|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 02:14:12 [Permalink]
|
If you can't tell me where 'God' came from, what's the point of saying 'God' created the Universe? I might as well stick with the Big bang and limitations on ever knowing what came before and if anything exists besides the Universe. Why add useless layers.
Filthy, here you are up even later posting. Seems me, you and HalfMooner are frequent night owls round here. Looks like I can add Dr Mab to that list as well. In fact the board is quite busy all the way around. Interesting. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/28/2006 02:16:20 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 02:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If you can't tell me where 'God' came from, what's the point of saying 'God' created the Universe? I might as well stick with the Big bang and limitations on ever knowing what came before and if anything exists besides the Universe. Why add useless layers.
Filthy, here you are up even later posting. Seems me, you and HalfMooner are frequent night owls round here. Looks like I can add Dr Mab to that list as well. In fact the board is quite busy all the way around. Interesting.
I just woke up. I never sleep more than a few hours at a time -- 5 at the very most. It is irritating, to be tired at 9am and asleep for a couple more at noon.
Until a better theory comes along -- a theory eupported by emperical evidence -- I too will stick with the Big Ol' Bang, incomplete as it is.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/28/2006 02:32:21 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 05:44:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
If it is not who, then it is what. If what does not mean matter of some kind then what is what, dave? I just demonstrated that the first cause needed to be eternal, and if it is eternal we know it isn't matter, unless you subscribe to eternal matter, which you just said earlier that you did not.
I support the idea of a trans-dimension being on a routine void visit did it. Upon arrival decided that this particular void had potential due to its awe inspiring emptiness. So it brought forth the singularity of Antioch, touched it with its wand, and in the same instance returned to its own dimension never to return. This being is of a species who are not big on progress reports or interference with natural processes.
The remarkable thing is I can show just as much evidence for my trans-dimensional being as you can for your eternal entity, your mythological christian god.
Until you can support with evidence the foundation of your argument, then you offer absolutely nothing that is either reasonable or based in logic. Faith arguments are often that way, just because you believe it doesn't make it true. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:10:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Bill, you cannot define something into existence. Simply claiming god is defined as an eternal creator does not constitute a logical argument for the existence of such a god.
Bill, you cannot define something into existence.
(bill) But you can define atheism out of existence, since it never really existed anyway, only in man's imagination.
Simply claiming god is defined as an eternal creator does not constitute a logical argument for the existence of such a god.
(bill) The universe had a beginning, it is finite, it is not eternal. NASA agrees, Dave W. agrees. Most atheists today have got past the notion that the universe is eternal. Based on the evidence they have had to. So now that leaves first cause standing. If the universe had a beginning then it has a first cause. A finite first cause will not cut the mustard here, Hubert, as the finite first cause would have to have a first cause itself. So the next question would be is the first cause of the finite first cause eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist? etc... etc... etc...
This is what is known as circular logic, Hubert, and the atheist wraps himself up tight in it.
The creationist puts forth the notion that a deity, or God, is the eternal first cause.
The atheist puts forth the notion of nothing, as the eternal first cause of the universe, and toss up their hands and proclaim "we don't know" in frustration...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:12:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Time is a dimention that exist in correlation with space: Space-time.
It was created at the same time as space was. It's like a video-tape: we can play it backward to the beginning, then we come to the start of the tape and cannot revind further, because there exist no "before the Big Bang".
You however believe in a being that put the tape in the VCR, but we have no evidence of that.
The deity you insist exist, only exist in the realm of philosophy because there is no evidence that science can examine.
If a deity exist in a state of eternal, how does he measure up the appropriate moment to create the first cause? How did he find the right time to make his creation if time did not exist before the BB?
Time is a dimention that exist in correlation with space: Space-time.
It was created at the same time as space was. It's like a video-tape: we can play it backward to the beginning, then we come to the start of the tape and cannot revind further, because there exist no "before the Big Bang".
