Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yes you are making claims without backing them up. What IS your "Nature."
You are going from thread to thread with an obsession with the word "nature" that I rarely, if ever, use. Again I think you have mixed me up with rifleman. If you have an issue with the word then I wish you well building a bridge and getting over it. It has nothing to do with me.
But again you are just asking questions. Questions are not evidence. You want to know what "nature" the "universe" and "everything" is and how it came to be and so on? So do I! So do scientists. And the search is fun, engaging, interesting and important.
What we do not get to do in the interim while we work on open questions, is simply make up answers out of nowhere and based on nothing. That is the issue I am highlighting. So when you throw out concepts like a "conscious loving god who launders souls" I am quick to point out you are just engaged in fantasy, not facts and evidences.
Nor does calling them "beliefs" change anything. There is a difference between "beliefs" and "entirely unsubstantiated beliefs" that does not go away by you calling them the former and not the latter.
Time : You cannot have an infinite amount of time, because we would have never gotten to THIS point in time. There would be an infinite regress back in time, so NOW would never happen.
...but we'd be at another point...always at another point...and that point could appear exactly like this point, so I'm going to disagree with this.
Quote:
Space : You cannot have an infinite amount of space because, space is the measure between two material objects. The universe that we know or perceive is material, so there cannot be an infinite amount of space between two objects.
space is the measure between two material objects, relatively. If we were microscopic, the distance would appear far greater. We don't need to know how great the distance between an object and any edge of the universe is.
Quote:
Matter : This one should be obvious. You cannot apply properties of infinite to "things". For example; If I were to give you a piece of pie once every second, how would I ever reach an infinite amount?
just one more, that's all I want...I really, truly promise this time. That's how much pie I want. But this does not explain how you cannot have infinite amounts of pie if you go far enough, ranging throughout all that is, in an endless pie search.
Quote:
The only logical explanation for the existence of this universe is that a cause (God) that transcends space, time, and matter created it.
This is basically stating that the only logical explanation for the existence of this universe are things we cannot understand...similar to what Richard Dawkins believes to be true, except that he believes we cannot understand it...yet. It sounds like, because God is something that cannot be understood, you're not trying to understand. I could be wrong though. I'd think it'd be wisest to make an attempt.
What will the sun evolve to? I mean,
if you believe in evolution, why would the sun not be an evolving entity too, like us who get an 80 year lifespan before checking out?
With all due respect, you need to learn a little more science. Of course the sun evolves. The evolution of our sun and solar system are very well studied. The sun is a star and stars and their planetary systems are created from enormous clouds of dust and gas call nebulae.
In the very distant future, the sun will evolve into a red giant star and likely engulf the earth. Eventually, the sun will cease to be a star and "die." So will our solar system.
...but we'd be at another point...always at another point...and that point could appear exactly like this point, so I'm going to disagree with this.
The scenario in which you described, would be one where time does not exist. It would be an everlasting NOW, kind of like a picture. We know that time exists, because things age, do to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not sure what you disagree with me on. Time is finite... period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
space is the measure between two material objects, relatively. If we were microscopic, the distance would appear far greater. We don't need to know how great the distance between an object and any edge of the universe is.
I'm not sure what kind of response this is to what I said about space being finite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
an endless pie search.
As I said, You cannot apply properties of infinite to matter. If you received pies endlessly, then you would live outside of time. This shows how time is connected to matter and they cannot be infinite.
Don't argue with fundies if it annoys you so much.
I don't.
Hardline atheists and fundamentalist anything elses by definition do not listen to counterevidence because they are sure they are right and no further data is needed or wanted.
Why talk to a wall?
However, do please be aware that not even in the U.S., where more Christians tend towards fundamentalism than elsewhere, are fundamentalists actually a majority. They aren't. You've got the Pope on your side, evolution-wise, my entire church, and countless others; not to mention almost all Jews and Hindus et al. -- you're not going to convince the fundies. The thing to do is to keep creationism out of the public schools. But that is an issue of separation of church and state. Constitutional law and all that good wholesome American stuff. Making fundamentalists hate you is not going to help. Seriously.
