[quote]Kerley wrote:
i am officially leaving the catholic church soon, i have the forms just got to fill them out and post them.[/quote]
Fair play to you.I don’t know how people go to mass in this country and allow themselves be preached to by members of such a hideous organisation.I’m not at the stage yet where I’d leave though,I dunno what it is,you can probably understand though and have gone through this stage before yourself.[/quote]
yeah i think its nuts to go to mass these days, i haven’t been religious really in years and haven’t gone to mass in years either but never thought of officially leaving until all this recent shit came out you know about how they protected pedophiles and they wont admit that what these guys did was wrong or anything, its just completely wrong and i dont wanna be apart of anything like that. [/quote]
You have to realize that all people fall on the bell curve. No matter what type of organization of which you are a part, you’ll always have the pedophiles or other messed up people. They do not define an entire religion.
While I admit there are some mindless followers who do not think for themselves, there are plenty of people that think and conceptualize the ideas and relate them to their lives. I also admit that I think the Church can be a dog and pony show sometimes, but believing in the concepts behind it is what keeps you there. You focus on the good. Being an agnostic or atheist does not make you intelligent. In fact, it’s easy to go that way because some aspects of religion don’t make any sense. It’s all about faith. Are you secure enough in your intelligence that you can let yourself believe in a higher power just because…?
Regardless, I believe people are entitled to believe whatever they want.
Also, Professor X and some others have hit the nail on the head. The bible is not a history textbook. Any fool can see that. [/quote]
my personal problem isnt with the pedophile priests so much (thats not saying i dont think they’re fucking pricks and should be in jail) its more that the other priests who werent abusing children but covered up the fact that some priests were, its the way the other priests and bishops and cardinals dealt with the information, lets say Priest A is reported that he was abusing children, they wouldnt do anything they would just move him to a different part of the country so he can abuse a different bunch of kids and when he got caught there they would move him again, this went on for years with lots of priests, and when all this comes out today the guys in charge of the church say things like, “in the eyes of god they didnt do anything wrong” or “in cannon law they didnt go anything wrong”…WDF?
also i didnt bring this up to get people to leave the church or any religion, i dont care if you wanna still be a catholic or whatever, i just know i dont want to so i’m leaving.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.
“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.
Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.
And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.[/quote]
"However, should man demean himself and choose to become sheltered from reality by allowing and even demanding the government to interact with reality in his place, then such a relationship to God is simply impossible. Freedom in Judaic theological terms is synonymous with a relationship to God. Maimonides in his 13 principles of faith (which are unanimously agreed with by the Jewish philosophers of old) considers it heresy to have an intermediary between an individual and God (Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin). Man was given a mind to be able to relate to reality and subsequently to God, and an intermediary is a denial of a) that God relates to man directly, and b) that man is a rational/intellectual being who is free to relate to God on his own.
In fact Judaism not only considers autonomy as vital to create a relationship with God, but even in creating a relationship to oneself, as Jewish philosophy holds that man as a free-willed being is a partner is his very own creation."
[quote]clip11 wrote:
I was wondering is the biblical story of Noahs ark really true. I mean for one, an impossibly old man, Noah, who was 500 years old when he started building the ark and 600 when he finished. And two of every animal in the world being rounded up is also impossible…that in itself raises alot of questions.
Is there any independent evidence of this happening?[/quote]
Learn about Hebrew dating sometime, people never lived hundreds of years. They calculated peoples ages by major events in their lives (times average life span).
I am not sure if Noah’s Arc is true, they have found some evidence and clues but not much beyond that. So at the moment it is just a religious myth. And, the part about the flood, that is true. Indians in South West America recorded it in their history as well as history in Asia has it in their history.
[quote]Htowner wrote:
I think theyve decided that a massive flooding event occurred in that area of the world at around the time when this story could have theoretically happened. I saw something about it on the History Channel (which by no means makes it true, but it was still interesting).
If I recall they claimed that there was a valley (where pieces of Noah’s Ark have supposedly been discovered) in that location that was protected from a sea on one side by mountains, and that a seismic event eventually led to that valley being flooded. Something along those lines. You have to remember that what seems somewhat trivial to us (a valley being flooded) always seemed more grandiose to ancient people because they lacked the over knowledge that we have today. So if you flood their little patch of land, then the world is flooded. Also, if you collect some cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, and cats thats “all the animals in the world” because well…thats all they had in their area. You have to remember people in ancient times thought on a very small scale because globalization hadnt even begun to occur yet.
