How does God do anything?

[Learner]

Rhea... I always try to answer questions when I can. Stop trying portray me falsely.

The number of times that you have successfully answered, or even attempted to answer any question I have asked you in the past is vanishingly small.

You only need to remind me. There are other posters I've not been able to get back to either.

Hint: I have not retired yet, with lots to do. Check out my attendance record, won't you.

You always bail out when faced with tough questions that you cannot answer. Like:
1. What are the flaws of the BB theory? - remember that one? I do

Yes I do, and I recall something about dark matter. Do you remember what exactly I did say? I don't think so.

I don't remember saying that the BB theory was flawed. I liked the BB idea for years you know, but unfortunately, then I came across, other scientists who disagreed with it, which sort of put a spanner in the works, and spoilt that idea - naturally giving me a little doubt, and so... I did not know for sure! This was even before I joined the forum when I wasn't a Christian. Also at the time, this included having a few other theories, suggesting to me, that we can't be quite sure, who's got it spot on. Very simple!

Now as I said, this stemmed from quite a few years ago, and as a Christian now, this bit of sceptism, should be counter to the 'universe beginning, idea.' If you didn't notice. I am ok with the BB model, and It's nice to know you also take to the universe had a beginning.

2. How do you know god exists?

In short (because I want to address the other posts during my lunch break).

Some of the reasons is from a pyscological perspective. The fear of hell and punishment, the emphasis on telling the truth, and being righteous, i.e. these intelligent men who wrote the scritpures, highlight that even the deciples were sceptics. And it shows you they were in fear for their lives when Jesus was crucified, but suddenly after the ressurection there was no more fear and preached while being put to death.

The summary: I gained trust and faith in the writers by all variants of the word faith, which lead me to trust Jesus. I saw as other theist do, His incredible humbleness, humility and compassion, I recognised, which for a simple man, as a language, through an emotional quotient, (science doesn't do compassion) conscience which everyone has the potential to recognise and ACT on, as they will. Written in their hearts, and the will to do accordingly, the bible says.

3. How do you know the Bible stories are true?

See above answer to Question 2.

4. How do you know Jesus was a true prophet?

See above answer to Question 2.

So you can put the above all to faith.. that's what you keep telling us anyway.

EDITI: Oops luchtime over, back soon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i.e. these intelligent men who wrote the scritpures, highlight that even the deciples were sceptics. And it shows you they were in fear for their lives when Jesus was crucified, but suddenly after the ressurection there was no more fear and preached while being put to death.

A dozen or so people flew planes loaded with hundreds of people into buildings because they were so content and at peace with their faith that they too weren't afraid of death either. Heaven's Gate Cult saw absolutely no reason to fear dying, and were so devoted to their cause, they committed ritual suicide together.

Lack of fear of death over a dedication to a cause isn't exactly an automated wonderous thing.

How many of many other faiths provided such a testament to their cause and died?

The summary is that you have yet to explain why you are picking and choosing one set over the other. The promises of the Heaven's Gate cult leader have been as fulfilled as the Christian ones.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am ok with the BB model, and It's nice to know you also take to the universe had a beginning.

Why are theists so enamored with this bit of KCA? Is it just that they like the clever semantics? Maybe you'd be willing to answer the same questions I posed to another poster who refuses to answer, I suspect because doing so undermines his own claims.

When did Learner begin to exist?

When did Learner's god begin to exist?

Don't feel obligated. I have not found a single creationist-type person willing to answer either of these questions and then continue to engage in discussion of their answers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lack of fear of death over a dedication to a cause isn't exactly an automated wonderous thing.

Christains are also really fond of pointing out that the Early Christains faced death from the lions due to the strength of their faith, their unwillingness to convert.
Of course, a few years later, when the Empire became Christain, and the Christains threw pagans to the same lions, THEIR willingness to die before changing their faith doesn't seem to get as many inches in the newsletter.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner, it comes down to a relarvely few lines in an ancient writing of unknown authorship.

Look at the mod east today and you get a sense of the geopolitics of the gospel times. Ethnic, religions, and power politics. Jeish nationalism vs Roman Empire.

Take away the fabricated supernatural claims and you have Jesus telling Jews to get their act together or face destruction by Rome.

Substitute Israel for 'world' and the gospel Jesus makes some sense. When he allegedly said 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to gog what is god's' I'd say he was talking literally about Jewish relatins with Rome.

The idea Jesus was sent to save the world including gentiles in the future was a gentiel fabrucation as it spread outside of Jews.

 

[abaddon]

So I guess the OP's question is answered.

God's a gap-filler because of the fear of purposelessness and death.

