religious debate thread

[Noodle]

A few posts ago you made an ignorant statement that more or less said "atheists are atheists because they can't deal with the fact that there is a god."
With similar logic regarding this statement, I can say that believers are believers simply because they cannot deal with not knowing.

But then you can apply that statement to almost anything.
 
The reason I'm more or less Aetheist is because there has been no conclusive and absolute proof of the existence of a god. And before people jump on me saying "Try and prove that there ISN'T a god", it is not possible to prove the absence of something. For instance, videogame testers try and find as many bugs in the game as they can, and the games are made as clean and airtight as they can. But one or two glitches always make their way through. In my view, the only reason religious people use the argument "Prove that there is not a god" is because they know that they can't logically prove that there is.

I was kinda making a point about the flawed logic he used to come to a conclusions about all atheists.  What I said wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. :P

[Meganerdbomb]

Alright, I'm not going to quote this time to avoid a massive wall of text. I'll just clear up a few things this time.
 First: @Noodle, I admit I actually did not bother to look into Mr. Meyers' background. I see you may be right about his bias. I first got the information form a Psychology textbook, and just looked up the source reference in the back. Oh well, I think that post still served its purpose.
Also my statement wasn't that atheists can't deal with the fact that there is a god, but that the very concept is just so horrifying to them, that they refuse to even consider that there might be a god.

@123savethewhales & NFX. You are being extremely limited in your thinking because you are trying to constrain God to the confines of this physical world. By Omnipresence, I do not mean that God exists everywhere in this dimension, but that God exists in infinitely many dimensions. God is not confined within the physical limitations of time and space, and is not made up of anything that we can measure.  By Omniscience, I do not mean simply that  God knows everything that's going to happen, but everything that can happen. God can see the infinite possibilities in every choice we make, and that He makes. He knows every possible implication of every possible action ad infinitum. Finally by Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him. The things that to you seem like logical impossibilities are nothing to a being who has infinite possibility. The fact that your mind is too small to grasp infinity does not make it impossible.

Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:

• There exists movement in the world.
• Things that move were set into motion by something else.
• If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
• Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
• From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
• From 4, there must be an unmoved mover

That's all for now.

[Noodle]

Also my statement wasn't that atheists can't deal with the fact that there is a god, but that the very concept is just so horrifying to them, that they refuse to even consider that there might be a god.

You just reworded the phrase.  If a concept is horrifying to someone, they obviously can't deal with it.

Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:

• There exists movement in the world.
• Things that move were set into motion by something else.
• If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
• Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
• From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
• From 4, there must be an unmoved mover

That's all for now.

I knew this one would rear it's head eventually.

The main problem with this argument is in point 3.  We don't have any definitive evidence that rules out the idea of infinite chain of causes.  You can't just say "that can't happen" unless you have facts to back it up.

Even if you're right, what about your god?  Your god is supposed to have existed since forever and continue to do so forever.  Why would it be that your god could have always existed but the universe could not?

[123savethewhales]

@123savethewhales & NFX. You are being extremely limited in your thinking because you are trying to constrain God to the confines of this physical world. By Omnipresence, I do not mean that God exists everywhere in this dimension, but that God exists in infinitely many dimensions. God is not confined within the physical limitations of time and space, and is not made up of anything that we can measure.  By Omniscience, I do not mean simply that  God knows everything that's going to happen, but everything that can happen. God can see the infinite possibilities in every choice we make, and that He makes. He knows every possible implication of every possible action ad infinitum. Finally by Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him. The things that to you seem like logical impossibilities are nothing to a being who has infinite possibility. The fact that your mind is too small to grasp infinity does not make it impossible.

Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:

• There exists movement in the world.
• Things that move were set into motion by something else.
• If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
• Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
• From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
• From 4, there must be an unmoved mover

That's all for now.

Your definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent.  Because he "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility" as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent.  Your definition then, creates a God that knows nothing.

Just because your mind is too small to understand infinite does not mean it will solve the omniscient/omnipotent contradiction.

Your definition of  omniscient also breaks his omnipresent.  Again, he is everywhere, he is part of everything of all time, there is no "can" as he is everything.  The only way those two are compatible is by replacing "can" with "is".  In such case you end up with a passive body without a will, which can be labeled as natural force.

Your definition of omnipotent also contradicts with his omnipresent.  Because nothing is impossible to him, except that he already covered everything that is and are everywhere.  Anything else God do will require him to repeat himself.  So then he's actually powerless as all is already covered and there's nothing God can do except repeat himself an infinite amount of time.  Even then the amount of diversity has not increase.