All that being said 90% of the stories that go down in the Bible are pretty dubious. People getting eaten by whales and spit out later, large groups of people building towers mysteriously starting to talk different languages, etc. To me its an essentially a book of tall tales and fables that for some reason has gone down as fact to a large number of people. [/quote]
Haha, I do not think it is true for a large number of people (Protestants religions are one of the smallest). I recognize a Myth of Jewish religion when I hear one. However, 500 years ago a reform happened and even though they are not close to the majority, they are the loudest of the bunch.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.
“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.
Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.
And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.[/quote]
Why don’t you prove me wrong big boy? I have a clue and you don’t you cannot argue, you cannot make any points you don’t know logic…You are basically dumber than mule shit and as useless as tits on a bull. You are out of your league. It must piss you off to be that idiotic.
You are attributing to me a claim I did not make. I never claimed something came from nothing. The fact that you say I made the claim, or that I must make the claim, does not make it so. I do not know where the universe came from, the conditions that existed 14 billion years ago, and I do not claim to. I stand proudly in the “I don’t know” camp. Nor do I discount any possibility. I leave open the possibility that the universe was created by a supernatural being…I just think it so unlikely that it does not warrant serious consideration. Why do I think that? People used to think the sun was carried across the sky by a god. We now know it isn’t true and realize that the sun has a perfectly natural explanation. People used to think earthquakes had magical/supernatural causes. We now know better…that earthquakes have perfectly natural causes.
I ask you this: Which is more likely…
1.) That the beginning of the universe has a perfectly natural, but as of yet unexplained, cause (like the sun and earthquakes used to have).
or
2.) That the beginning of the universe is somehow in a special category that requires a supernatural explanation.
It seems to me that logic and reason dictate that the origin of the universe be placed in the first category among all of the things that were once unknown but we have now figured out. We just haven’t gotten there yet.
[/quote]
So you don’t know that there is no God, but your pretty darn sure based on the fact that we have dispelled myths before?
An atheists must necessarily believe that all existence comes from nothingness because you deny a creator exists. You have to believe in something from nothing because you don’t believe in something from something.
Why would a creator be an unnatural start to the universe? All physical matter obeys laws which are non-physical.
Which is more likely? Everything came from something rather than everything cam from nothing…Really which sounds nuttier to you?
In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.
[/quote]
No you cannot. Particles exist in a void, but the void is not absolute nothingness. It occupies space and happens in time, there are rules that guide as well. It’s not understood where the particles come from or why they appear, but they come from somewhere and appear for a reason. Not understood is not the same as causeless or reasonless.
Nothingness does not exist, it cannot be replicated because we cannot create a complete absence of properties. As long as there are properties, there’s not nothingness.
In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.
[/quote]
No you cannot. Particles exist in a void, but the void is not absolute nothingness. It occupies space and happens in time, there are rules that guide as well. It’s not understood where the particles come from or why they appear, but they come from somewhere and appear for a reason. Not understood is not the same as causeless or reasonless.
Nothingness does not exist, it cannot be replicated because we cannot create a complete absence of properties. As long as there are properties, there’s not nothingness.[/quote]
Why do you say their must be a reason? Is it just because you cannot conceive of it happening without a reason, or do you have something to back that assertion up?
Void doesn’t “occupy” space. Space/time define location, not “stuff”. I am here, now. That’s location in spacetime. There doesn’t need to be anything at that location. There could be nothing. Space-time is not a giant honorarium, it’s defined by the location of the “stuff” within it. If there’s not stuff, there’s no location: no space-time.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.
[/quote]
No you cannot. Particles exist in a void, but the void is not absolute nothingness. It occupies space and happens in time, there are rules that guide as well. It’s not understood where the particles come from or why they appear, but they come from somewhere and appear for a reason. Not understood is not the same as causeless or reasonless.
Nothingness does not exist, it cannot be replicated because we cannot create a complete absence of properties. As long as there are properties, there’s not nothingness.[/quote]
Why do you say their must be a reason? Is it just because you cannot conceive of it happening without a reason, or do you have something to back that assertion up?
Void doesn’t “occupy” space. Space/time define location, not “stuff”. I am here, now. That’s location in spacetime. There doesn’t need to be anything at that location. There could be nothing. Space-time is not a giant honorarium, it’s defined by the location of the “stuff” within it. If there’s not stuff, there’s no location: no space-time.[/quote]
Correct a true void occupies no space or time, but this is not repilcatable. True void is propertyless which is not an emulateable state. Null theory is really a misnomer because the experiments are conducted in vacuums…Vacuums occupy space and occur in time. So there is no true nothingness. A lack of physical matter doesn’t create a total absence of existence. We can observe the weirdness of particle behavior in an absenence of most things, but stuff is still there. And remember the mere act of observation affects the results. Why? because observation is a “thing” as well.
