International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

Pixel42 24th January 2020 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965840)
Faith is without a doubt the most useless, absurd, even destructive concept I can imagine.

Agreed. If it is not just acceptable but admirable to believe something without evidence, how can you argue against someone who - to take an extreme example - believes that God wants them to blow themselves up in a crowded restaurant?

Once again I can only quote Jacob Bronowski as he stood by the pool at Auschwitz: "When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave".

psionl0 25th January 2020 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965915)
No, it is definitely not silly. To think it was "created" you have to imagine something that is far greater and complex than the universe

Let's assume that this is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965915)
and then imagine how that came to be.

Why? We have no information about the nature of the forces that resulted in the big bang and no idea how to test for them. How can we rule anything in or out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965915)
Yet, everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, engineering demonstrates a progression from the simple to the more complex, not the other way around.

Simpler life forms evolve into more complex forms through natural selection. There is little to dispute about that.

The rest of what you said is nonsense. The world was never Newtonian before it became Relativistic. We simply discovered that Newtonian physics was inadequate to describe the world as it is and always has been (since the big bang anyhow).

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965915)
Which is simply not true. We have more than petabytes of data going back to the Big Bang and in that nothing that suggests a creator. You can only posit its existence.

Assuming that this is the case (actually, we only have a bunch of empirical formulas) that is only what we know about the universe after the big bang.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965918)
That is the very definition of special pleading.

That doesn't even remotely resemble the definition you put up earlier.

If this were the case then it would mean that conditional logic and statistics is just a bunch of "special pleadings" (since we generally have to assume the truth about something before we can make an inference).

Darat 25th January 2020 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966188)





Simpler life forms evolve into more complex forms through natural selection. There is little to dispute about that.


Have you worded that badly or using none standard definitions?

Natural selection has no bias for simple or complex, to use the old wording, it is concerned about fitness. "more complex" forms may evolve into "more simple" forms and vice-a-versa.

psionl0 25th January 2020 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12966198)
Natural selection has no bias for simple or complex, to use the old wording, it is concerned about fitness. "more complex" forms may evolve into "more simple" forms and vice-a-versa.

I was thinking about single celled organisms evolving into more complex multi-celled organisms but otherwise, I am happy to stand corrected.

Belz... 25th January 2020 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12965910)
I would phrase it as, "We have no reason to believe any sort of god exists."

Mine's shorter: there are no gods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12965893)
We have ZERO information on the origins of the universe

Not true.

Quote:

We have no information about the nature of the forces that resulted in the big bang and no idea how to test for them.
Also not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12965915)
No, it is definitely not silly. To think it was "created" you have to imagine something that is far greater and complex than the universe and then imagine how that came to be.

This, however, I don't get. Is it not possible for something to assemble something more complex than itself?

psionl0 25th January 2020 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12966225)
Not true.


Also not true.

What information do we have?

Minoosh 25th January 2020 08:09 AM

Heard a comedian say, "There's an easy way to tell if your house is haunted. It isn't."

acbytesla 25th January 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966188)
Why? We have no information about the nature of the forces that resulted in the big bang and no idea how to test for them. How can we rule anything in or out?

Even if that is true and I'm not sure it is. Why would we posit a being as as opposed to a physical reaction of some kind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966188)

Simpler life forms evolve into more complex forms through natural selection. There is little to dispute about that.

The rest of what you said is nonsense. The world was never Newtonian before it became Relativistic. We simply discovered that Newtonian physics was inadequate to describe the world as it is and always has been (since the big bang anyhow).

No, it seems true on everything. Stars begin with thick concentrations of hydrogen which fuse together creating heavier elements starting with helium eventually going supernova spreading all of the elemental building blocks through the universe. All of the carbon building blocks of life were created in the searing hot furnaces of exploding stars.

Do we understand it all? Hell no. In fact we understand it only a little. But again, there is no reason to posit a mystical magical powerful being we have no evidence for. What you're promoting is superstition, not science.

I may not be able to absolutely 100 percent be sure there isn't such a being, but I can reasonably say it is about as likely as leprechauns guarding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But if you believe that I'm wrong provide more evidence than there is for that leprechaun and I will concede the point.