[Meganerdbomb]

I knew this one would rear it's head eventually.

The main problem with this argument is in point 3.  We don't have any definitive evidence that rules out the idea of infinite chain of causes.  You can't just say "that can't happen" unless you have facts to back it up.

Even if you're right, what about your god?  Your god is supposed to have existed since forever and continue to do so forever.  Why would it be that your god could have always existed but the universe could not?

For your second question, because God exists outside of the universe, and by the Ontological Argument, existence is a necessary property of God.
For the first, allow me to try and convince you with an analogy. Imagine, if you will, a train. At the end of this train is a caboose. You ask, "What makes the caboose move?", and I answer, "It's being pulled along by the boxcar in front of it." So, of course you ask what makes the boxcar move, and I answer that it's the boxcar in front of it, ad infinitum. Now, in this imaginary train with an infinite number of boxcars, we have an explanation for why any one car in the train moves. However, we do not have an explanation for why the train as a whole moves. You should, in fact, be able to see that this train cannot move at all. In order for the train to move, it would need an engine. In order for the universe to move, it would need an unmoved mover.

Your   definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent.  Because he   "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility"   as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent.  Your definition   then, creates a God that knows nothing.

Just because your mind is too small to understand infinite does not mean it will solve the omniscient/omnipotent contradiction.

Your   definition of  omniscient also breaks his omnipresent.  Again, he is   everywhere, he is part of everything of all time, there is no "can" as   he is everything.  The only way those two are compatible is by replacing   "can" with "is".  In such case you end up with a passive body without a   will, which can be labeled as natural force.

Your definition of   omnipotent also contradicts with his omnipresent.  Because nothing is   impossible to him, except that he already covered everything that is and   are everywhere.  Anything else God do will require him to repeat   himself.  So then he's actually powerless as all is already covered and   there's nothing God can do except repeat himself an infinite amount of   time.  Even then the amount of diversity has not increase.

You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard.
  Your first argument: Because God must have infinite knowledge he therefore knows nothing? Your argument is nonsense.
  Your second: God being everywhere is not the same as being in everything, that's pantheism, not omnipresence. Your argument is invalid.
  The third: Once again, your thinking of pantheism, not omnipresence.   Also, I think your grammar is off, because that last sentence makes zero   sense.

[Serge]

I simply believe an Omnipotent,   Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow."

Not "somehow". Life is just a series of chaotic chemical reactions. Given enough entropy from the environment, shit will happen sooner or later.

Also, a big explosion makes way more sense than a dude making life just for the kicks, and then demanding an evolved form of it worship him.

[CaptainUseless]

I simply believe an Omnipotent,   Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow."

Not "somehow". Life is just a series of chaotic chemical reactions. Given enough entropy from the environment, shit will happen sooner or later.

Also, a big explosion makes way more sense than a dude making life just for the kicks, and then demanding an evolved form of it worship him.

^QFT^

[123savethewhales]

You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard.
  Your first argument: Because God must have infinite knowledge he therefore knows nothing? Your argument is nonsense.
  Your second: God being everywhere is not the same as being in everything, that's pantheism, not omnipresence. Your argument is invalid.
  The third: Once again, your thinking of pantheism, not omnipresence.   Also, I think your grammar is off, because that last sentence makes zero   sense.

I will try to rephrase them.

My first argument
1a.  Either God is Omnipotent but has no knowledge, as all things are possible, can change at any time, and hence nothing fixed to know, or
1b.  God is Omniscient but cannot do anything.  Because everything is already known, it then cannot be changed.

Omnipotent and Omniscient therefore are incompatible with each other.

My Second argument
2.  To truly be "everywhere" requires him to occupy all space of all time, in all scales.  He don't have to "be" the object.  But the point is all time, which leads to

My Third argument
3.  This one goes into the idea of perfection, and how "Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him."  God occupies all time, "everything" is already done in "all time".  There's nothing left for God to "do" as the whole concept of change is time driven.  In this case God is more a passive natural force than an interactive, decision making, sentient will.  Part of the property of an infinite world.

Lastly, an argument I didn't mention last time
4.  If such a force exist, it contradicts the idea that we can have free will.  We have never existed outside of his presence, knowledge, and power since creation.  Every action you take he "knows", is "there", and "made" you do it.

On a side note:  I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.

[123savethewhales]

Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.

Explain.

Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory.  It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further".  So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".

