Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[RedOranje]

Logic neither suggests nor "prove" the existence of any deity, though.

[Cruijf]

Logic neither suggests nor "prove" the existence of any deity, though.

If nothing existed 'before' the Big Bang, what disrupted the equilibrium that is Nothing?

[RedOranje]

Why would "nothing" be at equilibrium?

Perhaps the previous universe shrank to a singularity then immediately began expanding again.

Perhaps our universe came about from some massive event in another, parallel universe as part of the multi-verse?


None of those are any more or less logical than a the theory of God. Nor is the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster grew bored and reached out with his noodly appendage and said "Let there be meatballs."

They're all equally likely and none can currently be selected as logically more likely than the others. None of what you've said is actually based on logic... it's all still relying heavily on huge assumptions that are illogical. So to suggest that your supposed reasoning for God is somehow logical is simply not true.

[Cruijf]

Why would "nothing" be at equilibrium?

Perhaps the previous universe shrank to a singularity then immediately began expanding again.

Where did the previous universe come from?

Perhaps our universe came about from some massive event in another, parallel universe as part of the multi-verse?

Where did the parallel universe come from?

They're all equally likely and none can currently be selected as logically more likely than the others. So to suggest that your supposed reasoning for God is somehow logical is simply not true.

No, God has less logical loopholes.

The scientific concept of Nothing is the balance between negative and positive charges or forces, cancelling each other out and creating nothing.

What changed? Other than an intelligent Being causing our universe to begin its creation, what else could have done it?

[VivaStPauli]

Really? Please share the evidence you have for flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy.

I'm intrigued

I don't have any.
Just like you don't have any evidence for god.

That's my entire point.

[VivaStPauli]

Why would "nothing" be at equilibrium?

Perhaps the previous universe shrank to a singularity then immediately began expanding again.

Where did the previous universe come from?

From the universe before that.
If your god can be infinite, the cycle of expanding and collapsing universes can be as well.

[VivaStPauli]

Viva, I'm not even gonna quote you, because that's too much space to take up for a one line post.

The difference between God and every other fairytale in this universe is that logic suggests the necessity of God. Logic does not however, suggest the necessity or prove the existence of unicorns.

No it doesn't.
And let's say it did: why your god?
Why not the creation myth of the ancient Greek? What makes you so sure the Hindus got it all wrong?

Why's Mohammed legit, and Jesus isn't actually the son of god?

There is no logic to your belief what so ever. You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but let's not pretend it's logical.

[rwo power]

No, God has less logical loopholes.

The scientific concept of Nothing is the balance between negative and positive charges or forces, cancelling each other out and creating nothing.

What changed? Other than an intelligent Being causing our universe to begin its creation, what else could have done it?

As a matter of fact, the idea of some God is a loophole in itself. To create the universe, God would have to be a complex being with conscience and the ability of rational, complex thought. To assume that such a complex being somehow comes into existence from nothingness is more a stretch than the idea there might have been one random fluctuation that took nothingness apart to create a chaotic amorphous mass of all forces and particles which later started to structure themselves due to laws that were created by trial and error (laws that don't support a stable matter/energy structure would have led to barren, empty universes and laws that support stable structures will have led to universe bubbles with structures like particles, stars etc. Our universe bubble is simply the one that happened to support structures that were able to reproduce and obtain consciousness during the evolutionary process and thus we are able to wonder where we came from.).

[Cruijf]

No, God has less logical loopholes.

The scientific concept of Nothing is the balance between negative and positive charges or forces, cancelling each other out and creating nothing.

What changed? Other than an intelligent Being causing our universe to begin its creation, what else could have done it?

As a matter of fact, the idea of some God is a loophole in itself. To create the universe, God would have to be a complex being with conscience and the ability of rational, complex thought. To assume that such a complex being somehow comes into existence from nothingness is more a stretch than the idea there might have been one random fluctuation that took nothingness apart to create a chaotic amorphous mass of all forces and particles which later started to structure themselves due to laws that were created by trial and error (laws that don't support a stable matter/energy structure would have led to barren, empty universes and laws that support stable structures will have led to universe bubbles with structures like particles, stars etc. Our universe bubble is simply the one that happened to support structures that were able to reproduce and obtain consciousness during the evolutionary process and thus we are able to wonder where we came from.).

I'm pretty sure this exact argument came up earlier in the thread but whatever...

You can't use the same argument of 'this universe is too complex to be by chance' against God. Why? Because He is outside this universe and ungoverned by the laws that govern it and everything in it.

[Cruijf]

Viva, I'm not even gonna quote you, because that's too much space to take up for a one line post.

The difference between God and every other fairytale in this universe is that logic suggests the necessity of God. Logic does not however, suggest the necessity or prove the existence of unicorns.

