Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[remez]

You let it go. I gave you ample opportunity to provide specific reasoning as to why to KCA fails.

I was not concerned with the KCA. Others have already addressed its flaws and assumptions; ''giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being--without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physics, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms'' etc....

Confused. What you seemed concerned about would be easy to address. Nothing there renders the KCA unreasonable. I’m ready.
So…
Are you concerned or not?

 

[DBT]

You let it go. I gave you ample opportunity to provide specific reasoning as to why to KCA fails.

I was not concerned with the KCA. Others have already addressed its flaws and assumptions; ''giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself- a necessary being--without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physics, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms'' etc....

Confused. What you seemed concerned about would be easy to address. Nothing there renders the KCA unreasonable. I’m ready.
So…
Are you concerned or not?

Why do you ignore what is said only to ask the same question over and over?

The problems with faith have been pointed out. The problems with the KCA have been pointed out by several posters. I could repeat what has been said, only to have it ignored and the question asked again.

1: faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.
2: the KCA is based on flawed assumptions/premises, faith based, therefore its conclusion is flawed even though it may follow from the given assumptions/premises.
3: Your position is a matter of faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Where? I have a lot more than that.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Proof is only found in math and logic. I said I have evidence and reasoning that support a past finite universe. NOT PROVE a past finite universe.

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?

There is nothing in the items you posted that say anything about a finite or infinite unversed.

I did say it did. I said it supports (not says) a past finite universe. Does a gun “say” who the murderer is? vs. Can a gun be used as evidence to support a case that identifies who the murder is?

You can interpret science philosophically as you please, but it is all speculation.

Thus you are in the same game. So the issue is …..are you more reasonable or am I? After all you are denying that the universe is expanding……which is you interpreting science philosophically.

Try using sylogisms.

p1 expanding universe says this
p2 red shift says this
c1 therfpre universe is finite.

Straw man representation of KCA.
Which is…..
p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.

It all comes down to something from nothing, counter to aws Of Conservation,

Not at all. AS explained earlier. The LoC is physical law that governs our physical universe. If the physical universe did not exists then LoC would not exist. If you are right, why don’t cosmologists consider the LoC a violation of the SBBM? They don’t. And the reason they don’t is the reason your speculation that the LoC supports and eternal past universe doesn’t work.

or the unverse cme out of nothing which I reject as an unreasonable hypothesis

Remember we are dealing with the notion that the universe began to exist. All space, matter and time came into being from nothing. Meaning no space. No matter. No time. That is what we are dealing with.
Unless….
You have a more reasonable theory that would support that the universe is past eternal. You have provided nothing but your emotions that it is eternal. You are asserting a nature-of-the-gap reasoning.

Abrahamic religions say it was created by god without any definition of god.

Yes the say God created the universe. So God is creator. What’s the problem?

I assume god was around for all time unless it too just winked into existence from nothing.

Yes God is eternal. That which is eternal did not begin to exist.

Given god exists as your presumption, then you can sysnthesize any sort of theology and creation myth. God is all powerful, so god can do anything.

First, I don’t presume He exists. I reason that He exists as the eternal first cause of all else that exists.
Second, “sysnthesize” and “myth” are examples of you “sysnthesizeing” and “mythizing”. You are in the same boat/universe. Your creation myth is the the universe is eternal based on your errant belief the the LoC “proves” the universe is eternal.
Third, God cannot do that which is logically impossible.

Creationism is riddled with problems in logic and reason, and unexplained questions. All dismissed by a faith in god. I know god exists, theerefore creationism is true.

I have NOT DISMISSED anything. I have addressed all you have presented so far. It is you that is dodging your burden to give a reasonable explanation that is purely natural. I have asked you many questions that point the errors in your reasoning and logic…..BUT you never address them. So if you don’t answer my question above regarding the LoC, you would be affirming my assessment that it is you that is denying your burden.

It is the logical fallacy of bootstrapping. The assumed conclusion with no proof is used to validate the evidence. God is true therefore the evidence of science has to validate that god is true.

Easy to emote. This time show me where God is assumed in any of the premises. You won’t be able to, because your assertion is purely emotional. You heard it somewhere and have a blind faith that it is true.

You must be surfing wiki pages on science.

