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)

Ulf Nereng 20th January 2020 11:14 AM

There was a time when the gods lived on tops of mountains. Usually the tallest ones around. But that's a risky place to have them. Even if you, the High Priest, declares the mountain to be holy and climbing it to be sacrilege punishable by death, there is the constant risk that some doubter will climb it and look around.

Luckily for the priesthood Ptolemy came around with a wonderful new theory. Now they could place God in the 7th heaven! Even Icarus only made it to the first heaven before the wax melted and he tumbled to the ground. Take that doubters!

And then came Copernicus and his ilk with their blasted telescopes. Now what? Only one thing left to try; place God outside of the universe itself! And outside of time, too! Finally God should be safe from all the doubters. You can't disprove God now! :)

JoeMorgue 20th January 2020 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng (Post 12960283)
There was a time when the gods lived on tops of mountains. Usually the tallest ones around. But that's a risky place to have them. Even if you, the High Priest, declares the mountain to be holy and climbing it to be sacrilege punishable by death, there is the constant risk that some doubter will climb it and look around.

I'll never cease to get joy out of the fact that the Greeks thought their Gods lived like... right there. On top of a very climbable mountain. And just never thought to go check.

Ulf Nereng 20th January 2020 01:42 PM

The greeks weren't the only ones to have sacred mountains. The roman god Vulcan lived in Etna, Shiva lives in a mountain named Kallash, there's another one in Nepal that you're not allowed to climb because sacred to the locals, the list goes on.

And of course Yahve was on mount Sinai for at least 40 days to work with Moses on chiseling some stone tablets. I find it quite telling that nobody else were allowed to see the work in progress: Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. Moses alone shall come near to the Lord, but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him."

Minoosh 20th January 2020 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960196)
You are still not making sense. "God" is not such a vague word that without a formal definition, people would start calling tadpoles "god".

I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.

I'm not unsympathetic to what you're saying, but "God" actually is a pretty vague word/concept.

I've never found a religion I wanted to embrace. All of them that I have examined have aspects that I simply can't believe. I wouldn't use the word "silly," exactly, but something more neutral. Yet I don't call myself an atheist. But I do resist being pinned down to a definition.

If 1,000 posited gods can be disproven, that's very strong inductive evidence that all gods are human constructs. It's not deductive proof. But saying I believe in the possibility of "something" is a sort of special pleading, if I can't define the something. Maybe I could use the phrase a "creative entity." Whatever phrase I use would be something similarly abstract. And therefore unfalsifiable. That doesn't feel like a dodge to me but I'm sure it looks that way to some posters here.

JoeMorgue 20th January 2020 01:53 PM

God is not "vague" and I disagree with arguments/apologetics which define him as such.

What God is, in fact, is intentionally poorly and variably defined for the purpose of argumentative "outs."

That's why every God that people actually believe in has clear goals, defined characteristics, personalities, does stuff but in every God argument the God we have to argue about is the amazingly vague God of vagueness doing vague things vaguely in some walled off pocket universe where evidence can enter or leave.

If there's not evidence for any God that anyone actually believes in, not one made up of special pleadings just for argumentative purposes, I'm intellectually justified in the saying the statement "God doesn't exist" without modifiers or ass-coverings or groveling.

Darat 20th January 2020 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960225)

Why are you reluctant to turn your statements into meaningful ones?

Thor 2 20th January 2020 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng (Post 12960283)
There was a time when the gods lived on tops of mountains. Usually the tallest ones around. But that's a risky place to have them. Even if you, the High Priest, declares the mountain to be holy and climbing it to be sacrilege punishable by death, there is the constant risk that some doubter will climb it and look around.

Luckily for the priesthood Ptolemy came around with a wonderful new theory. Now they could place God in the 7th heaven! Even Icarus only made it to the first heaven before the wax melted and he tumbled to the ground. Take that doubters!

And then came Copernicus and his ilk with their blasted telescopes. Now what? Only one thing left to try; place God outside of the universe itself! And outside of time, too! Finally God should be safe from all the doubters. You can't disprove God now! :)


It's all so confusing. A God who is everywhere and also nowhere.

