quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
God wouldn't change his rules just because they dont make sense to you.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
Well, God wouldn't change his rules just because they don't make sense to you.

And these paradoxes are only what they are for us humans. We are too blind to see it through. There is no such thing as "paradox" for God.

I wonder how a feeble, blind human can possibly know what God would or would not do or how God regards an entirely human concept of a paradox.

I don't think there is much point to arguing with violent corpse, if you're trying to argue with this person using logic, reason and evidence you're not playing by the same rules as VC.

Anyone who was to fall back on arguments from personal incredulity as well as arguments from ignorance, circular reasoning and special pleading isn't worth debating with.

Dear ShadowDragon... Prove to me with your sensational logic, reasoning and evidence, that this world was not created by God.

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
God wouldn't change his rules just because they dont make sense to you.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
Well, God wouldn't change his rules just because they don't make sense to you.

And these paradoxes are only what they are for us humans. We are too blind to see it through. There is no such thing as "paradox" for God.

I wonder how a feeble, blind human can possibly know what God would or would not do or how God regards an entirely human concept of a paradox.

Faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
Dear ShadowDragon... Prove to me with your sensational logic, reasoning and evidence, that this world was not created by God.

Now that's priceless. You defy logic, reasoning and evidence, yet expect Shadow to go to the troubles of proving something to you byt the very means you refuse to consider.

And my dear VC, you can't prove a negative statement through logic alone. You need empirical examples to do so. But a positive statement like yours absolutely requires logical proof. So would you please start proving that the Universe was created by God. We are all ears. Unless you do so, the negative statement - that the Universe was not created by God - wins by default. Note: faith is not a proof of anything, it's merely your private matter.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:I wonder how a feeble, blind human can possibly know what God would or would not do or how God regards an entirely human concept of a paradox.

Faith.

Got you. Faith gives you the authority to speak on behalf of God. Which of your sacred texts supports this?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CoffeeOwl,

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
Dear ShadowDragon... Prove to me with your sensational logic, reasoning and evidence, that this world was not created by God.

While we're at it, please prove to ME that there isn't a teapot orbiting around the sun between jupiter and the asteroid belt.

if you fail to grasp my point here, I advise you to take a class on logic 101. Also read up on the scientific method, or at the very least do a google search on "logical fallacies"

To make it even easier for you, here I have a link to your #1 favorite fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Thus ends my last reply to you until you start actually adding something with substance to this conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
While we're at it, please prove to ME that there isn't a teapot orbiting around the sun between jupiter and the asteroid belt.

Bwahahahaaa! The vision!..

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:

Now that's priceless. You defy logic, reasoning and evidence, yet expect Shadow to go to the troubles of proving something to you byt the very means you refuse to consider.

And my dear VC, you can't prove a negative statement through logic alone. You need empirical examples to do so. But a positive statement like yours absolutely requires logical proof. So would you please start proving that the Universe was created by God. We are all ears. Unless you do so, the negative statement - that the Universe was not created by God - wins by default. Note: faith is not a proof of anything, it's merely your private matter.

My dear wise owl, I dont defy logic, reasoning and evidence. My point is that, you cannot prove or disprove God's existence through scientific reasons.

Human Knowledge is limited. The knowledge of God is beyond that limit. But there are signs everywhere in nature that God exists.

Yes, Science has advanced immensely... And Nature is just another bunch of scientific processes.

But science alone can not prove the base of many things.

What causes lightning?

We all know that it's just a discharge between positive and negative charges from clouds to the earth.
But why are positive and negative charges attracted to one another?

Yes, science can go into further details regarding many phenomena. But, eventually... there will come a point where science will fail to explain any further. And that particular point was created by God.
The "atoms" of science and knowledge is created by God.

God is not a puppeteer. He gave everything the power to work on its own. But the base of that power, belongs to God.


If you think that God's existence lacks in common sense, then you must also believe the fact that saying that God does not exist is just as stupid.

VC, when you stated that once science can't go any further in expliantion, then it equals God. To me that more provides that the theory of God was more created to explain something that we dont' understand. Which dont get me wrong, that is most religions.
Personally though you should have used a better example than lighting believe me it can be explained in depth. Now what created the universe? That is a good one.
Knowledge is created by exploring, which is a human emotion we like to call Curiosity. The human brain is amazing no doubt and highly complicated, but evoluation has proof within us and within nature itself.

quote:

Originally posted by AishaFox:
VC, when you stated that once science can't go any further in expliantion, then it equals God. To me that more provides that the theory of God was more created to explain something that we dont' understand. Which dont get me wrong, that is most religions.
Personally though you should have used a better example than lighting believe me it can be explained in depth. Now what created the universe? That is a good one.
Knowledge is created by exploring, which is a human emotion we like to call Curiosity. The human brain is amazing no doubt and highly complicated, but evoluation has proof within us and within nature itself.

