The Christian Agenda Continues

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

lol but your god can be eternal AND creative?
Why don’t you try to taste your own implications?
If the universe is eternal, the need for creation goes out the window.

Remember, you already stated someone must be there.
If your god can be eternal, so can my universe.[/quote]

Well, it seems risky. I mean, one reason given (among many) to doubt the existence of a Creator is the claim of eternal existence. The uncaused cause, I guess. But doesn’t that objection only belong in consideration of the natural universe?

counterchuckle @push[/quote]

No, you have no proof that god works in your life.
Proof means you could demonstrate that, as proof isn’t subjective. “It’s good enough for me” is not objective

My aforementioned examples are known theories and consistent with what science has modeled out so far.
Google stuff such as Big Bounce, Black Holes and whatnot. But I guess you are not interested anyhow.
Since you know there is some invisible, mute guy staring at you. (Kinda creepy?)

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, it seems risky. I mean, one reason given (among many) to doubt the existence of a Creator is the claim of eternal existence. The uncaused cause, I guess. But doesn’t that objection only belong in consideration of the natural universe? I mean, isn’t a better objection for a natural thing, like an eternal universe?
[/quote]

You have trouble accepting a non-creative entity as eternal? Is that it?

Maybe you need to rephrase your post or my english is just not that sharp.

One thing Hitchens also said. He said there is no objective purpose for us. But does it really feel like he believes that? He talks about trying to “free” believers. But if there is no objective purpose, why use such loaded language? Either worldview would (religious or atheistic), intellectually, have as much value if objectively there is no end purpose. Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Did anyone catch the student asking Hitchens about sex with animals? Sure he didn’t explicitly say “it’s immoral!” But he went on as if to explain why it shouldn’t be condoned, and even looked down upon. Something about if everyone was doing it, we wouldn’t propagate ourselves. At least not sufficiently. Oh, and something about a higher risk of disease. The reason why it stood out was because not long after he took Christianity to task for it’s view of homosexual sex. Hrmmm.[/quote]

Hitchens was notably silent, however, on the subject of primatologists having procreative sex with bonobos.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzy, saying the universe is eternal and can create life is saying the universe is a god. Or the God.

So if you believe the universe is as you say, then you believe in god/God. You are no atheist, my friend.

Like Varq said, everyone is a theist of some stripe. Even you. Even Hitchens.[/quote]

I disagree.
There is a big difference in creating knowingly from scratch and just being part of a process.

A doctor working in a fertility clinic and successfully helping a lady get pregnant, is, according to you, some kind of god. (His hot assistant is a demi-god, I suppose)

Of course, you could look at it that way, but then the value of divinity is kinda lowered dramatically.

An eternal universe is no more wonderful than the process of evolution itself.

One of those immortal jerks like Jupiter or Jehova, however, stands intrinsically apart from the universe and has his own, murky ideas.

The differences carry enormous implications.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, it seems risky. I mean, one reason given (among many) to doubt the existence of a Creator is the claim of eternal existence. The uncaused cause, I guess. But doesn’t that objection only belong in consideration of the natural universe? I mean, isn’t a better objection for a natural thing, like an eternal universe?
[/quote]

You have trouble accepting a non-creative entity as eternal? Is that it?

Maybe you need to rephrase your post or my english is just not that sharp.

[/quote]

Well it’s a common objection to God. “Well, what would cause God to exist.” But God is explicitly stated to be a supernatural being above space, time, and the laws of the universe. He needs no cause but himself. He is the cause. But, the universe is presented as a natural ‘thing.’ Just an observation.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.

^ what is religious about this?
[/quote]

Well for one thing, it’s flat wrong. The second thing is that even if the universe were eternal, it doesn’t explain it’s existence.