God himself (the old guy) never makes a personal appearance although "the boy" does at times, according to some. Mary puts in an appearance more often than anyone else even though she is simultaneously in God's presence. Can't get my head around it at all. :confused:

Now what about The Devil? Is he outside the universe and time also, or is he here? Don't seem to hear of visions of his goat like head from anyone lately.

Thor 2 20th January 2020 03:29 PM

"In God We Doubt" by John Humphrys is a book I am reading at the moment. Not one I would strongly recommend to others, as most of the material presented has been bandied about by others, and I have been there from original thinking in many cases also.

John is most unsympathetic to Dawkins and seems to brand him as arrogant and judgmental of believers. He equates Dawkins belief in the faithful being deluded, to a belief in them being silly. From my reading of Dawkins I don't see this.

There is so much silly stuff on offer in religion, but if you are indoctrinated it seems effortless to take it on board anyway. It is just stored away in that god spot in the brain, where logic is not welcome. The indoctrinated can go on with the rest of their lives being as logical as can be, with their approach to other issues.

The danger from believers is when they dip into that "god spot", and drag something out into the real world. When the material in there impacts on others such as the LGBT folk, and other material impacts on all of us, because of climate change denial for example, then we are in trouble.

arthwollipot 20th January 2020 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 12960490)
Now what about The Devil? Is he outside the universe and time also, or is he here? Don't seem to hear of visions of his goat like head from anyone lately.

He does make the odd appearance. Usually in the psychotic episodes of schizophrenics. Demons, on the other hand, are everywhere (if you follow the teachings of the Pentecostals).

psionl0 20th January 2020 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12960231)
Nonsense. Absolute, anti-intellectual, intellectually dishonest nonsense. And absolute, anti-intellectual, intellectually dishonest nonsense that's been refuted a billion times so it's not even original. You're not even special pleading you're just parroting the same old special pleading.

Whoa! Chill out man. You are getting far too emotional over a simple question of logic. In fact, you had to change the words you quoted into something else entirely to launch off on this tangent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12960235)
There's no chair in the room. There's no teapot orbiting Saturn.

I have totally destroyed these analogies. The only way for you to desperately cling to them is to pretend my posts on these analogies don't exist or to deny (without examination) that these posts do anything of the kind.

Thor 2 20th January 2020 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12960756)
He does make the odd appearance. Usually in the psychotic episodes of schizophrenics. Demons, on the other hand, are everywhere (if you follow the teachings of the Pentecostals).


My nephew is always on about demons and chasing them out of people. When he manages to expel a demon the liberated person sort of vomits the demon out. Really!!!! I'm not making this up.

arthwollipot 20th January 2020 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 12960777)
My nephew is always on about demons and chasing them out of people. When he manages to expel a demon the liberated person sort of vomits the demon out. Really!!!! I'm not making this up.

I know you're not making this up. That's exactly the kind of thing I believed in.

Demons were part malevolent entity sent by Satan and part personification of human misfortune. There were demons of smoking, demons of adultery, demons of cancer, heck demons of stubbing your toe probably. But that's okay, because they are easy to exorcise just by invoking Jesus' name. Demons cannot withstand Jesus' name.

Thor 2 20th January 2020 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12960782)
I know you're not making this up. That's exactly the kind of thing I believed in.

Demons were part malevolent entity sent by Satan and part personification of human misfortune. There were demons of smoking, demons of adultery, demons of cancer, heck demons of stubbing your toe probably. But that's okay, because they are easy to exorcise just by invoking Jesus' name. Demons cannot withstand Jesus' name.


Well this sort of illustrates what I was saying in post 254 just before.

You and I have our differences but I would not describe you as silly. Nor were you silly before in spite of having those silly beliefs. You didn't get a sudden injection of intelligence when you walked away from all that BS. You just shed the virus.

abaddon 20th January 2020 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960759)
Whoa! Chill out man. You are getting far too emotional over a simple question of logic.

