence Krauss' nothing and suggest god is not necessary if we presuppose space.


Hold on, You Sa"d


Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

To which I responded that indeed they do,

As Lawrence Kraus has a book titled a universel from nothing, i also state that he is eqivocating the word nothing, as nothing in the true sens" of the Word, is the absence of anything and has no causal proph"ties,

But doesn't stop him making the claim that the universel cames from nothing, in his search for attention

That is my point. The 'nothing' Laurence Krauss speaks of, and the 'nothing' theists speak of are completely different concepts. Laurence K is speaking of a quantum vacuum, and theist are speaking of nothingness - no matter, no energy, no space.

If you wish to insinuate that theists are speaking of a quantum vacuum, then god would not be necessary to explain how matter comes about on its own. Basically, the concept of god would be a redundant explanation. Plus you would be wrong about your insinuation.

If you wish to insinuate Laurence K is speaking of the nothingness in which an explanation of god the creator might make sense, then you are just wrong. He is not speaking of nothingness devoid of space. In the video, this is what the gentleman is doing, and that is simply incorrect.

I do wish Krauss had not sensationalized the quantum vacuum as "nothing", because it is not 'nothing', and the equivocation causes so much confusion and opportunities for manipulation.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 12:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 12:18:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 12:04:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:51:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Yes, I have. Laurance Krauss' nothing suggests space already exists, and the nothing in the Bible really means nothing.


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Yes, in space. Not outside of space.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.

Good try, but it is a different nothingness, unless theists are claiming space already existed before god did his thing. To which I would then point to Laurence Krauss' nothing and suggest god is not necessary if we presuppose space.


Hold on, You Sa"d


Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

To which I responded that indeed they do,

As Lawrence Kraus has a book titled a universel from nothing, i also state that he is eqivocating the word nothing, as nothing in the true sens" of the Word, is the absence of anything and has no causal proph"ties,

But doesn't stop him making the claim that the universel cames from nothing, in his search for attention

That is my point. The 'nothing' Laurence Krauss speaks of, and the 'nothing' theists speak of are completely different concepts. Laurence K is speaking of a quantum vacuum, and theist are speaking of nothingness - no matter, no energy, no space.

If you wish to insinuate that theists are speaking of a quantum vacuum, then god would not be necessary to explain how matter comes about on its own. Basically, the concept of god would be a redundant explanation. Plus you would be wrong about your insinuation.

If you wish to insinuate Laurence K is speaking of the nothingness in which an explanation of god the creator might make sense, then you are just wrong. He is not speaking of nothingness devoid of space. In the video, this is what the gentleman is doing, and that is simply incorrect.

I'm typing of my phone so will only say this,

I'm not insinuating anything,

All I did is if you heard of Lawrence Krauss, you obviously have.


I do wish Krauss had not sensationalized the quantum vacuum as "nothing", because it is not 'nothing', and the equivocation causes so much confusion and opportunities for manipulation.

And I agree with this paragraph^^^

Which is what I said, he is equivocating the word nothing, and it isn't just a theists definition of nothing, it's the proper definition.

Nothing is simply the absence of anything.

But of course Lawrence was attention seeking. I've even heard him declare a universe from literally nothing.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:40:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 12:52:16 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Which is what I said, he is equivocating the word nothing, and it isn't just a theists definition of nothing, it's the proper definition.

Nothing is simply the absence of anything.


But of course Lawrence was attention seeking. I've even heard him declare a universe from literally nothing.

I've heard Krauss lecture. He begins with the term "nothing" and talks about how this term has been misrepresented by theists due to the fact they use the proper definition. He then goes on to explain that space does not follow that definition, so no, scientists do not declare the universe came from "nothing".
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 3:29:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 12:52:16 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 12:18:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 12:04:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:51:05 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:44:30 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/5/2015 3:03:29 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/5/2015 11:11:19 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

~:D

Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.


Ever heard of Lawrence Krauss?

Yes, I have. Laurance Krauss' nothing suggests space already exists, and the nothing in the Bible really means nothing.


Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting.

Yes, in space. Not outside of space.

Lawrence M. Krauss


http://www.amazon.co.uk...


Obviously this is now outdated and misleading, as he was attention seeking by equivocating the word nothing,

Nothing, is simply the absence of anything, which can not possibly have any casual properties.

But to answer your statement, Scientists do claim the universe came from nothing.

Good try, but it is a different nothingness, unless theists are claiming space already existed before god did his thing. To which I would then point to Laurence Krauss' nothing and suggest god is not necessary if we presuppose space.


Hold on, You Sa"d


Scientist do not suggest the universe comes from nothing. That is a theistic position.

To which I responded that indeed they do,

As Lawrence Kraus has a book titled a universel from nothing, i also state that he is eqivocating the word nothing, as nothing in the true sens" of the Word, is the absence of anything and has no causal proph"ties,

But doesn't stop him making the claim that the universel cames from nothing, in his search for attention

That is my point. The 'nothing' Laurence Krauss speaks of, and the 'nothing' theists speak of are completely different concepts. Laurence K is speaking of a quantum vacuum, and theist are speaking of nothingness - no matter, no energy, no space.