Anyone with experience knows a logically consistent mathematical proof is just that, a mathematical proof. The actual proving is in observation, not subjective self validation like theists do but measurable quantifiable measurements and observation.

A logically consistent valid syllogism does not mean the argument can manifest in reality. We can debate over on logic. Again logic and reason alone is not sufficient.

I think it was only fairly recently that the last predictions of Einstein's theories occurred, gravity waves.

In the 19th century Maxwell made an astounding theoretical leap predicting EM waves with orthogonal electric and magnetic fields and light traveling at a constant velocity. When he published there was no way to test it. I used to have copies of his original publication.

The essential problem in cosmology is relativity and inertial frames. One of Einstein's conclusions was there is no absolute reference frame possible, all measurements are relative to an arbitry refernce.

When you measure a voltage it is relative to a standard. When you measure weight it is relative to a standard. The standards are totally arbitrary.

We have no way of knowing what observation means in any absolute sense. With a telescope looking at the sky one concludes t he universe revolves around the Earth. Earth centered math models were developed that accurately predicted positions of objects in the sky.

But it was all wrong.

Newtonian gravity was good for a lot of things but as measurents grew several anomalies were forund. It did not cover all observations of planets. Einstein's model covered it.

Today it was observed that observation of the universe did not math theory so dark mater and energy was proposed. It coud very well be that relativity itself is flawd much as Neton's gravity was.

e have no way to know.
W
That us why the BB is a good match to observation, it is always subject to revision. It is not provable.

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

Hence my OP if you truly believe, why do you need to prove it?

You are not trying to convince me, you are trying to convince yourself.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began (aka, your beliefs).

You believe a magical being somehow existed before the universe began and that this magical being somehow willed the universe into being. That you can point to the Big Bang--or the expansion or the red shift, etc--in NO WAY evidences your beliefs, let alone that your beliefs are reasoned.

You have effectively stated that because of the Big Bang, a magical Elf must have started it. While we all know you would agree such a statement would be utter nonsense, somehow when you just substitute in "a God must have started it" you lose all capacity for rational thought.

Go back and quote the whole comment I made and then try again.

No need to. The comment is the totality of your position. You assert "with reasonable certainty" that our universe has a beginning (constantly ignoring the admonitions against equivocating that term). So what? This tells you exactly nothing about HOW it began and certainly does not evidence or support in any way a belief that a magical being somehow existed before the universe began, who in turn somehow willed it into existence.

In short, your "evidence" does not support the belief in a god as you keep declaring that it does.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began (aka, your beliefs).

You believe a magical being somehow existed before the universe began and that this magical being somehow willed the universe into being. That you can point to the Big Bang--or the expansion or the red shift, etc--in NO WAY evidences your beliefs, let alone that your beliefs are reasoned.

You have effectively stated that because of the Big Bang, a magical Elf must have started it. While we all know you would agree such a statement would be utter nonsense, somehow when you just substitute in "a God must have started it" you lose all capacity for rational thought.

I don't think this discussion is for you.

I don't think your opinion on the matter matters. I also think you can't address any of the points I raised and are instead taking this tactic as a means to avoid that fact.

You don't seem to be interested by your response(s).

I am always interested in my responses. That's why I make them.

 

[Rhea]

Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….

I do think about it. In fact, I do that for a living. And in my line of work, failing to back up THAT it happened with HOW it happened means you're shirking your job.

So when you proclaim that you have reasonable certainty THAT something happened without exploring HOW it happened, you are proclaim that you could be misled by your limited observations.

In my line of work, it is very common for someone to claim THAT something happened (e.g. I see an expanding universe and I therefore conclude it had a beginning from nothing) and the very next thing is to sit down with a team and determine if that COULD HAVE happened. Complete examination of the possible HOW. If someone came to my team and said, "I claim there are pixies in the bag room because I observed voids in the molded caps," We would all sit down and say, "okay, what are all the possible causes of voids in the caps. HOW could it have happened, and we can tentatively include bag-room pixies as a possible cause."


You are indeed claiming to know HOW it happened. Because you have rejected a large number of hypotheses that include the universe NOT popping into existence from nothing. You say that over and over again. It had to pop into existence from nothing, AND it had to therefore be done by a god that looks exactly like the one I worship.



There's a big bunch of gaps there. I'd send you off to the stats dept to get a designed experiment to test all the possible causes that are NOT pixies to see if they are actually refuted.

