Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]

Ahh . . . . the classic misrepresentation of the creationsit viewpoint . . . sad
[/quote]

Please explain.[/quote]

gladly . . . the classic misrepresentation is that belief in a cretor precludes any scientific inquiry. This is not true - as I have pointed out in great detail in other threads - many of the greatest scientific minds have been Christians.

The belief in a creator does no negate the desire for and need to understand the mechanisms by which He created or the naturals laws he upholds for the continual existence of the universe. Indeed, in order to understand the Divine better, we enthusiastically seek better and better understanding of the mechanisms and laws of the universe.

The very basis of the scientific method was established by religious scientists. Most of the great scientific discoveries have been made by creationsits. We are not only supportive of scienctific inquiry, but its greatest proponents.

The only thing that a creationist view point adds to the process of scientific discovery is an acknowledgment of the ultimate cause for and continuation of the existence of the universe - that’s it. This belief does not mean we excuse shoddy science, accept things at face value or ignore evidence - it merely allows us a foundation on which to build our world view.[/quote]

I think you missunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.

242

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you missunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule!

243

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.

244

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

Ahh, but now you bait and switch. Just because I do not use God as a crutch for a lack of scientific inquiry does not mean that I do not find rationale proof for His existence.

True faith cannot go where reason cannot follow - if your faith is not accompanied by reason, it is not faith, but merely ignorant speculation . . .

245

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god? [/quote]

Talk to a person who has seen a miracle and you will know someone who has encountered at the very least a god.

246

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

Ahh, but now you bait and switch. Just because I do not use God as a crutch for a lack of scientific inquiry does not mean that I do not find rationale proof for His existence.

True faith cannot go where reason cannot follow - if your faith is not accompanied by reason, it is not faith, but merely ignorant speculation . . .[/quote]

Not at all, the discussion was not about the existence of god, it was about the cosmological argument, which as I have explained above is pure hogwash.

The problem with your true faith leading and your reason following is exactly that. Reason should be first then faith follows based on the weight of evidence. If you decide the outcome then look for the evidence then you are in trouble.

I will state again, there is no rational proof of gods existence. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

247

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god? [/quote]

Talk to a person who has seen a miracle and you will know someone who has encountered at the very least a god.
[/quote]

OK, give me an example of a miracle then.

248

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.[/quote]

You’re going to have to go ahead and back that up with something. The cosmological argument has existed for over 2 millenniums, stand yet unrefuted. If you have the refutation to it, by God let’s here it.[/quote]

No, the argument has been refuted repeatedly, in fact it is not even an argument.

The cosmological argument boils down to ‘I have reached a level at which I no longer understand the explanation for what I observe and have decided to give up looking and insert God.’ A few hundred years ago, people like you would have been pointing to the sun in the sky and saying it was proof of a god’s existence as otherwise what made it rise each morning.

The problem is that on one side you have a group of people who are willing to believe things on faith with no evidence, they are arguing against a group of people who demand evidence for something that basically cannot be proved.

You end up with a stalemate where both sides declare themselves the winner.[/quote]

That’s what you call a refutation? LOL!
It clear you do not under argument at all if that’s what you think. The cosmological argument has never been refuted. If it has provide the refutation and the proof from hundreds of years ago…I am waiting…
It simply argues that the causal chain cannot end in an infinite regress with out begging the question. Regress being the important part of the equation. If you know anything about the argument you’d have know that its original form was not penned by any kind of theist at all. Therefore your interpretation that somebody dreamed up this argument because they were looking for answer is pure unadulterated bullshit.

As far as speaking for faith with no evidence, you assert that all things came from absolute nothingness. What evidence is there for that? Not even in quantum mechanics does such a scenario exist. You cannot test it either because you cannot replicate a state of nothingness. Again, something from very little is still not something from nothing. Bizarre action is not uncaused events. I demand proof of nothingness and that which comes from it. My guess is your going to bring up Null Theory, which if you look at it is not, something from nothing. In the absence of atomic matter, having something else present is not really something out if the stretch of comprehension. It’s what Leibniz has been saying all along.

249

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.[/quote]

You’re going to have to go ahead and back that up with something. The cosmological argument has existed for over 2 millenniums, stand yet unrefuted. If you have the refutation to it, by God let’s here it.[/quote]

No, the argument has been refuted repeatedly, in fact it is not even an argument.

