"Does god exist" debate

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:38 am

2.The complex order of the universe (The idea that a finely tuned universe that can ultimately support life occurred by chance is astronomically improbable. It is far more probable to believe that the universe was designed, than to believe that it occurred by chance.

You are looking at apparent "local" success only. It did not happen in an instant, and can be destroyed in a comparably short amount of time. Some design... :roll:
Hi, Io the lurker.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:51 am

@Matthew Ellard: you are here aren't you? I think it was pretty finely tuned.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:51 am

jojo wrote:@ Matthew Ellard: No. I meant genetic fallacy.
That's very strange. The universe doesn't have genes. The singularity didn't have genes. How are genes related to any of these events 13.7 billion years before genes evolved on earth? Please explain in detail.


jojo wrote: If you don't have an ultimate origin, you have a problem with origins.
No. We are only discussing how this universe arose. Your assertions concerning this universe were shown as false. That ended your entire assertion about "God" being the only "thing" that could create the universe.

As for "ultimate origins", you have trapped yourself again. If "god" made humans in his own image, then what about "God's" parent's, grand parents, great grand parents etc. If you believe the bible, then you believe that "God" has human physical characteristics and thus could not have lived through the "Big Bang".

Do you,a a religious Christian or as a scientist believe that "God" created man in his own image?


jojo wrote:Your oxygen argument still doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Yes it does and you forgot to offer any argument why it doesn't. You claimed "God" made a perfect environment. "God" didn't. There was no oxygen in early earth's atmosphere. If "God" made man in his own image and man would have died without oxygen, then your argument is false.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:56 am

jojo wrote:@Matthew Ellard: you are here aren't you? I think it was pretty finely tuned.
No, I would have died in any version of the universe up until 13.2 billion years after the Big Bang. It was photosynthesis through bacteria over 2.5 billion years that allowed animals such as myself to breath oxygen. We have evidence of these bacteria. We have no evidence of your "God".

You seem to be knocking out your own assertions the more you get into any detail.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:11 am

@Matthew Ellard: the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy, where explaining the origin of something to prove it wrong Does not logically disprove the argument. In other words, you can tell me all day that God is a ancient near eastern fictional idea, but it doesn't do anything to support atheism or dispel the probability ofGod existing. You can look up the term if you still don't understand. I haven't seen any comment show the evidence that I presented as false. Those findings are in line with mainstream scientific conclusions. God could have still created the earth no matter how much oxygen was on the earth. In addition, we have no clue how much oxygen was on the earth at the beginning. That is a hypothesis at best.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:14 am

@matthew Ellard: easy on those straw men would you? You are creating all these arguments based on assertions you are putting in my mouth. Last time, I am arguing for theism.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:46 am

Jojo

Are you arguing for :

1. A deity. Any deity. Or...

2. A specific deity, such as described in the Christian bible?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Gord » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:53 am

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
jojo wrote:@Kaepora: Why not go with a more probable explanation, such as God? Speculative theories, such as Pre-Big Bang Inflationary scenarios, have been crafted to try to avoid an absolute beginning. But none of these theories has succeeded in restoring an eternal past. At most they just push the beginning back a step. But then the question inevitable arises: Why did the universe come into being? What brought the vacuum state into existence?

How is God more probable of an explanation?

Actually, we should remember that God is not even an explanation at all. When we ask, "how did the universe come into being," referring to God is answering an entirely different question: Who did it. So unless we can discover how God brought the universe into being, then we still don't know the original question.

In other words, when we ask how the universe came into being, introducing God into the mixture merely complicates the matter further. It violate Occam's razor, which is not helpful unless it adds something to our relevant information, which in this case it does not.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:57 am

jojo wrote:@matthew Ellard: easy on those straw men would you? You are creating all these arguments based on assertions you are putting in my mouth. Last time, I am arguing for theism.