 

[remez]

Why do you ignore what is said only to ask the same question over and over?

Just watch how I “ignore” you here………….

Are you concerned or not about the issue you were too afraid to present yourself? Instead you were hiding behind your nebulous statement that “others” have pointed this out. YET……No one has raised the concern of comparing the necessity of the universe vs God. Thus I asked are you concerned or not? Because it creates no problem for the KCA, which you errantly conclude it does. Come on brave up already.

The problems with the KCA have been pointed out by several posters. I could repeat what has been said, only to have it ignored and the question asked again.

No you could not repeat……because that you mean you would have to defend your agreement with the assertion. That would require courage.
Show me one I have ignored and not addressed. Show me one where my reasoning is less reasonable then that raised against it. I DOUBLE DARE YOU.

1: faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

How have I ignored that? I have agreed several times that you found a definition that says that. So what have I ignored?

2: the KCA is based on flawed assumptions/premises, faith based, therefore its conclusion is flawed even though it may follow from the given assumptions/premises.

You have stated that several times. You still give no specifics. I have asked just as many times what specifically causes the premises to be flawed? You you you ignored that every time. And then proclaim I have ignored you.
Be reasonable……I can’t address a flaw that you are too afraid to present.
The truth is…………….and you know it…..…..
You don’t stand a chance when you get into the specifics with me. You tried before and failed miserably. You remember. So you hide in cowardly generalizations you claim others asserted and cry that I’m ignoring you. That may work in the cuddle huddle, but I’m out here on the line of scrimmage waiting for you.

Watch how I’m ignore you……Following this post I’ll bump one of your old tries as evidence to this…..the title box…..will read……. Memory Lane. See I addressed you and I always have. So get specific before I “ignore” you some more. Nobody here has offered anything that isn’t child’s play to reason against. Including your cowardly unconcern/concern you hid behind above.

3: Your position is a matter of faith.

I addressed this over and over and over. And you ignored it again. Brave up already. I can’t address your cowardly generalizations. Give me specifics. Something I can address other than your empty faith that my position is one of faith.

You have a definition…..big fuzzy deal. You can have it.
How does that render my position one of faith?
I’m right here in front of you providing/defending reason and evidence.
So
How is my position one of faith?
Oh…..it’s….it’s ……..because……YOU have “faith” that the KCA is flawed. You can’t say how or why its flawed so I can address anything. NO that would be brave. No instead you hide behind this “others” have said some atheistic cuddle huddle dogma and cry that I’ve ignored your cowardly generalizations. All because you are too afraid to face me.

Yeah I have ignored you alright. Want me to "ignore" you some more?

 

[remez]

Memory Lane.

Assuming you are not challenging the truth value of premise 1 itself. But that you are addressing the validity of the logic from premise one to the conclusion. Then………….. It Fails 1. Due to the singularity theorems Particularly BGV. 2. The entropy factor indicates it still would have a beginning thus only kicks the can down the road. 3. Wild speculation in the face of the far more plausible SBBM and its logical implications. You can suggest all the wild possibilities you want, but at present nothing is remotely reasonable in its attempts to make the past infinite.

What we do know ….. 13.7 billion years of contraction leading towards compete non-material existence.
What we don’t ….. That last Planck second where our science is stopped by nature. Forcing an IDK.

The SBBM predicts an absolute beginning. To me what best explains the last Planck second is solved by understanding the limits of science. Science can’t possibly go any further than the beginning of nature itself. Supported by the SBBM and the singularity theorems and basic philosophy. You counter my science with scifi speculations and “because we don’t know” ideology

Given the possibilities, cyclic, branes, multiverse, quantum fluctuations, it's not justified to argue that the universe had a absolute beginning, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore the cause has to be god.

As pointed out before the cyclic and multiverse models fail. Neither make it past the singularity theorems. Plus they don’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. The same goes for the brane dead model you purposed as reasonable. The brane theory is not only speculation it is speculation squared and it also fails the singularity theorem. I’m not sure you really understand these models. Because I have pointed out these failures already and you always just ignore that point. Since they have failed and the new models face the same death blow how are the reasonable counters of a beginning? The premise remains reasonably unchallenged.
Support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Considering that the universe and life on Earth appears to have evolved naturally, fits and starts, extinction events, etc, the World does not appear like a special creation.