Err, no. That is an astonishingly popular christian argument. Nobody is getting overexcited about some imaginary being because said imaginary being is not demonstrated to exist.
Would I believe in leprechauns? Sure right when somebody, or anybody demonstrated them to exist. Same applies to "god"

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960759)
In fact, you had to change the words you quoted into something else entirely to launch off on this tangent.

Simple question. How fast can one burn credibility?


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960759)
I have totally destroyed these analogies. The only way for you to desperately cling to them is to pretend my posts on these analogies don't exist or to deny (without examination) that these posts do anything of the kind.

Because god-dunnit. That is a really convincing not-at-all-remotely-on-the-same-planet-as-rationality.

Good grief, listen to what you are saying. Sky fairies are real just because? Is that all you have?

abaddon 20th January 2020 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960225)

OK, I will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960196)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12959974)
Because god as the word is used can refer to a myriad of different things, there is no definition of god that covers all the gods people believe in. Therefore if one asks "Does god exist?" without a definition of god in that question the question becomes nothing more than (and this is at best) "Does something exist?" Which of course is a pretty useless question.

You are still not making sense. "God" is not such a vague word that without a formal definition, people would start calling tadpoles "god".

I'm beginning to suspect that you have another agenda on your mind.

Point out your definition of "god" please. You claimed it was in post #241. Where is it?

psionl0 20th January 2020 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960793)
Err, no. That is an astonishingly popular christian argument.

Really? I get the impression that logic is the enemy of Christianity (and not to mention atheism).

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960793)
Nobody is getting overexcited about some imaginary being because said imaginary being is not demonstrated to exist.
Would I believe in leprechauns? Sure right when somebody, or anybody demonstrated them to exist. Same applies to "god"

Annnnd .... so much for the argument that I made. You are now going back to rebutting arguments that others may have made regardless of whether I concur or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960793)
Because god-dunnit. That is a really convincing not-at-all-remotely-on-the-same-planet-as-rationality.

Which is why I haven't made that argument.

Have you actually been reading what I have been posting or are you just relying on the false dichotomy that if I am not a hard core atheist then I support every argument of every religious person no matter how ridiculous these arguments may be.

arthwollipot 20th January 2020 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 12960790)
Well this sort of illustrates what I was saying in post 254 just before.

You and I have our differences but I would not describe you as silly. Nor were you silly before in spite of having those silly beliefs. You didn't get a sudden injection of intelligence when you walked away from all that BS. You just shed the virus.

Well this also dips into your suggestion that the belief can be cleanly separated from the believer, which is a conversation we've had before. We both understand each other's position on this, let's not go over it again. :D

I would say now that I was silly to enter that church, it was a silly church with silly beliefs.

abaddon 20th January 2020 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960807)
Really? I get the impression that logic is the enemy of Christianity (and not to mention atheism).

Spoken like a christian. Atheism is not the enemy of anything. that you think it is speaks to a certain naivety.


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960807)
Annnnd .... so much for the argument that I made. You are now going back to rebutting arguments that others may have made regardless of whether I concur or not.

You made no argument at all. Why should anyone give any heed to an argument you merely claimed to make but never did?


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960807)
Which is why I haven't made that argument.

You have made no argument for anything at all. Almost as if you are ashamed of your deity of choice. Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960807)
Have you actually been reading what I have been posting or are you just relying on the false dichotomy that if I am not a hard core atheist then I support every argument of every religious person no matter how ridiculous these arguments may be.

Yup, I have read all of your posts on this topic. I will happily accept whichever deity you want when you can demonstrate it's existence. You wont because you cannot.

psionl0 20th January 2020 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960816)
Spoken like a christian. Atheism is not the enemy of anything. that you think it is speaks to a certain naivety.

I said that logic is the enemy of atheism and you confirmed that by immediately reversing that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960816)
You made no argument at all. Why should anyone give any heed to an argument you merely claimed to make but never did?


You have made no argument for anything at all. Almost as if you are ashamed of your deity of choice. Why is that?