The cosmological argument boils down to ‘I have reached a level at which I no longer understand the explanation for what I observe and have decided to give up looking and insert God.’ A few hundred years ago, people like you would have been pointing to the sun in the sky and saying it was proof of a god’s existence as otherwise what made it rise each morning.

The problem is that on one side you have a group of people who are willing to believe things on faith with no evidence, they are arguing against a group of people who demand evidence for something that basically cannot be proved.

You end up with a stalemate where both sides declare themselves the winner.[/quote]

That’s what you call a refutation? LOL!
It clear you do not under argument at all if that’s what you think. The cosmological argument has never been refuted. If it has provide the refutation and the proof from hundreds of years ago…I am waiting…
It simply argues that the causal chain cannot end in an infinite regress with out begging the question. Regress being the important part of the equation. If you know anything about the argument you’d have know that its original form was not penned by any kind of theist at all. Therefore your interpretation that somebody dreamed up this argument because they were looking for answer is pure unadulterated bullshit.
[/quote]

It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.

Large numbers of books have been written refuting it, the problem is that to a true believer, they are a true believer so they either deny the refutation or move on to a different argument. Exactly the point I was making.

Where do I state that all things came from absolute nothingness? And incidentally, all the time, nothing is splitting into matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles. As long as they are in balance the amount of matter and energy in the universe is conserved so no rules are broken.

Amazing yes, miraculous no.

250

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

Ahh, but now you bait and switch. Just because I do not use God as a crutch for a lack of scientific inquiry does not mean that I do not find rationale proof for His existence.

True faith cannot go where reason cannot follow - if your faith is not accompanied by reason, it is not faith, but merely ignorant speculation . . .[/quote]

Not at all, the discussion was not about the existence of god, it was about the cosmological argument, which as I have explained above is pure hogwash.

The problem with your true faith leading and your reason following is exactly that. Reason should be first then faith follows based on the weight of evidence. If you decide the outcome then look for the evidence then you are in trouble.

I will state again, there is no rational proof of gods existence. Please feel free to prove me wrong.[/quote]

you mix terminology again - Faith and Reason are companions, not leaders or follows, and I apologize if my poorly worded statement led you to think otherwise. Whether you like it or not, you too exercise faith and reason simultaneously every day and in matters of the Divine it is no different.

What you actually mean to say is that you have not found proof acceptable to you for God’s existence. The fact that many vastly intelligent people before us have found rational proof for His existence belies your conclusion as nothing more than just a personal declarative.

What you have done is to set a benchmark, stated that only proof that comes to that specific benchmark is acceptable to you as proof of God’s existence and that is perfectly fine for you to do so. You are perfectly free to discount any of the proofs that we could offer as not meeting your personal criteria.

However, you have to understand that whether or not God exists is not dependent on your criteria, but only that your accpetance of His existence in dependent on your criteria. There is a vast world of difference between the two.

Have you even enumerated what would constitute proof enough for you? It is easy enough to be dismissive of other people’s proofs without ever actually defining the actual proof that you require for you to accept His existence. It is the classic “intellectual” shortcut - dismissal without ever quantifiying . . . .

251

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

Ahh, but now you bait and switch. Just because I do not use God as a crutch for a lack of scientific inquiry does not mean that I do not find rationale proof for His existence.

True faith cannot go where reason cannot follow - if your faith is not accompanied by reason, it is not faith, but merely ignorant speculation . . .[/quote]

Not at all, the discussion was not about the existence of god, it was about the cosmological argument, which as I have explained above is pure hogwash.

The problem with your true faith leading and your reason following is exactly that. Reason should be first then faith follows based on the weight of evidence. If you decide the outcome then look for the evidence then you are in trouble.

I will state again, there is no rational proof of gods existence. Please feel free to prove me wrong.[/quote]

you mix terminology again - Faith and Reason are companions, not leaders or follows, and I apologize if my poorly worded statement led you to think otherwise. Whether you like it or not, you too exercise faith and reason simultaneously every day and in matters of the Divine it is no different.

What you actually mean to say is that you have not found proof acceptable to you for God’s existence. The fact that many vastly intelligent people before us have found rational proof for His existence belies your conclusion as nothing more than just a personal declarative.