Appears interesting but if this is to be considered a counter to the KCA you need to be a little more specific. Appearances can be deceiving. Seems more like a supportive ideology of design. But that would be a debate for the next argument.

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

Your premises are false for the reasons outlined above, and in practically every reply I've posted.

You offered speculations that I have countered again and again. You have not shown in any reasonable fashion that either premise is false. How could you claim premise one is false? It is the law of causality. To deny premise one is to deny science. Premise two you offer wild possibilities that don’t work against reasonable science. Those that are viable support an absolute beginning or as of yet haven’t been able to navigate around and absolute beginning. And your only challenge to the validity of the logic is your “idk” asserted as logic.

Premise 1 you did not show to be false. Again premise one is the law of causality. How did you show it to be false? Why would you want to?

Premise 2. Again you only offered some incredibly weak alternatives. I addressed the scientific failures of each and you have never addressed any of those failures. You simply keep offering them as possibilities. They are works of science fiction compared to obvious inference of a beginning. With the emphasis on reasonable I ask you … How do they reasonably counter premise 2?

If what you have presented against the argument fails then the argument remains. So you must address the failures of your counters in order for them to be considered reasonable. Just suggesting them does not make them reasonable. Just saying idk does not help you either.

You may claim the argument fails based on scifi but that says more about your reasoning than the argument itself. Until you can present a case as to why one of your speculative models is more reasonably supported by evidence, instead of idk, then the argument remains completely valid despite your proclamations.

Plenty more....

 

[remez]

Go back and quote the whole comment I made and then try again.

No need to. The comment is the totality of your position. You assert "with reasonable certainty" that our universe has a beginning (constantly ignoring the admonitions against equivocating that term). So what? This tells you exactly nothing about HOW it began ………..

Do you know how life began to exist?
No you do not.
Thus would I be reasonable to conclude that you are foolish to believe with reasonable certainty that life began?

That is what you are doing. It is a categorical fallacy to emote that since I don’t know HOW then it is foolish to reason THAT it began.


And Rhea………………

Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….

I do think about it. In fact, I do that for a living. And in my line of work, failing to back up THAT it happened with HOW it happened means you're shirking your job.

So when you proclaim that you have reasonable certainty THAT something happened without exploring HOW it happened, you are proclaim that you could be misled by your limited observations.
……...

That is not the whole quote. What are you afraid of?

Do you have reasonable certainty that life began to exist?
Yes.
Well then how did it begin?
You can’t tell me?
Then why are you reasonably certain that life began?
Checkmate.
Further……to both of you....... I never suggested to end the important search for how.

 

[remez]

You must be surfing wiki pages on science.

Anyone with experience knows a logically consistent mathematical proof is just that, a mathematical proof. The actual proving is in observation, not subjective self validation like theists do but measurable quantifiable measurements and observation.

A logically consistent valid syllogism does not mean the argument can manifest in reality. We can debate over on logic. Again logic and reason alone is not sufficient.

I think it was only fairly recently that the last predictions of Einstein's theories occurred, gravity waves.

In the 19th century Maxwell made an astounding theoretical leap predicting EM waves with orthogonal electric and magnetic fields and light traveling at a constant velocity. When he published there was no way to test it. I used to have copies of his original publication.

The essential problem in cosmology is relativity and inertial frames. One of Einstein's conclusions was there is no absolute reference frame possible, all measurements are relative to an arbitry refernce.

When you measure a voltage it is relative to a standard. When you measure weight it is relative to a standard. The standards are totally arbitrary.

We have no way of knowing what observation means in any absolute sense. With a telescope looking at the sky one concludes t he universe revolves around the Earth. Earth centered math models were developed that accurately predicted positions of objects in the sky.

But it was all wrong.

Newtonian gravity was good for a lot of things but as measurents grew several anomalies were forund. It did not cover all observations of planets. Einstein's model covered it.

Today it was observed that observation of the universe did not math theory so dark mater and energy was proposed. It coud very well be that relativity itself is flawd much as Neton's gravity was.

e have no way to know.
W
That us why the BB is a good match to observation, it is always subject to revision. It is not provable.

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

Hence my OP if you truly believe, why do you need to prove it?

You are not trying to convince me, you are trying to convince yourself.