If you wish to insinuate that theists are speaking of a quantum vacuum, then god would not be necessary to explain how matter comes about on its own. Basically, the concept of god would be a redundant explanation. Plus you would be wrong about your insinuation.

If you wish to insinuate Laurence K is speaking of the nothingness in which an explanation of god the creator might make sense, then you are just wrong. He is not speaking of nothingness devoid of space. In the video, this is what the gentleman is doing, and that is simply incorrect.

I'm typing of my phone so will only say this,

I'm not insinuating anything,


All I did is if you heard of Lawrence Krauss, you obviously have.


I do wish Krauss had not sensationalized the quantum vacuum as "nothing", because it is not 'nothing', and the equivocation causes so much confusion and opportunities for manipulation.


And I agree with this paragraph^^^

I understand where you are coming from. However, if you understand Krauss does not mean 'nothing' in the colloquial sense of the word, then you are relying on the same equivocation you rightly accuse him of.

When I say "scientists do not claim the universe came from nothing", I am not being cute or trying to decieve. Scientists do not claim the universe comes from no matter, no energy, and no space. That is a claim made solely by theists, and my statement is not reliant on semantics.

The gentleman in the video is either ignorant of this fact or he is intentionally trying to deceive. Either way, it is wrong.

Which is what I said, he is equivocating the word nothing, and it isn't just a theists definition of nothing, it's the proper definition.

Nothing is simply the absence of anything.


But of course Lawrence was attention seeking. I've even heard him declare a universe from literally nothing.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 8:41:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
... (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Atheists reject the claims of theists. What is illogical about that?

Sure sure, people go around saying god is imaginary, not real, like santa, like mermaids... and when challenged to back up such statements (which are statements about our shared reality) all atheist become epistemologically agnostic and are only really making claims about their own personal lack of belief.


Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.

Exactly, and by what standard undistorted by bias and emotion can we all agree on in regards to weighing god? There is none, right?

Well if something is defined so vague that it is confirmed by ANY observation and falsified by none then I wouldn't put any stock in such a concept. you know things like metaphysical naturalism.

But let's define God as an omniscient powerful eternal creator.


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument is not evidence, but merely backward logic in order to argue for god. You and I have had a discussion before I believe. I don't find the fine tuning argument to be compelling.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

No, not at all. I am suggesting the lack of evidence we have reason to expect makes me reject the god of the Bible. If there were verifiable objective evidence then I would have to re-evaluate my position. There are other issues I have with the claims of the Bible, so those would need to be addressed as well, but this would be a start.

What would be evidence for you that there is a God?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:27:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:22:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:41:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
... (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Atheists reject the claims of theists. What is illogical about that?

Sure sure, people go around saying god is imaginary, not real, like santa, like mermaids... and when challenged to back up such statements (which are statements about our shared reality) all atheist become epistemologically agnostic and are only really making claims about their own personal lack of belief.


Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.

Exactly, and by what standard undistorted by bias and emotion can we all agree on in regards to weighing god? There is none, right?

Well if something is defined so vague that it is confirmed by ANY observation and falsified by none then I wouldn't put any stock in such a concept. you know things like metaphysical naturalism.

But let's define God as an omniscient powerful eternal creator.


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument is not evidence, but merely backward logic in order to argue for god. You and I have had a discussion before I believe. I don't find the fine tuning argument to be compelling.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

No, not at all. I am suggesting the lack of evidence we have reason to expect makes me reject the god of the Bible. If there were verifiable objective evidence then I would have to re-evaluate my position. There are other issues I have with the claims of the Bible, so those would need to be addressed as well, but this would be a start.

What would be evidence for you that there is a God? : :

This thread isn't about the existence of God or not. It's whether or not the universe came into being from nothing.

Anyone who believes the visible objects came into being from nothing cannot think very deeply.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:35:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:27:49 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:22:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:41:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
... (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Atheists reject the claims of theists. What is illogical about that?

Sure sure, people go around saying god is imaginary, not real, like santa, like mermaids... and when challenged to back up such statements (which are statements about our shared reality) all atheist become epistemologically agnostic and are only really making claims about their own personal lack of belief.


Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.

Exactly, and by what standard undistorted by bias and emotion can we all agree on in regards to weighing god? There is none, right?

Well if something is defined so vague that it is confirmed by ANY observation and falsified by none then I wouldn't put any stock in such a concept. you know things like metaphysical naturalism.

But let's define God as an omniscient powerful eternal creator.


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument is not evidence, but merely backward logic in order to argue for god. You and I have had a discussion before I believe. I don't find the fine tuning argument to be compelling.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

No, not at all. I am suggesting the lack of evidence we have reason to expect makes me reject the god of the Bible. If there were verifiable objective evidence then I would have to re-evaluate my position. There are other issues I have with the claims of the Bible, so those would need to be addressed as well, but this would be a start.