No it doesn't.
And let's say it did: why your god?
Why not the creation myth of the ancient Greek? What makes you so sure the Hindus got it all wrong?

Why's Mohammed legit, and Jesus isn't actually the son of god?

Because I can and have found fallacies and contradictions in every single other Creation myth, but no one, myself or otherwise, has been able ot do that with Islam.

[rwo power]

You can't use the same argument of 'this universe is too complex to be by chance' against God. Why? Because He is outside this universe and ungoverned by the laws that govern it and everything in it.

You see that I can

Why should something complex and conscious that suddenly pops up outside the universe while being ungoverned by the laws that govern the universe be in any way more probable or credible than the universe being a randomly self-created basic structure?

[shinigami99]

You can't use the same argument of 'this universe is too complex to be by chance' against God. Why? Because He is outside this universe and ungoverned by the laws that govern it and everything in it.

You see that I can

Why should something complex and conscious that suddenly pops up outside the universe while being ungoverned by the laws that govern the universe be in any way more probable or credible than the universe being a randomly self-created basic structure?

This x100000

[bazinga]

Why would "nothing" be at equilibrium?

Perhaps the previous universe shrank to a singularity then immediately began expanding again.

Where did the previous universe come from?

Perhaps our universe came about from some massive event in another, parallel universe as part of the multi-verse?

Where did the parallel universe come from?

They're all equally likely and none can currently be selected as logically more likely than the others. So to suggest that your supposed reasoning for God is somehow logical is simply not true.

No, God has less logical loopholes.

The scientific concept of Nothing is the balance between negative and positive charges or forces, cancelling each other out and creating nothing.

What changed? Other than an intelligent Being causing our universe to begin its creation, what else could have done it?

Why don't you address the question of where that intelligent being came from?

I'm sorry, saying "it is ungoverned by our laws" brings up what I've been saying over and over again - just because you cannot explain it right now, doesn't mean it's God.

[VivaStPauli]

Because I can and have found fallacies and contradictions in every single other Creation myth, but no one, myself or otherwise, has been able ot do that with Islam.

Yeah? Disprove Jesus quickly for me please, just so I can make sure this isn'T a misunderstanding.

Because, frankly, I think you're mistaken. We have all given you ample, and serious, evidence of various parts of the Islamic faith being obviously wrong, yet you have brushed that asside with vague pointing towards different interpretations, things being metaphorical - you always interpret your own faith in the most favorable light.

And other religious people do the same thing with their own faith. I'm pretty sure, when you start disproving the bible, the Christian defending it, will sound 90% like you did when defending the Quran earlier in this thread.

"No, that's a metaphor";
"Well, see, what it really means is this"
"What is more logical, the Big Bang, or that Jesus rode a velociraptor?"
etc. etc. - you can't even see your own bias.

[Cruijf]

Because I can and have found fallacies and contradictions in every single other Creation myth, but no one, myself or otherwise, has been able ot do that with Islam.

Yeah? Disprove Jesus quickly for me please, just so I can make sure this isn'T a misunderstanding.

Because, frankly, I think you're mistaken. We have all given you ample, and serious, evidence of various parts of the Islamic faith being obviously wrong, yet you have brushed that asside with vague pointing towards different interpretations, things being metaphorical - you always interpret your own faith in the most favorable light.

And other religious people do the same thing with their own faith. I'm pretty sure, when you start disproving the bible, the Christian defending it, will sound 90% like you did when defending the Quran earlier in this thread.

"No, that's a metaphor";
"Well, see, what it really means is this"
"What is more logical, the Big Bang, or that Jesus rode a velociraptor?"
etc. etc. - you can't even see your own bias.

Jesus was sent down to expiate Mankind's sins?

a) Why does God need to create a son to forgive Mankind? he could just choose to forgive us.
b) Why does he have to die?
c) If all my sins were forgiven, what's the point of life? Send me to Paradise!

Sorry, but you can't compare Islam and other religions. Disproving one religion doesn't equate to disproving them all. I agree with you on many areas regarding other religions, but then you attempt to lump in Islam with them.

When trying to analyse religions, you have to hold each one seperately.

I've heard far too many times in this thread, "There is no difference between Islam and Greek Mythology." And yet when we discuss Islam, you guys don't know the slightest bit about it.

Do your homework.

[Cruijf]

Evolution has a great amount of evidence in it's favour, so sorry dudes but, most likely Adam and Eve never existed and basically the bible and the Kuran are false.

Assertion, yet no evidence. Please elaborate.

[Cruijf]

Why don't you address the question of where that intelligent being came from?

I'm only saying this one more time, and everyone, Rwo, you, Viva, READ THIS POST.