You’re right, that’s not a religious statement. But the universe is quite finite. It’s a logically fallacious statement because it’s circular reasoning. Things are not factors of themselves, it’s impossible for them to be so.[/quote]

It’s a solid theory. The universe could, in fact, just change states every now and then.
[/quote]
It’s a solid theory? A theory that have virtually hit the scrap heap in most scientific circles? There is a problem with the ‘theory’, there’s not a single solitary shred of evidence that it’s even remotely true. So this is what you put your faith in? Something that has no basis in fact, is purely theory and STILL does not answer the fundamental question of God’s existence?
Even in the remote chance that this is true, it still doesn’t take God out of the equation. It still doesn’t invalidate the cosmological argument. And you HAVE to prove it WRONG to be right, period.

lol! No it doesn’t. It means one thing, by definition.

It’s circular because you are saying the existence of the universe is infinite and therefore a factor of itself. Which, even if the universe were infinite (it’s not), it’s not a factor of itself. It’s dependent on other things for it’s existence. Like for instance, the universe is the culmination of space, matter and energy without which, there is no universe. They don’t exist just cause, they exist dependent on other things for their existence. Infinite universe is irrelevent to the problem. It’s 2 dimensional thinking.

Likewise is “The universe is infinite, therefore it just exists.”

I don’t recall inventing God, but by necessity he must be eternal and creative. Where’d you get lost?

The universe is not eternal and even if it was, it still exists, and is infinite for a reason not for no reason. Time is irrelevant to the problem.

Your universe cannot do anything without being compelled, which is the failure in your giant hope.

Clearly you haven’t given this much thought.

[quote]

counterchuckle @push[/quote]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Did anyone catch the student asking Hitchens about sex with animals? Sure he didn’t explicitly say “it’s immoral!” But he went on as if to explain why it shouldn’t be condoned, and even looked down upon. Something about if everyone was doing it, we wouldn’t propagate ourselves. At least not sufficiently. Oh, and something about a higher risk of disease. The reason why it stood out was because not long after he took Christianity to task for it’s view of homosexual sex. Hrmmm.[/quote]

Hitchens was notably silent, however, on the subject of primatologists having procreative sex with bonobos. [/quote]

Varg, you and them apes, man.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, it seems risky. I mean, one reason given (among many) to doubt the existence of a Creator is the claim of eternal existence. The uncaused cause, I guess. But doesn’t that objection only belong in consideration of the natural universe? I mean, isn’t a better objection for a natural thing, like an eternal universe?
[/quote]

You have trouble accepting a non-creative entity as eternal? Is that it?

Maybe you need to rephrase your post or my english is just not that sharp.

[/quote]

Well it’s a common objection to God. “Well, what would cause God to exist.” But God is explicitly stated to be a supernatural being above space, time, and the laws of the universe. He needs no cause but himself. He is the cause. Not the caused Supernatural. But, the universe is presented as a natural ‘thing.’ Just an observation.
[/quote]

It’s a nonsensical question since an Ucaused-cause cannot be caused. It’s an absolute.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing Hitchens also said. He said there is no objective purpose for us. But does it really feel like he believes that? He talks about trying to “free” believers. But if there is no objective purpose, why use language? Either worldview would (religious or atheistic), intellectually, have as much value if objectively there is no end purpose. Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors. [/quote]

If you say so, it is.
No objective purpose means true freedom.
It can also beget profound meaning.

Here’s a story to illustrate that:

[i]
Imagine a demiurge created a hellish world with unkempt, two-legged creatures that instinctively wage war brother against brother.
Screams echo for millenia across the tiny globe.

Ultimately, the creatures discover rationality, the arts and love.
With his favourite bloody past time gone, the demiurge flips the bird and trolls away to create an even more vulgar and brutally spectacular universe.

Freed from their objective destiny, the upright creatures, as they call themselves, thrive.

One day, a little one goes for a walk with his pet and spots a strange light in the sky.
Turns out, a fell meteor would have smashed the planet to bits and pieces, was it not for the sharp eyes of one individual.