Gods are created in the minds of humans. Usually to explain what they don't know or understand. Gods were created to explain, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcanoes and disease. If man didn't understand it, you can be sure some civilisation created a god to explain it.

We really should stop that way of thinking. Stop filling in the gaps of our understanding with this catchall. It provides no explanatory power. It promotes a terminal ignorance by claiming an answer with nothing to support it.

Far better is to own up to our ignorance and say lets find that answer. This is the beginning of exploration not the end of it.

acbytesla 25th January 2020 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12966225)

This, however, I don't get. Is it not possible for something to assemble something more complex than itself?

Sure, in fact, that is common.

But if God created the universe, what created God?

Usually, when people posit a God/creator, they never address the conundrum. They say "something must of created the universe because it didn't pop into existence by itself" . Yet they never say how the God came into existence. He gets to be eternal with no questioning. He just is.

Which is special pleading because if everything else has to have a beginning, then so must God.

acbytesla 25th January 2020 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966188)
Let's
That doesn't even remotely resemble the definition you put up earlier.

If this were the case then it would mean that conditional logic and statistics is just a bunch of "special pleadings" (since we generally have to assume the truth about something before we can make an inference).

Nonsense. It absolutely does. Another term for special pleading is cherry picking. We don't get to require some evidence for some things and none for others. By saying I just believe, you're making an exception/cherry picking/special pleading.

psionl0 25th January 2020 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12966307)
Even if that is true and I'm not sure it is. Why would we posit a being as as opposed to a physical reaction of some kind?

Why would we prefer one explanation over another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12966307)
No, it seems true on everything. Stars begin with thick concentrations of hydrogen which fuse together creating heavier elements starting with helium eventually going supernova spreading all of the elemental building blocks through the universe. All of the carbon building blocks of life were created in the searing hot furnaces of exploding stars.

You are again positing about what happened after the big bang. You can't theorize or describe a thing about what went on before that event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12966325)
Nonsense. It absolutely does. Another term for special pleading is cherry picking. We don't get to require some evidence for some things and none for others. By saying I just believe, you're making an exception/cherry picking/special pleading.

Re-read the definition that you posted again. It does not say that special pleading is believing something that you don't know is true. If that were the case then you would be guilty of special pleading. You believe that there is no intelligence behind the big bang or that the odds against it are astronomical.

ynot 25th January 2020 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966765)
You believe that there is no intelligence behind the big bang or that the odds against it are astronomical.

According the total sum of what is currently known to be possible, the odds of a universe creating, intelligent, supernatural, invisible, magical, super-wizard, sky-daddy (aka a god) possibly existing are astronomical, let alone actually existing.

Gods don’t become normal, probable or actual just because millions (like yourself) have normalized, probabilized and actualized them in their religiously infected brains.

acbytesla 25th January 2020 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966765)
Why would we prefer one explanation over another?

Because everything we know about the universe is the result of physical processes and none of absolutely NONE of it can be attributed to a mystical magical being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966765)
You are again positing about what happened after the big bang. You can't theorize or describe a thing about what went on before that event.

No one can. Does it give you warm fuzzies suggesting a being there is not a shred evidence even exists?

Yet there is evidence that matter exists going back to the Big Bang. We understand that great powerful forces are contained in matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966765)
Re-read the definition that you posted again. It does not say that special pleading is believing something that you don't know is true. If that were the case then you would be guilty of special pleading. You believe that there is no intelligence behind the big bang or that the odds against it are astronomical.

How again is that special pleading? I believe it because there isn't a shred of evidence for it, none. Do you believe in a lot of things with no evidence? If the answer is yes, I've got a billions dollars for you next year, if you send me 50 thousand dollars by the end of the month.

psionl0 25th January 2020 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12966837)
How again is that special pleading?

Because according to your new definition, you believe it without knowing if it is true. There is no evidence that supports your belief and no evidence that counters your belief.

acbytesla 25th January 2020 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12966820)
According the total sum of what is currently known to be possible, the odds of a universe creating, intelligent, supernatural, invisible, magical, super-wizard, sky-daddy (aka a god) possibly existing are astronomical, let alone actually existing.

