Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy? Why is it not possible? If it had happened any other way, we wouldn't be debating this. All that tells you is that it did happen this way, but not why if, indeed, there is a why - although there is no requirement for a why.
Dr. John Polkinghorne, the world's leading Professor of Quantum Physics, who recently wrote the book "Quantum" which was praised in the Physics Bulletin as the best in it's genre, had the following to say about the big bang in one of his lectures:
He said that the ratio of expansion and contraction had to have be so precise, that it would be equivalent ...[text shortened]... o pay", in other words, you can't just get such a highly structured universe by chance...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy don't you ask questions about the bing bang that you would ask about any other bang?
Why? Why is it not possible? If it had happened any other way, we wouldn't be debating this. All that tells you is that it did happen this way, but not why if, indeed, there is a why - although there is no requirement for a why.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo actually they don't. Here's a tip, answering a question with "At the current time we don't know." is perfectly valid. Remember, not knowing the answer shouldn't lead to inventing a concept (say universal ether or God) to make things fit with your preconceptions.
Surely your beliefs have to be able to explain the origin of the universe in order to be valid? (I am not talking about evolution)
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would like to award this post a prize. Thankyou for being so succinct. If atheism relies on reality might I presume that, in your view, theism relies on unreality?
Spade a spade, I'm afraid. Atheism collapses upon itself without the aid of support available only from reality.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe whole concept of proving something does not exist hinges heavily on how much information is given about that something. Untill you define what you mean by 'God', it is impossible to proove that it doesnt exist. However someone I believe stated in another thread that God is reality. We know reality exists, therefore that definition of God does exist. But others claim that God created the universe (reality) implying that it is merely a part of God not the whole or even seperate from God, now we have to start looking into the meaning of that word "exists" as it normally implies "a physical entity in the universe".
So you agree that it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist?
My question to you is why are you an atheist?
If I trip and hurt my toe, then it prooves that either:
1. A god who is all benevolent does not exist
or
2. There is some hidden benefit to hurting my toe that I do not know about.
No 2 is a very popular line taken by many people to explain the existance of suffering (and to avoid 1.)
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo actually they don't. Here's a tip, answering a question with "At the current time we don't know." is perfectly valid.
No actually they don't. Here's a tip, answering a question with "At the current time we don't know." is perfectly valid. Remember, not knowing the answer shouldn't lead to inventing a concept (say universal ether or God) to make things fit with your preconceptions.
So you should take pride in calling yourself an ignoramus? Or are you saying that it is impossible to know the answer to that question?
Remember, not knowing the answer shouldn't lead to inventing a concept (say universal ether or God) to make things fit with your preconceptions.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between inventing a concept and discovering reality.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo you should take pride in calling yourself an ignoramus? Or are you saying that it is impossible to know the answer to that question?
[b]No actually they don't. Here's a tip, answering a question with "At the current time we don't know." is perfectly valid.
So you should take pride in calling yourself an ignoramus? Or are you saying that it is impossible to know the answer to that question?
Remember, not knowing the answer shouldn't lead to inventing a concept (say univers ...[text shortened]... nt out that there is a difference between inventing a concept and discovering reality.[/b]
Admitting that something is not known is not being an ignoramous. Failing to admit that there are unanswered questions would probably qualify though.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between inventing a concept and discovering reality.
So when you are making up concepts how do you discern the real ones from the imaginary ones?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZAdmitting that something is not known is not being an ignoramous. Failing to admit that there are unanswered questions would probably qualify though.
So you should take pride in calling yourself an ignoramus? Or are you saying that it is impossible to know the answer to that question?
Admitting that something is not known is not being an ignoramous. Failing to admit that there are unanswered questions would probably qualify though.
I would like to point out that there is a difference betwe b]
So when you are making up concepts how do you discern the real ones from the imaginary ones?
That would depend if your reality made sense or not. If you live in a reality that does not contain God, then your reality will not make sense since you will be living with unanswered questions.