By reason I mean cause. There is nothing that is causeless any where in the universe large or small. If you can think of even one thing that exists with out cause, let me know.
Here are a few articles on the topic, you’ll notice that what null theory really says is that in a vacuum particles will appear. Nothing more. That is not proof that existence can come from a total nonexistence. It’s not well understood, but not understanding doesn’t make it causeless.
In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.
[/quote]
No you cannot. Particles exist in a void, but the void is not absolute nothingness. It occupies space and happens in time, there are rules that guide as well. It’s not understood where the particles come from or why they appear, but they come from somewhere and appear for a reason. Not understood is not the same as causeless or reasonless.
Nothingness does not exist, it cannot be replicated because we cannot create a complete absence of properties. As long as there are properties, there’s not nothingness.[/quote]
Why do you say their must be a reason? Is it just because you cannot conceive of it happening without a reason, or do you have something to back that assertion up?
Void doesn’t “occupy” space. Space/time define location, not “stuff”. I am here, now. That’s location in spacetime. There doesn’t need to be anything at that location. There could be nothing. Space-time is not a giant honorarium, it’s defined by the location of the “stuff” within it. If there’s not stuff, there’s no location: no space-time.[/quote]
Correct a true void occupies no space or time, but this is not repilcatable. True void is propertyless which is not an emulateable state. Null theory is really a misnomer because the experiments are conducted in vacuums…Vacuums occupy space and occur in time. So there is no true nothingness. A lack of physical matter doesn’t create a total absence of existence. We can observe the weirdness of particle behavior in an absenence of most things, but stuff is still there. And remember the mere act of observation affects the results. Why? because observation is a “thing” as well.
By reason I mean cause. There is nothing that is causeless any where in the universe large or small. If you can think of even one thing that exists with out cause, let me know.
Here are a few articles on the topic, you’ll notice that what null theory really says is that in a vacuum particles will appear. Nothing more. That is not proof that existence can come from a total nonexistence. It’s not well understood, but not understanding doesn’t make it causeless.
[/quote]
I’ll take a look at your links.
But I think there is a real, significant difference between the three terms: relation, cause and reason. And that they should be used carefully. Relation being, just that relation. Cause being relation with directionality (A leads to B), and reason being an explanation for why A leads to B. Relations obviously exist all around us, but I see no proof for “reasons” outside human thinking.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
[/quote]
This is your argument??? Really? Good luck with that, it’s small issue to me.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
[/quote]
This is your argument??? Really? Good luck with that, it’s small issue to me.[/quote]
Nice try. I see you as the one flinging insults left and right. At least you didn’t insult me. You are spewing nonsense and patting yourself on the back for it.
Here’s a tip. Science will never get to the point where it can disprove god because of the nature of the arguement. Someone in your position will always point to the unknown as being a possible point to god.
You have no proof. You have faith and a man made book. I got a book. How about Jurassic Park. Prove it never happened.
In thermodynamics you can get something from nothing.
[/quote]
No you cannot. Particles exist in a void, but the void is not absolute nothingness. It occupies space and happens in time, there are rules that guide as well. It’s not understood where the particles come from or why they appear, but they come from somewhere and appear for a reason. Not understood is not the same as causeless or reasonless.
Nothingness does not exist, it cannot be replicated because we cannot create a complete absence of properties. As long as there are properties, there’s not nothingness.[/quote]
Why do you say their must be a reason? Is it just because you cannot conceive of it happening without a reason, or do you have something to back that assertion up?
Void doesn’t “occupy” space. Space/time define location, not “stuff”. I am here, now. That’s location in spacetime. There doesn’t need to be anything at that location. There could be nothing. Space-time is not a giant honorarium, it’s defined by the location of the “stuff” within it. If there’s not stuff, there’s no location: no space-time.[/quote]
Correct a true void occupies no space or time, but this is not repilcatable. True void is propertyless which is not an emulateable state. Null theory is really a misnomer because the experiments are conducted in vacuums…Vacuums occupy space and occur in time. So there is no true nothingness. A lack of physical matter doesn’t create a total absence of existence. We can observe the weirdness of particle behavior in an absenence of most things, but stuff is still there. And remember the mere act of observation affects the results. Why? because observation is a “thing” as well.
