Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[steve_bank]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

One of my favorite quotes from Kelvin generally 'if you can not numerically quantify your ides your knowledge is of a meager kind'. Creationism is metaphysics with a god. It is not science.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Creationism is metaphysics with a god. It is not science.

Yes.

Christians desperately try to place creationism on a scincetific basis and fail.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Yes.

Christians desperately try to place creationism on a scincetific basis and fail.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

But it requires something called a god that is imaginary, without substantial definition. I think this is why thousands of years ago the christian cult wanted their god to be an actual person too. So they said it's three things that are all the same thing and are all different things all at the same time. This is just more classic religiouspeak.

What we're left with in the end is a sound, god, that isn't even logic or reason, just more woo language.

 

[remez]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Yes.

Christians desperately try to place creationism on a scincetific basis and fail.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

again...

Is this logically valid,

no

and does conclusion follow from premises?

no

This is the essential Christian argument.

no that is a....... pure cuddle huddle fantasy
so again...............

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?
Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Yes.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

again...

Is this logically valid,

no

and does conclusion follow from premises?

no

This is the essential Christian argument.

no that is a....... pure cuddle huddle fantasy
so again...............

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?
Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Ok. You just said logically go did not create the Erath. Ta Da drum roll!

It is the creationist argument which appears in many forms.

How do know know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.
How do you know the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.
How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.....

All proofs of god and creationism always boil down to self referencing circular arguments where the existence of god is presumed a priori.

 

[remez]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Yes.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

again...

Is this logically valid,

no

and does conclusion follow from premises?

no

This is the essential Christian argument.

no that is a....... pure cuddle huddle fantasy
so again...............

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?
Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

.........

How do know know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.
How do you know the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.
How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.....

It is an invalid argument.

 

[DBT]

Evidence justifies belief. Where is the evidence for the existence of 'God'- whatever that is supposed to be?

 

[remez]

Evidence justifies belief.

Yes

 

[steve_bank]

Respectively each sentence…..yes, yes, what else is there?

Bad logic. Give me an example of a proof that is not mathematical or logical.

Cool metaphysical quote. So why are you dismissing metaphysics?

Yes.

What do you mean by a “scientific basis”? I’m not asserting that science can explain God. I reasoning that science can support reasoning that God exists.

Now How about you for once address ……..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Again you likely lack the experience to understand what I am saying. Valid logic which means no fallacies and conclusion follows from premise does not mean the argument plays out in reality.

If a = b and b = c then a = c is valid when applied to reality only when the equalities in the premises are true

p1 zogs are green
p2 wogs are green
c wogs and zogs are the same color.

The argument is logically valid and consistent regardless if wogs and zogs actually exist or not.

p1 the bible exists
p2 god is mentioned in the bible
p3 the bible says god created the earth
c1 therefore god exists
c3 therefore god created earth

Is this logically valid, and does conclusion follow from premises? This is the essential Christian argument.

again...

Is this logically valid,

no

and does conclusion follow from premises?

no

This is the essential Christian argument.

no that is a....... pure cuddle huddle fantasy
so again...............

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?
And…
What you speculate about an expanding universe doesn’t matter to the question I asked you last time. Does an expanding universe more reasonably support a past finite or past eternal universe?
Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

.........

How do know know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.
How do you know the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.
How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bible.....

It is an invalid argument.

And that my theist friend is the point! Christian arguments offered as proof and evidence at the bottom have the a priori assumption god exists without proof.

I look at the world and it is obvious that god did it. The proof is in the very existence of reality, already knowing goid exists.

 

[remez]

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

 

[DBT]

Evidence justifies belief.

Yes

So in relation to the existence of a God or gods, where is it?

 

[remez]

Evidence justifies belief.

Yes

So in relation to the existence of a God or gods, where is it?

You presented a set of fallacies the first time, no need for 'plenty more.'

 

[DBT]

So in relation to the existence of a God or gods, where is it?

You presented a set of fallacies the first time, no need for 'plenty more.'

That's what I said to you. My question to you was: if there is evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God, what is that evidence? Can you say?

 

[skepticalbip]

So in relation to the existence of a God or gods, where is it?

You presented a set of fallacies the first time, no need for 'plenty more.'

That's what I said to you. My question to you was: if there is evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God, what is that evidence? Can you say?

For a god of the gaps, the fact is that there are still things not yet fully understood by science.... therefore god. Unfortunately, that kind of god is being squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps and of less and less significance.

For a Biblical god (an omni-god), the Bible says there is a god and we know the Bible is trustworthy because god wrote it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's what I said to you. My question to you was: if there is evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God, what is that evidence? Can you say?

