A bad week for atheism.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, this time you are misrepresenting me, but you do tend to do that, so I'll let it go and not take it personally.

I do not assume that that there is no answer, but likewise I do not assume that there must be one either. You have made a huge assumption in assuming there must be one.

And, as a wise man once said, arguments based upon, assumptions are like castles made of sand, they fall into the sea, eventually.

says nothing about the validity of the belief that the question has, in fact, no answer

are these your words or did i make them up?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
says nothing about the validity of [b]the belief that the question has, in fact, no answer

are these your words or did i make them up?[/b]

I did indeed say them.

But I did not say that I thought that the belief that there was no answer to the question "why did the universe come into existence" was valid. If God did indeed create the universe, then by definition is not a valid belief.

I said that the fact that someone thinks there is no answer to question does not make the belief less valid. If the universe has always existed, and there is no God, then the question is simply meaningless and has no answer. And the belief is valid.

I don't know which is true, but the inability to answer the question "why" is not a basis for reaching a conclusion as to which is correct.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I did indeed say them.

But I did not say that I thought that the belief that there was no answer to the question "why did the universe come into existence" was valid. If God did indeed create the universe, then by definition is not a valid belief.

I said that the fact that someone thinks there is no answer to question does not make the belief le answer the question "why" is not a basis for reaching a conclusion as to which is correct.

If the universe has always existed, and there is no God?????

but we know that the universe has not always existed, making an premise of this basis,
completely without foundation. In fact, the very fact that secular science has now
concluded that the universe had a beginning throws up all sorts of interesting questions
and gives more credence to the idea of 'a cause' than it did prior to this acceptance. 'in
the beginning', is now a valid scientifically established and seemingly accurate statement.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh i read it alright, i simply dismissed it as the words of a madman. sooo lets get this,
you know how the universe came into existence, yet knowing as much, does not tell us
why it came into existence. Logically it therefore appears that a materialistic
understanding of the processes which we observe inherently at work within the
universe cannot tell us anything about why it came into existence. Is it not the case.

As has been pointed out you are attributing statements and meanings to me that I have never uttered.

I never said I knew how the universe came into existence.

The visible universe appears to have been formed in an event termed the big bang.

The exact nature of this event is not yet known.

It might possibly never be known, but that hasn't been verified yet and there seems to be plenty of scope
still available for explaining it.

This event may have been the beginning of everything including time thus meaning there was no before.

Or,
It may be an event that occurred in a larger universe/multiverse as yet beyond our ability to detect and which may have
existed for ever, thus having no beginning or first cause.

The various options (some as yet unknown) and the efforts to tease them apart and test them is fascinating and
exciting and one of the things I love about physics (cosmology).


However at this present moment in time we don't know the exact nature of the universe or how (if at all) it came
into being.

This fact doesn't mean you can reasonably justify claiming that because we currently don't know then god must have
done it.

In fact such assertions have always throughout history been a stumbling block and hindrance to solving the mysteries
we have over the ages solved.

And even if it is true, it means the problem can't be explained, as god can't be explained.

Given this until absolutely all other possible avenues have been exhausted, god will never form part of any reasonable
explanation for anything.

The first thing is.................Everything is eternal.

The material creation is eternal but sometimes it is manifest and sometimes it is not - just like clouds in the sky are formed of energy and and sometimes they are manifest and you can see them and sometimes they are not manifest and you cant - but the energy that makes clouds is always in existence.

The material creation comes and goes.

It is manifest and and sometimes not manifest.

This planet earth is manifest at the moment.

In the future this earth will not be here - but the energy that comprises it will remain.

Due to cosmic cycles the planets are manifest and sometimes not - and this goes on eternally.

The spiritual world is always manifest.

God resides in the spiritual world.

The material creation is in the spiritual world also - and is like a cloud in the sky and sometimes manifest and sometimes not.

The material creation is like jail for the rebellious souls.

In society there is a place called a jail for the offenders - and it is in the society and part of the society but it exists with boundaries from the rest of society.

The material creation is like that - it exists in the spiritual world but because of boundaries it remains autocratic with its own rules and systems - and when the souls remember their eternal loving relationship with God they return to the spiritual realm their true home.

Now everything is eternal and everything is caused by the will and love and power and creativeness of God the Supreme Person.

You are a person ..............and there is the eternal Supreme Person.

At the moment you are forced to enter into a material body and you are playing at trying to be that Supreme Person.

