Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? I thought it was supposed to have happened thousands of years ago, thats easily a few decades.
I don't think the Indian Ocean was ever parted.
If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then the rock history would only show 6,000 years of sediment. However, it shows much longer.
If Moses lead the Israelite out of Egypt, then Egyptian records having to do with mundane things would have shown that sudden movement of people, and it doesn't.
If Jesus had done the miracles that are claimed in the NT, then the Romans would have brought him before the empire to cure Claudius's many ailments. Or at least the historians would have made note of the miracles when they recorded the death of Jesus.
Originally posted by Autokrat
There are several good arguments against the Cosomological argument.I mentioned one up a few posts. If a person accepts the premise of a first cause, it does not necessarily follow that such a cause must be intelligent or supernatural.
From that premise alone, the universe itself could be a first cause, because if you accept that there must be a first cause, it does not demand that a cause be intelligent.
Agreed on all counts. I kept my definition of such a "god" in this scenario as vague as possible to account for non-intelligent forces.
Originally posted by Deadline
Thats not really damning at all. The problem is whats your defintion of God. It makes perfect sense for gods to exist and to interact with humans eventhough theres no proof.
I hope you're being sarcastic. How does it make perfect sense for there to be an interactive god even when you admit there's no evidence?
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't see how thats more intellectually tenable.
Because, unlike mainstream theism that includes an interactive God and supernatural phenomenon, it can't be readily refuted.
Originally posted by Deadline
No nothing like that at all. How does an ant perceieve a human being? Does it percieve a human as a lifeform or a natural phenemonon. Don't humans affect and control what happens to insects and bacteria.So you're saying that its illogical for there to be more powerful intelligent beings than us? Looking at nature it makes perfect sense for gods to exist.
We know how the earth, and "nature," came about, and it was through causal forces that are defined and knowable. Appealing to a sense of beauty and wonder only worked before we had the knowledge to explain the physical universe and how it came about. No gods necessary, try again.
The ant analogy falls flat too, because an ant wouldn't comprehend us but would have evidence of our existence. Assuming the presence of something with nothing to lead us to that conclusion is indeed just like unicorns or ghosts. If you want to presume such presences, be my guest and do so. Just realize that you're basing the belief, literally, on nothing.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think the Indian Ocean was ever parted.If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then the rock history would only show 6,000 years of sediment. However, it shows much longer.
If Moses lead the Israelite out of Egypt, then Egyptian records having to do with mundane things would have shown that sudden movement of people, and it doesn't.
If Jesus had done the miracles that are claimed in the NT, then the Romans would have brought him before the empire to cure Claudius's many ailments. Or at least the historians would have made note of the miracles when they recorded the death of Jesus.
Nice attempt at a topic change there. Very sneaky.
No wait, I mean foolish and blunt. Very obvious of you.
Originally posted by Mindship
Signs, shmigns. I mean, presently...Heck, all it took to convince John Denver was make it rain inside a car.
But he got into a EXPERIMENTAL airplane. I mean, he's a musician, and died in a one seat EXPERIMENTAL airplane. 😱 It's no wonder rain inside a car would do it for him. 😂
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonCentrifugal force.
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/Check it out
Originally posted by AutokratClick on my sig, go to number three. That's you. That's how you sound. I asked you to give me evidence of the big bang and you gave me a back-track and overrated on my request, then "appealed to ignorance," then "strawman"ed.
And of course the most obvious example is the ever expanding universe. Considering I'm not a physicist, I can't explain to you in minute mathematical detail as to why the Big Bang most likely happened. However, its certainly a better and more sound explanation that to say that god was the first cause and made everything happen with a snap of his fingertips.
You: there's more evidence of the big bang than of god.
Me: provide the evidence:
You: I can't because I'm not a physicist.
If you don't know of the evidence of yourself, why do you believe in it, then scorn Christians for believing in something they have no evidence for?
Also, If you will notice, many heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions of each other. Why is this if they were all spat out by one magnificent explosion?
Asking for "no theories" meant that I didn't want the big bang explained to me again. I've heard it a hundred times.
Originally posted by DigiI hope you're being sarcastic. How does it make perfect sense for there to be an interactive god even when you admit there's no evidence?
Nope. My ant analogy. Im refering to gods though not god. Getting into a debate about god is pointless because it can't be defined accurately or comprehended.
Originally posted by Digi
Because, unlike mainstream theism that includes an interactive God and supernatural phenomenon, it can't be readily refuted.
Meh.
Originally posted by Digi
We know how the earth, and "nature," came about, and it was through causal forces that are defined and knowable. Appealing to a sense of beauty and wonder only worked before we had the knowledge to explain the physical universe and how it came about. No gods necessary, try again.
Thats incorrect you have some understanding of how nature came about. Theres a whole load of stuff about nature that humans can't comprehend or understand. Ants probably have some idea of nature as well.
Originally posted by Digi
The ant analogy falls flat too, because an ant wouldn't comprehend us but would have evidence of our existence.
You missed the point completely. The ant may or may not comprehend that as evidence. An ant may comprehend a human being as something entirely different. The same way a human being may comprehend an earthquake or rain as something else.
Now there may or may not be gods but since there are loads of organisms that aren't aware of our existence it makes perfect sense for us not to be aware of lifeforms that interact with our world and control it.
Originally posted by Digi
Assuming the presence of something with nothing to lead us to that conclusion is indeed just like unicorns or ghosts. If you want to presume such presences, be my guest and do so. Just realize that you're basing the belief, literally, on nothing.