What you have done is to set a benchmark, stated that only proof that comes to that specific benchmark is acceptable to you as proof of God’s existence and that is perfectly fine for you to do so. You are perfectly free to discount any of the proofs that we could offer as not meeting your personal criteria.

However, you have to understand that whether or not God exists is not dependent on your criteria, but only that your accpetance of His existence in dependent on your criteria. There is a vast world of difference between the two.

Have you even enumerated what would constitute proof enough for you? It is easy enough to be dismissive of other people’s proofs without ever actually defining the actual proof that you require for you to accept His existence. It is the classic “intellectual” shortcut - dismissal without ever quantifiying . . . .[/quote]

I totally agree with you and I think have made a very similar point earlier on in response to someone else. Proving God’s existence to me would be very difficult. If I started to hear God’s voice, I would assume I was drugged or ill. If I saw an amazing being claiming to be God, I would assume that I was seeing an alien or being from another dimension.

In part it possibly comes down to defining what is God. I have no problem accepting the possiblity that there are greater intelligences in the multiverse than we mere humans. If you choose to call them God then great. What I have a hard time believing is that if they exist, they would give a flying fuck what you or I think or believe.

252

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

You are going on faith too…You believe in something from nothing with less that no proof what-so-ever…So we are all faithful people.

253

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I totally agree with you and I think have made a very similar point earlier on in response to someone else. Proving God’s existence to me would be very difficult. If I started to hear God’s voice, I would assume I was drugged or ill. If I saw an amazing being claiming to be God, I would assume that I was seeing an alien or being from another dimension.

In part it possibly comes down to defining what is God. I have no problem accepting the possiblity that there are greater intelligences in the multiverse than we mere humans. If you choose to call them God then great. What I have a hard time believing is that if they exist, they would give a flying fuck what you or I think or believe.[/quote]

Right, because you have already accepted a version of the universe that does not necessitate the existence of the Divine. So if God does exist and were to speak to you, you would not rightly recognize that God was speaking to you, because you had a false concept of the universe already in place as your accepte version of reality. You have already (by faith and reason) made a choice about the nature of the universe and God.

Take, for example, your acceptance of the Multiverse. (side note - I too enjoy the theortical implications of this potentiality - so don’t take this in the wrong way) - You have accpeted a theory as plausible reality WITHOUT s single shred of proof. No one has ever seen the multiverse, no one has ever traveled between multiverses, and no one has proven the existence of the multiverse. There are fewer rationale arguments for the existence of the Multiverse that there are for the Existence of God, but you have no trouble making the leap of faith from reason to belief (accpetance) even without this truly scientific level of proof . . .

Now the shoe is on the other foot - you have accepted the existence something absent any substantive proof and with fewer rationale arguments than there are for the existence of the Divine . . . it goes to the heart of it - you are demanding extraordinary proof for one and accepting fairly insubstantial proof for the other. The inconsistency is telling . . .

254

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.[/quote]

You’re going to have to go ahead and back that up with something. The cosmological argument has existed for over 2 millenniums, stand yet unrefuted. If you have the refutation to it, by God let’s here it.[/quote]

No, the argument has been refuted repeatedly, in fact it is not even an argument.

The cosmological argument boils down to ‘I have reached a level at which I no longer understand the explanation for what I observe and have decided to give up looking and insert God.’ A few hundred years ago, people like you would have been pointing to the sun in the sky and saying it was proof of a god’s existence as otherwise what made it rise each morning.

The problem is that on one side you have a group of people who are willing to believe things on faith with no evidence, they are arguing against a group of people who demand evidence for something that basically cannot be proved.

You end up with a stalemate where both sides declare themselves the winner.[/quote]

That’s what you call a refutation? LOL!
It clear you do not under argument at all if that’s what you think. The cosmological argument has never been refuted. If it has provide the refutation and the proof from hundreds of years ago…I am waiting…
It simply argues that the causal chain cannot end in an infinite regress with out begging the question. Regress being the important part of the equation. If you know anything about the argument you’d have know that its original form was not penned by any kind of theist at all. Therefore your interpretation that somebody dreamed up this argument because they were looking for answer is pure unadulterated bullshit.
[/quote]

It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.

Oh really? I want the name of the book(s) and the refutation that is presented, that actually was successful. I want the refutation. If you got it, I will personally send a letter to the Nobel folks on your behalfâ?¦.

