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.
Mystic
Honestly...honestly...would you......let me start again
.I will not pretend that I have gone into any 'trances' (not to be deragory, only or the purpose of brevity) but have spent much time and debated with myself long and hard about it.
If, however, that is how I made my determination(deep meditation), would you give it the same credence that you give your own?
Bastages...What, do you think that is a "polite" way to call atheists bastards?
Bastages . . . bastards held hostage to a dogmatic intransigence and insistence on mandating an ignorant unsubstantiated and unsupportable premise as the default for all discussions of the Source of all that exists.
Bastages . . . bastards held hostage to a dogmatic intransigence and insistence on mandating an ignorant unsubstantiated and unsupportable premise as the default for all discussions of the Source of all that exists.
You are the one in need of education in logic. Every syllogism must proceed from a base PREMISE that is either proved or universally accepted. What is yours?
I am making none - at base. Let me save your time and mine.
'Who made the universe?'
I do not know how the universe came to be. It might be eternal. It might have had a beginning - I am postulating no premise. If you do not, then you cannot have a premise of 'the universe has a beginning' and there is no premise of a first cause and without a First Cause there in no goddunnit.
So let's say that the Theist premise (1) is accepted for sake of argument
Did a God do it or did it come about without a god? What's my premise?
I have none. I do not know whether a god dunnit or whether it came about naturally. I note the evidence and consider which indicates what explanation. But I make no premise to weight the evidence. No premise, no god.
But the theists insist the unverse had a cause and that cause must be a Creative intelligence. That's two unwarranted premises. I make none. I do not KNOW and not knowing implies not believing - either way.
I do not say there is no god - I do not believe in one. That requires NO premise.
I do not believe in Biblegod. I make no premise. The theists say there is such a God, so the burden of proof is on them. They point to the Bible which exists. I say it is not believable
I am then making a claim and the burden of proof is on me to support my claim. I am doing so here. If there is a premise that is that the rules of science, history, logic and reason are valid tools to come to a conclusion.
You may reject those but then you are rejecting logic, reason, science and everything we use to come to sound conclusions.
Bastages . . . bastards held hostage to a dogmatic intransigence and insistence on mandating an ignorant unsubstantiated and unsupportable premise as the default for all discussions of the Source of all that exists.
Funny - that sounds just like Theists to me. Except I have no idea about their legitimacy and I avoid gratuitous rudeness.
There was a recent article on PhysOrg proposing an alternative to the Big Bang. I accept, and to a degree even like, the Big Bang theory so I wasn't impressed. Still it sounded like a legitimate scientist.
I read Shu's proposal paper - 33 pages. In the Abstract portion, he states the proposed cosmological models (more than one) are speculations that can explain the acceleration rate of the universe without adding a cosmological constant. In other words, they eliminate the need for the existence of dark energy as an explanation for expansion.
I also think his view sounds like a modified version of Fred Hoyle's Steady State universe. I'm not certain what he means by saying "the spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere". I also don't understand why he describes the "flatness" of the universe as a problem. Seems to me that's already been explained.
This is a great link from Scientific American Magazine and is written by Lawrence M. Krauss.
United States adults are less willing to accept the BIG BANG and EVOLUTION as factual than the adults in most other industrialized nations.
When presented with the statement "Human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals"......just 45% of Adult Americans responded "Yes". Contrast this affirmitive number with Japan...78%; Europe...70%; China...69% and South Korea...64%.
Only 33% of U.S. adults agree that the Universe began with an initial explosion i.e. The Big Bang.
According to a 2009 PEW Survey 31% of Adult Americans agree that "humans and all living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time". So much for dog and other animal selective breeding, plant cross pollination and bacteria evolving to resist Penicillin and many other antibiotics.
Here is the link to this fascinating article and other informative links relating to this thread.
I am making none - at base. Let me save your time and mine.
Nonsense. You refuse to acknowledge the one you do make.
Quote:
'Who made the universe?'
The Creator.
Quote:
I do not know how the universe came to be. It might be eternal. It might have had a beginning - I am postulating no premise. If you do not, then you cannot have a premise of 'the universe has a beginning' and there is no premise of a first cause and without a First Cause there in no goddunnit.
So what? You cannot deny that it is HERE. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Whether it poofed into existence or through some other ongoing creative process . . . it is a magnificent and awesome creation of an inscrutable Creator. You cannot just dismiss it because of our ignorance. Whatever you believe about it . . . it is our Creator. To deny that and demand evidence of our Creator is absurd beyond belief!!!
Quote:
Did a God do it or did it come about without a god? What's my premise?
I have none. I do not know whether a god dunnit or whether it came about naturally. I note the evidence and consider which indicates what explanation. But I make no premise to weight the evidence. No premise, no god.
This is the supreme nonsense. That it "came about" is sufficient evidence of a God . . . no matter what you believe its attributes are or are NOT!! The asinine notion of no premise and NOTHING as the originator is simply stupid . . . and your predilection to use the adjective "naturally" AS IF that could in ANY WAY explain the created attributes of this "nature" that you point to as the cause of this entire creation is a juvenile euphemistic tautology.
Quote:
But the theists insist the universe had a cause and that cause must be a Creative intelligence. That's two unwarranted premises. I make none. I do not KNOW and not knowing implies not believing - either way.
Not knowing implies denying the very existence you are living!! Of course it was created .. . or it and you would not be here. What the attributes (intelligence, mindlessness, etc.) of our Creator are . . . can and will be debated . . . but NOT its EXISTENCE! What is so hard for you to grasp about this. The very demand for proof of our Creator(God) is an asinine denial of your own existence . . so STOP IT! You cannot assume the default of no Creator . . . no matter HOW ignorant you are about it!!!
Quote:
I do not say there is no god - I do not believe in one. That requires NO premise.
Absurd . . . that equals . . you don't believe in the Creator of your existence.
Quote:
I do not believe in Biblegod. I make no premise. The theists say there is such a God, so the burden of proof is on them. They point to the Bible which exists. I say it is not believable
THAT is defensible and rational . . . it deals with a specific and well identified Creator. Your absurd DEFAULT "No God" is NOT!!
Quote:
I am then making a claim and the burden of proof is on me to support my claim. I am doing so here. If there is a premise that is that the rules of science, history, logic and reason are valid tools to come to a conclusion.
None of this is in dispute. But your absurd claim of no premise and demand for proof of God is pure crap!!! God is undeniable. The attributes are the ONLY things that are disputable.
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.