When you come to your senses and understand you cannot be that Supreme Person - you then use true region to develop love for that Supreme Person Krsna and thus return to that Supreme person in friendship and love.

The fact that every one must die should be enough to convince you of this - but alas the ignorance prevails and you don't.

Saying everything exists from no source and no cause and no plan and no foundation is absurd.

The Supreme Person is the cause of all causes

Nothing - is not the cause of all causes.

Originally posted by Dasa
The first thing is.................Everything is eternal.

The material creation is eternal but sometimes it is manifest and sometimes it is not - just like clouds in the sky are formed of energy and and sometimes they are manifest and you can see them and sometimes they are not manifest and you cant - but the energy that makes clouds is always in existence. ...[text shortened]... .

The Supreme Person is the cause of all causes

Nothing - is not the cause of all causes.

The way you tell between a story that is true and a story that is made up....

Evidence.

You have none for your stories.

That is why nobody here believes them.

That and you can't go two posts without insulting everyone.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As has been pointed out you are attributing statements and meanings to me that I have never uttered.

I never said I knew how the universe came into existence.

The [b]visible universe appears to have been formed in an event termed the big bang.

The exact nature of this event is not yet known.

It might possibly never be known, but that hasn ...[text shortened]... ave been exhausted, god will never form part of any reasonable
explanation for anything.[/b]

mere opinion masquerading as some kind of truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mere opinion masquerading as some kind of truth.

What is?

My entire post?

the science behind it?

what?

be more specific.

Also and you could acknowledge that you have been grossly miss-attributing words and meanings
to me that I didn't utter.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What is?

My entire post?

the science behind it?

what?

be more specific.

Also and you could acknowledge that you have been grossly miss-attributing words and meanings
to me that I didn't utter.

As god/s is/are unexplained and inexplicable, mere opinion

Materialists would have absolutely no trouble in explaining why, and who for, the
cake was made, again,

you have been unable to explain why the universe was made, you did make this
statement and excused yourself on the premise that it didn't really represent what
you stated, when you were called out for it, again you repeated the same assertion,
if this is not your statement and you did not make it, them what does it purport to
be? All i asked for was a demonstration of its reality, if a materialist can tell us why
a cake was made and for whom, then he or she should be able to do the same after
an examination of the workings of the universe, you have proffered nothing but an
opinion, why the question is either not valid, or cannot be known.


because we don't know God, again this is merely an opinion, one can read any
religious book and form an idea of the personality behind it, one can observe the
natural world and make inferences from what we observe, deducing something
about the author from the work, much in the same way that one does with a
painting.

In fact such assertions have always throughout history been a stumbling block and
hindrance , another opinion based not upon what we know, but apparently what we
do not know, in fact, it can even be stated, that the Biblical author of the book of
genesis describes the universe as having a beginning, yet it was not until the 1950's
that secular science realised the factuality of this. How has this proved to be a
hindrance, that is correct, it has not, and so it goes on and on, one unsubstantiated
statement after another.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the god hypothesis does nothing to aid in finding answers??? I would say the opposite
is true, in fact, a purely materialistic point of view does nothing to help us find any
answers, in fact, knowing how a cake is baked, tells us absolutely nothing as to why it
was baked and for whom.

once again you have failed to provide any importance to your god hypothesis.

let's assume you see a cake and you don't know why or for whom it was baked.

god hypothesis: you make something up. say... "it was made to adorn the head of mr. sprinkles the cat"

scientific method: you research the properties of a cake and discover that it provides nourishment, that will answer the why. then you search for the person who made the cake and ask that person for whom it was made... or perhaps you can find a work order or receipt and discover your information there. you can even observe from a distance and wait for the owner to come and pick up the cake.

as you can see, the god hypothesis explains nothing.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
once again you have failed to provide any importance to your god hypothesis.

let's assume you see a cake and you don't know why or for whom it was baked.

god hypothesis: you make something up. say... "it was made to adorn the head of mr. sprinkles the cat"

scientific method: you research the properties of a cake and discover that it provides nou ...[text shortened]... owner to come and pick up the cake.

as you can see, the god hypothesis explains nothing.

what a piece of nonsense, what makes you think that the materialist must have a
monopoly on scientific data? is not the theist also entitled to observe the universe
and draw similar inferences, if he sees harmony, is he not entitled to say so? If he
attributes that harmony to a divine element can you prove that its not the case? no
you cannot. If he concludes that such intricate systems demonstrate a degree of
intelligence and design, will you state that this is not the case? no you can do
nothing of the sort, all you can state with any certainty is what is plausible to you.