Gods don’t become normal, probable or actual just because millions (like yourself) have normalized, probabilized and actualized them in their religiously infected brains.

I don't think psion gets it. Just because you can imagine something, it doesn't mean that it is possible.

Man is easily the most intelligent species to exist on the planet earth. Out of the 800 million species that have lived on earth, man is the only species that we know of to leave the planet and come back alive. Yet man cannot create a planet, much less a star, much less a galaxy, much less the entire universe.

The only point Psion has is that the universe is so large and so old that we are limited in our knowledge. But the point you make is the correct one. By the sum total of what man knows the odds are astronomical against a God creating the universe.

What Psion is saying is tantamount to saying that Gods create Thunder and Lightning which was the explanation 2500 years ago. And he has even less reason to posit a God explanation because of science.

acbytesla 25th January 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966856)
Because according to your new definition, you believe it without knowing if it is true. There is no evidence that supports your belief and no evidence that counters your belief.

No. We know that matters exists and that it interacts with other matter. Physical explanations has been the answer for every phenomenon we've ever been able to address.

And not once, was the explanation an all powerful invisible being.

That's evidence.

psionl0 25th January 2020 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12966863)
Physical explanations has been the answer for every phenomenon we've ever been able to address.

You are just arguing in circles now. You don't have a clue about the pre big bang universe and are just trying to extrapolate what we can see on one planet to all time and space.

ynot 25th January 2020 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966883)
You are just arguing in circles now. You don't have a clue about the pre big bang universe and are just trying to extrapolate what we can see on one planet to all time and space.

You’re the master of arguing lines that are drawn using a circular straightedge.

You don't have a clue about the pre big bang universe either (nobody does), and you are just trying to fantasize what we can’t see on one planet and extrapolate your fantasies to all time and space.

ETA - Do you not realise that because we can’t address pre Big Bang phenomena, it’s not part of “phenomenon we've ever been able to address“?

Pixel42 25th January 2020 10:03 PM

"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

Millennia of precedent tells us he's right. From vulcanism to evolution, every time some people gave up and assumed a supernatural explanation whilst others looked harder it was the latter who were eventually proved correct.

psionl0 25th January 2020 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12966890)
You don't have a clue about the pre big bang universe either (nobody does), and you are just trying to fantasize what we can’t see on one planet and extrapolate your fantasies to all time and space.

I have no idea what you are talking about. i am not the one making any claims about the origins of the universe.

Perhaps somebody else said "therefore God" and you are trying to hang that on me.

ynot 25th January 2020 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966911)
I have no idea what you are talking about. i am not the one making any claims about the origins of the universe.

Perhaps somebody else said "therefore God" and you are trying to hang that on me.

Do you believe in a god? - Yes or No

Do you believe that a god created The Universe? - Yes or No

I'm not holding my breath . . .

psionl0 25th January 2020 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12966923)
Do you believe in a god? - Yes or No

Do you believe that a god created The Universe? - Yes or No

I'm not holding my breath . . .

Would you also like to know my marital status? Income? Criminal record? What I eat for breakfast?

ynot 26th January 2020 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966942)
Would you also like to know my marital status? Income? Criminal record? What I eat for breakfast?

No thanks. Your marital status, income, criminal record, and what you eat for breakfast are irrelevant to a discussion about gods.

It's totally relevant however to ask a person that's arguing about god beliefs what their god beliefs are.

To be fair, my answers to the questions are "No" and "No". See how easy that was?

Now why don't you be an honest and brave mature adult and simply answer the questions? You don't have something you're ashamed of that you want to hide do you?

Bet I never get actual answers . . .

psionl0 26th January 2020 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12966953)
It's totally relevant however to ask a person that's arguing about god beliefs what their god beliefs are.

I am not arguing that God exists nor any other "god beliefs" therefore your questions are irrelevant.

No matter how hard you try to derail this discussion, you will not get off message.

JoeMorgue 26th January 2020 07:22 AM

Ah since we are obviously seeing a bad cover version of the "Apologetics Greatest Hits Album" I see we've jumped track to the "You can't remove any option from consideration until we are 100% sure of the actual correct answer" nonsense.

