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.
You have no "case", remember?
You are in "lack of" a case, due to having "no evidence" to form one off of. Well, none you are hip to, anyway.
So...you are relegated to busting on those that do have evidence, and a case based upon it.
You have no "case", remember?
You are in "lack of" a case, due to having "no evidence" to form one off of. Well, none you are hip to, anyway.
So...you are relegated to busting on those that do have evidence, and a case based upon it.
Time for me to sign off now, but before I do I can't help wonder if you can really be serious...
You have this odd basic ongoing argument that nothing can be proven true, and/or everything proves God exists. All that seems entirely contradictory to me. Perfectly logical to you. Okay. What's new? But can you be serious about the significant importance of having no evidence too?
In a court of law where there tends to be a bit more confidence in facts, evidence, reason and logic, how many cases do you think have been thrown out "due to lack of evidence?" How many times do you think people have been found innocent because there is a lack of evidence they are guilty? How can you argue that a lack of evidence isn't a perfectly good way to establish what is true and what is not in so many cases? How can anyone in their right mind argue such a thing?
Let's say you are accused of murder by a woman you jilted. You are actually arrested as a result of the false accusation. Do you really think the lack of evidence you murdered anyone doesn't prove your innocence? Helps to do so in any case? Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything? Lack of evidence isn't seriously worthy of consideration? If not, I've got some land loaded with diamonds and gold I'd like to sell you!
Hard for me to think anyone needs this explained to them, but lack of evidence is an extremely good and important point of fact to consider when it comes to establishing the truth.
Perhaps I must also add that lack of evidence is not necessarily sufficient proof any more than having evidence necessarily proves the opposite, but lack of evidence is certainly worthy of consideration no more and no less than having evidence is worthy of consideration. It all needs to be considered if the truth in all these cases is what we're after. Including the case for God. No different.
For the love of beyond a reasonable doubt, again please have mercy (or stop drinking)!
Time for me to sign off now, but before I do I can't help wonder if you can really be serious...
You have this odd basic ongoing argument that nothing can be proven true, and/or everything proves God exists. All that seems entirely contradictory to me. Perfectly logical to you. Okay. What's new? But can you be serious about the significant importance of having no evidence too?
In a court of law where there tends to be a bit more confidence in facts, evidence, reason and logic, how many cases do you think have been thrown out "due to lack of evidence?" How many times do you think people have been found innocent because there is a lack of evidence they are guilty? How can you argue that a lack of evidence isn't a perfectly good way to establish what is true and what is not in so many cases? How can anyone in their right mind argue such a thing?
Let's say you are accused of murder by a woman you jilted. You are actually arrested as a result of the false accusation. Do you really think the lack of evidence you murdered anyone doesn't prove your innocence? Helps to do so in any case? Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything? Lack of evidence isn't seriously worthy of consideration? If not, I've got some land loaded with diamonds and gold I'd like to sell you!
Hard for me to think anyone needs this explained to them, but lack of evidence is an extremely good and important point of fact to consider when it comes to establishing the truth.
Perhaps I must also add that lack of evidence is not necessarily sufficient proof any more than having evidence necessarily proves the opposite, but lack of evidence is certainly worthy of consideration no more and no less than having evidence is worthy of consideration. It all needs to be considered if the truth in all these cases is what we're after. Including the case for God. No different.
For the love of beyond a reasonable doubt, again please have mercy (or stop drinking)!
Remember that he has said he posts to generate entertainment for himself.
Time for me to sign off now, but before I do I can't help wonder if you can really be serious...
You have this odd basic ongoing argument that nothing can be proven true, and/or everything proves God exists. All that seems entirely contradictory to me. Perfectly logical to you. Okay. What's new? But can you be serious about the significant importance of having no evidence too?
In a court of law where there tends to be a bit more confidence in facts, evidence, reason and logic, how many cases do you think have been thrown out "due to lack of evidence?" How many times do you think people have been found innocent because there is a lack of evidence they are guilty? How can you argue that a lack of evidence isn't a perfectly good way to establish what is true and what is not in so many cases? How can anyone in their right mind argue such a thing?
Let's say you are accused of murder by a woman you jilted. You are actually arrested as a result of the false accusation. Do you really think the lack of evidence you murdered anyone doesn't prove your innocence? Helps to do so in any case? Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything? Lack of evidence isn't seriously worthy of consideration? If not, I've got some land loaded with diamonds and gold I'd like to sell you!
Hard for me to think anyone needs this explained to them, but lack of evidence is an extremely good and important point of fact to consider when it comes to establishing the truth.
Perhaps I must also add that lack of evidence is not necessarily sufficient proof any more than having evidence necessarily proves the opposite, but lack of evidence is certainly worthy of consideration no more and no less than having evidence is worthy of consideration. It all needs to be considered if the truth in all these cases is what we're after. Including the case for God. No different.
For the love of beyond a reasonable doubt, again please have mercy (or stop drinking)!
I see you make the old, bogus "Evidence in a court of law" argument here. I've seen it many times...and always wonder how anyone could be so clueless to make it.
