A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING {creation ex nihilo}

Started by Colossus-Big C8 pages

And even the scanty information we have is subject to gross abuse. The mere belief in the existence of God leads many people to fatalism or to a belief that God will protect them from even the most irresponsible behavior. If God forgives misdeeds, many people take that as license to behave immorally and then perform some superficial act of atonement. If God makes moral demands, we have those who interpret that as a license to impose those demands on others. And everywhere we see "the will of God" being used as a cover for "my will."

So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity.
The Nature of People

One possible resolution of the God question that explains all the facts is that God exists; the arguments deducing his existence are correct; and the arguments against his existence are all fallacious. Since many of the people who deny the existence of God are highly intelligent and strive for intellectual honesty, the reason for their acceptance of fallacious arguments must be some combination of faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking.

Another possible resolution of the God question that explains all the facts is that God does not exist; the arguments deducing his existence are incorrect; and the arguments for his existence are all fallacious. Since many of the people who believe in the existence of God are highly intelligent and strive for intellectual honesty, the reason for their acceptance of fallacious arguments must be some combination of faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking.

In other words, two diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive conclusions explain the empirical data equally well. So, whichever outcome is true, we have to conclude that a large fraction of the most intelligent and rational people on the planet nevertheless fell prey to faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking. And these are the most intelligent and rational people. The intellectual landscape below that level is bleak and scary indeed.

One approach to sorting out this mess is to focus on people who have particular claims to rationality, though how you'd judge a head to head contest between David Hume and Thomas Aquinas is hardly clear. Actually I suspect Hume and Aquinas would find themselves closer to each other than either would be to the rank and file in the God debate.

Nice plagiarism.

That which can never be false, can also never be true in any meaningful sense.

Nice spam C

Originally posted by Ordo
Nice spam C
did you even read it? its in every way related to this section..

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
did you even read it? its in every way related to this section..

When you post something from another site that you did not write, you have to give the sourse. Otherswise, it looks like you are trying to take creatit for something you did not write.

Also, people can check the sourse.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
did you even read it? its in every way related to this section..
Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that.

yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the possibility of god and very good reason why he cannot reveal himself and why theres no evidence. it also explains that we definitly cannot disprove it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When you post something from another site that you did not write, you have to give the sourse. Otherswise, it looks like you are trying to take creatit for something you did not write.

Also, people can check the sourse.

i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

Originally posted by Mindship
Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that.

just read it. people read 500page science books this is nothing. Lazyness is one of the problems that humans have

if your not going to read all just make sure you read the 6th post of it

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

The same is true of walls of text. Anyone can do a google search to find something to back their opinion, right or wrong. You'd be better off taking some key ideas and putting them into your own words.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the... very good reason... why theres no evidence

You've provided your own rebuttal.

Originally posted by Digi
The same is true of walls of text. Anyone can do a google search to find something to back their opinion, right or wrong. You'd be better off taking some key ideas and putting them into your own words.
not really the text has many scientific things to back there statements. my statements would only be insulted by other post

Originally posted by Digi
You've provided your own rebuttal.
if you read the article you would understand 🙂

and by evidence i mean physical evidence like a finger print or something

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the possibility of god and very good reason why he cannot reveal himself and why theres no evidence. it also explains that we definitly cannot disprove it.
Reminds me of this...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142

Originally posted by Mindship
Reminds me of this...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142
than the post will answer your question trust me.
also there were some very good arguments on the first page.

I've had more satisfying arguments than have occoured on this page with my dog.

Originally posted by Ordo
I've had more satisfying arguments than have occoured on this page with my dog.
you clearly didnt read it "Dog" it has scientific things to back it up. while other post can be considered as someones opinion

1. reading something does not garuntee that:
a. The article is valid
b. I will reach the same conclusions as you
c. it was properly credited (see 1a)

2. Wtf is a "scientific thing." Big words, name drops, and proper sentance structures do not count.

3. If you cant summerize an argument, you dont understand it.

In response specifically to 1a,

"So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity."

This in itself is an assumption, based on a few people perception of what god is. One person's perceptions of god is not fact for the very reason that god itself is not a fact. They assume that god is complex, that god is not physical, and god is neither concrete noo undefinable. Thats a long karking list of assumptions, many of which people would disagree with. Why? Because there is no evidence that god is anything but a individual (group or otherwise) conception of reality. And if god is just a conception, there is no point in entering into physcial debates about a decidedly non-physical entity.

Thus, the article is a load of crock from apologists trying to keep their deity amorphous so they are not mocked endlessly for believing in teapots orbiting Saturn.

Espeically from an article that frames the misconception of gods existance as "Militant atheists accuse believers of immature wish fulfillment. Militant believers accuse atheists of petulant defiance of authority."...

I would no more believe a man telling me tomorrows winning lotter numbers after proclaiming that the sky is indeed orange.

Originally posted by Ordo
1. reading something does not garuntee that:
a. The article is valid
b. I will reach the same conclusions as you
c. it was properly credited (see 1a)

2. Wtf is a "scientific thing." Big words, name drops, and proper sentance structures do not count.

3. If you cant summerize an argument, you dont understand it.

In response specifically to 1a,

"So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity."

This in itself is an assumption, based on a few people perception of what god is. One person's perceptions of god is not fact for the very reason that god itself is not a fact. They assume that god is complex, that god is not physical, and god is neither concrete noo undefinable. Thats a long karking list of assumptions, many of which people would disagree with. Why? Because there is no evidence that god is anything but a individual (group or otherwise) conception of reality. And if god is just a conception, there is no point in entering into physcial debates about a decidedly non-physical entity.

Thus, the article is a load of crock from apologists trying to keep their deity amorphous so they are not mocked endlessly for believing in teapots orbiting Saturn.

Espeically from an article that frames the misconception of gods existance as "Militant atheists accuse believers of immature wish fulfillment. Militant believers accuse atheists of petulant defiance of authority."...

I would no more believe a man telling me tomorrows winning lotter numbers after proclaiming that the sky is indeed orange.

im not reading this. for the same reason your not reading mines 😎

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

It is always better to do the right thing.