As the world’s president awards the little hero a gleaming medal, one ragged spectator, a former prophet, screams into the bewildered crowd:

“So what, he’s saved a god-forsaken world! And you’re all going to die anyway!”
[/i]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Again, it would be just be like choosing favorite colors. [/quote]

If your favorite color was red, and you regularly picked and ate things that were red, you would soon find out what the consequences of that particular choice are.

And when the other members of the tribe found you, lying motionless in the grass with a mouthful of half-chewed poisonous red berries, they will learn from your error in judgement. The berries of that tree will be avoided by everyone who saw you lying there, and their children, who are told the story of your demise by their parents

Generations later, children will be told by their parents not to eat that berry. The parents will have never seen your poisoned corpse (since you decomposed into the forest floor long ago), and perhaps they don’t even remember the details of the story of your demise. There is a taboo against eating the red berry. It is wrong, and one will be punished if he disobeys.

One night, lightning strikes one of the trees near where the tribe is sleeping. Panic ensues. The forest burns. Only a few of the tribe survives: a few men, some women, a couple of children. They make their way to a rocky, less forested, snake-infested land east of the forest. They remember, vaguely, the story of the red berries, even though there are none of those trees to be found.

As the generations pass, the new tribe manages to scratch out an existence among the rocks, keeping captured wild goats and harvesting the hard yellow seeds of the prevalent grasses. The snakes are a problem, being quick and sneaky with venomous bites, but the people have learned to kill them by stomping on their heads.

At night around the campfire, the old folks tell the wide-eyed youngsters the story of why they no longer live in the forest, where life was so good. It’s your story! The story of your death! But it has gotten much more interesting.

“It was First Father, who ate the Red Berries of Wisdom, which the Great Spirit had forbidden him to eat. His wife, First Mother had been deceived into gathering these berries for him by the crafty serpent, and indeed the berries gave his tribe wisdom, but the Great Spirit was angry. He sent a flaming arrow amongst the People, driving them from the forest. And that is why the serpent is hated by the women of our tribe: for the trick played on First Mother. And that is why Great Spirit, when he remembers First Father’s disobedience, sends his flaming arrows and beats his war drum. But then his anger subsides and he sends cool water from the sky.”

And that is how your favorite color just might lead to something like morality. Maybe even religion.

[quote]pat wrote:
It’s a solid theory? A theory that have virtually hit the scrap heap in most scientific circles? There is a problem with the ‘theory’, there’s not a single solitary shred of evidence that it’s even remotely true. So this is what you put your faith in? Something that has no basis in fact, is purely theory and STILL does not answer the fundamental question of God’s existence?
Even in the remote chance that this is true, it still doesn’t take God out of the equation. It still doesn’t invalidate the cosmological argument. And you HAVE to prove it WRONG to be right, period.
[/quote]
I have to prove shit. The status quo [existance] is the only thing you don’t have to prove.
Making up gods is an bold claim which you cannot support with evidence.

I don’t know what (christian?) science you mean, but “the Big Bounce” is a generally accepted theory. And that is just one possibility for an eternal universe.
You haven’t done basic homework.

[quote][quote]
Life would just be some curious form of byproduct.
Also, infinity can mean various things.
[/quote]
lol! No it doesn’t. It means one thing, by definition.
[/quote]
Infinite could mean a truly borderless three dimensional space.
But so would a sphere’s surface
Other, weirdly warped objects of spacetime would also suffice.

And you clearly don’t get circular reasoning:
I don’t say:
The universe exists THEREFORE it is eternal.
I say:
The universe exists and it COULD have been always so.
Until I hear better explanations, I keep this theory in my box of possibilities.

Give me just one good theory, and I’ll gladly throw my whole box out of the window.

My universe just has to be eternal; your god has to be eternal AND creative.

A more elegant theory with Ockham’s Razor fights an old, fat, sluggish theory. Who wins?

Of course it can be, I already demonstrated that.

Your god, basically just a worse theory is already infinite for no reason
OR do you imply that he, in turn, was created?