There's a closed shoebox in front of me. I can say with confidence it doesn't contain a full grown African Elephant or a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier while still having absolutely no idea what's in the box.

It's possible to take options off the table of consideration before you have an absolute or even a firm idea of what the answer is.

Again, for the 50th billionth time, this is not a complicated concept that people put on big showy shows of not being able to understand in any not God related topic.

JoeMorgue 26th January 2020 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12965910)
I would phrase it as, "We have no reason to believe any sort of god exists."

But that's the problem, the idea that God is just so special a concept that in order to be "fair" or "intellectually honest" or "complete" we have to give this concept, and only this concept, some level of argumentative or intellectual "out" that isn't required in, yet again, literally any other concept.

I can say there is no dragon in my garage.

I don't have to say "I have no reason to believe there is a dragon in my garage."

I don't have to make some nonsensical distinction between "believe" and "have the opinion of."

I don't have to chart on some graph the strength of my opinion that there is no dragon in my garage.

I don't have to make distinctions between "I hold the positive belief that there is no dragon in my garage" and the "negative believe that my garage doesn't contain a dragon."

I don't have to add any modifiers, ass coverings, escape clauses, last minute "pull it back just a little" addendums, language softenings, "but I could be wrong"-isms, "But that's just my opinion" clauses or anything else of any nature of any kind.

I can say "There is no Dragon in my Garage" and just stop talking and literally never in any real world context would anyone suffer any form of argumentative or intellectual fit about it. Nobody would scream at me for daring to "make a declarative statement." Nobody would pitch a "But you can't say for certain!" fit at me. Nobody would classify the simple, declarative statement "There is no dragon in my garage" as "strident" or "pretending to know everything" or any such nonsense.

I've spend this discussion, a thousand other discussions, and most of my adult life patiently waiting to hear something that could be mistaken in bad lighting at a distance for even a token attempt at someone even pretending to try to maybe at some point in the future get around to thinking about considering the possibility of starting to form a plan to maybe come up with the beginnings of argument that might one day theoretically perhaps offer some tiny shred of reason why we might even consider the possibility that God is different from the Invisible Dragon that doesn't live in my Garage and I'm still waiting.

acbytesla 26th January 2020 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966883)
You are just arguing in circles now. You don't have a clue about the pre big bang universe and are just trying to extrapolate what we can see on one planet to all time and space.

You're right I haven't a clue about the pre-big bang universe. We can't get beyond the Planck time. But just like with lightning or thunder or gravity what caused earthquakes the answer never turned out to be a god. Not once. Yet our ancestors, just like you, proposed a god as a cause. Man has posited the existence of more than 10,000 Gods, (really billions since everyone has their own idea of god) And not one of them has proved to be true. That's not a good track record for Gods.

All you can do is say since we don't have an answer yet, the ridiculous is possible.

JoeMorgue 26th January 2020 07:40 AM

Why is that every person who has the "I don't know, therefore God" idea thinks they've the first person to ever think of it and that every atheist hasn't heard it already a billion times?

It's like the apologists version of Witnessing, this idea that they are somehow so awesome at making an argument that people are going to change their mind when they hear it from them even though they've heard it countless times.

acbytesla 26th January 2020 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12967083)
But that's the problem, the idea that God is just so special a concept that in order to be "fair" or "intellectually honest" or "complete" we have to give this concept, and only this concept, some level of argumentative or intellectual "out" that isn't required in, yet again, literally any other concept.

I can say there is no dragon in my garage.

I don't have to say "I have no reason to believe there is a dragon in my garage."

I don't have to make some nonsensical distinction between "believe" and "have the opinion of."

I don't have to chart on some graph the strength of my opinion that there is no dragon in my garage.

I don't have to make distinctions between "I hold the positive belief that there is no dragon in my garage" and the "negative believe that my garage doesn't contain a dragon."

I don't have to add any modifiers, ass coverings, escape clauses, last minute "pull it back just a little" addendums, language softenings, "but I could be wrong"-isms, "But that's just my opinion" clauses or anything else of any nature of any kind.