Sorry not enough time now.......Latter

 

[DBT]

Assuming you are not challenging the truth value of premise 1 itself. But that you are addressing the validity of the logic from premise one to the conclusion. Then………….. It Fails 1. Due to the singularity theorems Particularly BGV. 2. The entropy factor indicates it still would have a beginning thus only kicks the can down the road. 3. Wild speculation in the face of the far more plausible SBBM and its logical implications. You can suggest all the wild possibilities you want, but at present nothing is remotely reasonable in its attempts to make the past infinite.

What we do know ….. 13.7 billion years of contraction leading towards compete non-material existence.
What we don’t ….. That last Planck second where our science is stopped by nature. Forcing an IDK.

The SBBM predicts an absolute beginning. To me what best explains the last Planck second is solved by understanding the limits of science. Science can’t possibly go any further than the beginning of nature itself. Supported by the SBBM and the singularity theorems and basic philosophy. You counter my science with scifi speculations and “because we don’t know” ideology


As pointed out before the cyclic and multiverse models fail. Neither make it past the singularity theorems. Plus they don’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. The same goes for the brane dead model you purposed as reasonable. The brane theory is not only speculation it is speculation squared and it also fails the singularity theorem. I’m not sure you really understand these models. Because I have pointed out these failures already and you always just ignore that point. Since they have failed and the new models face the same death blow how are the reasonable counters of a beginning? The premise remains reasonably unchallenged.
Support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Appears interesting but if this is to be considered a counter to the KCA you need to be a little more specific. Appearances can be deceiving. Seems more like a supportive ideology of design. But that would be a debate for the next argument.

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

Your premises are false for the reasons outlined above, and in practically every reply I've posted.

You offered speculations that I have countered again and again. You have not shown in any reasonable fashion that either premise is false. How could you claim premise one is false? It is the law of causality. To deny premise one is to deny science. Premise two you offer wild possibilities that don’t work against reasonable science. Those that are viable support an absolute beginning or as of yet haven’t been able to navigate around and absolute beginning. And your only challenge to the validity of the logic is your “idk” asserted as logic.

Premise 1 you did not show to be false. Again premise one is the law of causality. How did you show it to be false? Why would you want to?

Premise 2. Again you only offered some incredibly weak alternatives. I addressed the scientific failures of each and you have never addressed any of those failures. You simply keep offering them as possibilities. They are works of science fiction compared to obvious inference of a beginning. With the emphasis on reasonable I ask you … How do they reasonably counter premise 2?

If what you have presented against the argument fails then the argument remains. So you must address the failures of your counters in order for them to be considered reasonable. Just suggesting them does not make them reasonable. Just saying idk does not help you either.

You may claim the argument fails based on scifi but that says more about your reasoning than the argument itself. Until you can present a case as to why one of your speculative models is more reasonably supported by evidence, instead of idk, then the argument remains completely valid despite your proclamations.

Plenty more....

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

 

[Rhea]

That is not the whole quote. What are you afraid of?

making overly wordy multiple-quoted posts that are impossible to read on a phone.

Do you have reasonable certainty that life began to exist?
Yes.

Why did you answer yourself?

Well then how did it begin?
You can’t tell me?

Why did you answer yourself? Are you just masturbating again?

Then why are you reasonably certain that life began?
Checkmate.

You're seriously claiming a checkmate in a game against yourself? I'm not sure that's the metaphor you want.

Further……to both of you....... I never suggested to end the important search for how.

Let me know once you have some theories on that. Without them, your premise is not plausible and fails to convince.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Do you know how life began to exist?

No, I do not. And neither do you, which is the point. So you have ZERO evidence for your beliefs that a magical being somehow willed the universe into being.

This will never change no matter how many times you pretend you do.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you know how life began to exist?
No you do not.
Thus would I be reasonable to conclude that you are foolish to believe with reasonable certainty that life began?

No... That would not be a reasonable conclusion. "I don't know" is NOT "Therefore god". If your only argument for god is that something is not yet explained then your god is "a god of the gaps" and your god is continually being shoehorned into smaller and smaller gaps so less and less of significance.

The problem with a "god of the gaps" belief is that, for the last couple hundred years, every new scientific breakthrough has caused theists to have to redefine what their god is. What new gap does the god of the gaps find to hide in when/if organic chemistry determines exactly how life formed from the chemical soup? Organic chemists have already found how the building blocks of life (amino acids, proteins, etc.) form naturally.

