Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

dogempire
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?
Humanity-the-destroyer
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 3:32:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?

I personally believe that it isn't so far-fetched to assume that nature/reality (terms in which I feel are interchangeable) is capable of creating itself. Especially if we take into account the self-replicating nature of existence. Self-replication seems to be a method of optimization in the universe. For instance; we assumed there was only one solar system. we now know that to be false. we assumed we were the only galaxy. We now know that to be false. We assume that there is one universe.... you see were i'm going with this. I feel like perhaps the multiverse would explain the self-optimization functionality of reality and that this universe is but one of a series of tests in laws that govern any given reality.

Perhaps you could say nature is God? not the anthropomorphic kind. Just plain old nature
tarantula
Posts: 866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:11:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?

If there is a creator of some sort, who or what created the creator?
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 10:16:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

If we are talking about creation then we have to go back to the Big Bang when the universe was smaller than a sub-atomic particle and consisted only of energy (fantastically high temperature). I would call that a fairly simple state myself.

The current complexity of the universe has a natural explanation as the universe evolved based on the laws of physics. There is no great mystery to it, although there are a couple of things we still don't understand (dark matter and dark energy). I don't think any reasonable person can point to the present-day complexity of the universe as evidence for anything, not if they know about Big Bang evolution.

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Yes, for those who think that the universe was created for the benefit of man, it begs the question. What is the rest of the enormous-beyond-comprehension universe for? Why did man only appear at one second to midnight on the clock of the history of the universe? I find the thinking of such people arrogant in the extreme.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 10:51:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

Neither. I don't think that "has a creator" and "is very/not very complex" are related statements.

It is entirely possible, given our current information, that the universe does have a creator, just as it is possible that it doesn't. Hypothetically, a creator could create just as complex a universe as one could naturally form.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.
Are computers too simple to have a creator or is the plastic button that is the letter T on your keyboard too simple to have a creator? You simply are all over the place with your reasoning it's hard to get a handle on what you're actually saying constitutes complex that is in need of a designer and random appearance of something that is too simple to have a creator.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?
OK I'll bite on your loaded question fallacy. Explain the creator in such a way that you would say is a full explanation. Then explain why you think that qualifies as a simple idea, I.e. why you think a creator is a simple idea.
I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.
Well, we all have our ideas , don't we?
Anyways, what do you think?
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 1:23:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:

Anyways, what do you think?

I think I just got duped by some simplistic stupidity, wherein becoming now me as dumber than dumb, because maybe it's more complicated than I originally thought. But how can that be (?) The title was simple enough to understand, as understood I'd find a statement instead of an excuse that leaves me still hunched without a clue. To make matters worse you wish to know what I think. I think you playing me for Pink Panther expecting an answer when sleuthing I go spoofing you instead. Silly wabbit, tricks are for kids.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:23:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?

How do you determine complicated? I assume you mean complex.
So how do you determine complex?
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe, so I see little reason to believe that the universe itself occurred spontaneously, from nothing.

So the question then becomes: from what did it occur? And the answer, of course, is that we simply don't know. And we may well never know. And this is important for us to acknowledge, lest drown in our ego-centric tendency to presume ourselves right unless proven otherwise (and even then, we're likely to deny being wrong about anything).

We do not know.

However, we can speculate from what little we do know about the universe, and about the nature of existence, in general. (Relating to the question of complexity.)

Basically, the universe is one giant on-going explosion of energy. The 'big bang' is still banging, and we are it. We and everything else, too. Existence as we know it is one explosive/exploding event taking place. But there is something very unusual about this explosion of energy, in that the energy is not being allowed to express itself freely. It is not a random expression of energy, which would result only in chaos. It is an "organized" expression of energy in that the energy is allowed to be expressed in some ways, but not in every or any way. There are limitations to the way energy can manifest and express itself. And it's those limitations that have imposed order on that explosive expression, and through that order, has organized the way existence, exists.

So we are left staring at the obvious and puzzling question: what is imposing these limitations on the way energy can and cannot express itself? And what do we make of the fact that these specific limitations are determining what and how everything that exists, exists?

Even if we try to impose the idea of perpetual existence through infinite universes popping into being, and then passing away, we are still left with this question of imposed order. I just don't see how the random generation of universes can produce such an intricately ordered result.

And it isn't just the complexity of the universe that puzzles me, it's the amazing variety of phenomena that results when they can only occur through the balance between random chance and the imposed order of this mysterious limiting force. It all creates the impression of some sort of conscious intent.