Here are some old exchanges...there are many more:
Time for me to sign off now, but before I do I can't help wonder if you can really be serious...
You are explaining to someone who wants you to explain. That is why he posts his deliberately false statements.
At least snj90 has made a logical observation that answers the OP, "Why must god exist? Can someone give me a religious explanation?". There was either absolutely nothing, or there was always something. And if absolutely nothing is not possible, then logically there must have been an eternal something. No god is required to explain this, it is a logical necessity.
Simply repeating "something can not come from nothing" is not the winning mantra for the theists that they think it is, it is a self defeating argument because it says no god is required to explain existence.
Yes, so you keep repeating. A multiverse explains this so much better than some super intelligent being made of nothing (otherwise there was something AND absolutely nothing) who just happened by chance to know how to set the parameters.
A multiverse, besides having no evidence to support it and having no ability to explain consciousness, suffers from the same problem I have brought up. If you want to suggest that each hypothetical universe is free to set its own parameters, then there remains nothing to stop the parameters of this universe from changing. Moreover, aesthetics are a good argument against the multiverse hypothesis. Our creation shows evidence of beauty that far exceeds bare-bones necessity, whereas the latter is probabilistically favored in this hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Which brings us back to the OP. If there must have been something (your alternative to absolutely nothing), why must the first cause be a god?
There's not just a bare-bones "something" but order and design. And there's not just a material universe but consciousness. And both exist by the power of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No it does not allow for some random change, for the reason I gave, nor do I agree the universe sets it's own rules. You are simply repeating your assertion while ignoring the example of the house I gave you.
Your example of the house does not apply to this debate, because the house exists in this universe with the rules set in this universe. And it's also ironic, because houses don't build themselves, but have designers and builders. On the other hand, the worldview of a universe coming from nothing does not allow you to impose the constraint of consistent operating rules for the universe. If they can be randomly set, then they can be randomly changed, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
From what ever caused the universe to expand.
Why would I worry about your scenario? As far as we know, the universe has not changed any special parameter in 13.8 billion years, and we have no reason to believe it will do so at some future time. If you want to argue this IS possible, you need to provide evidence for your argument, not simply repeat it ad nauseam.
Both of the proposed solutions (cosmic inflation and a variable speed of light) posit that the universe changed its own operating parameters after the time it allegedly began existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The Bible is true as long as you ignore or deny the evidence that condradicts it. In this forum we do not have to accept God or the Bible hence morevthan your belief is needed to back up any claims.
Of course as long as you avoid any information that disagrees then you will believe in your Bible.
Where did the matter that you claim God made the Universe in 6 days come from? And where did he come from? Why did Gid make Eve with two different process?
I doubt you are willing to question anything in your Bible, simply accept everything regardless if there is evidence against it, contradictions or verses you dont understanf.
The Bible is amazing. The fact that I can see Christ throughout it, written before the time of Christ, shows its divine authorship. Every claim of a contradiction is ultimately shown to result from a lack of understanding on the part of the claimant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Apparently, nothing can come of explaining something that gets ignored over and over again. With all due respect, your "inescapable conclusion" is nothing of the sort. You just can't understand why. Perhaps because you too have the inability to consider the non-existence of a god? Can't consider the alternatives other than the Godda be God conclusion?
It's on you if you want to reject the overwhelming evidence for God's existence. I considered myself an atheist for 14 years. I became one for very foolish reasons. Ultimately, at that time, I didn't want there to be a God. But, thanks be to Him, He saved me. But, if you would rather go to your death bed relying on "molecules to man" rather than seeking Him, like I said - it's on you.
A multiverse, besides having no evidence to support it and having no ability to explain consciousness, suffers from the same problem I have brought up.
Wrong, the fact that one universe exists is evidence more probably do, because things normally happen in multiples, from the existence of atoms to galaxies. That is a logical and probability based argument, but scientists such as Guth, Susskind and Vilenkin have pointed out that a multiverse is an inevitable consequence based on the known facts that we have.
What you need to provide is actual evidence only one universe is possible. A multi-universe answers the problem that your one and only fine tuned god must suffer from.
As for consciousness, a god did it also is not an answer to consciousness. Whereas modelling of the brain using neural networks is evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. That is evidence we have, and your assertion does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
If you want to suggest that each hypothetical universe is free to set its own parameters, then there remains nothing to stop the parameters of this universe from changing.
Once again that is like arguing about a house built with rooms in one position, but are in a different position the next day, or a statue that takes a different pose.
Also, why would the six fundamental constants change once they have been set? There is no evidence this is the case, and we know this because we have checked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Moreover, aesthetics are a good argument against the multiverse hypothesis. Our creation shows evidence of beauty that far exceeds bare-bones necessity, whereas the latter is probabilistically favored in this hypothesis.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ask a dung beetle. Well done, you have just argued for evolution being more probable than your non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
There's not just a bare-bones "something" but order and design. And there's not just a material universe but consciousness. And both exist by the power of God.
There is order, but that does not lead to a god. There are other possibilities, such as chance, or some natural law we do not know about.