 

[remez]

Koy, skep, and dear Rhea

To all three of you ……………..objecting to the obvious reasoning…………
First KOY…………….

Do you know how life began to exist?

No, I do not. And neither do you, which is the point. So you have ZERO evidence for your beliefs that a magical being somehow willed the universe into being.

This will never change no matter how many times you pretend you do.

You have got to be kidding me. Can any of you keep up with your own reasoning?
Seriously?
I feeling like I'm talking to 10 second Tom.
Of course I don’t know HOW it began but I do know THAT it began…….and that…… was my point.

And more importantly…..Neither do you. So you are reasonably certain THAT life began to exist, but you don’t know HOW. But that is exactly what you were chastising me for here…………

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

Well, HOW it began is the whole shooting match, so even if you were to somehow establish THAT it began, it would be irrelevant to HOW it began and thus, once again, you are wrong, you have provided neither evidence nor reason as to HOW it began .....

Keep up please.


Now…….. Dear Rhea

Do you have reasonable certainty that life began to exist?
Yes.

Why did you answer yourself?

Well then how did it begin?
You can’t tell me?

Why did you answer yourself? Are you just masturbating again?

Learned it from you…….earlier today…

For example remez here says, “my proof is that I said the words, ‘Red Shift’.” To which I reply, you have to do more than say the words, ‘Red Shift,’ for it to show why you find red shift convincing. You have to connect the thoughts and explain your work. Otherwise you might as well just say ‘dump truck,’ that’s my evidence.

We never had any conversation regarding red shift. Yet you were certain you knew my thoughts and could represent them. But you weren't sure at all.
Thus you created a straw man. Which is a fallacy and renders your reasoning a failure.

Now, I..... on the other hand could invent a two way conversation…..because the answers were completely obvious. Seriously I actually gave you credit for not being absurd. If you had answered the questions I asked any other way then I answered them for you …..then you would be considered a loony.

Everyone believes THAT life began to exist and no one knows HOW life began. It is a very reasonable combination of beliefs. And that was my point because you were percisley whining about that here…..

Categorical fallacy in your reasoning there. I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.
Think about it…….

I do think about it. In fact, I do that for a living. And in my line of work, failing to back up THAT it happened with HOW it happened means you're shirking your job.

So when you proclaim that you have reasonable certainty THAT something happened without exploring HOW it happened, you are proclaim that you could be misled by your limited observations.

…..did you forget?

Now with your weak useless, hypocritical, victim-hood ploy out of the way …..I repeat………..

That is not the whole quote. What are you afraid of?

Do you have reasonable certainty that life began to exist?
Yes.
Well then how did it begin?
You can’t tell me?
Then why are you reasonably certain that life began?
Checkmate.
Further……to both of you....... I never suggested to end the important search for how.

And this time I'll spell it out for you…………. It is reasonable to assert ……

I’m not claiming I know HOW it began. I’m claiming with reasonable certainty THAT it began.

....because you would reason the same way with the origin of life.
Get it now?



And our new contestant…………….

Do you know how life began to exist?
No you do not.
Thus would I be reasonable to conclude that you are foolish to believe with reasonable certainty that life began?

No... That would not be a reasonable conclusion..........

Thank you. The rest of what you said does not apply to the context of that specific line of reason. Koy and Rhea were precisely objecting that it was unreasonable to proclaim …..that……you can be reasonably certain THAT and event occurred even though you don’t know HOW it occurred. I chose life as as an obvious counter example to expose the error in their reasoning. Because everyone is reasonably certain THAT life began to exist, but no one knows HOW it began to exist. I could have used the event of a murder, fire or car accident for reasons sake. The point I was making was that obvious.

Guys I didn’t think I would have to explain something so obvious and simple to everyone. Seriously you guys have to get out of your atheistic cuddle huddle a little more. You’re acting so much like a group of really dumb, emotional, unreasonable, Christians. You know the very caricature you love to attack. Yeah, I do acknowledge the existence.

 

[steve_bank]

You must be surfing wiki pages on science.

Anyone with experience knows a logically consistent mathematical proof is just that, a mathematical proof. The actual proving is in observation, not subjective self validation like theists do but measurable quantifiable measurements and observation.