(bill) Where did the video-tape come from, doc?
You however believe in a being that put the tape in the VCR,
(bill) Not only did he put the tape in the VCR, but he created the tape and the VCR to begin with.
but we have no evidence of that.
(bill) We have the very existence of the tape and the VCR. Or do you claim the tape and VCR are eternal, doc?
The deity you insist exist, only exist in the realm of philosophy because there is no evidence that science can examine.
bill) The universe had a beginning, it is finite, it is not eternal. NASA agrees, the great Dave W. agrees. Most atheists today have got past the notion that the universe is eternal. Based on the evidence they have had to. So now that leaves first cause standing. If the universe had a beginning then it has a first cause. A finite first cause will not cut the mustard here, doc, as the finite first cause would have to have a first cause itself. So the next question would be is the first cause of the finite first cause eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist? etc... etc... etc...
This is what is known as circular logic, doc, and the atheist wraps himself up tight in it.
The creationist puts forth the notion that a deity, or God, is the eternal first cause.
The atheist puts forth the notion of nothing, as the eternal first cause of the universe, and toss up their hands and proclaim "we don't know" in frustration...
If a deity exist in a state of eternal, how does he measure up the appropriate moment to create the first cause? How did he find the right time to make his creation if time did not exist before the BB?
(bill) On the day that I meet him, if he gives me the chance, I will ask that question on your behalf, doc.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:13:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe?
Picture this: Hawks is jumping up and down on the spot while shouting excitedly: ME ME ME, debate with ME. LIEs were the first cause of the universe and they were not eternal. Pure logic. Debate with ME!!!
Picture this: Hawks is jumping up and down on the spot while shouting excitedly: ME ME ME, debate with ME. LIEs were the first cause of the universe and they were not eternal. Pure logic. Debate with ME!!!
(bil) This is a chat room forum for discussion, Hawk. We are having a discussion, Hawk. Feel free to join the discussion anytime you wish, Hawk.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:34:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.
(bill) Not to mention the fact that it aligns with reality...
That is a matter of opinion and saying it is so is not proofquote:
The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so scholars instinctively presume the cosmos 'began' with an instance of creation.
(bill) Yes that is right. And NASA, amongst others, agrees:
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang."
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. "
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
Theory is theory not fact. The Pope didn't recognize the earth was round until the 19th century. Change is a function of existence, not the reverse and the chicken and the egg redundency which applies to ANY cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence is an error signal. The contemporary precepts of conventional physics are often proven wrong quote:
But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process - is it the product of cause and effect?
(bill) Yes
Again, saying so does not make it so.quote:
How do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?
(bill) That is what I have been asking the atheist from round 1? Either the physical preseance of the universe is a result of:
A. a first cause that transcends the universe itself.
or
B. eternal, infinite matter
or C. it is not a result at allquote:
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification,
(bill) Unless that nothing turns into something. And if that something ends up being the universe then a lot of justification will be required. And at the bare min. the justification will be inquired.
Define "Nothing"quote:
so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void.
(bill) Popular atheistic theories that is. Because they must produce an infinite first cause, or eternal matter, in the origin hypothesis of an atheistic universe. So of coarse they want to begin with a primal void, their worldview begins with a primal void, so what other conclusion should we expect?
Where did god beginquote:
At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material presence of the cosmos.
(bill) Yes, a first cause. And as I predicted this gives the atheist fits. They either have to dream up a infinite first cause, other then God, or they have to dream up how the universe can be eternal and uncaused, which fly's in the face of what most of their cohorts will even embrace, let alone NASA.
If the existence of the universe was the result of a cause, you would be right - but that is not the case.quote:
Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption.
(bill) Yet the atheist fully acknowledges they have no clue, at all, as to where these "bowls" came from, or how they act spontaneously? It all comes straight from their imagination. *sigh*
Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either contention would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original assertion that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry.