I can say "There is no Dragon in my Garage" and just stop talking and literally never in any real world context would anyone suffer any form of argumentative or intellectual fit about it. Nobody would scream at me for daring to "make a declarative statement." Nobody would pitch a "But you can't say for certain!" fit at me. Nobody would classify the simple, declarative statement "There is no dragon in my garage" as "strident" or "pretending to know everything" or any such nonsense.

I've spend this discussion, a thousand other discussions, and most of my adult life patiently waiting to hear something that could be mistaken in bad lighting at a distance for even a token attempt at someone even pretending to try to maybe at some point in the future get around to thinking about considering the possibility of starting to form a plan to maybe come up with the beginnings of argument that might one day theoretically perhaps offer some tiny shred of reason why we might even consider the possibility that God is different from the Invisible Dragon that doesn't live in my Garage and I'm still waiting.

You're spot on Joe.

Do we really have to entertain the ridiculous in all possible outcomes to be intellectually honest?

acbytesla 26th January 2020 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12967089)
Why is that every person who has the "I don't know, therefore God" idea thinks they've the first person to ever think of it and that every atheist hasn't heard it already a billion times?

It's like the apologists version of Witnessing, this idea that they are somehow so awesome at making an argument that people are going to change their mind when they hear it from them even though they've heard it countless times.

I don't think this is true Joe. It's not that they think they think they are the first. They just need an answer and a bad answer is better than none at all. "I don't know" is too uncomfortable

psionl0 26th January 2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12967077)
There's a closed shoebox in front of me. I can say with confidence it doesn't contain a full grown African Elephant or a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier while still having absolutely no idea what's in the box.

Your problem is that you can't conceive the universe as anything other than a 3 dimensional space moving through linear time (much like there was a time when people couldn't conceive of the Earth as anything but a flat bounded plane). That is why you can't make up better examples than enclosed 3 dimensional regions that can't contain more than the volume they enclose.

Steve 26th January 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967167)
Your problem is that you can't conceive the universe as anything other than a 3 dimensional space moving through linear time (much like there was a time when people couldn't conceive of the Earth as anything but a flat bounded plane). That is why you can't make up better examples than enclosed 3 dimensional regions that can't contain more than the volume they enclose.

How many dimensions of space can you conceive? Can you describe them?

acbytesla 26th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967167)
Your problem is that you can't conceive the universe as anything other than a 3 dimensional space moving through linear time (much like there was a time when people couldn't conceive of the Earth as anything but a flat bounded plane). That is why you can't make up better examples than enclosed 3 dimensional regions that can't contain more than the volume they enclose.

That's his problem? Seriously Psion? But he should believe in the invisible fairy god?

ynot 26th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966978)
I am not arguing that God exists nor any other "god beliefs" therefore your questions are irrelevant.

Rubbish! At the very least you’re arguing that a god might/could exist, and “We don’t know therefore perhaps a goddidit”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12966978)
No matter how hard you try to derail this discussion, you will not get off message.

Just as I predicted/expected. Not only do you want to hide your believed god in vagueness, you also want to hide your god beliefs in vagueness as well. Totally dishonest and cowardly tactics.

I’ve read enough of your posts on this forum over enough time to conclude you believe in a god (aka cosmic consciousness) that created The Universe. Unless you clearly advise otherwise I will retain that conclusion.

ynot 26th January 2020 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 12967188)
That's his problem? Seriously Psion? But he should believe in the invisible fairy god?

The mysterious "anything is possible" unknown is apparently a good place for a shy god to hide :rolleyes:.

JoeMorgue 26th January 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967189)
Just as I predicted/expected. Not only do you want to hide your believed god in vagueness, you also want to hide your god beliefs in vagueness as well. Totally dishonest and cowardly tactics.

If we're going by the checklist Psion10 getting mad that we're calling him a theist is going to be the next act in the play.

I don't care. My arguments work just as well for believers and apologists so we can just skip that part.

Roger Ramjets 26th January 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12967083)
I can say there is no dragon in my garage.

I don't have to say "I have no reason to believe there is a dragon in my garage."

I don't have to make some nonsensical distinction between "believe" and "have the opinion of."

I don't have to chart on some graph the strength of my opinion that there is no dragon in my garage.