A logically consistent valid syllogism does not mean the argument can manifest in reality. We can debate over on logic. Again logic and reason alone is not sufficient.

I think it was only fairly recently that the last predictions of Einstein's theories occurred, gravity waves.

In the 19th century Maxwell made an astounding theoretical leap predicting EM waves with orthogonal electric and magnetic fields and light traveling at a constant velocity. When he published there was no way to test it. I used to have copies of his original publication.

The essential problem in cosmology is relativity and inertial frames. One of Einstein's conclusions was there is no absolute reference frame possible, all measurements are relative to an arbitry refernce.

When you measure a voltage it is relative to a standard. When you measure weight it is relative to a standard. The standards are totally arbitrary.

We have no way of knowing what observation means in any absolute sense. With a telescope looking at the sky one concludes t he universe revolves around the Earth. Earth centered math models were developed that accurately predicted positions of objects in the sky.

But it was all wrong.

Newtonian gravity was good for a lot of things but as measurents grew several anomalies were forund. It did not cover all observations of planets. Einstein's model covered it.

Today it was observed that observation of the universe did not math theory so dark mater and energy was proposed. It coud very well be that relativity itself is flawd much as Neton's gravity was.

e have no way to know.
W
That us why the BB is a good match to observation, it is always subject to revision. It is not provable.

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

Hence my OP if you truly believe, why do you need to prove it?

You are not trying to convince me, you are trying to convince yourself.

Sorry not enough time now.......Latter

Truth and inconvenient facts are always problematic for Christians.

Simpl ignore or claim one does not know what god does. It is a mystery.

Is the organs of the universe so important to you simply because you insist a few ancient lines of text are true?

 

[Learner]

Truth and inconvenient facts are always problematic for Christians.

What are the convienient truths and facts? Is it that, there's no such thing as God? Have you (plural) actually proved such a thing? Well it's quite known on both sides of the argument that science (physics) currently isn't at that level yet, if at all it will ever be, as you've highligted an example above, a few scientific ideas were accepable ...once.

Simpl ignore or claim one does not know what god does. It is a mystery.

The claim would be correct (if you mean HOW). I'd be quite surprised if the claim was otherwise, since the bible is clear no-one will know (not even the angels create life, so to speak).

Is the organs of the universe so important to you simply because you insist a few ancient lines of text are true?

It's important to those who want discuss the matter, and besides ...no-one talks or thinks with the understanding (as if he is still there) with ye olde modern English, phrasings and dialogue... translated from even much earlier texts, discussing today's cosmology - which is not talking about scripture although atheists (some) still like to slip into the conversation. In their minds, "Points Matter" I suppose.

 

[steve_bank]

What are the convienient truths and facts? Is it that, there's no such thing as God? Have you (plural) actually proved such a thing? Well it's quite known on both sides of the argument that science (physics) currently isn't at that level yet, if at all it will ever be, as you've highligted an example above, a few scientific ideas were accepable ...once.



The claim would be correct (if you mean HOW). I'd be quite surprised if the claim was otherwise, since the bible is clear no-one will know (not even the angels create life, so to speak).

Is the organs of the universe so important to you simply because you insist a few ancient lines of text are true?

It's important to those who want discuss the matter, and besides ...no-one talks or thinks with the understanding (as if he is still there) with ye olde modern English, phrasings and dialogue... translated from even much earlier texts, discussing today's cosmology - which is not talking about scripture although atheists (some) still like to slip into the conversation. In their minds, "Points Matter" I suppose.

Surely you jest. Another weak attempt at turning the table and avoiding the issue.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Truth and inconvenient facts are always problematic for Christians.

What are the convienient truths and facts? Is it that, there's no such thing as God?

Really? Isn't your time better spent asking for specific inconvenient facts, and proving they are not problems for the twue believer?

The thread is about showing your faith is not a myth based on a myth. Not poking holes in any other position.
Of course, if you're a creationist, that's all you really have, isn't it? Poking holes in discrete parts of evolutionary theory and pretending that justifies rejecting the whole.

 

[remez]

A logically consistent valid syllogism does not mean the argument can manifest in reality. We can debate over on logic. Again logic and reason alone is not sufficient.

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

Anyone with experience knows a logically consistent mathematical proof is just that, a mathematical proof. The actual proving is in observation, not subjective self validation like theists do but measurable quantifiable measurements and observation.

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.