Then, there's no conventional "bang" either.  The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1.  The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2.  The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate

Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

[Noodle]

For your second question, because God exists outside of the universe, and by the Ontological Argument, existence is a necessary property of God.
For the first, allow me to try and convince you with an analogy. Imagine, if you will, a train. At the end of this train is a caboose. You ask, "What makes the caboose move?", and I answer, "It's being pulled along by the boxcar in front of it." So, of course you ask what makes the boxcar move, and I answer that it's the boxcar in front of it, ad infinitum. Now, in this imaginary train with an infinite number of boxcars, we have an explanation for why any one car in the train moves. However, we do not have an explanation for why the train as a whole moves. You should, in fact, be able to see that this train cannot move at all. In order for the train to move, it would need an engine. In order for the universe to move, it would need an unmoved mover.

A universe is not a train.  While comparing them in an analogy like that may seem to make perfect sense, it really doesn't.

A train, being a physical thing, is bound by the laws of physics - time and space, relativity, etc.  If a train is moving, there must be a reason.  There is no way a train could move without a physical reason as to why.

Our universe is much different.  Before the big bang the universe was in a state of singularity.  When in singularity (as we have observed in black holes) space and time kinda get tossed out the window while forces like gravity are still existent (it's a bit tricky to explain).  As far as we know, the universe could have started for no reason whatsoever because of how the laws of space and time aren't applicable.

Now I'm no expert on whatever happened before the big bang.  I'm sure if you were talking to Stephan Hawking or Michio Kaku they'd be able to explain it a lot better than I can and probably have more insight on the subject.

Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory.  It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further".  So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".

Then, there's no conventional "bang" either.  The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1.  The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2.  The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate

Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory...

That's certainly not what you implied when you said...

Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.

[123savethewhales]

Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory.  It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further".  So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".

Then, there's no conventional "bang" either.  The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1.  The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2.  The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate

Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory...

That's certainly not what you implied when you said...

Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.

Here's the reason.

On a side note:  I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.

I have a hard time understanding most of what I wrote on that post.  I am guessing that was what I meant.

[Noodle]

Here's the reason.

On a side note:  I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.

I have a hard time understanding most of what I wrote on that post.  I am guessing that was what I meant.

Ah, I missed that part.

Also, is it just me, or has this thread gone from religious debate to quantum physics?
Not like thats a problem, quantum physics are a much more interesting topic. :P

[Pwnator]

Also, is it just me, or has this thread gone from religious debate to quantum physics?

Not like we're terribly off-topic. We're still dealing with supernatural forces here, present or not. :P

[Serge]

On a side note:  I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray

Alcoholics Gin lovers unite!

*grabs a drink*

[Naryar]

lol ?

Anyways, i've got an answer for how life and the universe was created : there are multiple theories, each with their strengths and weaknesses, but WE DO NOT KNOW. We weren't here back then and we probably will never know for sure what happened.

And that discussion is not advancing any more. While rhetorically interesting, now it's more like an artillery battle and a war of positions.

[Incredirobotwars]

Oh, and on that note that MNB made about a giant explosion happening randomly and 'life start[ing] somehow'...WTF?!?!:

-Big Bang - A singularity in multiple dimensions, which contains the entire weight of the universe, suddenly expands in terms of our '4 dimensions'. That single point is the 'center of the universe', and must be a gravitational center to the universe, as otherwise the expansion of the universe wouldn't be slowing down. I wouldn't exactly call this a radical theory.

-'Life started somehow' - There are plenty of theories based around plenty of evidence. I don't see that this is a problem. It could have been due to a reaction of chemicals in the depths of the ocean (perhaps around geothermal 'hotpoints' where we can now see that see life thrives), which caused the chemical bases for dna to form, and thus for life to occur.

[Naryar]

-Big Bang - A singularity in multiple dimensions, which contains the entire weight of the universe, suddenly expands in terms of our '4 dimensions'. That single point is the 'center of the universe', and must be a gravitational center to the universe, as otherwise the expansion of the universe wouldn't be slowing down. I wouldn't exactly call this a radical theory.

Care to explain how the hell a singularity and single point can be multidimensional ?

[Scorpion]

Isn't the 4th dimension time?
Which would make that point even more confusing.

[Urjak]

-Life started somehow' - There are plenty of theories based around plenty of evidence.

I can only think of Abiogenesis. What are the other theories?

[Incredirobotwars]

A singularity has 0 shape dimensions, but can exist in other dimensions, such  as Parallel and Quantum. And yes, Scorp. The Time dimension is usually refered to as the 4th. If it is expanding in this dimension, then time (as we percept it) continues...theoretically. Oh, and the only way to visualise our universe is as a 4-dimensional conventional donut shape. Just thought that would enlighten you to a small extent.