You were arguing about the start of the universe as evidence for a god. He dismantled it and you have no evidence and keep throwing baseless claims or these logical fallacies which I don't think you actually understand, especially the genetic fallacy. You were talking about the origin of the universe as evidence for a deity, your claims didn't stand up, and now you putting forth a 'genetic fallacy' as a way for you to escape from your claims.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:12 am

jojo wrote:@Matthew Ellard: the genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy, where explaining the origin of something to prove it wrong Does not logically disprove the argument.
You got it back to front. A genetic fallacy is a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. You are taking a current fictional invention "God" and applying it to the past. You are taking a fictional invention and characteristics invented 2000 years ago and saying the same thing existed 13.7 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

jojo wrote:God could have still created the earth no matter how much oxygen was on the earth.
You have just ended your argument that "God" made the earth perfect for humans (who he made in his own image). You now acknowledge that no humans could have lived on earth until bacteria produced the right level of oxygen in the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:24 am

jojo wrote:@matthew Ellard: easy on those straw men would you? You are creating all these arguments based on assertions you are putting in my mouth. Last time, I am arguing for theism.
I wrote an example of your assertions and asked you to modify my example into your own words so as to specifically avoid a straw man. That's why I wrote "Write these into your own words so as to avoid a straw man". It seem pretty clear that you can't actually define your own "God" and you are avoiding doing so because you know your definition won't make sense.

Let's try again......can you set out in your own words the physical properties and characteristics of the "God" you are using in your posts? If not, why not?

Is your same "God" the "God" of the Bible? Yes or No?

If so, how did your "God" physically exist through the "Big Bang" yet also supply DNA to become father of a human? How did he do this?

How did "God" make man in his own image, yet humans can't survive without oxygen, but "God" can live through the "Big Bang"?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:34 am

jojo wrote:@matthew Ellard: easy on those straw men would you?
It's normal here to ask a religious person to define the "God" they are using in arguments to avoid wasting time. There is another religious person on this forum, Maunus, who accepts that logic and is re-writing my draft of his assertions into his own words. He thanked me for the opportunity. You are actually second in line at the moment and won't actually get the next step if you can't even define what "God" you are talking about in your posts.

viewtopic.php?p=360008#p360008

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4817
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:59 pm

:pc:
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Daedalus » Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:00 pm

Austin Harper wrote::pc:


More like...

Image
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:28 am

I define God as a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being. The greatest conceivable being.God is immaterial. That is how he lived through the big bang, if it occurred.I am not seeking to defend the Biblical God in this thread. You can still believe that there is a God and not believe the Biblical God. Most people on this thread are atheists. I see no point in arguing for a specific God when most don't believe in God to begin with. If I kept chasing rabbit trails of questions other than the origin of the universe and the existence of God, then there would be no point in discussing anything. But to answer your question, yes, I believe in the Biblical God. I believe the Biblical God is the description that I mentioned above. I also said this earlier on this thread. I believe that man being created in God's image means that man has a spirit/soul/mind like God does, not a body. I said this to answer your question. I am not going to debate this with you because it neither confirms or disproves God's existence as is the topic that I am interested in debating. At best it would disprove a specific description of God.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Daedalus » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:31 am

jojo wrote:I define God as a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being. The greatest conceivable being.God is immaterial. That is how he lived through the big bang, if it occurred.I am not seeking to defend the Biblical God in this thread. You can still believe that there is a God and not believe the Biblical God. Most people on this thread are atheists. I see no point in arguing for a specific God when most don't believe in God to begin with. If I kept chasing rabbit trails of questions other than the origin of the universe and the existence of God, then there would be no point in discussing anything. But to answer your question, yes, I believe in the Biblical God. I believe the Biblical God is the description that I mentioned above. I also said this earlier on this thread. I believe that man being created in God's image means that man has a spirit/soul/mind like God does, not a body. I said this to answer your question. I am not going to debate this with you because it neither confirms or disproves God's existence as is the topic that I am interested in debating. At best it would disprove a specific description of God.


Which bible?
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Monster » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:49 am

jojo wrote:I define God as a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being. The greatest conceivable being.God is immaterial. That is how he lived through the big bang, if it occurred.I am not seeking to defend the Biblical God in this thread. You can still believe that there is a God and not believe the Biblical God. Most people on this thread are atheists. I see no point in arguing for a specific God when most don't believe in God to begin with. If I kept chasing rabbit trails of questions other than the origin of the universe and the existence of God, then there would be no point in discussing anything. But to answer your question, yes, I believe in the Biblical God. I believe the Biblical God is the description that I mentioned above. I also said this earlier on this thread. I believe that man being created in God's image means that man has a spirit/soul/mind like God does, not a body. I said this to answer your question. I am not going to debate this with you because it neither confirms or disproves God's existence as is the topic that I am interested in debating. At best it would disprove a specific description of God.