So when you are making up concepts how do you discern the real ones from the imaginary ones?
If you do not have an unchanging absolute point of reference, I fail to see how you would be able to do that.
Originally posted by dj2beckerEnough of the unchanging reference point crap. If you want to spout the latest phrase you learnt in pray for the unbeliever group then start a new thread.
[b]Admitting that something is not known is not being an ignoramous. Failing to admit that there are unanswered questions would probably qualify though.
That would depend if your reality made sense or not. If you live in a reality that does not contain God, then your reality will not make sense since you will be living with unanswered questions.
...[text shortened]... have an unchanging absolute point of reference, I fail to see how you would be able to do that.[/b]
And you didn't answer my second question. Scientists don't just make up concepts to fit the facts (at least not anymore). They don't make up God to explain things they can't currently explain (if they did we wouldn't have a whole bunch of breakthroughs that could have much more easily be explained by God being mysterious). The theist is the only person making up a concept to fit what he believes is true.
So let's try this again. DJ, simple question, how old is the Earth? If you don't want to answer then don't bother replying as I'll just ask you the same question again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe theist does not make up God in order to answer his questions. The theist simply believes that reality makes sense, and thus God is a necessary being which causes reality to make sense.
Enough of the unchanging reference point crap. If you want to spout the latest phrase you learnt in pray for the unbeliever group then start a new thread.
And you didn't answer my second question. Scientists don't just make up concepts to fit the facts (at least not anymore). They don't make up God to explain things they can't currently explain (if they ...[text shortened]... want to answer then don't bother replying as I'll just ask you the same question again.
With regards to the age of the earth, I would like to say this, the supposed age of the earth does not affect my belief in God, since the Scientists use certain unprovable presuppositions as their basis in calculating the age of the earth.
Originally posted by dj2beckerAs I said I would: What is the age of the Earth dj?
The theist does not make up God in order to answer his questions. The theist simply believes that reality makes sense, and thus God is a necessary being which causes reality to make sense.
With regards to the age of the earth, I would like to say this, the supposed age of the earth does not affect my belief in God, since the Scientists use certain unprovable presuppositions as their basis in calculating the age of the earth.
A few problems are evident in your presentation, foremost of which is the treatment of the existence of God and the miracles of the Christ as on the same plane as those 'statements' which follow. Logic is not part of the equation and cannot be referred to as proof of your assertions.
Superb. so the statement that "Christ performed Miracles" can be shown to carry more weight than the statement "The Koran is the divine word of Allah". Try convincing a devout muslim of that. Even better, objectively show which of these is more true: "The Koran is the divine word of Allah" or "Christ was the son of God".
If this is the reason you are an atheist, the grounds are shaky, at best. However, from a more positive position, the atheist lives a life of absurdity, constantly borrowing from the world of reality to maintain a world of make-believe. For that reason, atheism should be rejected. Whether or not one wants to challenge the miracles of the Christ after that would then be a possibility.
So which religion should I follow and why is it any better than all the others? In such a way that followers of all religions will agree with you because otherwise it is not objective, it's just a matter of personal taste.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by dj2beckerEvery possible question is answered for you?
[b]Admitting that something is not known is not being an ignoramous. Failing to admit that there are unanswered questions would probably qualify though.
That would depend if your reality made sense or not. If you live in a reality that does not contain God, then your reality will not make sense since you will be living with unanswered questions.
...[text shortened]... have an unchanging absolute point of reference, I fail to see how you would be able to do that.[/b]
Originally posted by PenguinI call this the Voter's Fallacy -- "I can't pick which candidate is best, so none of them must be".
[b]A few problems are evident in your presentation, foremost of which is the treatment of the existence of God and the miracles of the Christ as on the same plane as those 'statements' which follow. Logic is not part of the equation and cannot be referred to as proof of your assertions.
Superb. so the statement that "Christ performed Miracles" can be ...[text shortened]... otherwise it is not objective, it's just a matter of personal taste.
--- Penguin.[/b]