OK, while I could quibble that an IQ cannot be measured properly past childhood (mental age/physical age ceases to be a meaningful ratio), let's grant that my tested IQ is only 13 points higher than yours. But that is still no grounds for claiming all Christians are idiots. Is it now?
Guns I know nothing about. I have only been shooting twice. But I apparently have an uncommon innate trait that involves not knowing how to miss. No instruction; so it wasn't that. Ditto for practice. I was shooting at 50 feet. It of course required the instructor to show me how to load the guns and take the safety off and rack the slide as needed. That accomplished, however, I was unable to miss the 10 rings, and with the heavier guns (.45 and .44) I put 6 of 6 rounds easily smack in the middle, in groups that could be covered with a 3" x 5" card. Consistently, until I got bored.
I am told one gets better with practice.
I am also told it generally has to be explained to a novice how to aim. I don't understand that -- it seems pretty damned obvious. And everything else follows from that.
I may be utterly wrong that that is unusually good shooting. (I doubt it; my friend in the Army Special Forces was impressed, too, and he impresses the bleep out of me, because... well, because.) I'm the only first-time shooter I've ever seen shooting. I was unaware I was any more than competent until told so by various onlookers, who could tell I'd never been shooting before because I know nothing about guns, and were surprised because I gather typically that makes one an imprecise shooter.
So you win hands down at gun knowledge and prizes and all that.
The NRA instructor who gave me his Caspian -- and I take something back; I know one thing about guns; I know if one talks to my hands, and this one does; it is a beauty of a thing -- otoh has set highpower records that still stand, and he thinks that if I actually practice I will easily be better than him, as he was nowhere near as good the first time he picked up a firearm.
FWIW.
But in any case, you were the one who first brought up guns, indulged in a little male posturing about your sharp-shootin' long guns -- c'mon, admit it, you did -- and threatened to turn the debate here into one involving firearms.
I was just teasing you.
I know you can take it. All the good ones can.
(And I do have a boyfriend. I'm just not married. He's a physicist. Jewish. As was Jesus. It's really not as big a problem as you seem to think, religion and science; fundamentalism, sure. But fundamentalist anything means "no flexibility for learning zone.")
The bolded bit is such an excellent point. Sadly I must spread some rep around. This effectively attacks the very fundamental basis of all religious arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You are going from thread to thread with an obsession with the word "nature" that I rarely, if ever, use. Again I think you have mixed me up with rifleman. If you have an issue with the word then I wish you well building a bridge and getting over it. It has nothing to do with me.
But again you are just asking questions. Questions are not evidence. You want to know what "nature" the "universe" and "everything" is and how it came to be and so on? So do I! So do scientists. And the search is fun, engaging, interesting and important.
What we do not get to do in the interim while we work on open questions, is simply make up answers out of nowhere and based on nothing. That is the issue I am highlighting. So when you throw out concepts like a "conscious loving god who launders souls" I am quick to point out you are just engaged in fantasy, not facts and evidences.
Nor does calling them "beliefs" change anything. There is a difference between "beliefs" and "entirely unsubstantiated beliefs" that does not go away by you calling them the former and not the latter.
What sane and rational personal would long hold entirely unsubstantiated beliefs with plentiful counterevidence?
They are not actually entirely unsubstantiated at all. They are just not substantiated (or countered) by science; nor can they be. But not everything true is or can.
Materialism should not be a religion. There are enormously important and very real things that have no material existence and cannot be detected by the senses. Mathematics, for instance. Something of a rulebook for reality; but look for "math" everywhere and anywhere you like and you will never find math sitting there. It is a nonmaterial abstraction that is true.
What sane and rational personal would long hold entirely unsubstantiated beliefs with plentiful counterevidence?
They are not actually entirely unsubstantiated at all. They are just not substantiated (or countered) by science; nor can they be. But not everything true is or can.
Materialism should not be a religion.
It is not, it is just another theistspeak term used to describe atheist belief.