I'm just sayin'.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 3:17:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?

The universe has shown self-organizing tendencies. For example, crystals form with no creator. These self orgnanizing tendencies moves systems to greater complexity and can be explained with math. At the foundation of everything is math so one could almost say that math is god.

Self-organization - https://en.wikipedia.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 3:45:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
I would actually include the statement but the amount of characters allowed in the title is too little.

I've been thinking of how creationists and people who believe in a god in general sometimes argue that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator. Personally, I've always thought the opposite.

Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I've always believed that in order for the universe to have a creator, the earth itself would have to be simple, but the earth itself is not isolated to simply the sun, the moon, and the earth. Maybe the existence of a creator would be more believable if only the things that we can actually see such as the sun, moon, and earth were the only things in the universe, and the rest was simply a vacuum.

Anyways, what do you think?

It s not so much the complication of the Universe that is evidence of a creator, but its precision, which makes it impossible for such a precision and complex time-piece to have happened by accident.

The entire Universe is a 100% reliable instrument for measuring time, so reliable that they could plan10 years ahead to have a capsule in the right place in space, and at exactly the right time, to meet up with a comet.

Now that is what I call a precision timepiece as well as a fantastically complex one.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 3:49:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Q: Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?

I believe in simple answers so people can be sure where I stand so I'll say 'The latter'.

"too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator" is an excellent summary of my intuition on this issue so I must remember the phrase...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:18:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Is everything else (i.e. automobiles, computers, aircraft and so on) also too complex to have a creator?
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 2:17:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:18:19 PM, rnjs wrote:
Is everything else (i.e. automobiles, computers, aircraft and so on) also too complex to have a creator?

None of the things you have listed has a single creator. Cetainly none of them are created ex nihilo.

Also it could be argued that a human is more complex than any of those things, unlike God who is conceived of as being relatively simple. That is the inherent contradiction, since in order to create something complex, the creator would have to be at least as complex as his creation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 6:44:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
Show me a chaos universe.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 8:44:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?

Re your signature>

If what you say in that signature is what you truly believe, what are you doing on here trying to ruin the enjoyment of faith in our God and creator?

I'm here to help people perfect that enjoyment, what's your pathetic excuse?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 8:48:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 8:44:54 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?

Re your signature>

If what you say in that signature is what you truly believe, what are you doing on here trying to ruin the enjoyment of faith in our God and creator?

I'm here to help people perfect that enjoyment, what's your pathetic excuse?

Because you and others don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."

Remember madman even words have meaning.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 9:39:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 8:48:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:44:54 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?

Re your signature>

If what you say in that signature is what you truly believe, what are you doing on here trying to ruin the enjoyment of faith in our God and creator?

I'm here to help people perfect that enjoyment, what's your pathetic excuse?

Because you and others don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."

Of course I respect their rights to disagree.

However I also respect their even greater right to be exposed to teh truth.

Never was the old saying truer "You can lead a horse to water, bt you cannot make him drink".

I force no-one to read what I post, no to respond to it, but since the truth can only enhance the enjoyment of faith I put it out there for them to take up if the wish.

Of course this is why I so often end my posts with something along the lines of "but the choice is yours", If I did not respect other people's right to choose I would not ever add that.


Remember madman even words have meaning.

Of course words have meanings, but do they mean the same now as they id when they were first used? That is my objection to dictionaries and lexicons. They tend to reflect the modern meanings.

For instance when using a Greek Lexicon to guide you through scripture do you use a Modern Greek Lexicon or one specifically for Koine Greek, as written back in the first century?

Even if you do use such a specialist Lexicon, are you sure that it reflects meanings at that time or some later updated meanings of Koine Greek?

Go far enough back with English dictionaries and one definition you will not find for "gay" is "attracted to the same sex".

Yes, Bullyboy, words have meanings, but those meanings change all the time, depending n who is using them and when.

That is why I always keep in mind my favourite quote from Lewis Carol:

"When I use a word it means precisely that which I wish it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less".

Therefore when trying to understand the Bible I always ask myself, not what does it mean, but what does Jehovah wish it to mean.

1 Corinthians 2:26-30 definitely comes into play there, as does John 17:3.

Unless you get to know both Jehovah and his son in detail you will never understand what they mean in detail.

That is why I continually say to Anna and those like her, that if you start from the wrong premise, as she always does, you will never get to the right meaning.

The first thing you need to know is exactly who and what Jehovah and his only begotten son are, and what truly is their relationship.