Causation is only applicable to things in this Universe.

I applied the above statement to the origins of this universe by saying it must have a cause. This cause would be infinite and outside this universe, therefore causation would not apply to it.

Not exactly rocket science.

[shinigami99]

Evolution has a great amount of evidence in it's favour, so sorry dudes but, most likely Adam and Eve never existed and basically the bible and the Kuran are false.

Assertion, yet no evidence. Please elaborate.

Why does he have to provide evidence? You are trying to shift the burden of proof of his argument even though it is supposed to be you providing proof for their existence.

Let me say this clearly: The burden of proof is not on the person to disprove any God, or any story in the bible/Quran, but on the religious person to provide evidence that such a thing exists.
While the notion of a God is unfalsifiable, that can be said of a lot of things such as Zeus, Thor, ancient Mayan Gods, flying spaghetti monster, etc. etc.

If you are someone who will believe in something just because it is unfalsifiable, then that is fine, and I'm not going to try to convince you. However, I will let you know that it is a very unscientific way of thinking.

[Cruijf]

Why does he have to provide evidence? You are trying to shift the burden of proof of his argument even though it is supposed to be you providing proof for their existence.

Sorry, but most likely, you're an idiot.

Proof? What is this proof you speak of???

I should get to know you first? Nonsense!

This isn't about the burden of proof. This is about the immature and illogical action of entering a debate, stating an assertion, and then leaving. If you're posting in a debate thread, back up your assertions or it's basically trolling.

[RealGunner]

Let me say this clearly: The burden of proof is not on the person to disprove any God, or any story in the bible/Quran, but on the religious person to provide evidence that such a thing exists.

Wait, so how come every story from the Bible which is supposedly " evil " believed by the atheist like they witnessed the whole thing themselves. But when it is about the Burden of proof. You all come out and ask us to provide evidence for all the events in the holy books ?

[shinigami99]

Sorry, but most likely, you're an idiot.

Ad hominem....Surely you know better?

Proof? What is this proof you speak of???

I should get to know you first? Nonsense!

This isn't about the burden of proof. This is about the immature and illogical action of entering a debate, stating an assertion, and then leaving. If you're posting in a debate thread, back up your assertions or it's basically trolling.

I understand now, I misread what free_cat said, but I read something else. I apologize for that.

He should have given the evidence right there and then. That does not mean I don't agree with him...it's simply that he didn't give his evidence yet.

[rwo power]

@ACMRox

Please do not start calling people names. This will not make your arguments more convincing, rather the contrary as name calling is usually the last resort of a person who ran out of rational arguments.

[rwo power]

Wait, so how come every story from the Bible which is supposedly " evil " believed by the atheist like they witnessed the whole thing themselves. But when it is about the Burden of proof. You all come out and ask us to provide evidence for all the events in the holy book ?

As a matter of fact, these stories are not believed by atheists, they are only used as arguments for theists as (Christian) theists believe in the Bible and obviously rarely in logical conclusions. Consider these somewhat simplified images for the theists to understand more easily.

That is, if theists use fairytale books to point out their claims, it is just sensible to use parts of the same fairytale books to point out their fallacies.

[shinigami99]

Let me say this clearly: The burden of proof is not on the person to disprove any God, or any story in the bible/Quran, but on the religious person to provide evidence that such a thing exists.

Wait, so how come every story from the Bible which is supposedly " evil " believed by the atheist like they witnessed the whole thing themselves. But when it is about the Burden of proof. You all come out and ask us to provide evidence for all the events in the holy book ?

Where did I say I believed anything? I have never called anything evil, I just think that morality originated somewhere else other than the moral values derived from a holy book. You are generalizing atheists based on one or two people.

What many people do is that they "grant" that the stories are real to show how morally questionable some of these stories are. Something like "assuming this was so, this act was bad and not something that modern society will accept"

[Cruijf]

@ACMRox

Please do not start calling people names. This will not make your arguments more convincing, rather the contrary as name calling is usually the last resort of a person who ran out of rational arguments.

Ad hominem....Surely you know better?

You both realize that was part of my point, right? I was not actually calling you an idiot (apologies if you interpreted it that way), I was emphasizing my point about assertions needing evidence.

[bazinga]

Why don't you address the question of where that intelligent being came from?

I'm only saying this one more time, and everyone, Rwo, you, Viva, READ THIS POST.

Causation is only applicable to things in this Universe.

I applied the above statement to the origins of this universe by saying it must have a cause. This cause would be infinite and outside this universe, therefore causation would not apply to it.

Not exactly rocket science.

I disagree, because "outside the universe" is not something that is defined, and giving it the label of "God" is lazy.

[Sponsored content]