Adding "god" to the story creates an enormous number of questions, and answers nothing. How did god create the universe? Why did god create the universe? Was it just one god, or fifty billion gods? Why call the creator of the universe "god"? And so on.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:49 am

Speaking of the big bang, since big bang cosmology depends on dark matter can you explain what dark matter and dark energy is or how it works, dark matter and dark energy evidently make up 96 percent of what makes up the universe. Scientists don't know do you? Also, can you explain how the first star was formed? Scientists don't know, do you? How are you so sure that the big bang is the answer? Also, I would like to ask this question to Lance Kennedy, if it interests him to answer. Lance, you mentioned that the big bang was a fact. Also for the big bang to be fact, problems would have to be solved such as why the big bang model keeps getting changed (1. the fluctuation of temperatures in various locations which doesn't match the model, 2. no evidence for inflation to compensate for the light-time travel problem) to compensate for it not lining up, the proof that dark matter and energy actually exist (no one knows anything about it or that it really even exists that I have heard), star formation (no scientific idea of how the first star formed, although more than 100 theories have been postulated and discarded) , galaxy formation, and planet formation (once planetesimals start colliding, the start breaking up once they get to a certain size. Gravity is not strong enough to hold them together). This is assuming that the big bang even happened. And that is only dealing with cosmology! It would interest me to hear your input.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:02 am

God by definition is the greatest conceivable being. There can't be more than one greatest conceivable being or it wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being is called god. That is the only option for origins of the universe, because it is the only conceivable thing that is transcendent. Since, the argument keeps getting thrown out there that there are many different versions of God, I could flip if for support for God, the fact that it is overwhelming that almost all societies posit God as the answer for origins, means that there is something that seems self evident that God exists and is the originator of everything. I personally don't find that as a good argument for or against God, but even if it were it seems to argue for God's existence more than against.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Daedalus » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:33 am

We get it... we get it... you REALLY believe in your god. We're all just thrilled for you, but you can stop preaching now.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:44 am

jojo wrote:I define God as a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being........I believe the Biblical God is the description that I mentioned above
So let's call this thing "X". Now let's review your definition.

Please explain how a spaceless and changeless "X" can father a human being? He can't change from spaceless to suddenly having a pair of balls and ordinary physical carbon based DNA. So by your definition "X" was not the father of Jesus. Is that correct? Do you need to change your definition?

Setting alight burning bushes and talking to Moses requires the movement of air. If "X" is immaterial then how does he move air and create heat? Therefore by your definition "X" didn't speak to Moses as "X" is changeless and immaterial . This also means that "X" didn't cause the flood....how could "X" move water? Is this right? Do you need to change your definition?

Even odder, is you didn't mention that "X" is male. I thought that was clearly one of his characteristics as father of a human being. So "X" has immaterial, changeless testicles that survived the Big Bang? That doesn't make any sense, does it? So "X" isn't the father of Jesus, right?


jojo wrote:I believe that man being created in God's image means that man has a spirit/soul/mind like God does, not a body
So "X" has a "mind" like humans and suffers all the anger, vengeance, sadness, happiness that humans evolved in carbon based physical form 80,000 year ago on Earth, yet "X" already suffered these restrictions 13.7 billion years ago before any humans existed, but in a non material way. So "X" would be aroused by a human female, like King David 13.7 billion years before any physical females existed and as "X" is immaterial he can't actually root any physical female anyhow. (I'm starting to feel sorry for "X"). Is this right? Do you want to change your definition?