There is no other starting point which will take you to the correct destination and explains why so many are indeed on the road to destruction, Matthew 7:13, 14
13 "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it"

They have chosen the wrong gate! Therefore they are on the wrong road.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 10:50:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?
The inception of the universe is a question independent of whether humans would gain benefit from religious adherence. Essentially, it's smoke blown by theologians to try to draw authority from an argument of ignorance. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Here's why it's irrelevant.

If the universe had no creator, but nevertheless contained powerful, ethical beings that could be propitiated by worship to improve the human condition, then you could still make a case for religion based on human welfare even without a created universe.

Yet if the universe had external creators that were nevertheless unaware of, or indifferent to human welfare, or unable to act upon their interest, there is still no practical case for religion.

The question of the inception of the universe is a philosophical one. If it can be framed as a transparent, falsifiable conjecture it can also be a scientific one. But whatever the answer, it adds no authority to a theology that cannot in any case demonstrate:
* the authenticity, validity and accuracy of revelation;
* the significant participation of metaphysical beings in human affairs;
* specific, significant, accurate predictions regarding the supposed behaviour of conjectured metaphysical beings; or
* any specific, significant, consequential benefit to any adherent from faith, prayer, deference to clergy, doctrinal adherence, or participation in religious ritual.

In conclusion, Dogs, questions like this are a waste of time. It's time that people supporting critical thought told theologians to either use the pot, or get off it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 11:21:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 6:44:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
Show me a chaos universe.
Fallacy of composition...anything else?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 11:38:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 11:21:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:44:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
Show me a chaos universe.
Fallacy of composition...anything else?
So you claim to have witnessed chaos?
Good for you.
How do you feel about being defeated by a fallacy? LOL
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 11:48:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 10:50:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?
The inception of the universe is a question independent of whether humans would gain benefit from religious adherence. Essentially, it's smoke blown by theologians to try to draw authority from an argument of ignorance. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
We do not argue from what we don"t know, but from what we do know about the nature of the information encoded in the DNA, the complexity of life, etc. Our argument is, to quote from a previous response:

"In objects of known origin, there are certain features"specified complex information"that occur only in those made by an intelligent designer (or an intelligently designed program). So by the normal analogical reasoning we use in science, when we see these features in an object where the origin is unknown, we can likewise conclude that this object had an intelligent designer.
"These features are those that an archaeologist would use to determine whether an object was designed by an intelligent designer, or that a SETI devotee would use to argue that a signal from space came from an intelligent alien, or whether a ballot or card game was fixed, or whether a sequence of letters was the result of intelligence or monkeys on a keyboard.
"In the first two cases above, it would be perverse to complain that the archaeologist didn"t discuss whether the object"s designer itself had a designer, or that the SETI researcher didn"t tell us who designed the alien. It would be even sillier to argue from this that we should simply drop the idea of design, and conclude that the object or hypothetical space signal had no designer."
Saying, "We don't know, but evolution did it somehow," on the other hand, is an argument from ignorance aka "evolution of the gaps".
Go to this website and debate any of these PhDs you want. Search any subject that you seem confident in eunderstanding the science that will be discussed. As I said, the majority of the contributors all have PhDs
http://creation.com...
Here's why it's irrelevant.

If the universe had no creator, but nevertheless contained powerful, ethical beings that could be propitiated by worship to improve the human condition, then you could still make a case for religion based on human welfare even without a created universe.
Nothing but subjective garbage Ruv. "Ethical beings" subjective, "improve the human condition" subjective.......
Make a case for religion based on human welfare.....your opinion...
Yet if the universe had external creators that were nevertheless unaware of, or indifferent to human welfare, or unable to act upon their interest, there is still no practical case for religion.
Actually there is no practical case or logic behind assuming what the rest of the world thinks is " a practical case".
The question of the inception of the universe is a philosophical one. If it can be framed as a transparent, falsifiable conjecture it can also be a scientific one. But whatever the answer, it adds no authority to a theology that cannot in any case demonstrate:
* the authenticity, validity and accuracy of revelation;
* the significant participation of metaphysical beings in human affairs;
* specific, significant, accurate predictions regarding the supposed behaviour of conjectured metaphysical beings; or
* any specific, significant, consequential benefit to any adherent from faith, prayer, deference to clergy, doctrinal adherence, or participation in religious ritual.
"consequential benefit" , more subjective garbage....
In conclusion, Dogs, questions like this are a waste of time. It's time that people supporting critical thought told theologians to either use the pot, or get off it.
If it's a waste of time, why did you post? Btw, "waste of time" more subjective nonsense..lol.
You ever have the feeling RUV you're trapped in your own world where what other people should or shouldn't get from something is directly a result of what you get from something?, Lol I kid
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 11:59:59 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 9:39:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:48:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:44:54 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?