VC was not using Lightning as an example of what we can not explain, but as one that we can, but only to a certain extent. And he is quite correct, it is a good example.

The question here is not what god does, what whether god is. You all are bashing VC like her is arguing for Christian God (which you all seem to hate, which I find to be ironic and hypocritical). He makes a very good point if you would dare to look at it.

ShadowDragon, it IS possible to prove that there is or is not a teapot floating around at some point in space. You need to stop bitching about his logic and think of your own logical problems. It is not possible for a single human in a small amount of time, but it is indeed possible to prove or disprove that. Now it is not possible to prove or disprove god through these same human means. The same goes to you CoffeeOwl get off your pretend logic train and look at the reasoning. (Which I now offer.)

There are things in this universe that we can not understand. The first is where the matter and energy came from to make the universe to bring about the big bang. Not a single scientist has a reasonable explanation for this and @ShadowDragon and Coffee Owl even if they did it would be fully theoretical, unscientific, and impossible to prove. (But I suppose you would like it better because it does not have the word god in it). I would like to think of god as an infinite (or at least really big) source of energy that our universe budded from. This is much more reasonable (scientifically) than our universe coming from nothing.

There are also the four forces of nature. No, not earth, fire, wind, and water. Gravity, Electromagnetic, The Strong Force, and the Weak Force. We have no how they work. They are beyond our grasp as humans, all we know is how they affect our lives and how to make use of them in our lives.

Gravity is the force of attraction between all things of mass in the universe, but it also affects photons. Why? How? Is gravity a particle (the graviton) or a wave, or a bend in spacetime? Or is it something else? Ever heard the term spooky action at a distance?

Electromagnetic is a force that we know very well how to make use of, but do not understand why it can do many of the things it does. Why do it and gravity extend to infinity? What does that imply?!

The Strong force. This one makes me just crash and burn if I think about it. How, in all scientific probability and for all that our universe holds, does this force hold together things that infinitely want to be pushed apart? That's right. The core of every atom in this universe is a paradox of scientific illogic.

The weak force is responsible for Beta decay. This matter is a whole different story to get into, but the fact remains that we can not understand how this force exists (especially alongside the Strong force, which in all honesty says that it should not exist).

Why does light contain properties of both particles and waves? That does not make sense. Why do black holes exist, and release X-rays? What the hell causes black body radiation!? What is dark matter, and why does it go against the forces of nature? Why do electrons not have a given speed and location? Why can electrons go through solid matter? What is solid matter if there is such a huge space in atoms?

You see, scientifically there is enough crap that we may never understand to rationalize that there is a "god."

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Thus, allow for god to allow for logic in this argument according to the Razor.

quote:

Originally posted by Viol3nt Corpse:
My dear wise owl, I don't defy logic, reasoning and evidence. My point is that, you cannot prove or disprove God's existence through scientific reasons.

Obviously. Although some really determined creationists are trying to do just that, bending science in incredible pretzels in the process. The real point is that a believer does not need a proof at all, not a scientific one, not through a miracle, - none at all. Your belief either feels right or it does not, irregardless of who proves what and under which conditions.

quote:

Human Knowledge is limited. The knowledge of God is beyond that limit. But there are signs everywhere in nature that God exists.

That's Old Testament's postulates, crowned with the notion that a human can never become the one with God. All of this may ring true for you, but it doesn't for others.

quote:

We all know that it's just a discharge between positive and negative charges from clouds to the earth.
But why are positive and negative charges attracted to one another?

Because it's how things work. Opposites attract each other, fighting and cooperating with each other at the same time. Buddhist sutras, Hindu Vedas, Christian and Islamic texts of philosophical variety will gladly explain this to you in detail if you approach them with an open mind. As will many other religious and irreligious sources.

quote:

Yes, science can go into further details regarding many phenomena. But, eventually... there will come a point where science will fail to explain any further. And that particular point was created by God.
The "atoms" of science and knowledge is created by God.

Did you ever go to the link that Shadow so gracefully posted for you? What you just said is a classic logical fallacy. Leaving logic alone, it's still a fallacy in a more general sense. The moment science would explain absolutely everything would mean that the Universe as a whole came to a stale state, stopped changing and evolving. Nothing else to explore, no more wonder, no more mystery. I don't know how much sense such possibility would make to you, but it makes none to me. You substitute missing info with a "created by God" notion, and it works for you. Fine, but it has nothing to do with logic or reasoning. It's a pure leap of faith to which you are fully entitled. It just does not mean much to someone who does not share your beliefs.

quote:

God is not a puppeteer. He gave everything the power to work on its own. But the base of that power, belongs to God.

