| Re: Conversation with an atheist [message #203307 is a reply to message #203295] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 01:55   |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
The Atheist doesn't ask the right questions and the religious guy fails to give a reason why not to just give God's attributes to the universe. We know one of the two exists, so which makes sense to believe in?
From which propagandasite did you get this?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203340 is a reply to message #202554] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 12:48 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 12:35 |
| Javaxcx wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 11:08 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 11:42 |
What is more probable?!
|
That we were caused.
|
I'm losing you here tbh. What exactly are you arguing? Give me the whole picture.
My position is that God is superfluous, since all of his characteristics can be given to the universe. I can however appreaciate people thinking that a thing like the universe must be made by "somebody", because we humans make things, too.
|
The position I'm arguing suggests that we have no ability to know our origins definitively, but the evidence from what we have consistently observed suggests that we were created by some transcendental cause. Just so happens I call it God.
Unfortunately, the attributes of "God" cannot all be applied to the universe. The very existence of simple concepts like time and space suggest that even the universe is not truly the sum of its parts. Our experiences validate this (see the links I've given you over the course of this thread). This means that we have more reason to believe that some things are not dependent on the abstract notion of "universe" in order to exist. Couple that with the scientifically observed consistency of causality and you, in a reader's digest version, have a cause that allowed all things to come into motion.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203367 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 14:59 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Care to elaborate? From what I know no scientist has a clue of how it was like before the Big Bang, nor does a scientist have a clue about the existance of God. Therefore, isn't it logical to go with something that's in a way connected to what we know rathern than to go with something that isn't?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203369 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 15:13 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Think about it. Scientists have no real way to know that string theory is even applicable. However, they can induce it's probable coherency because everything adds up mathematically. There is no way to actually prove the definitive existence of strings, but we have a solid theory that suggests it is probable that they exist.
The same works for this. Inductive arguments, while an unreliable source of objective truth, are a good tool in clocking what is more probable in a given situation. We have every reason to believe that since probably everything we experience is in motion, it has a mover. This means that regardless of the conditions of the big bang--whether it be the start of the universe, or the next motion in a cosmic ballet--were caused by something that existed or exists. The flipside is to suggest that it is not probable that we can use inductive arguments prior to the big bang (for which ends are confusing, because we have no way to clock when we were caused into existence in the first place, so to assume the big bang was the point is kind of foolhearty). Unfortunately, we have no basis to say such a thing because the evidence suggests the exact opposite.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203374 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 10 June 2006 16:10 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
The flipside is to suggest that it is not probable that we can use inductive arguments prior to the big bang (for which ends are confusing, because we have no way to clock when we were caused into existence in the first place, so to assume the big bang was the point is kind of foolhearty).
|
God or the "prior-to-bigbang-state" are both prior to the big bang...so why should the more abstract one be more probable?!
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203412 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sun, 11 June 2006 11:08 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
If the universe is the end all and be all of existence, then it lends that the universe is exactly the sum of its parts and we couldn't possibly experience anything ever (again, see those links I provided) so we wouldn't even be aware of it. The opposite suggests that the universe isn't the end all and be all of existence; something more probable because we are able to sit here today and debate it.
|
The "universe" prior to the big bang is something completely different to the universe that we know now so it still fits the equation.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203426 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sun, 11 June 2006 12:54 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm not even sure if you can even call it the universe since we have no clue whatsoever what it was like before the big bang and can simply not imagine it...just because we use the same words doesn't mean it's the same thing.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203705 is a reply to message #203686] |
Tue, 13 June 2006 12:58 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Tue, 13 June 2006 14:53 |
The believers don't really need it, as they already know about it. What about those who currently don't believe? There would be nothing for them to reference to, except for the times that they happen to go to the respective religion's church for instruction.
|
There is no need to convey people to the belief since God gave people the ability to question him according to Dark's theory.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #203800 is a reply to message #188804] |
Wed, 14 June 2006 03:07 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ya I overlooked the part that God only gave the writers of Genesis devine inspiration...my bad.
I guess that theory is quite compelling for people that believe in a God that actively interacts with his creation...too bad people writing a book to explain things they couldn't understand seems by far more probable.
lol
|
|
|
|
) 3 Votes
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