Re your signature>

If what you say in that signature is what you truly believe, what are you doing on here trying to ruin the enjoyment of faith in our God and creator?

I'm here to help people perfect that enjoyment, what's your pathetic excuse?

Because you and others don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."

Of course I respect their rights to disagree.

However I also respect their even greater right to be exposed to teh truth.

Never was the old saying truer "You can lead a horse to water, bt you cannot make him drink".

I force no-one to read what I post, no to respond to it, but since the truth can only enhance the enjoyment of faith I put it out there for them to take up if the wish.

Of course this is why I so often end my posts with something along the lines of "but the choice is yours", If I did not respect other people's right to choose I would not ever add that.


Remember madman even words have meaning.

Of course words have meanings, but do they mean the same now as they id when they were first used? That is my objection to dictionaries and lexicons. They tend to reflect the modern meanings.

For instance when using a Greek Lexicon to guide you through scripture do you use a Modern Greek Lexicon or one specifically for Koine Greek, as written back in the first century?

Even if you do use such a specialist Lexicon, are you sure that it reflects meanings at that time or some later updated meanings of Koine Greek?

Go far enough back with English dictionaries and one definition you will not find for "gay" is "attracted to the same sex".

Yes, Bullyboy, words have meanings, but those meanings change all the time, depending n who is using them and when.

That is why I always keep in mind my favourite quote from Lewis Carol:

"When I use a word it means precisely that which I wish it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less".

Therefore when trying to understand the Bible I always ask myself, not what does it mean, but what does Jehovah wish it to mean.

1 Corinthians 2:26-30 definitely comes into play there, as does John 17:3.

Unless you get to know both Jehovah and his son in detail you will never understand what they mean in detail.

That is why I continually say to Anna and those like her, that if you start from the wrong premise, as she always does, you will never get to the right meaning.

The first thing you need to know is exactly who and what Jehovah and his only begotten son are, and what truly is their relationship.

There is no other starting point which will take you to the correct destination and explains why so many are indeed on the road to destruction, Matthew 7:13, 14
13 "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it"

They have chosen the wrong gate! Therefore they are on the wrong road.

And the hubristic proselytizing of this post is evidence that you don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:00:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 11:38:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 11:21:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:44:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
Show me a chaos universe.
Fallacy of composition...anything else?
So you claim to have witnessed chaos?
Good for you.
How do you feel about being defeated by a fallacy? LOL
You're now talking to yourself. I guess things need to be pointed out to you directly. To assert that everything in a complex universe must therefore be complex is a fallacy of composition just like your ridiculous self delusion that asking someone to show you a chaos universe is somehow relevant to the idea of a designed universe. Not everything in a designed universe has to be free from exhibiting chaos. Complexity from a designer cannot be dismissed simply because within that design exists that which is chaotic. But a universe that is nothing but chaos can't have that which is greater than what you claim one must demonstrate. You simply parrot stock arguments because you have no reasoned rejoinder.
You have this, "oh yeah, if you think this universe had a designer show me a universe that didn't have a designer". Not how it works you logically inept fool.
People define complex design. The only argument from that is do people know what constitutes complex design? If not, then you may have a point.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:04:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 11:59:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 9:39:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:48:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:44:54 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:42:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:41:15 PM, PureX wrote:
Something occurring from nothing does not happen within the universe,
Can you support this claim?

Re your signature>

If what you say in that signature is what you truly believe, what are you doing on here trying to ruin the enjoyment of faith in our God and creator?

I'm here to help people perfect that enjoyment, what's your pathetic excuse?

Because you and others don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."

Of course I respect their rights to disagree.

However I also respect their even greater right to be exposed to teh truth.

Never was the old saying truer "You can lead a horse to water, bt you cannot make him drink".

I force no-one to read what I post, no to respond to it, but since the truth can only enhance the enjoyment of faith I put it out there for them to take up if the wish.

Of course this is why I so often end my posts with something along the lines of "but the choice is yours", If I did not respect other people's right to choose I would not ever add that.


Remember madman even words have meaning.

Of course words have meanings, but do they mean the same now as they id when they were first used? That is my objection to dictionaries and lexicons. They tend to reflect the modern meanings.

For instance when using a Greek Lexicon to guide you through scripture do you use a Modern Greek Lexicon or one specifically for Koine Greek, as written back in the first century?