What would be evidence for you that there is a God? : :

This thread isn't about the existence of God or not. It's whether or not the universe came into being from nothing.

Anyone who believes the visible objects came into being from nothing cannot think very deeply.

The visible comes from the invisible.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:37:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:35:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:27:49 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:22:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/6/2015 8:41:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
... (I of course also find atheist arguments to fail logically so they fail in both regards)

Atheists reject the claims of theists. What is illogical about that?

Sure sure, people go around saying god is imaginary, not real, like santa, like mermaids... and when challenged to back up such statements (which are statements about our shared reality) all atheist become epistemologically agnostic and are only really making claims about their own personal lack of belief.


Provided we agree on the standards of measurement (a tape measure) then we will agree the board is 12 - 7/8 inches or very very close to that. Arguments might provide 11, 13.5, and 12 - 7/8 inches. Without a way to measure the board, we have no way to tell which is right (or which is closer to right).

Well right being that we agree and this agreement comes only from prior agreeing to the technique and standard of measure.

Exactly, and by what standard undistorted by bias and emotion can we all agree on in regards to weighing god? There is none, right?

Well if something is defined so vague that it is confirmed by ANY observation and falsified by none then I wouldn't put any stock in such a concept. you know things like metaphysical naturalism.

But let's define God as an omniscient powerful eternal creator.


As far as measuring God. What could we compare such a being to? Certainly he is compared a lot to things inside creation (us), but it would really be illogical to mistake such comparison as accurate. Wouldn't you agree? Comparing something inside this universe as a comparison to an eternal mind outside this universe, would be inaccurate?

Without evidence of god, how can we know god exists to begin with? Without the ability to measure or objectively observe god how do we know he is outside of this universe ....or that he is eternal ...or a mind? You're going beyond where I can follow you. I see no reason to believe with any degree of certainty a being with specific characteristics exists outside of our universe. I am completely baffled why anyone would suggest something like this exists. That is not meant to be malicious, but I seriously do not understand why (other than a desire to explain what we don't understand) anyone suggests this.

The reason why is in the conclusion of arguments for God such as the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument is not evidence, but merely backward logic in order to argue for god. You and I have had a discussion before I believe. I don't find the fine tuning argument to be compelling.



Sounds to me like when it comes to God you want a measure and confidence that is more generally not applicable.

I would be quite happy if someone could show me a deistic god exists, but that is not possible as far as I am aware. If such a god were content to leave us without hard evidence of existence, then I am content to disbelieve. What difference would my belief make?

Given a lack or affirmation of belief would mean nothing unless the God was a personal God. If God cared to intervene or to use believers, then their might be a difference. I've said it before that maybe mankind is really only able to choose what influence it. In which case choosing to follow God's will has the potential to be a better path.

Haha, well, I have never heard of a personal deistic god. Are you leaning towards theism? If so, name your flavor, so we can use the same definition of god and have a little better communication.

BTW, I believe you are a deist, but if you are advocating an Abrahamic god, then you should know I completely reject this notion as extremely implausible for many reasons, but mainly a lack of evidence where there is a reasonable expectation. I wanted to make this clear so we are not talking past one another.

A lack of evidence for suspension of doubt or belief should be proportional to the extent of the search. Such as you disbelieving that I have a corvette in my garage, If you only look in my garage through a small hole and with the lights off.. do you think you have a reasonable expectation for your search to yield confident results?

Except the lights are only off in your hypothetical. We have good reason to expect evidence for the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, the Plagues, Pharoah and soldiers death at the Red Sea, etc, etc. There is none. No contemporary writing or records of these events. No archaeological evidence of these events. God was said to be directly involved in these events. If these events did not occur, then god was definitely not involved in them. If the god-inspired scriptures tell fallacious stories, then it raises serious doubt about the god who is also claimed to have inspired them. So we have a spotlight with the overhead door up, and we can say with a fair amount of certainty, there is no Corvette.

Well we also agree that you seeing the Corvette would confirm my statement of me having one. But even you did not see it, would a pink slip suffice?

You say even if the accounts of the Bible were shown to be true, such as 5 cities destroyed from meteorites in the valley, or the red sea parting, it still would not be considered evidence to you for God. What you are saying is it does not matter if all the accounts attributed to God, and I suspect if all the witnesses of God involved visions were archeologically substantiated that you still would not accept god exists?

No, not at all. I am suggesting the lack of evidence we have reason to expect makes me reject the god of the Bible. If there were verifiable objective evidence then I would have to re-evaluate my position. There are other issues I have with the claims of the Bible, so those would need to be addressed as well, but this would be a start.

What would be evidence for you that there is a God? : :

This thread isn't about the existence of God or not. It's whether or not the universe came into being from nothing.

Anyone who believes the visible objects came into being from nothing cannot think very deeply.

The visible comes from the invisible. : :

What's the invisible realm made of and how did it get there?