By reason I mean cause. There is nothing that is causeless any where in the universe large or small. If you can think of even one thing that exists with out cause, let me know.
Here are a few articles on the topic, you’ll notice that what null theory really says is that in a vacuum particles will appear. Nothing more. That is not proof that existence can come from a total nonexistence. It’s not well understood, but not understanding doesn’t make it causeless.
[/quote]
I’ll take a look at your links.
But I think there is a real, significant difference between the three terms: relation, cause and reason. And that they should be used carefully. Relation being, just that relation. Cause being relation with directionality (A leads to B), and reason being an explanation for why A leads to B. Relations obviously exist all around us, but I see no proof for “reasons” outside human thinking.[/quote]
You thinking of empirical experiments where you can only control so many variables. When I was saying reason, I was eluding to causation. All that exists was caused by something else. Every property an object has was caused by something else…That’s a whole bunch of causality. Everything physical and metaphysical was caused by something else.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
[/quote]
This is your argument??? Really? Good luck with that, it’s small issue to me.[/quote]
Nice try. I see you as the one flinging insults left and right. At least you didn’t insult me. You are spewing nonsense and patting yourself on the back for it.
Here’s a tip. Science will never get to the point where it can disprove god because of the nature of the arguement. Someone in your position will always point to the unknown as being a possible point to god.
You have no proof. You have faith and a man made book. I got a book. How about Jurassic Park. Prove it never happened.[/quote]
Fine, prove what I wrote is wrong and I will happily engage you.
Jurassic Park? Really? You think I am a biblical literalist and a creationist, to two things I never ever mentioned.
I insult Makavali because he follows me around from thread to thread insulting me every time I post something; like a salivating dog… I suppose it’s because he’s to stupid to make an actual point.
…He must have a secret man crush.
You thinking of empirical experiments where you can only control so many variables. When I was saying reason, I was eluding to causation. All that exists was caused by something else. Every property an object has was caused by something else…That’s a whole bunch of causality. Everything physical and metaphysical was caused by something else.[/quote]
See, I disagree. Once you get over the idea that time is a straight line we are all traveling down at a fixed speed, you don’t need causation even, just relation. We see that two events happen in relation, and that’s all we can say. There’s not need for causation at that level. Things just are or are not.
I believe that accepting this is a logical necessity, otherwise you get stuck in a “first cause” contradiction, where you’re asking what caused the first cause.
I’d argue that since time isn’t a linear line, and relations, rather than causation are primary, you don’t even need to ask that absurd question.
You thinking of empirical experiments where you can only control so many variables. When I was saying reason, I was eluding to causation. All that exists was caused by something else. Every property an object has was caused by something else…That’s a whole bunch of causality. Everything physical and metaphysical was caused by something else.[/quote]
See, I disagree. Once you get over the idea that time is a straight line we are all traveling down at a fixed speed, you don’t need causation even, just relation. We see that two events happen in relation, and that’s all we can say. There’s not need for causation at that level. Things just are or are not.
I believe that accepting this is a logical necessity, otherwise you get stuck in a “first cause” contradiction, where you’re asking what caused the first cause.
I’d argue that since time isn’t a linear line, and relations, rather than causation are primary, you don’t even need to ask that absurd question.[/quote]
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
[/quote]
This is your argument??? Really? Good luck with that, it’s small issue to me.[/quote]
Nice try. I see you as the one flinging insults left and right. At least you didn’t insult me. You are spewing nonsense and patting yourself on the back for it.
Here’s a tip. Science will never get to the point where it can disprove god because of the nature of the arguement. Someone in your position will always point to the unknown as being a possible point to god.
You have no proof. You have faith and a man made book. I got a book. How about Jurassic Park. Prove it never happened.[/quote]
Fine, prove what I wrote is wrong and I will happily engage you.
[/quote]
I just demonstrated that your silly book can’t be proven false. Are you sure your following along? You stated that the burden of proof falls to the nonbelievers. I adequately proved to you that this is false. Have you proved that the Quran is false? You must have since you are so confident in your book. Of course you have not… because that is imposible. Therefore the house of cards to your arguement falls down.
I’ll say it again. You have faith and a man made book. Have your faith. But don’t use backwards tactics to try and demonstrate proof where there is none.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. I think the first is one track, but still not quit right (sounds more like special theory to me than general theory), but the second doesn’t follow at all.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. THEREFORE, for things to move and change, something must cause them to do so. How does this follow?