Even more amazing is that if "X" is immaterial and spaceless then so is the devil, the archangels Michael and Gabriel. Let's call them "A" "B" & "C". So now we have four immaterial beings "X", "A", "B", & "C" that can all survive the big bang and simultaneously talk to humans by moving air. Is this right? Do you want to change your definition?

jojo wrote:I am not going to debate this with you because it neither confirms or disproves God's existence as is the topic that I am interested in debating. At best it would disprove a specific description of God.
Bad luck. It's the first step in a debate. Until you define "X" you cannot offer "X" as a reason for anything. You will simply chop and change "X"'s attributes to allow "X" to do whatever you want. Do you agree?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:50 am

jojo wrote:Speaking of the big bang, since big bang cosmology depends on dark matter can you explain what dark matter and dark energy is or how it works,
No. But I can define its characteristics through observation and interaction with matter in the universe. You seem unable to get this far with a definition of your "God".

Next question.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:08 am

jojo wrote:God by definition is the greatest conceivable being.
Well apart from the Devil and the archangels Michael and Gabriel, who also can both survive the big bang and also talk to humans. So far they all seem to have roughly the same undefinable powers. We are now up to four gods.

jojo wrote: There can't be more than one greatest conceivable being or it wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being.
Who said God is the greatest? He got beaten in battles in the Bible by illiterate blokes using bows and spears. "God" wrote this in his book. Even "God" can't stop the all powerful devil.


jojo wrote: the fact that it is overwhelming that almost all societies posit God as the answer for origins, means that there is something that seems self evident that God exists
The Venus of Willendorf and other Venuses were the main token god for roughly 20,000 years in Europe. The "God" Abraham brought back from Mesopotamia is only 3,000 years old and was modified by the humans Jesus and Mohammed. Judaism is only 0.18% of Earth's population. Your argument points the other way.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Gord » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:38 am

jojo wrote:I define God as a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being.

Why not just go with Eric Hovind: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."

jojo wrote:Speaking of the big bang, since big bang cosmology depends on dark matter....

No it doesn't. The theory of the Big Bang came first, before the development of the dark matter theory. However, the dark matter/dark energy theories have helped to explain things that were later discovered about the Big Bang.

The fact that we don't know what dark matter or dark energy are is precisely why they are called "dark". It's possible that another theory will come along that disposes of the need for dark matter/dark energy; however, it's also possible that dark matter and dark energy both exist as forms of actual matter and energy.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Monster » Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:49 pm

jojo wrote:God by definition is the greatest conceivable being. There can't be more than one greatest conceivable being or it wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being is called god. That is the only option for origins of the universe, because it is the only conceivable thing that is transcendent. Since, the argument keeps getting thrown out there that there are many different versions of God, I could flip if for support for God, the fact that it is overwhelming that almost all societies posit God as the answer for origins, means that there is something that seems self evident that God exists and is the originator of everything. I personally don't find that as a good argument for or against God, but even if it were it seems to argue for God's existence more than against.

Why should there be 1 god? Can't there be sixty quadrillion equally powerful creatures? Since you're just making stuff up, my statement is as equally plausible as yours.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:00 am

To jojo
You tried to argue that, because science changes the details of Big Band theory, then science must be wrong.

That is a misunderstanding of science. Science is a process of learning, and that process involves lots of editing and correcting as it goes. Science is not perfect, and scientists, in the process of learning, make errors. But science is self-correcting and those errors will be fixed over time.

Religion, and especially Abrahamic religion, is not self correcting. Errors that were written down thousands of years ago are still accepted as the correct version. But that cannot be, because the bible is full of contradictions. Google 'biblical contradictions' and you will see many losts of these contradictions. Between religion, with its fixed refusal to correct known errors, and science which corrects errors continuously, I will prefer science any day.

Yes, Big Bang theory is a work in progress, and is changing. That is good. It is the way things should be. Without correcting errors, you cannot reach the truth. Science will correct errors and reach the truth. Religion will not and cannot.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby kennyc » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:22 am

jojo wrote:...
I'm saying that you have no idea of an initial cause of the universe (or multi-verse if you like). What makes you so sure it's not God?



That's irrelevant. If you claim Goddidit then you have to provide rational scientific proof to back up your claim.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby kennyc » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:24 am

jojo wrote:...

God did not have a beginning. If he is transcendent, why does he have to have a beginning? We are talking about creations origin. If he is transcendent and timeless, he created time. How could something timeless and spaceless have a beginning? I don't think it can. Do you?