We actually had this convo, in another thread with another believer, just a few weeks ago. There too (as always from theists) we learned what a bunch of dogmatic presumptive blindfaith believers that atheists are for not accepting GOD DID IT YOU ASSHOLE! as a reasonable answer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So I guess the OP's question is answered.

God's a gap-filler because of the fear of purposelessness and death.

We actually had this convo, in another thread with another believer, just a weeks ago. There too (as always from theists) we learned what a bunch of dogmatic presumptive blindfaith believers that atheists are for not accepting GOD DID IT YOU ASSHOLE! as a reasonable answer.

I think the response is more like "You don't have the authority or right to question how God does what they do."

Any standard we set is regarded as testing God and God "doesn't do that". And any non-binding (or reproducible) spiritual propositions from theists regarding observed actions as being God induced not being accepted by Atheists means either we are "angry at God" or we just are being "stubborn". It is such a stale conversation.

 

[bilby]

I am ok with the BB model, and It's nice to know you also take to the universe had a beginning.

Why are theists so enamored with this bit of KCA? Is it just that they like the clever semantics? Maybe you'd be willing to answer the same questions I posed to another poster who refuses to answer, I suspect because doing so undermines his own claims.

When did Learner begin to exist?

When did Learner's god begin to exist?

Don't feel obligated. I have not found a single creationist-type person willing to answer either of these questions and then continue to engage in discussion of their answers.

I don't know why theists love this argument, but I do know that it demonstrates abject ignorance of the Big Bang Theory.

The BB model does NOT say that the universe has a beginning.

It says that the further back in time we look, the smaller the universe was; And it observes that as the universe became smaller, some of the fundamental parts from which it is made showed radical changes in their behaviour, which significantly changed the rate of expansion.

It reaches a point before which the behaviour of the universe cannot be described, and tells us that at that point the universe was very small, and expanding very rapidly.

Some have speculated that this implies that a very short time earlier, the universe had a size of zero - that is, it didn't exist at all, and must have begun at that point. But that's speculation, and not a part of the theory.

Personally I am highly confident that the current cosmology back to the Planck time as described by the BB model is accurate, and I am highly doubtful that the universe had a beginning, as this is not implied by the model at all. As I mentioned above, the expansion rate is known to have undergone rapid changes (the end of the inflationary era being the most obvious, but not the only, example) and we have no grounds to assume that the universe was ever of size zero.

While it is true that our ability to describe events using our current equations breaks down, I do not personally feel that we can so casually disregard the First Law of Thermodynamics as to lazily extrapolate that a beginning must have been a reality.

Of course, anything seems possible if you don't understand anything. And that's true of all speculation prior to the Planck epoch, including mine. But it takes a special kind of laziness to spend decades claiming that the BB model says that the universe has a beginning, without ever making the simple enquiries necessary to determine that it says no such thing.

The universe may or may not have had a beginning, and the BB model doesn't (yet) tell us which.

 

[Learner]

Great bit or reasoning, some what hypocritical. So Criags not here? Who or which toher authors or scientists that have been quoted, has ever been here? How much was summarized & provided. that came into discussion? Don't look foolish especially from someone who has little understanding, as you often say of me.

I am saying that in order to have a discussion about Craig's argument, you need to state the argument first.

I agree, that would be the case IF that was my intention. But here's the thing. You and Keith made your statements first, wanting that discussion, adding another argument. You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

EDIT:

I'm going to bed now, Ill have to leave those questions maybe for tomorrow, been wasting time on these previous posts. I WILL answer them - you have witnesses reading the thread ( witnesses is very important biblically) if I don't.

I am not holding my breath - I don't believe you will do anything like that. Past behavior is usually a good predictor for future performance when it comes to human behavior, and based on your past behavior I don't think you will.

I won't be asking you for tips in any horse race - fortunately no one took bets on whether I would or not answer.. They would have lost a few dollars.

Moreover, I don't believe you understand what Craig is arguing. Prove me wrong - provide a summary of his argument so I can explain why it is wrong.

Ok, you don't believe I understand what Craig was arguing about, and, you (plural) asserted that notion, when there WASN'T any summary of Craigs argument, in the first place coming from me - which would have given you that reason for belief (correct term), indicating where abouts I didn't understand.

Your statement sort of resembles an internet phishing scam, or a magicians cold-reading trick. I provide you the details and then you can tell me after... why you thought, beforehand, the reasons I don't understand. Now I know you regard me as of a lesser reasoning individual, but even I would certainly not make that kind of statement.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You....?

OH! You think the 'give a reply' use of 'answer' is applicable.
So, yes, you answered the post. Good semantics.