For a god of the gaps, the fact is that there are still things not yet fully understood by science.... therefore god. Unfortunately, that kind of god is being squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps and of less and less significance.

For a Biblical god (an omni-god), the Bible says there is a god and we know the Bible is trustworthy because god wrote it.

The history of magical/religious/paranormal behavior demonstrates that when we cannot understand a reason for an event we will invent a reason, something unscientific. That way at least we have an understanding of what is happening, even if it is totally flawed, like the sun being a fiery chariot in the sky. These things called gods are just more of the same. Folks like remez are still right at home with this stuff.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's what I said to you. My question to you was: if there is evidence to support a justified belief in the existence of a God, what is that evidence? Can you say?

For a god of the gaps, the fact is that there are still things not yet fully understood by science.... therefore god. Unfortunately, that kind of god is being squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps and of less and less significance.

For a Biblical god (an omni-god), the Bible says there is a god and we know the Bible is trustworthy because god wrote it.

The history of magical/religious/paranormal behavior demonstrates that when we cannot understand a reason for an event we will invent a reason

That is true. It is even how science is done. When faced with an unknown, science offers (makes up) hypotheses based on something we do understand. The difference being that in science the hypotheses are taken as 'maybes' and efforts are made to falsify them where, in the woo world, the invented reason is taken as truth.

One of the favorite science books I have is a treatise on solar physics published in 1896. It contains a great deal of what was understood and goes deeply into what was still unsolved. The most concerning unsolved was what powered the sun and the book offers several hypotheses along with the strengths and weaknesses of each. It wasn't until around 1950 that the current solar fusion model for the sun's power was offered.

 

[steve_bank]

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Nobody knows. As just stated science bases speculation on what we do know.

When I took an astronomy class in the 70s the issue of the time was the amount of mass in the universe.

Depending on the mass the universe was steady state, forever expanding from the BB, exands oncve and collpses back forever, or oscillatory. Repeated cycles of expansion and collapse.

As I have said before, science, religion, and philosophy converge on cosmology and origins. You may think of cosmology as a form of math based philosophy if you like.

The sconce philosopher Popper defined science as that which can be testable. Astrophysics to a large degree can be tested. We land probes on Mars. Einstein
s gravity is testable.

Whatever the organs of the universe is, it is not testable. Which leaves the door open for creationism.

Given what is known science, like the laws of conservation, to me the only thing that makes sense is a universe without beginning and end, constant change which we observe.

To me expanding universe infers something from nothing, which I reject.

Our cosmology is based on our ability to detect photons. Our observational limit is not necessarily a boundary.



Cosmology is not testable.

 

[remez]

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Then is it shrinking or static? And what is your evidence for such an out of the mainstream reasoning?

Be Fair. And provide some reasoning and evidence. I growing tired having to accept everything you say based on your faith.

Nobody knows. As just stated science bases speculation on what we do know.

That didn’t answer my question. I understand that nobody (but you) knows with absolute certainty.
But
You with absolute certainty said…………..

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

……...you know, because you reject the expanding universe.
SO.........
I still want to know why you reject the standard paradigm of and expanding universe. This is important because, you infer and insult that you are more reasonable than I. Be fair….defend your fantasy.

 

[steve_bank]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable.

Yet one more time. To me the most likely answer is a universe that always was and always will be. universe in constant motion and change.



In an infinite universe with no bounds entropy form thermodynamics does not apply, energy is never lost.

And, an eternal system makes more seems than something from nothing.

A Christian god is at the bottom of the probability list.

Did god come into existence or was he, she. it always was and always will be?

You believe in an eternal god with no bounds of action and energy, yet reject an eternal universe.

My rezoning is based on science we can demonstrated, like thermodynamic. Not a few ancient lines of text f unknown authorship.

Note that the laws of thermodynamics are snot stated being absolutely true, it is stated that no exceptions have been observed.

There is no way to prove that something can come from nothing.

 

[remez]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

 

[steve_bank]

Never said I know, I said it is not knowable and is noit testable...........

Right here....

Personally I conceptually reject expanding universe.

Why?

Because it is not in the bible for one.

Sigh, yet again. Trying to reason with an ignorant kid. As I said on logic, reasoning and drawing a conclusion in itself does not infer reality. To be science it must be testable.

I do not know. My reasoning is based on science we do know. Not an ancient text that maybe have been written by a drunk or deranged delusional individual.

If you want to discuss cosmology I think there is a thread on expanding universe on science.

Be there or be square.

Reread my post where I bring in thermodynamics. If you do not understand thermodynamics get a book.