(bill) A. From day 1 I have held the notion the deity is eternal. He is the uncaused first cause. He has no beginning or end. He is not limited to time and space, or cause and effect, because he created time and space, cause and effect. If the deity is not eternal then he is not a deity.
B. I find it very ironic that the atheist will chide a creationist for holding the notion that the first cause of the universe would be eternal, and then implying that this attribute of deity, of all things, was held by a deity would be irrational, when in the very next breath they will try and give the attribute of deity (eternal existence) to physical matter, and try to claim it is the uncaused first cause of itself, so therefor the universe is a self-sufficient system in need on no outside influences. *sigh*
One more time, the atheist chides the creationist for giving the attributes of deity (eternal existence), to of all things, a deity, while they in turn have no problem giving attributes of deity to physical matter. They will do this in spite of the fact that this fly's in the face of most of their cohorts, including NASA:
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang.
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes."
The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 06:50:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If you can't tell me where 'God' came from, what's the point of saying 'God' created the Universe? I might as well stick with the Big bang and limitations on ever knowing what came before and if anything exists besides the Universe. Why add useless layers.
Filthy, here you are up even later posting. Seems me, you and HalfMooner are frequent night owls round here. Looks like I can add Dr Mab to that list as well. In fact the board is quite busy all the way around. Interesting.
If you can't tell me where 'God' came from,
(bill) "Tell me where God came from"
Ok what part of eternal, infinite, uncaused do you not understand here?
what's the point of saying 'God' created the Universe?
(bill) Because we know the universe had a first cause and thar it is not eternal. This first cause would be eternal, as a "non-eternal" first cause would require a first cause itself. This ends in circular logic.
I choose to give the attribute of deity (eternal existence and first cause), to of all things, a deity. While you continue to hold out hope that some unknown universe exists somewhere where time and space, cause and effect do not exist. Maybe in this far off, unknown universe, that we have no evidence it even exists, matter that built our universe might have been birthed by a non-eternal first cause? That would be possible because time and space do not exist in the hypothetical atheistic universe. That way the atheist no longer has to worry about the pesky eternal first cause that is required in our universe.
The sheer number of hoops that the atheist must jump through to avoid acknowledging that a eternal first cause is required, and that only a deity can be eternal is mind boggling. But I guess it should be expected, what is the alternative choice for them?
I might as well stick with the Big bang and limitations on ever knowing what came before and if anything exists besides the Universe. Why add useless layers.
(bill) In other words, "don't confuse me with any facts or reality or try to use any logic, I am very comfortable where I am at, thank you."
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 07:09:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In other words, "don't confuse me with any facts or reality or try to use any logic, I am very comfortable where I am at, thank you."
ROFL |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 07:33:58 [Permalink]
|
But let's quit fucking around and bone this carcass out. Who or what, exactly, is your version of a first cause, bearing in mind that the universe, as we very slighty know it, might not be the first and only one?
Do try to answer wi th a minium of rhetoric and spitting at atheists. "Atheisism/theism" are mere lables and have nothing to do with the study of cosmology.
????
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 07:39:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.
(bill) Not to mention the fact that it aligns with reality...
That is a matter of opinion and saying it is so is not proofquote:
The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so scholars instinctively presume the cosmos 'began' with an instance of creation.
(bill) Yes that is right. And NASA, amongst others, agrees:
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang."
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. "
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
Theory is theory not fact. The Pope didn't recognize the earth was round until the 19th century. Change is a function of existence, not the reverse and the chicken and the egg redundency which applies to ANY cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence is an error signal. The contemporary precepts of conventional physics are often proven wrong quote:
But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process - is it the product of cause and effect?
(bill) Yes
Again, saying so does not make it so.quote:
How do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?