Where do I state that all things came from absolute nothingness? And incidentally, all the time, nothing is splitting into matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles. As long as they are in balance the amount of matter and energy in the universe is conserved so no rules are broken.

Amazing yes, miraculous no.[/quote]

As an atheist, you necessarily must believe in something from nothing.
Otherwise, provide proof of something that exists, that sits outside the causal chain. If you can find one thing, you have a successful argument.

255

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I totally agree with you and I think have made a very similar point earlier on in response to someone else. Proving God’s existence to me would be very difficult. If I started to hear God’s voice, I would assume I was drugged or ill. If I saw an amazing being claiming to be God, I would assume that I was seeing an alien or being from another dimension.

In part it possibly comes down to defining what is God. I have no problem accepting the possiblity that there are greater intelligences in the multiverse than we mere humans. If you choose to call them God then great. What I have a hard time believing is that if they exist, they would give a flying fuck what you or I think or believe.[/quote]

Right, because you have already accepted a version of the universe that does not necessitate the existence of the Divine. So if God does exist and were to speak to you, you would not rightly recognize that God was speaking to you, because you had a false concept of the universe already in place as your accepte version of reality. You have already (by faith and reason) made a choice about the nature of the universe and God.

Take, for example, your acceptance of the Multiverse. (side note - I too enjoy the theortical implications of this potentiality - so don’t take this in the wrong way) - You have accpeted a theory as plausible reality WITHOUT s single shred of proof. No one has ever seen the multiverse, no one has ever traveled between multiverses, and no one has proven the existence of the multiverse. There are fewer rationale arguments for the existence of the Multiverse that there are for the Existence of God, but you have no trouble making the leap of faith from reason to belief (accpetance) even without this truly scientific level of proof . . .

Now the shoe is on the other foot - you have accepted the existence something absent any substantive proof and with fewer rationale arguments than there are for the existence of the Divine . . . it goes to the heart of it - you are demanding extraordinary proof for one and accepting fairly insubstantial proof for the other. The inconsistency is telling . . . [/quote]

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.

256

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I think you misunderstood me then.

I didn’t say that a scientist cannot be religious (or visa versa) evidently some of the greatest scientific leaps have been made by people who would classify themselves as religious.

What I am questioning though is that a scientific mind would at any point give up and say God did it instead of saying, I don’t currently understand the next level however with more data and time, hopefully I will.[/quote]

I would not thnk so - that would truly be a lazy mind and not worthy of either the title of Christian or Scientitst. Anyone who would employ such a rationale would rightly deserve ridicule![/quote]

So that would be anyone that resorts to the Cosmological Argument then.

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god?

If you want to add the god alongside the system just because, then fine, just don’t think that you have any proof or logic to back you up. You are going on faith, and if that works for you then great.[/quote]

You are going on faith too…You believe in something from nothing with less that no proof what-so-ever…So we are all faithful people.[/quote]

No, I have seen with my own eyes experiments where particles come into being out of a vacuum and have then read detailed theories of what I am seeing. On balance I believe those theories to be the most likely explanation of what is going on though I am open to changing my opinion based on further evidence.

257

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]

I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.

I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.

My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.

I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.

258

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

[quote]

Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.

Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.

259

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]

I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.

I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.

My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.

I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]

Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.

On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.

260

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.

Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]

I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.

I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.

My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.

I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]

Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.

On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]

Ahh, it is very important to keep in mind context though - there is a difference between having a question or not accepting something that is unclear in doctrine, but when God has personally spoken to you directly and charged you individually with a certain action and you fail to obey his direct command to you as an individual - I would think He has the right to go all “smitey” on you . . (i like that word - I may have to use that from time to time)

LOL - yes, but the “Church” fear is not based on theology but on the mixing of politics and religion to acheive power and control to satisfy the greed and avarice of men - concepts foreign to true Christianity.

Any church worth attending not only welcomes doubters and unbelievers, but willing provides the answers from faith and scripture that it has - the decision for belief/acceptance will always rest with the hearer of the word.

We Christians are not offended by or afraid of any question - in fact, we are charged to always be ready to give an answer. We are not worried by doubts or fears, even Thomas proclaimed that he did believe and in the same breath asked for help with his unbelief - God knows the frailty of our human hearts and is more than able to accept us exactly where we are . . .