And there is no design, that is why 99.999999999999% is not capable of supporting life. This fact, along with a large, old universe is evidence for naturalism, not some
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Your example of the house does not apply to this debate, because the house exists in this universe with the rules set in this universe.
Of course the house example applies, it provides evidence of parameters being set once, at the beginning of something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
And it's also ironic, because houses don't build themselves, but have designers and builders.
Ha, the somethings are created by intelligent beings, therefore everything must argument. Genes also determine how we will develop at the start of our life. They do not change (unless they are damaged).
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
On the other hand, the worldview of a universe coming from nothing does not allow you to impose the constraint of consistent operating rules for the universe. If they can be randomly set, then they can be randomly changed, too.
Make a statue and then wait for it's left arm to somehow sit on top of it's head. We will wait.
Both of the proposed solutions (cosmic inflation and a variable speed of light) posit that the universe changed its own operating parameters after the time it allegedly began existing.
Another stupid argument. Just because there are alternative hypotheses that have zero evidence for them does not mean the argument that does have evidence for it can not be true.
And the cosmic inflation argument says the parameters were set ONCE, in the first picosecond (10 ^-12), 13.8 billion years ago, as I said.
The Bible is amazing. The fact that I can see Christ throughout it, written before the time of Christ, shows its divine authorship. Every claim of a contradiction is ultimately shown to result from a lack of understanding on the part of the claimant.
It's on you if you want to reject the overwhelming evidence for God's existence. I considered myself an atheist for 14 years. I became one for very foolish reasons. Ultimately, at that time, I didn't want there to be a God. But, thanks be to Him, He saved me. But, if you would rather go to your death bed relying on "molecules to man" rather than seeking Him, like I said - it's on you.
To begin with, I never had a want for a God not to exist. I was raised to believe in God and at one time I did. Very happily, I believed in God. Though I don't agree with the reason(s) you say "it's on me" to reject the overwhelming evidence for God's existence, I do agree it's on me to decide what is evidence that proves God exists, and I've done my very best to decide about that as best I can. As a young adult, I began to consider all evidence or lack thereof very carefully, and based on all there is to consider along those lines, I eventually became an atheist. I have happily been an atheist for many decades now.
I also have no desire to go to my death bed doing other than to recognize the simple truth of these matters and accept them for what they are. Without fear or discomfort I am happily there.
The Bible and all you believe is amazing in many respects, but where some people can read the Bible and feel about it the way you do, others like me also see what is sorely lacking about the Bible when it comes to the evidence, facts and truth about God's existence and the universe. Lots of "feel good" stuff in the Bible no doubt. Some not so good. I can recognize both because I can be objective about the Bible just like I can be about all the other holy books. I've got no "dog in that fight" and no God. Just the facts and nothing but the facts as best I have been able to understand them.
If I've got to "seek" God in order to believe one exists, that's "strike three" far as I'm concerned. Why should I need to do such a thing? The truth doesn't require anything other than to consider the facts and if there is no solid evidence a god exists, the that's the simple truth. The truth as I know it even if you think the Bible and all kinds of other evidence exists to the contrary. What evidence is that I continue to wonder?
Finally, why should I need to seek God when once upon a time I believed in God? I did without question. I was already there! I am supposed to ignore what I have learned since then? Is that what "seeking" God requires? Not sure how any critically thinking person is supposed to do that. Expected to do that. For people who do not think critically..., well that's a different matter of course. I think they are the ones who will be disappointed on their death bed. Not me.
The Bible is amazing. The fact that I can see Christ throughout it, written before the time of Christ, shows its divine authorship. Every claim of a contradiction is ultimately shown to result from a lack of understanding on the part of the claimant.
False. Either the parents of Jesus went to Jerusalem in Judea when Jesus was a child or they did not go to Judea (which includes Jerusalem). And there are others, such as the dietary and circumcision laws (Yes or No), or where the one and only sacrifice of Jesus was (on earth or in heaven).
Wrong, the fact that one universe exists is evidence more probably do, because things normally happen in multiples, from the existence of atoms to galaxies. That is a logical and probability based argument, but scientists such as Guth, Susskind and Vilenkin have pointed out that a multiverse is an inevitable consequence based on the known facts that we have.
What you need to provide is actual evidence only one universe is possible. A multi-universe answers the problem that your one and only fine tuned god must suffer from.
This argument is the reverse of the God argument. You need to show that "multiverses are not possible" is the same as saying you must show that "God is not possible." They are equally unknown "answers" to the unknown fine-tuning. Any claims of God require the existence of consciousness and we have ample evidence such a phenomenon actually exists, whereas we do not have such evidence for a multiverse.
Quote:
As for consciousness, a god did it also is not an answer to consciousness. Whereas modeling of the brain using neural networks is evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. That is evidence we have, and your assertion does not.
Wrong. As usual, that is taking your conclusions a step too far. Modeling of neural networks ONLY evidences that such models can produce similar outcomes as the phenomenon of consciousness that somehow manifests IN the brain processes. It does NOT provide the evidence you assert.
Consciousness is also the venue within which the phenomenon of imagination routinely evidences the "creation of something from nothing." What natural laws do you have that similarly evidence such outcomes?
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.