Thus proving that you haven't read anything I posted or, at least, not without massive blinkers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960816)
I will happily accept whichever deity you want when you can demonstrate it's existence. You wont because you cannot.

Why do you think that is my argument? Oh! because I am not a rabid atheist.

I only postulate 3 things that there can be little dispute about:
  • The universe has an origin.
  • Everybody dies.
  • Any sufficiently powerful god that doesn't want to be revealed can easily arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test. (Why he would choose to do so is an argument best left to the religious scholars).
You would know this if you actually read my posts. Nobody knows anything about the origin of the universe and nobody knows if death is the end of everything.

Maybe it is perfectly valid to assume that there are no gods and that once you die, you never ever regain any form of consciousness. I don't know and anybody who claims that they know is just being silly.

arthwollipot 20th January 2020 09:45 PM

Look out guys, I think we've got a militant agnostic on our hands.

:eek:


























:D

psionl0 20th January 2020 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12960874)
Look out guys, I think we've got a militant agnostic on our hands.

. . . . . just in case anybody thought it couldn't get any sillier.

Darat 21st January 2020 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
I said that logic is the enemy of atheism and you confirmed that by immediately reversing that statement.


Thus proving that you haven't read anything I posted or, at least, not without massive blinkers.


Why do you think that is my argument? Oh! because I am not a rabid atheist.

I only postulate 3 things that there can be little dispute about:
  • The universe has an origin.
  • Everybody dies.
  • Any sufficiently powerful god that doesn't want to be revealed can easily arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test. (Why he would choose to do so is an argument best left to the religious scholars).
You would know this if you actually read my posts. Nobody knows anything about the origin of the universe and nobody knows if death is the end of everything.

Maybe it is perfectly valid to assume that there are no gods and that once you die, you never ever regain any form of consciousness. I don't know and anybody who claims that they know is just being silly.

Your third point - how do you know?

psionl0 21st January 2020 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12960922)
Your third point - how do you know?

Let me see. You want to know how I know the following statement is true:
IF a god is sufficiently powerful enough to arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test
THEN that god can arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test.
Just checking before I launch into a lecture about conditional logic.

Darat 21st January 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960933)
Let me see. You want to know how I know the following statement is true:
IF a god is sufficiently powerful enough to arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test
THEN that god can arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test.
Just checking before I launch into a lecture about conditional logic.

You are simply using an ontological argument for a god. It's always been flawed and rather silly.

Darat 21st January 2020 02:30 AM

Plus one does have to ask how do you know point one as well?

And even point two, how do you know everyone dies, have you looked in every room for the immortal person sitting on a chair...

abaddon 21st January 2020 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
I only postulate 3 things that there can be little dispute about:

Feel free.
Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
[*]The universe has an origin.

Does it? You would be the very first to demonstrate that. Please link us to your peer reviewed cosmological paper and Nobel prize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
[*]Everybody dies.

Do they? Have you accounted for every person and their ultimate fate? How did you do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
[*]Any sufficiently powerful god that doesn't want to be revealed can easily arrange things so that he can't be revealed through any logical or scientific test.

Can he/she/it/housecat? If so, then such a deity could not interact with the real world in any way. Thus you are proposing a deity which might as well not exist since it is powerless in the material world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960861)
(Why he would choose to do so is an argument best left to the religious scholars).

Nice dodge.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 07:11 AM

This is not that hard and believers/apologists acting like it is got old a long time ago.

Here, look at it this way.

Me: "Hey psionI0, is there any beer left in the fridge?"
psionI0: "Nope, you're out."

And, here's the important part. That's where the discussion ends. Did I suffer an existential crisis about the true nature of beer? Did I take psion10 to task for making an absolute declarative statement about the existence of beer instead of a wishy-washy, escape clause ridden "I believe there is no beer in the fridge?" Did I demand we stop and discuss hypothetical beers that might have cloaking devices and were invisible to his visual scanning of the fridge? Do I demand that psionI0 put the mental effort into making up alternative beers that might still exist before he declares the fridge to be beer free?