But you did not answer the question.

 

[Learner]

I am ok with the BB model, and It's nice to know you also take to the universe had a beginning.

Why are theists so enamored with this bit of KCA? Is it just that they like the clever semantics? Maybe you'd be willing to answer the same questions I posed to another poster who refuses to answer, I suspect because doing so undermines his own claims.

When did Learner begin to exist?

When did Learner's god begin to exist?

Don't feel obligated. I have not found a single creationist-type person willing to answer either of these questions and then continue to engage in discussion of their answers.

I don't know why theists love this argument, but I do know that it demonstrates abject ignorance of the Big Bang Theory.

The BB model does NOT say that the universe has a beginning.

I think this stems from the iold dea that everything was contained within the size of a thimble. Do you remember that one?

It says that the further back in time we look, the smaller the universe was; And it observes that as the universe became smaller, some of the fundamental parts from which it is made showed radical changes in their behaviour, which significantly changed the rate of expansion.

The Big Expnasion would have been apt. B.E.

It reaches a point before which the behaviour of the universe cannot be described, and tells us that at that point the universe was very small, and expanding very rapidly.

Some have speculated that this implies that a very short time earlier, the universe had a size of zero - that is, it didn't exist at all, and must have begun at that point. But that's speculation, and not a part of the theory.

Personally I am highly confident that the current cosmology back to the Planck time as described by the BB model is accurate, and I am highly doubtful that the universe had a beginning, as this is not implied by the model at all. As I mentioned above, the expansion rate is known to have undergone rapid changes (the end of the inflationary era being the most obvious, but not the only, example) and we have no grounds to assume that the universe was ever of size zero.

While it is true that our ability to describe events using our current equations breaks down, I do not personally feel that we can so casually disregard the First Law of Thermodynamics as to lazily extrapolate that a beginning must have been a reality.

Of course, anything seems possible if you don't understand anything. And that's true of all speculation prior to the Planck epoch, including mine. But it takes a special kind of laziness to spend decades claiming that the BB model says that the universe has a beginning, without ever making the simple enquiries necessary to determine that it says no such thing.

The universe may or may not have had a beginning, and the BB model doesn't (yet) tell us which.

You must then understand why there have been doubts of surety, as I had.

 

[Learner]

You....?

OH! You think the 'give a reply' use of 'answer' is applicable.
So, yes, you answered the post. Good semantics.

But you did not answer the question.

Lay it out for me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now I know you regard me as of a lesser reasoning individual, but even I would certainly not make that kind of statement.

I don't know that anyone's accused you of being incapable of reasoning. We have noticed that you tend NOT to employ critical reasoning. Maybe you cannot. Maybe you're just easily satisfied with certain answers.

 

[abaddon]

I agree, that would be the case IF that was my intention. But here's the thing. You and Keith made your statements first, wanting that discussion, adding another argument. You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

...

I won't be asking you for tips in any horse race - fortunately no one took bets on whether I would or not answer.. They would have lost a few dollars.

....

Ok, you don't believe I understand what Craig was arguing about, and, you (plural) asserted that notion, when there WASN'T any summary of Craigs argument, in the first place coming from me - which would have given you that reason for belief (correct term), indicating where abouts I didn't understand.

Your statement sort of resembles an internet phishing scam, or a magicians cold-reading trick. I provide you the details and then you can tell me after... why you thought, beforehand, the reasons I don't understand. Now I know you regard me as of a lesser reasoning individual, but even I would certainly not make that kind of statement.

Learner, posts like this are nothing but you explaining yourself. Can we discuss the ideas here, not discuss you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You....?

OH! You think the 'give a reply' use of 'answer' is applicable.
So, yes, you answered the post. Good semantics.

But you did not answer the question.

Lay it out for me.

Another delaying tactic.

 

[abaddon]

You must then understand why there have been doubts of surety, as I had.

Are you saying you turned to theistic belief because science left you with doubts?

Is it impossible to simply sit easy with the doubts?

 

[Learner]

Another delaying tactic.

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

But you're still not answering the questions. Responding, but not answering.

 

[Learner]

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

But you're still not answering the questions. Responding, but not answering.

I honestly don't know what you want anwsered particuarly.

 

[Learner]

You must then understand why there have been doubts of surety, as I had.

Are you saying you turned to theistic belief because science left you with doubts?

Is it impossible to simply sit easy with the doubts?

It wasn't direct straight to theistic belief because of those doubts, it was slow gradual process, but having said that, I suppose yes, to some degree, there was less restriction to investigate open mindedly. If you know what I mean.