This is where it becomes just silly. Not religion, but insisting that a person justify their belief with evidence or logical arguments. I haven't seen inside your garage, so how can I possibly know whether there is a dragon in it or not? I just have to take it on faith that what you are telling us is the truth.

One could argue that dragons are mythical creatures, so it is impossible for one to be in your garage - just like we could argue that God is supernatural, and therefore cannot exist. And one may well be right (for the modern definition of 'dragon'). But that doesn't mean a person must make these arguments to justify their belief.

Quote:

I don't have to make distinctions between "I hold the positive belief that there is no dragon in my garage" and the "negative believe that my garage doesn't contain a dragon."

I don't have to add any modifiers, ass coverings, escape clauses, last minute "pull it back just a little" addendums, language softenings, "but I could be wrong"-isms, "But that's just my opinion" clauses or anything else of any nature of any kind.
Nor should you have to. It's your belief, and you have a right to it despite what evidence or logic might say.

Quote:

Nobody would classify the simple, declarative statement "There is no dragon in my garage" as "strident" or "pretending to know everything" or any such nonsense.
This may be so for ordinary claims (such as whether there is a dragon in your garage or not), but sadly religion is often treated differently. The OP rails against the very notion of "a caring god, who takes great interest in our activities" and accuses those who believe it of "Intellectual Shame". That's bad enough, but now it seems some are calling into doubt any belief, even to the point of accusing one poster of the 'totally dishonest and cowardly tactic' of 'hiding their god belief in vagueness' for having the temerity to suggest that we don't know everything about the Universe!

Browbeating someone for their beliefs because they can't supply sufficient argument or evidence to meet your standards might be deemed acceptable in this forum, but I think trying to 'out' their supposed hidden god beliefs is taking it too far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963539)
If the universe is created then it is blatantly obvious that the necessary qualities of a god or gods would be that they must be capable of creating the universe and everything within, they are not a product of the universe (they exist "outside" of the universe), they are capable of controlling events in the universe and they are capable of interacting with people in the universe (either from within or beyond the universe).

There is no need to speculate on the motivations of such gods nor on any other characteristics that such gods may possess.

Yes. To put it bluntly, the one thing we can know about a God who created the Universe is that it is supernatural, and once we accept that all scientific argument is moot. Since the supernatural is literally outside the domain of science, and gods are supernatural by definition, nothing ascribed to them can be dismissed as more silly on scientific grounds. If you accept the notion of a god at all, you have already abandoned any pretense of scientific rigor.

psionl0 26th January 2020 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967189)
Rubbish! At the very least you’re arguing that a god might/could exist, and “We don’t know therefore perhaps a goddidit”.


Just as I predicted/expected. Not only do you want to hide your believed god in vagueness, you also want to hide your god beliefs in vagueness as well. Totally dishonest and cowardly tactics.

I’ve read enough of your posts on this forum over enough time to conclude you believe in a god (aka cosmic consciousness) that created The Universe. Unless you clearly advise otherwise I will retain that conclusion.

Fine. So you are not interested in what lies beyond the universe that gave rise to the big bang and whether there is any intelligence beyond the universe.

That doesn't give any credibility to your arguments against the arguer.

ynot 26th January 2020 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12967690)
Fine. So you are not interested in what lies beyond the universe that gave rise to the big bang and whether there is any intelligence beyond the universe.

That doesn't give any credibility to your arguments against the arguer.

Before I could be interested in “what lies beyond the universe” I would need some credible reason to believe that there even is or ever has been a “beyond the universe”.

Then I would need some credible reason to believe there is or ever has been an “intelligence” that resides there, let alone that it “gave rise to the big bang”.

So please help me out – What are your credible reasons for believing there is a “beyond the universe” and an “intelligence beyond the universe that gave rise to the big bang”? If you can do that I would be very, very interested indeed.

ETA - There's a difference between "beyond the universe" and "before the universe" (as in the universe being the same stuff in a different prior state).

psionl0 26th January 2020 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12967812)
Before I could be interested in “what lies beyond the universe” I would need some credible reason to believe that there even is or ever has been a “beyond the universe”.

What would a singularity be if it wasn't contained in something? Have you heard of the "event horizon"?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.