God, if we are talking about the Old Testament God, is the one who was deeply uncomfortable with the whole idea of man acquiring knowledge like his or his entourage's, the one who preferred the man to stay ignorant, the one who lied to Adam about what would happen if Adam was ever to take a bite of the forbidden apple, the one who punished the Serpent for telling the truth about that very apple-eating matter, but who is still regarded as a highest benevolent authority. Honestly, I don't care much for that faulty perception of God.

Or are we talking about something else?

quote:

If you think that God's existence lacks in common sense, then you must also believe the fact that saying that God does not exist is just as stupid.

That borderlines getting personal, and I would rather not go there. But would you kindly dig out a post where I said that God doesn't exist. And while you are searching for it, entertain the idea that your perception of God is not the only one, there are others, and those others don't regard God as a human with supernatural abilities, endless powers and knowledge. Those others don't even necessarily have a concept of the beginning or end of the Universe.

quote:

ShadowDragon, it IS possible to prove that there is or is not a teapot floating around at some point in space. You need to stop bitching about his logic and think of your own logical problems. It is not possible for a single human in a small amount of time, but it is indeed possible to prove or disprove that. Now it is not possible to prove or disprove god through these same human means. The same goes to you CoffeeOwl get off your pretend logic train and look at the reasoning. (Which I now offer.)

You. Missed. The. Point.

What I was getting at was the burden of evidence. Concerning the teapot, I am making the claim that there is one, therefore I should be the one offering proof to back up my assertion. Instead of claiming there is a teapot and then demanding my opponent to disprove it.

Lets make it a tad simpler, lets use apples. Yes apples.
We're sitting at a table and there's one apple visible. You then make the claim there are actually two apples, a visible apple and an invisible apple. I can't find any proof of this invisible apple but yet you continue to claim it's there. And then instead of proving your assumption you're simply demanding I disprove yours.
It's called 'burden of proof' and people who argue a case for a god just love to shift this burden.

I am an atheist, yes. Does this mean that I say there is no god? While some atheists might, even in atheism there are varying degrees of disbelief. I will often tell people that I remain unconvinced of the existence of gods or any other kind of supernatural entities.
I can however be convinced by evidence, good evidence that is collected through a sound methodology which produces reliable knowledge, and here I am talking about the scientific method. You could rail against science all you want (but please spare me the usual canards) but so far the scientific method itself has been the only way to gather consistently reliable knowledge of the world around us.
Is it perfect? No, does science claim to know all? No. But so far it's the best we got.
As I stated before, when it concerns a lack of data I suspend judgment and wait for the evidence. I don't mind saying "I don't know" and leaving it at that.
And that was my point to begin with when someone first mentioned god.

I hate to come un guled by you have left me no choice. To insult others that dont' fully agree with you to make your point is one of my pet peeves. Have fun.

quote:

Originally posted by -GhOst-:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AishaFox:
VC, when you stated that once science can't go any further in expliantion, then it equals God. To me that more provides that the theory of God was more created to explain something that we dont' understand. Which dont get me wrong, that is most religions.
Personally though you should have used a better example than lighting believe me it can be explained in depth. Now what created the universe? That is a good one.
Knowledge is created by exploring, which is a human emotion we like to call Curiosity. The human brain is amazing no doubt and highly complicated, but evoluation has proof within us and within nature itself.

[QUOTE]VC was not using Lightning as an example of what we can not explain, but as one that we can, but only to a certain extent. And he is quite correct, it is a good example.[QUOTE]

umm..i might be stupid here, but didn't he use it as an example of something that we can only explain to a degree? if so then the statement i made was correct. We can explain (all in theory of course) of how the universe was created to a degree. But if you think about it everything are all in theory.

[QUOTE]The question here is not what god does, what whether god is. You all are bashing VC like her is arguing for Christian God (which you all seem to hate, which I find to be ironic and hypocritical). He makes a very good point if you would dare to look at it.[QUOTE]

I dont think we are bashing him. Just stating. Why do you think that it is ironic and hypocritical? No body says that they hate the Christian God. We have looked at it. Thank you.

[QUOTE]ShadowDragon, it IS possible to prove that there is or is not a teapot floating around at some point in space. You need to stop bitching about his logic and think of your own logical problems. It is not possible for a single human in a small amount of time, but it is indeed possible to prove or disprove that. Now it is not possible to prove or disprove god through these same human means. The same goes to you CoffeeOwl get off your pretend logic train and look at the reasoning. (Which I now offer.)

There are things in this universe that we can not understand. The first is where the matter and energy came from to make the universe to bring about the big bang. Not a single scientist has a reasonable explanation for this and @ShadowDragon and Coffee Owl even if they did it would be fully theoretical, unscientific, and impossible to prove. (But I suppose you would like it better because it does not have the word god in it). I would like to think of god as an infinite (or at least really big) source of energy that our universe budded from. This is much more reasonable (scientifically) than our universe coming from nothing.[QUOTE]

You are not proving anything i am sorry to say. We all know there are things that we will never be able to prove that is a fact of life. But you cant prove creationsim either. Ok think of this, how you think of God is just energy, very well, ummm...would that not be the same as science theory?

[QUOTE]There are also the four forces of nature. No, not earth, fire, wind, and water. Gravity, Electromagnetic, The Strong Force, and the Weak Force. We have no how they work. They are beyond our grasp as humans, all we know is how they affect our lives and how to make use of them in our lives.


Gravity is the force of attraction between all things of mass in the universe, but it also affects photons. Why? How? Is gravity a particle (the graviton) or a wave, or a bend in spacetime? Or is it something else? Ever heard the term spooky action at a distance?

Electromagnetic is a force that we know very well how to make use of, but do not understand why it can do many of the things it does. Why do it and gravity extend to infinity? What does that imply?!

The Strong force. This one makes me just crash and burn if I think about it. How, in all scientific probability and for all that our universe holds, does this force hold together things that infinitely want to be pushed apart? That's right. The core of every atom in this universe is a paradox of scientific illogic.

The weak force is responsible for Beta decay. This matter is a whole different story to get into, but the fact remains that we can not understand how this force exists (especially alongside the Strong force, which in all honesty says that it should not exist).

Why does light contain properties of both particles and waves? That does not make sense. Why do black holes exist, and release X-rays? What the hell causes black body radiation!? What is dark matter, and why does it go against the forces of nature? Why do electrons not have a given speed and location? Why can electrons go through solid matter? What is solid matter if there is such a huge space in atoms?[QUOTE]

How the hell is that supposed to corroborate your position? It sounds to me like you're trying to be overly contentious and pompous for the sake of sounding absurd or smart. I must say: STOP!!! It's not working! You are taking a position that is borderline credo quia absurdum (The philosophy known as: "I believe that which is absurd"); don't bring cosmology or metaphysics into a completely scientific and objective conversation when it is irrelevant to the question of the provenance of the big bang.

If you want to get technical, you can't prove that ANYTHING exists or does not exist by the standards that you have laid. If you want to make this conversation a completely metaphysical or existential one, then by my own sketchy interpretation of existence you do not exist. You are all simply delusions created to give me personal gratification by distracting me from the fact that only "I" exist.

Or if you want to get really technical, you can't even use solipsism as an argument to validate your own existence since you rely upon logos, i.e. words. And since words have no physical manifestation and they can be interpreted as ad infinitum, then you have no logical predicate for substantiating the claim of “I think there for I am.”

As for your position against the “Big Bang Theory,” there is not one scientist that makes the claim that they possess the knowledge of how the universe was created, or that such knowledge will ever be possessed…that’s why everything is predicated off of theorems. In fact, the scientific community is united on the issue of humanity being unable to obtain the knowledge over certain issues, but that does not alleviate the necessity of using critical or objective thinking simply because someone believes that such knowledge cannot be tested or proven-i.e. by the scientific standard; not the paralogistic nonsense that you have been espousing.

If you think that the argument that proving that an omnipotent, omniscient, and ubiquitous God probably does not exist with the argument that he probably does on the same plane or standard, then you are being completely illogical and pugilistic. Your argument is like saying: “You can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, so they probably do since there is no empirical evidence to legitimize this statement.” Or better yet, by your standards we might as well equate the probability of God and the Flying Spaghetti monster on the same page of existence.



See we all can be smart.


[QUOTE]You see, scientifically there is enough crap that we may never understand to rationalize that there is a "god." [QUOTE]

Now that last part just proves my statement that when human does not understand something that they then call upon a higher power to help them cope. You didn't really give anything such as logic and or proof that there is a God. And nobody here is denying that there are somethings that science cant explain.
Again i might be stupid, but to prove a point you need more than just questions that are unanswered


by the way that latin statement means: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

VC this has nothing to do with you. You have you faith and that is great.