I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[Learner]

There is no equivalence between sconce and religion. It is a weak argument by theists. The idea being faith is supported by the equivalent of scientific analysis.

Your faith and accepting the reality of the bible and JC and resurrection And god is not subject to revision or debate. Christians view faith as absolute with an absolute normality.
If you are a Christian you may comet accept as some sects have that evolution may be part of god's plan. The Vatican has said this. But you can never refute god created everything.

Faith is absolute. Science is not. That is the difference. Science is based on unambiguous physical definitions not subject to interpretation, Systems International. Religion is entirely subjective experience. Religion is about deriving a sense of one's place in the universe,. Science is about objective definitions of how the universe works.

There really is no conflict between science and religion, they address different aspects of human existence.

God and faith are not subject to objective scientific proof. As such religion can not use science as some kind of proof and scirnce can not objectively refute god.

I sort of agree with you here, If ... you were to see it from the angle that ; no equivalence means they're not actually opposing arguments i.e. not a "science V creation" debate. Its not at all about theists claiming to having faith as an equivalent to scientific analysis etc.. The equivalence claim by theists is a wrong notion. Its about whether the faith and the theology is either true or not true. The debates are generally more about the methodology of the science used, when one is trying to determine whats true or whats not true.

 

[Learner]

Good peer reviewed science is impossible to ignore even though theist do ignore it.

I don't doubt some may ignore peered reviewed science but not all. (theists are modernised too)

If God created everything that's within the cosmos, that would include science. Now this god created science would by now have discovered a mountain of evidence for the existence of it's creator god. But the opposite has/is happening. On the contrary, With each passing day science is proving that god is not necessary to explain the universe, or the origins of life.

A little more time needed for the underlined i would guess. Its easy to say God is not neccessary when everything is on auto-run so to speak. Whats probably needed in the explanation is sureness of the initial cause.

 

[bilby]

Good peer reviewed science is impossible to ignore even though theist do ignore it.

I don't doubt some may ignore peered reviewed science but not all. (theists are modernised too)

If God created everything that's within the cosmos, that would include science. Now this god created science would by now have discovered a mountain of evidence for the existence of it's creator god. But the opposite has/is happening. On the contrary, With each passing day science is proving that god is not necessary to explain the universe, or the origins of life.

A little more time needed for the underlined i would guess. Its easy to say God is not neccessary when everything is on auto-run so to speak. Whats probably needed in the explanation is sureness of the initial cause.

By definition, there cannot be an initial cause. Either something has always existed; Or something started to exist from nothing, Adding 'God' to this equation does nothing to resolve any of the issues that arise from either choice.

If God existed forever, why couldn't the universe have existed forever? If God began to exist from nothing, why couldn't the universe begin to exist from nothing?

In both cases, you replaced 'it's hard to explain how the universe could have done that' with 'It's hard to explain how God could have done that, and now we have to also explain how God managed to create a universe'. In terms of explaining things, God is a step backward. The idea gets us not closer to, but further away from, answering the questions we started with.

The only way to get out of this as a creationist is to ignore the question when it comes to God that you felt compelled to ask about the universe. That's inconsistency to the point of irrationality.

The other way out is to say "God is useless as an explanation here, so let's not bother even including Him in the answer". This is much the same as not including Eric the God-eating Penguin in the answer - ie it is the only sane approach, given that the evidence for the existence of both God and Eric is equal.

 

[Learner]

By definition, there cannot be an initial cause. Either something has always existed; Or something started to exist from nothing, Adding 'God' to this equation does nothing to resolve any of the issues that arise from either choice.

By definition , a mutually agreed apon understanding for the clarity of dialogue doesn't mean : the definition is ultimately true. e.g. cannot be an initial cause.

If God existed forever, why couldn't the universe have existed forever? If God began to exist from nothing, why couldn't the universe begin to exist from nothing?

If we were to go by the universe always existed (out of interest) would you then entertain a thought that the universe "produced" the laws of the universe (and God if to be included) by cosmic "evolution" or some aspect of conscious awareness created the laws of the universe ( and God if included)?

In both cases, you replaced 'it's hard to explain how the universe could have done that' with 'It's hard to explain how God could have done that, and now we have to also explain how God managed to create a universe'. In terms of explaining things, God is a step backward. The idea gets us not closer to, but further away from, answering the questions we started with.


The only way to get out of this is to ignore the question when it comes to God that you felt compelled to ask about the universe. That's inconsistency to the point of irrationality.

I don't think its a step backwards as long as you stick to the science for the sake of science and yes also accepted by theists, putting aside the theology .