(bill) That is what I have been asking the atheist from round 1? Either the physical preseance of the universe is a result of:
A. a first cause that transcends the universe itself.
or
B. eternal, infinite matter
or C. it is not a result at allquote:
The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification,
(bill) Unless that nothing turns into something. And if that something ends up being the universe then a lot of justification will be required. And at the bare min. the justification will be inquired.
Define "Nothing"quote:
so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void.
(bill) Popular atheistic theories that is. Because they must produce an infinite first cause, or eternal matter, in the origin hypothesis of an atheistic universe. So of coarse they want to begin with a primal void, their worldview begins with a primal void, so what other conclusion should we expect?
Where did god beginquote:
At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material presence of the cosmos.
(bill) Yes, a first cause. And as I predicted this gives the atheist fits. They either have to dream up a infinite first cause, other then God, or they have to dream up how the universe can be eternal and uncaused, which fly's in the face of what most of their cohorts will even embrace, let alone NASA.
If the existence of the universe was the result of a cause, you would be right - but that is not the case.quote:
Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption.
(bill) Yet the atheist fully acknowledges they have no clue, at all, as to where these "bowls" came from, or how they act spontaneously? It all comes straight from their imagination. *sigh*
Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either contention would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original assertion that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry.
(bill) A. From day 1 I have held the notion the deity is eternal. He is the uncaused first cause. He has no beginning or end. He is not limited to time and space, or cause and effect, because he created time and space, cause and effect. If the deity is not eternal then he is not a deity.
B. I find it very ironic that the atheist will chide a creationist for holding the notion that the first cause of the universe would be eternal, and then implying that this attribute of deity, of all things, was held by a deity would be irrational, when in the very next breath they will try and give the attribute of deity (eternal existence) to physical matter, and try to claim it is the uncaused first cause of itself, so therefor the universe is a self-sufficient system in need on no outside influences. *sigh*
One more time, the atheist chides the creationist for giving the attributes of deity (eternal existence), to of all things, a deity, while they in turn have no problem giving attributes of deity to physical matter. They will do this in spite of the fact that this fly's in the face of most of their cohorts, including NASA:
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang.
"However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 08:38:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) He is eternal. That is an attribute of deity. Eternal means that he had no point in time where he began to exist. That is the definition of eternal, which is an attribute of deity. It only ends in redundancy when you refuse to accept the attributes of deity, as being given to a deity, and then you try to redefine eternal, with your own definition, which says that eternal beings, or deities, still have to have a beginning. Apparently your definition of eternal, and the rest of planet earth's definition, differ. *sigh*
Talk's cheap. Prove it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 08:59:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) He is eternal. That is an attribute of deity. Eternal means that he had no point in time where he began to exist. That is the definition of eternal, which is an attribute of deity. It only ends in redundancy when you refuse to accept the attributes of deity, as being given to a deity, and then you try to redefine eternal, with your own definition, which says that eternal beings, or deities, still have to have a beginning. Apparently your definition of eternal, and the rest of planet earth's definition, differ. *sigh*
Talk's cheap. Prove it.
(bill) Prove what? That eternal existence is an attribute of deity? That the first cause of universe must be eternal? Prove what?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 09:52:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Prove what? That eternal existence is an attribute of deity? That the first cause of universe must be eternal? Prove what?
a) Either a God exists or it doesn't
b) Either all which exists was created or it wasn't
If ANYTHING which exists wasn't created, then why couldn't the same apply to another thing, or 100 things, or EVERYTHING |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 10:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
a) Either a God exists or it doesn't
b) Either all which exists was created or it wasn't
If ANYTHING which exists wasn't created, then why couldn't the same apply to another thing, or 100 things, or EVERYTHING
Pinning Bill down is like trying to grab a live eel in a bucket of snot.
You have made claims, Bill. Unlike the rest of us, you have not given any reference whatsoever. I, and others, cast doubt upon those claims and that requires you to come up with their support. And no one here takes anyone else's bare word for anything, so save your breath and give reference from qualified sorces.
Shit or get off the pot, Bill.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