Quote:
There are enormously important and very real things that have no material existence and cannot be detected by the senses. Mathematics, for instance. Something of a rulebook for reality; but look for "math" everywhere and anywhere you like and you will never find math sitting there. It is a nonmaterial abstraction that is true.
Not a good analogy. Understanding Math (which I do), results are "binary". IOW for the same set of variables, the answer will always be the same. You cannot have two conflicting answers.
A simple example is Ohms Law. Since its inception (as a law) has never changed. We cannot see electrons and predict how they react in a circuit and the predicted results prove the prediction.
The theist's claims are dynamic and will adapt (in certain cases) to the expanding knowledge of science. The discovery of DNA/RNA (not an expert here) proving evolution foisted the concept of theistic evolution which is anyway an oxymoron. They see complexity simply because they do not understand (or are too lazy to investigate) and some guru makes a claim that such "order" has to be god derived. It is just a claim and then they take the god neutral evidence of the sciences and claim it as their own. This way they "think" they are keeping god in the mix and will go off on tangents to lay claim "science will eventually discover god"
Theist claims and explanations are never updated even with a simple footnote or marginal reference in bibles.
As a female, you should be offended that archaic thought of the woman's menses is described as an unclean thing, a secret fountain, your used sanitary products equated to human unrighteousness (I will give references if you need them) and that the seed of man (the only portion visible to the naked eye back then in copious quantity) was the origin of reproductive life. The theists have had ±150 years to amend their texts but they cannot as then they shoot themselves in the foot. The bible is after all the "inerrant" god breathed word of god.
When someone who claims education and rationality as you do asks that theistic belief is exempt from the scientific method, it is merely special pleading, appeal to magic/fantasy etc.
Of course science cannot prove if god, heaven or hell exists. These are all mythical constructs without a shred of evidence. The origins of the myths are traceable and we find many scholars have identified origins of the concepts of Judaism and Christianity and none of the purported traditional beliefs are based on real history. If you claim to have been open minded and researched all aspects, you should know this and what I am referring to. Do you?
Rationalists can counter religious claims by simple common sense/logic, counter scientific evidence (not claims) and mostly by dissecting their holy texts to show their errancy. The unchangeable god claims are actually not based on what is written. This YHWE tends to change his mind quite a bit and in fact demonstrates human rather than godly attributes.
Imagine if the ToE had ~38,000 different perspectives. Would science not be scoffed at?
If we take the bible, read the opening account of the first 3 chapters, apply the SM and predict how this god will conduct itself one would predict a benevolent god with an attempt to reconcile man back to him. Yet we find he is continually being threatened by man's irreverence to him and continually throws his toys out the cot much like a spoilt little brat/child. We cannot even take the first 3 chapters and make a prediction as they already contradict are illogical and furthermore, the creation running on autopilot already usurps his authority.
For this conundrum we are merely offered the lame free will excuse which is an inferred conclusion rather than a prediction.
Applying simple logic here;
If god creates "everything" then creates man, how can man counter the creator of everything? (A new goto guy satan is invented.)
If god is calling out to Adam where are you, how does the creator of everything even have to ask this question?
Because none of this account has any bearing on reality, it is relegated to allegorical writings. The true conclusion should be is it is myth; what then follows is also myth.
Whenever you attempt to mix religion with science, religion always loses.
Here's an early defense of evolution by a scientific correspondent of Charles Darwin named Asa Gray. Mr. Gray states in it
"there are many who may be interested to know how these increasingly prevalent views and their tendencies are regarded by one who is scientifically, and in his own fashion, a Darwinian, philosophically a convinced theist, and religiously an acceptor of the " creed commonly called the JSTicene," [My note: I think this is likely meant to be Nicene] as the exponent of the Christian faith."
Although they do say "While BioLogos accepts evolution, it emphatically rejects evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse. Proponents of evolutionism believe every aspect of life will one day be explained with evolutionary theory." Still they do say "Natural selection as described by Charles Darwin is not contrary to theism."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