 

[bilby]

By definition , a mutually agreed apon understanding for the clarity of dialogue doesn't mean : the definition is ultimately true. e.g. cannot be an initial cause.

By definition of the phrase 'initial cause', there cannot be an initial cause. If there is a cause, it must pre-date the thing it causes. It then either requires a cause itself - or it can exist without a cause.

In the former case, it is a cause, but not the initial cause.

In the latter case, the initial event is not a cause, but an un-caused event; and no 'initial cause' is needed, because things can exist without them.

There is an initial non-cause; Or there is a cause that isn't initial. 'Initial cause' is oxymoronic.

 

[angelo]

Theism is based on the, what most fundamental xtians believe, The word of God as handed down to us by ancient goat herders. Now as a certain bishop Usher worked out by adding up all the begats since Adam, the earth is roughly 10.000 years old. Remember that this book is the infallible word of god. Now we know that that is complete hogwash, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
My point is that if the "word " of god is wrong there, then what else did the goat herders get wrong?

 

[Rhea]

If we were to go by the universe always existed (out of interest) would you then entertain a thought that the universe "produced" the laws of the universe (and God if to be included) by cosmic "evolution" or some aspect of conscious awareness created the laws of the universe ( and God if included)?

Why. Why do you desperately need it to be a conscious being? What makes you so rattled by the idea of unguided physical actions that you cannot entertain a scenario without a conscious (and presumably beneficent and likewise presumably intricately detail oriented) being that you can personally identify and claim to understand?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theism is based on the, what most fundamental xtians believe, The word of God as handed down to us by ancient goat herders. Now as a certain bishop Usher worked out by adding up all the begats since Adam, the earth is roughly 10.000 years old. Remember that this book is the infallible word of god. Now we know that that is complete hogwash, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
My point is that if the "word " of god is wrong there, then what else did the goat herders get wrong?

That would fill libraries. Better to discuss what the goat herders got right.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no equivalence between sconce and religion. It is a weak argument by theists. The idea being faith is supported by the equivalent of scientific analysis.

Your faith and accepting the reality of the bible and JC and resurrection And god is not subject to revision or debate. Christians view faith as absolute with an absolute normality.
If you are a Christian you may comet accept as some sects have that evolution may be part of god's plan. The Vatican has said this. But you can never refute god created everything.

Faith is absolute. Science is not. That is the difference. Science is based on unambiguous physical definitions not subject to interpretation, Systems International. Religion is entirely subjective experience. Religion is about deriving a sense of one's place in the universe,. Science is about objective definitions of how the universe works.

There really is no conflict between science and religion, they address different aspects of human existence.

God and faith are not subject to objective scientific proof. As such religion can not use science as some kind of proof and scirnce can not objectively refute god.

I sort of agree with you here, If ... you were to see it from the angle that ; no equivalence means they're not actually opposing arguments i.e. not a "science V creation" debate. Its not at all about theists claiming to having faith as an equivalent to scientific analysis etc.. The equivalence claim by theists is a wrong notion. Its about whether the faith and the theology is either true or not true. The debates are generally more about the methodology of the science used, when one is trying to determine whats true or whats not true.

It is a question of logic. A valid logical argument dowes not have to be proven true. If the premise is true then logic that follows is true.

For a theist the preise or hypothesis is god exists on faith. The RCC for a thousand years has spun a complex logical theology based on the premise.

You can not prove a negative. If you pray for money and you find an envelope on the street with $10k was it god or simply random events that put the money in your hands. It is not provable.

Science on the other hand requires a repeatable observation or experiment that others can verify. Numerically quantified data.

Theists and scince and evertbody use the same logical and reasoning faculties. What set scince apart is that the premise or hypothesis of the argument must be supported ny experiment.

Back when String Theory was first proposed some scientists considered it philosophy because there was no conceivable way to test it.

I did some contract work for an Evangelical entrepreneur. We were discussing evolution and creationism. He pointed out the window and said 'Look! It is obvious a god exists who created all that'. To science that is subjective is philosophy and religion.

 

[angelo]

Theism is based on the, what most fundamental xtians believe, The word of God as handed down to us by ancient goat herders. Now as a certain bishop Usher worked out by adding up all the begats since Adam, the earth is roughly 10.000 years old. Remember that this book is the infallible word of god. Now we know that that is complete hogwash, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
My point is that if the "word " of god is wrong there, then what else did the goat herders get wrong?

That would fill libraries. Better to discuss what the goat herders got right.

The said goat herders got zilch right. They weren't even good story tellers!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The said goat herders got zilch right. They weren't even good story tellers!

I don't know about that. The passages on proper animal care seemed to be on point.