Even if you do use such a specialist Lexicon, are you sure that it reflects meanings at that time or some later updated meanings of Koine Greek?

Go far enough back with English dictionaries and one definition you will not find for "gay" is "attracted to the same sex".

Yes, Bullyboy, words have meanings, but those meanings change all the time, depending n who is using them and when.

That is why I always keep in mind my favourite quote from Lewis Carol:

"When I use a word it means precisely that which I wish it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less".

Therefore when trying to understand the Bible I always ask myself, not what does it mean, but what does Jehovah wish it to mean.

1 Corinthians 2:26-30 definitely comes into play there, as does John 17:3.

Unless you get to know both Jehovah and his son in detail you will never understand what they mean in detail.

That is why I continually say to Anna and those like her, that if you start from the wrong premise, as she always does, you will never get to the right meaning.

The first thing you need to know is exactly who and what Jehovah and his only begotten son are, and what truly is their relationship.

There is no other starting point which will take you to the correct destination and explains why so many are indeed on the road to destruction, Matthew 7:13, 14
13 "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it"

They have chosen the wrong gate! Therefore they are on the wrong road.

And the hubristic proselytizing of this post is evidence that you don't respect the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination."

No it doesn't, after all I am not taking anything away from anyone, simply putting alternative in front of them.

I respect their right to choose, as well as to know what the choices are.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 1:00:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:00:33 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/29/2016 11:38:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/29/2016 11:21:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/29/2016 6:44:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:08:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:24:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:21:10 PM, skipsaweirdo
Hey skips how do you determine complex.
That which isn't chaos.
Show me a chaos universe.
Fallacy of composition...anything else?
So you claim to have witnessed chaos?
Good for you.
How do you feel about being defeated by a fallacy? LOL
You're now talking to yourself. I guess things need to be pointed out to you directly. To assert that everything in a complex universe must therefore be complex is a fallacy of composition just like your ridiculous self delusion that asking someone to show you a chaos universe is somehow relevant to the idea of a designed universe.
Quite a valid request given you definition of complex, backpedaling from that now?
Not everything in a designed universe has to be free from exhibiting chaos.
So complex is not that which is not chaos. Make up your mind.
Complexity from a designer cannot be dismissed simply because within that design exists that which is chaotic.
Contradiction again.
But a universe that is nothing but chaos can't have that which is greater than what you claim one must demonstrate. You simply parrot stock arguments because you have no reasoned rejoinder.
Please inform me as to where I might get these stock arguments to parrot.
You have this, "oh yeah, if you think this universe had a designer show me a universe that didn't have a designer". Not how it works you logically inept fool.
Unless you have something to compare to, you can't define your complexity especially when you claim that your complexity contains chaos.
People define complex design. The only argument from that is do people know what constitutes complex design? If not, then you may have a point.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 11:48:37 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/29/2016 10:50:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/28/2016 2:15:01 AM, dogempire wrote:
Do you think that the universe is too complicated to not have a creator, or that the universe is too complicated to have an explanation as simple as a creator?
The inception of the universe is a question independent of whether humans would gain benefit from religious adherence. Essentially, it's smoke blown by theologians to try to draw authority from an argument of ignorance. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
We do not argue from what we don"t know, but from what we do know about the nature of the information encoded in the DNA, the complexity of life, etc.
As I said, the inception of the universe is a philosophical question. If it can be made falsifiable, it's also a scientific question.

What it doesn't do though, is demonstrate that a constructed universe implies benefit from religion, or that an unconstructed universe doesn't.

Therefore it makes no case for religion.

If you don't understand that criticism, Skips, you're welcome to ask a question.

Or if you do understand the criticism but don't agree with it, then it's simple to refute with evidence, and here's how:

Science is a discipline that treats the universe is amoral but equitable. Thus, it predicts that outcomes depend only on events occurring within the universe, not your religious identity.

By contrast, theology is a discipline that treats the universe as moral but inequitable -- in that adherents of the 'right' faith are promised to be treated more compassionately and respectfully than anyone else.

Using measures of moral outcome nobody would contest -- like increasing the survival rate of live births, reducing the murder rate in a large urban community, or reducing the incidence of disease -- please show that religion without science has ever produced a more moral outcome for any group than science without religion.

If you can't, then you've just conceded that in every way demonstrable, we can get a better moral outcome for humanity by treating ours as an amoral but equitable universe, rather than vice-versa.

Are you ready to find a counter-example?

Of you go.