No. When the zero evidence that something exists... that's where the discussion ends.

When the question is asked "Does this thing exist?" and no evidence is presented that says it does we don't default to "agnosticism" we default to "anti-the thing actually exists - ism." Nobody actually treats things for which no evidence suggests they exists but can't be proven to not exists as equally likely to exist.

Is why people don't do that hard for anybody to understand? Raise your hand if you don't understand. Okay, didn't think so.

Now the response, surely, is going to be "God is different" But he isn't.

//BTW is it psion10 or psionI0? The font doesn't make it clear. If I used the wrong one it was not an intentional slight of any kind.//

Minoosh 21st January 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12960883)
. . . . . just in case anybody thought it couldn't get any sillier.

I don't agree that "militant agnostic" is a silly phrase. I kind of like it. Some people on these boards say I'm an atheist since I don't have a *specific* god-belief. I gotta say, though - I can sit in a synagogue or mosque and be OK with the prayers on offer. Master of the Universe, the Almighty, the Creator ... but I find Christianity hard to wrap my head around. Christ died for my sins? I just literally don't know what that means, because he didn't even die. It doesn't speak to me. If I go to a Christian worship service and they stress the "died for our sins" part I feel like a hypocrite.

I think Jesus was probably a really sweet guy, though.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 09:16 AM

Agnosticism at it's core is the same problem we've been discussing, it only makes sense if we enter the discussion already under the assumption that God has be discussed differently, which leads us into the Jabbian game of "God is different because I say so, therefore we have to discuss God differently, and the fact that we are discussing God differently is more proof that God exists."

Nobody is "Invisible Dragon in My Garage"-ostic. And every reason why "Oh but God is different" is special pleading.

If you walk into the garage and don't see a dragon, you default to "No dragon" not "Well I'm going to assign equal probabilities to no dragon and an magical undetectable invisible floating silent dragon until such time as someone proves or disproves the dragon."

And for... like a long time now all discussions about God are this, a meta-discussion about why we won't just let the God discussion operate under different rules.

psionl0 21st January 2020 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12960965)
You are simply using an ontological argument for a god. It's always been flawed and rather silly.

I could say that IF x > 0 THEN sqrt(x) is a real number.

Would you argue that I am using an ontological argument for the positiveness of x?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12960966)
Plus one does have to ask how do you know point one as well?

An origin for the universe is a consequence of the big bang theory. You don't have to believe this theory if you don't want to but it is still the flavour of the month. You will have a hard time convincing the scientific community that the universe has always existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12960966)
And even point two, how do you know everyone dies, have you looked in every room for the immortal person sitting on a chair...

OK you got me. I haven't completed my search for an immortal person. However, I have known enough deaths to know that it is a very common thing to happen to people (and in not one of those deaths has the person reappeared to me in any form whatsoever).

psionl0 21st January 2020 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12961262)
I don't agree that "militant agnostic" is a silly phrase. I kind of like it.

It wasn't a valid response to anything. It was just calling an arguer names in the hopes that they will shut up and that is absolutely silly.

psionl0 21st January 2020 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12961273)
Agnosticism at it's core is the same problem we've been discussing, it only makes sense if we enter the discussion already under the assumption that God has be discussed differently, which leads us into the Jabbian game of "God is different because I say so, therefore we have to discuss God differently, and the fact that we are discussing God differently is more proof that God exists."

You are comparing God to objects that must be observable if they exist. It is not "special pleading" if you don't subscribe to the view that God is just an object.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12961315)
You are comparing God to objects that must be observable if they exist. It is not "special pleading" if you don't subscribe to the view that God is just an object.

No that's exactly special pleading. It's textbook special pleading. It's the specialist of special pleading. It couldn't be more special pleading. At best it's trying to special plead away the special pleading by going "Oh it's not special pleading because we're talking about God and God is different" which is just more special pleading.

You can't define God as magic and then go "Well what do you expect, you can't expect a magic being to leave evidence."

And no calling it "magic" isn't not hyperbole or strawmanning.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 09:52 AM

And again this is invoking the "Specially designed to be immune to counter arguments because he's built out of special pleadings" God that nobody actually believes in.