No it makes perfect sense and its not based on nothing. Also assuming gods don't exist when you don't fully understand the universe is worse.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence.
Ok fine but I was talking about gods.
Originally posted by One Free Man Click on my sig, go to number three. That's you. That's how you sound. I asked you to give me evidence of the big bang and you gave me a back-track and overrated on my request, then "appealed to ignorance," then "strawman"ed.
You ever take a rhetoric class and learn about a false charge of fallacy? That's what you have just committed. I most certainly did not present a strawman although right now as I type, I am tempted to indulge in some ad hominen and call you a number of negative things, but I won’t. Instead, I'm going to explain to you why you are wrong.
You demanded facts and not a theory, apparently forgetting that scientific theories are built off rigorous experimentation and peer review. You demanded that show you evidence and then stipulated that I was not to use any of the presented scientific theories to do so. I did not present a strawman, I exposed you for what you were: someone that has no argument himself, but instead demands ones from others while then presenting restrictions on said argument.
Originally posted by One Free Man If you don't know of the evidence of yourself, why do you believe in it, then scorn Christians for believing in something they have no evidence for?
Let’s consider something:
I am making an Appeal to Authority that the Big Bang is the most plausible argument with our current knowledge. Who is this authority? The consensus of the scientific community (creationist pseudo-scientists aside).
To whom is the Christian making an appeal? The Bible and the collective writings of the various apologists from Augustine to C.S Lewis. The first authority is a useless book written by primitive men that had little to almost knowledge of how the universe functions. The second authority is only slightly more useful, but still flawed in attempting to rationalize said useless book. For all their efforts they have no empirical proof that god exists, at all. There is however, empirical data that suggests that the Big Bang happened and even though I can’t fully understand the complex theories developed by the power of modern science, I can appreciate them and trust that the many scientists that have worked to develop the theory, just maybe know what they are talking about.
As opposed to the authors of the bible who most likely didn’t know anything.
If you are not convinced by what modern scientists have presented, then suffice to say, nothing I say will convince you of anything.
I would rather put my trust in the scientific community than (here comes an example of a real strawman) the inane beliefs of primitive book written by primitive men that had little knowledge about the physical world. A religion which has no evidence to back up its ridiculous and harmful claims.
Originally posted by One Free Man
Also, If you will notice, many heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions of each other. Why is this if they were all spat out by one magnificent explosion? Asking for "no theories" meant that I didn't want the big bang explained to me again. I've heard it a hundred times.
Ah, so in the billions of years that the universe has existed it is impossible for retrograde celestial bodies to exist? Despite all the possible collisions and celestial events that could send heavinly bodies moving in different directions, it is apparently impossible for there to be bodies to spin in different directions.
Originally posted by One Free Man
Also, If you will notice, many heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions of each other. Why is this if they were all spat out by one magnificent explosion?Asking for "no theories" meant that I didn't want the big bang explained to me again. I've heard it a hundred times.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hahaha I'm picturing everything you say as if satan was talking. Its pretty funny. So high right meowwww.I pray that god may give you some faith in him. 🙂
I have to admit, no one as ever compared me to the devil before.
I'm flattered though that you would compare me to this badass.
I mean, if I was a stud like that getting laid wouldn't be so difficult... er would be easier.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence.
Looked at your post again. If you're refering to an omnipotent god like you have in monotheism then I don't even see the point in getting into a debate.
If you're talking about godlike beings then it isn't illogical. I quickly skimmed over your post and thought you were refering to God not gods. Maybe you were maybe you were not.
I'm not quite sure how to continue to respond to you Deadline. But I'll give it a shot I suppose.
Originally posted by Deadline
You missed the point completely. The ant may or may not comprehend that as evidence. An ant may comprehend a human being as something entirely different. The same way a human being may comprehend an earthquake or rain as something else.
Happily conceded. But let's return to the idea that we understand the processes that led to the creation of the planet and nature. We do. Do we know everything about the universe? Of course not. But apply Occam's Razor; Is it more likely that there is a causal explanation exists to explain the universe, or that there's ethereal gods/creatures/etc. interacting with it? With no evidence of ANY god, gods, supernatural forces, etc. to assume that they exist is silly.
Originally posted by Deadline
Now there may or may not be gods...
Heh, thank goodness. Here's at least some common ground upon which we can base our discussion.
Originally posted by Deadline
...but since there are loads of organisms that aren't aware of our existence it makes perfect sense for us not to be aware of lifeforms that interact with our world and control it.
Here's where you overstep logic. It doesn't make "perfect sense" for there to be gods that we can't perceive. It is, however, possible. But you seem to be confusing 'possible' with 'plausible,' the latter of which it most certainly isn't.
Saying that we don't know everything (which is the truth) then inserting a theory of gods based on no evidence will always remain possible. But, sans that all-important evidence, it will never be logical, rational to believe in, nor will it make perfect sense, especially when there is so much that we do know that precludes the need for any sort of supernatural intervention.
Originally posted by Deadline
Looked at your post again. If you're refering to an omnipotent god like you have in monotheism then I don't even see the point in getting into a debate.If you're talking about godlike beings then it isn't illogical. I quickly skimmed over your post and thought you were refering to God not gods. Maybe you were maybe you were not.
Most people here mean the god of the bible when the write God. The god of the bible is no different then and other gods. So what do you mean when you captalize the word God?