Provide rational scientific proof or you are talking out your ass.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:04 am

@Lance Kennedy: All I was trying to point out there was that you stated that the big bang was a fact. The reason that the big bang model keeps changing is that it does not work without what I would call rescuing devises to try to save the model. Currently, big bang cosmologists do not have evidence for inflation, yet it supposedly happened or otherwise the big bang model wouldn't work. Big bang cosmologists cannot account for initial star formation, galaxy formation, or planet formation. I just want to respectfully say that this is not correct. The things that would be the outcome of the big bang theory did not happen, according to the big bang model. It was changed and even with the changes, the majority of what makes up the universe can not be explained. If there are findings that occur an give a cohesive explanation of the development of the universe it would have to be different than the big bang model's current form. This is not fact. If you want to call it progress or the best that we have, then that seems intellectually honest, but there are too many gaps to call it fact.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:34 am

@Matthew Ellard: God did not sire any child. That is not orthodox Christian teaching. Nothing in Christianity says that God had sexual intercourse with anyone to sire Jesus. I don't get how you are coming to a conclusion that God has to somehow develop human characteristics to create or intervene the universe. If he created all of the laws that rule the universe, surely he can deviate from these laws. I see no reason that he has to be subject to them. I'm not following you about the mind comment. The angelic beings that you mentioned were created by God, according to the Bible so I'm not sure how you would conclude that they are the greatest conceivable being. They are contingent beings. Who said that God is the greatest conceivable being? You asked me my definition of God. This is Christian orthodoxy. Did not God decide that those wars would be lost. Honestly, and I promise that I am not trying to be insulting, you should do a little more in depth reading on what orthodox Christian theology is if you are trying to argue against the Judeo-Christian God. A lot of what you are arguing is not what orthodox Christianity teaches. Nor is it what is in the Bible (God siring a son, God losing wars). If you would read more on those topics or a specific part of the Bible before you make comments these assumptions, then you might be able to address them better. Whether Catholic or Evangelical. The concept of who God is, what Christ being begotten of God means (Christology), etc...Lastly, I would love to see you give me an example of where dark matter or energy is testable. Scientists don't know what it is or what it consists of, or really even whether it exists.

jojo
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby jojo » Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:55 am

@Kennyc: If you are asking for the scientific method, something testable and observable, then that is impossible for both of us, because the universe arising is a past event. We can't recreate the universe beginning in a laboratory. So, let's be clear. No method that we use to discover how the universe arose will be proven scientifically. All we can do is look for evidence. to suggest a cause. That is the attempt that the big bang model tries to do and that it what I am proposing. I am claiming three things that points to God creating the universe. The first is that that it the only thing conceivable that is transcendent that does not have an initial cause that can do it. The second is the evidence that the universe is finely tuned for life. The discoveries like, if the earth were just a little closer or farther from the sun, that life could not exist in the universe points to design. There are tons of examples like this to make it extremely improbable that life would exist outside of a designer. Third, the existence of objective moral values points to God. On the other hand, atheism, if defined as the belief that there is no God, faces the task of showing all three of these as invalid and constructing an explanation for why atheism is the better option. Atheism's most recent attempt of the universe coming into existence from nothing is a multi-verse scenario, which only backs things up a step and doesn't solve anything, it has the enormous task of explaining the fine tuning of the universe, and it has to explain why there are objective moral values. It has yet to do any of these.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:23 am

jojo wrote: God did not sire any child. That is not orthodox Christian teaching. Nothing in Christianity says that God had sexual intercourse with anyone to sire Jesus.
So the entire trinity is false? You are directly saying that Jesus is not the son of "God" and had no genetic relationship to him. Why did Jesus get it so wrong and think "God" was his father, when you say he is not?