God isn't "undetectable" anymore then he is "vague." That's just an excuse, a version of God that exists in arguments and philosophical debates and no where else. The God that people actually functionally believe in? He does stuff. He creates things. He has opinions about how we should live our lives. He interacts with the world. If he actually existed his existence would leave evidence, real evidence not working backwards from the fact apologetics.

You're saying "undetectable" when you mean "Stop being a big meanie poopie head and asking me for evidence for my claims."

Dave Rogers 21st January 2020 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12961337)
And again this is invoking the "Specially designed to be immune to counter arguments because he's built out of special pleadings" God that nobody actually believes in.

God isn't "undetectable" anymore then he is "vague." That's just an excuse, a version of God that exists in arguments and philosophical debates and no where else. The God that people actually functionally believe in? He does stuff. He creates things. He has opinions about how we should live our lives. He interacts with the world. If he actually existed his existence would leave evidence, real evidence not working backwards from the fact apologetics.

You're saying "undetectable" when you mean "Stop being a big meanie poopie head and asking me for evidence for my claims."

And hence, GOTO 243.

Dave

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12961361)
And hence, GOTO 243.

Dave

We've been GOTOing 243 since Aquinas, Pascal if you want to be generous.

Apologetics haven't offered anything new in a long, long, long time. It's just rewording the same handful of stupid arguments over and over.

Pixel42 21st January 2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12961294)
An origin for the universe is a consequence of the big bang theory. You don't have to believe this theory if you don't want to but it is still the flavour of the month. You will have a hard time convincing the scientific community that the universe has always existed.

AIUI the Big Bang is the name given to the expansion of the universe that started approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The theory says nothing about the origin of the universe, not even that there was one. The universe may have already existed before the expansion began, perhaps in a different state, or it may not. We don't know.

psionl0 21st January 2020 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12961327)
No that's exactly special pleading. It's textbook special pleading. It's the specialist of special pleading. It couldn't be more special pleading. At best it's trying to special plead away the special pleading by going "Oh it's not special pleading because we're talking about God and God is different" which is just more special pleading.

Your argument is that if there is a god then he must be just an object. That the creator of the universe is a product of that universe.

That attempt at reductio ad absurdum might be sufficient to you to prove that there are no gods.

However, it also invites the inference that if there is a god then he can't be an object. After all, there is no basis for your assertion that only objects could be gods.

psionl0 21st January 2020 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12961479)
AIUI the Big Bang is the name given to the expansion of the universe that started approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

It says slightly more than that. It suggests that the universe was "singularity" all those years ago then suddenly started expanding.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12961507)
Your argument is that if there is a god then he must be just an object. That the creator of the universe is a product of that universe.

My argument is that if God exists he has to leave evidence for his existence that somebody would have been able to provide after... *checks calendar* going on about several thousand years now.

The "Watchmaker" God is just another argumentative out, something made up after the fact the to yet again excuse away the eons of time believers and apologist have had to present any evidence for God and yet haven't.

Quote:

That attempt at reductio ad absurdum might be sufficient to you to prove that there are no gods.
And my assertion that the dragon that lives in my garage is invisible, undetectable, mute, and leaves no evidence is be sufficient evidence to you that there is no dragon in my garage.

You still think you've somehow presented a God that is functionally different from my garage dragon or Russel's teapot but you haven't because you can add is special pleadings.

Yes my assertion is that there is no reason to even consider the possibility that something might exist until some reason for it is presented. I've spent my entire adult life trying to figure out what is so goddamn shocking about this.

Quote:

However, it also invites the inference that if there is a god then he can't be an object. After all, there is no basis for your assertion that only objects could be gods.
You're just invoking magic again.

I'm not interested in your magic God that you've assigned every possible "get out of the argument free card" to.

And again none of this works on any God that anyone actually believes in. It doesn't even really work on this weird version of God people trot out for arguments and philosophy that is just "Every single excuse bundled into one."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 PM.

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