If you really want an argument about how much science has done for us, why
dont we talk about its impact on the environment. You know what really galls me
about those who think that science is a panacea for all and that religion is of no use,
its in the fact that they cannot see that the problems we are facing are essentially
spiritual and moral in nature, greed, corruption, over exploitation of the earth
resources, etc etc etc ask them for a solution and the God of science will sort it out
and they have the audacity to make references to delusion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a piece of nonsense, what makes you think that the materialist must have a
monopoly on scientific data? is not the theist also entitled to observe the universe
and draw similar inferences, if he sees harmony, is he not entitled to say so? If he
attributes that harmony to a divine element can you prove that its not the case? no
you cann ...[text shortened]... the God of science will sort it out
and they have the audacity to make references to delusion.

No the problems are moral in nature, and religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality.

In fact religion sucks at morality, and has to be dragged kicking and screaming by secular morality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a piece of nonsense, what makes you think that the materialist must have a
monopoly on scientific data?

what makes you think i made that claim?

is not the theist also entitled to observe the universe
and draw similar inferences, if he sees harmony, is he not entitled to say so?

many theists are scientists. i still don't get your inference that i made a contrary claim. i'm only discussing the weakness/uselessness of the god hypothesis.

If he
attributes that harmony to a divine element can you prove that its not the case?

if he does so, he is using faith, not science. it is not enough for someone to make rank attributions (as per god hypothesis). i pointed out the weakness of that method already. it must have flown past you. someone must have some evidence to back up claims or conclude that they just don't know.

no
you cannot. If he concludes that such intricate systems demonstrate a degree of
intelligence and design, will you state that this is not the case?

i will ask him to provide evidence for that conclusion. once he fails to do so (and he always has), i will state that this is not the case.

no you can do
nothing of the sort, all you can state with any certainty is what is plausible to you.

i can't state anything with any certainty and that's the whole point. neither can the theist. but the difference is that the scientific position is based on uncertainty while the theistic position is based on claims certainty. you can make up things to explain what you don't understand, but your position will be untenable.

If you really want an argument about how much science has done for us, why
dont we talk about its impact on the environment.

and who do you think will solve these problems? start praying now, maybe your imaginary deity will answer. meanwhile, scientists will continue to work on finding real solutions.

You know what really galls me
about those who think that science is a panacea for all and that religion is of no use,
its in the fact that they cannot see that the problems we are facing are essentially
spiritual and moral in nature, greed, corruption, over exploitation of the earth
resources, etc etc etc ask them for a solution and the God of science will sort it out
and they have the audacity to make references to delusion.

those are real problems, but again religion will not find solutions to those. they've had thousands of years but only in the advent of enlightenment and scientific study have we made social advances in all those arenas. that is the reason why modern humanist morality is far superior to anything you will find in "holy" books.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a piece of nonsense, what makes you think that the materialist must have a
monopoly on scientific data?

what makes you think i made that claim?

[quote]is not the theist also entitled to observe the universe
and draw similar inferences, if he sees harmony, is he not entitled to say why modern humanist morality is far superior to anything you will find in "holy" books.

what a piece of nonsense, do you really want me to look up all the instances where
religious person who have been motivated primarily because of their religious
convictions have fomented change is society, from improvements in hospitals and
prisons to the abolishment of slavery, no, well give up your prejudices and face facts.
Perhaps we should talk of attempts at purely atheistic society, you know, Albania and
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge! Suck it up mate, atheism and materialism has
produced a moral morass that has contributed nothing to our understanding of why we
exist, in fact its produced more ignorance than the meanest medieval church could
hope for. All hail the God of Science.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a piece of nonsense, do you really want me to look up all the instances where
religious person who have been motivated primarily because of their religious
convictions have fomented change is society, from improvements in hospitals and
prisons to the abolishment of slavery, no, well give up your prejudices and face facts.
Perhaps we sho ...[text shortened]... d more ignorance than the meanest medieval church could
hope for. All hail the God of Science.

no one here is making the argument that religion doesn't cause changes in society. what is being contested is the concept that religion is able to provide answers.

while you are looking up all the instances, you'll also discover religious people being convicted by their religion to both support and oppose slavery, to both build and destroy hospitals, etc.

once you discover how much in opposition all these religions are with each other and even different sects within the same religion, that all make convictions of having absolute truth you'll also discover that there is no consistency in the religious method and come to the only logical conclusion: that religion is useless when it comes to providing answers to anything.