In Matthew 11:27 Jesus claims a direct relationship to God the Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son"


jojo wrote: I don't get how you are coming to a conclusion that God has to somehow develop human characteristics to create or intervene the universe. If he created all of the laws that rule the universe, surely he can deviate from these laws.
No. That makes no sense at all. In your definition of "God" three days ago, you said God was changeless, immaterial and spaceless. Now you are saying he is material and can move normal objects. As material things cannot survive the "Big Bang" your god must have changed from immaterial. That means "god" isn't changeless either. You definition from three days ago is incorrect. Want to try again?


jojo wrote:The angelic beings that you mentioned were created by God, according to the Bible.
You need to read the bible. The Angels existed before the universe (well earth, as the universe isn't mentioned). That means they too had to survive the singularity and the "big bang". They are no different to "God". You are arguing that many paranormal beings (God and angels) existed in the singularity, the "big bang" and yet could also exist physically in the normal universe.

Where in the Bible does it say "God" created the Angels? The bible only mentions things "God" created in heaven and Earth. It doesn't mention the singularity or the big bang or anywhere in the universe other than heaven and Earth. Why do you think "God" created the Angels?


jojo wrote:Did not God decide that those wars would be lost?
Where does "God" say in the Bible that "God" decided to lose battles against blokes with spears and shields? It doesn't. God simply lost. Do you have additional information to the Bible about "God's" thoughts at the time?

You have avoided many of my questions (which is how religion lasted so long)

If your definition of God, three days ago, you said "God" changeless, immaterial and spaceless. So how does "God" make a bush catch fire or make air move with his larynx, so Abraham can hear him? This requires physical interference with normal material objects. If "God" is immaterial and changeless, how did he change so as to be able to move material things? Do you want to change your definition?


jojo wrote: If he created all of the laws that rule the universe, surely he can deviate from these laws
This is circular reasoning. What you are saying is that "God" can have any characteristic that God needs and therefore can't be defined. You did this right after defining "God" as changeless. Do you want to change your definition of "God" again?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:34 am

jojo wrote:The reason that the big bang model keeps changing is that it does not work without what I would call rescuing devises to try to save the model.

Your logic....
Newton = Gravity
Einstein = "Rescuing device"

In reality, gravity remained unchanged despite better human understanding of the physical details.


jojo wrote:Big bang cosmologists cannot account for initial star formation, galaxy formation, or planet formation.
You are just wrong on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
chronology of the universe describes the history and future of the universe according to Big Bang cosmology
Electroweak symmetry breaking and the quark epoch
Hadron epoch
Photon epoch
Matter domination
Reionization
Formation of stars
Formation of galaxies
Formation of the Solar System

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26362
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:39 am

jojo wrote:The second is the evidence that the universe is finely tuned for life.
You keep repeating this claim although you know it's wrong.

1) "God created man in his own image"
2) "No oxygen existed in Earth's atmosphere until 2.5billion years ago due to photosynthesis of bacteria"
3) "Man needs to breath oxygen"

We should be praying to photosynthetic bacteria for finely tuning earth for life, by your own logic.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Gord » Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:43 am

jojo wrote:@Lance Kennedy: All I was trying to point out there was that you stated that the big bang was a fact. The reason that the big bang model keeps changing is that it does not work without what I would call rescuing devises to try to save the model.

All theories keep changing, as more knowledge and more evidence accumulates. It's not just the Big Bang theory, it's all of them. What you falsely label "rescuing devices" is what scientists call "normal procedure".

Currently, big bang cosmologists do not have evidence for inflation, yet it supposedly happened or otherwise the big bang model wouldn't work. Big bang cosmologists cannot account for initial star formation, galaxy formation, or planet formation. I just want to respectfully say that this is not correct. The things that would be the outcome of the big bang theory did not happen, according to the big bang model. It was changed and even with the changes, the majority of what makes up the universe can not be explained. If there are findings that occur an give a cohesive explanation of the development of the universe it would have to be different than the big bang model's current form. This is not fact. If you want to call it progress or the best that we have, then that seems intellectually honest, but there are too many gaps to call it fact.

That's how science works. Models are expected to change over time as science explores more, discovers more, and comes to understand more. This does not make the models "false", nor does it mean the model is "wrong". What it means is that the overall theory remains intact while the details are adjusted to better explain reality.

jojo wrote:...If you would read more on those topics or a specific part of the Bible before you make comments these assumptions, then you might be able to address them better. Whether Catholic or Evangelical. The concept of who God is, what Christ being begotten of God means (Christology), etc...