 

[steve_bank]

The ancient Brews were not stupid. Stupid did not survive. The accumulated my holy is a bit on the exaggerated side as to power and wealth. The idea that they were chosen by an all powerful god that helped against enemies. The creation of the Abrahamic god makes perfect sense in terms of the times.

 

[Learner]

By definition of the phrase 'initial cause', there cannot be an initial cause. If there is a cause, it must pre-date the thing it causes. It then either requires a cause itself - or it can exist without a cause.

In the former case, it is a cause, but not the initial cause.

In the latter case, the initial event is not a cause, but an un-caused event; and no 'initial cause' is needed, because things can exist without them.

There is an initial non-cause; Or there is a cause that isn't initial. 'Initial cause' is oxymoronic.

Ok ... lets just take it that I mean the very beginning of the physical universe coming into existence. (I think that definition was on one or two other threads)

 

[bilby]

By definition of the phrase 'initial cause', there cannot be an initial cause. If there is a cause, it must pre-date the thing it causes. It then either requires a cause itself - or it can exist without a cause.

In the former case, it is a cause, but not the initial cause.

In the latter case, the initial event is not a cause, but an un-caused event; and no 'initial cause' is needed, because things can exist without them.

There is an initial non-cause; Or there is a cause that isn't initial. 'Initial cause' is oxymoronic.

Ok ... lets just take it that I mean the very beginning of the physical universe coming into existence. (I think that definition was on one or two other threads)

Nothing non-physical has any effect or influence on the physical universe - by definition.

But that's unimportant, because nothing in my argument implies that it applies only to physical entities.

Your response changes nothing. There cannot be an initial cause.

 

[Lion IRC]

Physical Non-physical ? That is such an outdated dichotomy. So last century.

 

[Learner]

But that's unimportant, because nothing in my argument implies that it applies only to physical entities.

Your response changes nothing. There cannot be an initial cause.

Its currently understood that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. By this definition (and there are quite a few) the scientists then must have mean't "physical-thingys" coming into existence , when it was non-physicalness before?

You may not agree with Krauss.

Nothing non-physical has any effect or influence on the physical universe - by definition

IF you're including energy/invisible forces as "physical" by your definition - then thats a valid concept.

 

[steve_bank]

But that's unimportant, because nothing in my argument implies that it applies only to physical entities.

Your response changes nothing. There cannot be an initial cause.

Its currently understood that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. By this definition (and there are quite a few) they must have mean't "physical-thingys" coming into existence , when it was non-physicalness before?

So you don't agree with Krauss.

Nothing non-physical has any effect or influence on the physical universe - by definition

IF you're including energy/invisible forces as "physical" by your definition - then thats a valid idea.

Based on current observations the BB Theory extrapolates back in time to a theoretical set of initial conditions that led to what we see today. Trajectories today run back in time indicate some kind of explosion.

The BB does not start at a time zero. It does not address how the initial conditions came to be. There is no creation or coming into existence from nothing in the theory.

Anything that exists is by definition natural. There can be no supernatural. A tenet of Freethinking. Anything that impacts our reality has a causal link, regardless if we can discover the link or not.

 

[steve_bank]

Physical Non-physical ? That is such an outdated dichotomy. So last century.

View attachment 18967

There is all sorts of pop science and pop speculative science out there, even from credentialed people. If you watch Mako's science shows he'll have you believing in time travel.

There are books written on philosophical speculation on Quantum Mechanics that have no basis in thery, yet attract a popular following.

The melding of mysticism and modern science goes back to the 60s. Alan Watts and others. Today Deepak Chopra. Look at what the theory says, not pop interpretations.

 

[Learner]

Why. Why do you desperately need it to be a conscious being? What makes you so rattled by the idea of unguided physical actions that you cannot entertain a scenario without a conscious (and presumably beneficent and likewise presumably intricately detail oriented) being that you can personally identify and claim to understand?

More like "desperately" hoping it wasn't true because of personal conflictions. I did entertain the scenario "without" that conscious entity but eventually, I just changed my mind due to "lack of evidence"

 

[Learner]

Based on current observations the BB Theory extrapolates back in time to a theoretical set of initial conditions that led to what we see today. Trajectories today run back in time indicate some kind of explosion.

The BB does not start at a time zero. It does not address how the initial conditions came to be. There is no creation or coming into existence from nothing in the theory.

A beginning of an explosion would be a time zero in this regard. (If different from your time zero concept)

Anything that exists is by definition natural.There can be no supernatural. A tenet of Freethinking. Anything that impacts our reality has a causal link, regardless if we can discover the link or not.

We could vote on the definition of supernatural,to be updated under the catergory of "undiscovered-causal-link"? Maybe not.