But our understanding of the Bible does come from reading it. Have you read it, or have you had it explained to you orally?

Lastly, I would love to see you give me an example of where dark matter or energy is testable. Scientists don't know what it is or what it consists of, or really even whether it exists.

Scientists are trying to find it.

The way it works, see, is we have to have evidence of something's existence before it's really worth looking for it. For example, astronomers calculated the perturbations in the orbits of the known planets and found the evidence that another planet was out there; THEN they looked for it and discovered, in this case, Neptune.

Likewise, astronomers have made observations of the apparent motions of the galaxies, and from the data have concluded there is more a greater effect of gravity upon the observable elements. Because of this, they have developed the theory of Dark Matter -- a form of matter which exerts gravity like normal matter, but which for some reason cannot be seen. With that information to guide them, they are then looking for an explanation for Dark Matter. See, for example, Wikipedia page on Experiments for dark matter search

jojo wrote: I am claiming three things that points to God creating the universe. The first is that that it the only thing conceivable that is transcendent that does not have an initial cause that can do it.

Your first claim is easily falsified: I can conceive of something other than a god that is transcendent that does not have an initial cause.

The second is the evidence that the universe is finely tuned for life.

The universe is not finely tuned for life. On the contrary, it is life that is finely tuned for the universe; and that this is so is no surprise to those who understand the Theory of Evolution.

Third, the existence of objective moral values points to God.

Morality is an element of evolution. As a pack animal, we developed behaviours that enabled us to get along with each other. But while we have a "core sense of rightness/wrongness", we also learn right and wrong according to the society in which we are born and raised. Cultures across the world share many similar moral values, but also often conflict with differing values.

On the other hand, atheism, if defined as the belief that there is no God--

It's not. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.

--faces the task of showing all three of these as invalid and constructing an explanation for why atheism is the better option.

I think you misunderstand atheism. It is not necessarily a claim that gods do not exist, it is simply the lack of belief in gods. With no evidence to support their existence, it is not logical to believe in them.

Atheism's most recent attempt of the universe coming into existence from nothing is a multi-verse scenario, which only backs things up a step and doesn't solve anything, it has the enormous task of explaining the fine tuning of the universe, and it has to explain why there are objective moral values. It has yet to do any of these.

Again, that is not atheism, that is science. And as I have already pointed out, there is no "fine tuning of the universe", and morality is a development of evolution.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby kennyc » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:28 am

jojo wrote:@Kennyc: If you are asking for the scientific method, something testable and observable, then that is impossible for both of us, because the universe arising is a past event. We can't recreate the universe beginning in a laboratory. So, let's be clear. No method that we use to discover how the universe arose will be proven scientifically. ....



So you admit you can't support your belief. You are just blowing smoke out your ass. You can' t prove your god exists or that your god created the universe. Give up. You are deluded.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Daedalus » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:57 pm

kennyc wrote:
jojo wrote:@Kennyc: If you are asking for the scientific method, something testable and observable, then that is impossible for both of us, because the universe arising is a past event. We can't recreate the universe beginning in a laboratory. So, let's be clear. No method that we use to discover how the universe arose will be proven scientifically. ....



So you admit you can't support your belief. You are just blowing smoke out your ass. You can' t prove your god exists or that your god created the universe. Give up. You are deluded.


Image
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

silverdrake
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:07 pm

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby silverdrake » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:59 am

jojo wrote:
"There are only a couple of things that are transcendent of this Universe that could have initiated the universe(e.g. numbers and God)."

How do you know that there are only "a couple of things"?

Where do you get this evidence that shows you these "couple of things"?

You seem very certain about this, so please do share your proof with us.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby kennyc » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:54 am

silverdrake wrote:jojo wrote:
"There are only a couple of things that are transcendent of this Universe that could have initiated the universe(e.g. numbers and God)."

How do you know that there are only "a couple of things"?

Where do you get this evidence that shows you these "couple of things"?

You seem very certain about this, so please do share your proof with us.



And please use the Quote button/function appropriately.

;)
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "Does god exist" debate

Postby Gord » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:09 pm

kennyc wrote:
And please use the Quote button/function appropriately.

;)

Quiet, you! :shakefist:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest