I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything! - Page 21 | General N…
I Believe Jesus is God. Ask Me Anything!
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,399
    • Karma: 1,456
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:01:50 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Uh huh...but then matter did come to exist at a certain point, yes? From which we say time began? So when matter did begin to exist, it must have had a cause, yes? That's the beginning of material causality, yes? But that still leaves the question--what caused that first cause?

    As to your death crunch and infinite loop theories...like you said, none of these can be proven. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. The universe isn't infinitely old, and it sounds as if the Big Crunch has been disavowed. So you can't just list a bunch of theories and say, "it's probably one of these, we just don't know which one." That's not exactly a reasoned standpoint, especially when the theories are demonstrably false.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Well, I was clear that I was just making stuff up. However the creation of the new universe at the death of the old universe would give the appearance of it being a new universe - not infinitely old. And the physics of the big crunch may very well have been plausible in the old universe as it may have operated under a different set of physical laws.

    Wow. It really is easy to just make stuff up when people point out the obvious problems in your argument. Maybe I should have been a Christian after all.

    But as I say my example is of something outside this universe that began causality. And it's not an intelligence. It's not a god.

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."
    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:27:34 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Uh huh...but then matter did come to exist at a certain point, yes? From which we say time began? So when matter did begin to exist, it must have had a cause, yes? That's the beginning of material causality, yes? But that still leaves the question--what caused that first cause?

    As to your death crunch and infinite loop theories...like you said, none of these can be proven. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. The universe isn't infinitely old, and it sounds as if the Big Crunch has been disavowed. So you can't just list a bunch of theories and say, "it's probably one of these, we just don't know which one." That's not exactly a reasoned standpoint, especially when the theories are demonstrably false.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Well, I was clear that I was just making stuff up. However the creation of the new universe at the death of the old universe would give the appearance of it being a new universe - not infinitely old. And the physics of the big crunch may very well have been plausible in the old universe as it may have operated under a different set of physical laws.

    Wow. It really is easy to just make stuff up when people point out the obvious problems in your argument. Maybe I should have been a Christian after all.

    But as I say my example is of something outside this universe that began causality. And it's not an intelligence. It's not a god.

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.
    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules? 

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.
    • Phil-I-P [2035498]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 3,328
    • Karma: 7,567
    • Last Action: 3 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:03:18 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Uh huh...but then matter did come to exist at a certain point, yes? From which we say time began? So when matter did begin to exist, it must have had a cause, yes? That's the beginning of material causality, yes? But that still leaves the question--what caused that first cause?

    As to your death crunch and infinite loop theories...like you said, none of these can be proven. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. The universe isn't infinitely old, and it sounds as if the Big Crunch has been disavowed. So you can't just list a bunch of theories and say, "it's probably one of these, we just don't know which one." That's not exactly a reasoned standpoint, especially when the theories are demonstrably false.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Well, I was clear that I was just making stuff up. However the creation of the new universe at the death of the old universe would give the appearance of it being a new universe - not infinitely old. And the physics of the big crunch may very well have been plausible in the old universe as it may have operated under a different set of physical laws.

    Wow. It really is easy to just make stuff up when people point out the obvious problems in your argument. Maybe I should have been a Christian after all.

    But as I say my example is of something outside this universe that began causality. And it's not an intelligence. It's not a god.

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.
    I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's just saying he doesn't know. What he doesn't know, you're attributing to God. 

    Throughout history, this has always been the case. Something happens that we don't understand, therefore it is some form of higher power. Right until (and usually a little after) we figure out the how using science. People prayed for rain until we discovered that God doesn't make it rain. Giant dung beetles rolled a big ball of fire through the sky. An angry man with a hammer caused thunder and lightning.

    One day we will have more answers to explain the start of the universe, and I have no doubt that it will bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer. God will get the credit (or blame) for these things too until they are answered and bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer... and the cycle continues.

    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:31:40 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Uh huh...but then matter did come to exist at a certain point, yes? From which we say time began? So when matter did begin to exist, it must have had a cause, yes? That's the beginning of material causality, yes? But that still leaves the question--what caused that first cause?

    As to your death crunch and infinite loop theories...like you said, none of these can be proven. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. The universe isn't infinitely old, and it sounds as if the Big Crunch has been disavowed. So you can't just list a bunch of theories and say, "it's probably one of these, we just don't know which one." That's not exactly a reasoned standpoint, especially when the theories are demonstrably false.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Well, I was clear that I was just making stuff up. However the creation of the new universe at the death of the old universe would give the appearance of it being a new universe - not infinitely old. And the physics of the big crunch may very well have been plausible in the old universe as it may have operated under a different set of physical laws.

    Wow. It really is easy to just make stuff up when people point out the obvious problems in your argument. Maybe I should have been a Christian after all.

    But as I say my example is of something outside this universe that began causality. And it's not an intelligence. It's not a god.

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.

    Phil-I-P [2035498]

    I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's just saying he doesn't know. What he doesn't know, you're attributing to God.

    Throughout history, this has always been the case. Something happens that we don't understand, therefore it is some form of higher power. Right until (and usually a little after) we figure out the how using science. People prayed for rain until we discovered that God doesn't make it rain. Giant dung beetles rolled a big ball of fire through the sky. An angry man with a hammer caused thunder and lightning.

    One day we will have more answers to explain the start of the universe, and I have no doubt that it will bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer. God will get the credit (or blame) for these things too until they are answered and bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer... and the cycle continues.
    Science still doesn't answer the root question, which is where do we come from? Where did the universe come from? 

    It used to be a mystery how weather worked, so people said God was responsible for it. Now science explains how God does it--through very comprehensible air and wind patterns. Nothing has changed. God is still necessary to answer for how and why anything exists at all. Even as we learn more and more about the mechanics of it all, we will come back in the end to the original question.
    • Phil-I-P [2035498]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 3,328
    • Karma: 7,567
    • Last Action: 3 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:53:14 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Well, I was clear that I was just making stuff up. However the creation of the new universe at the death of the old universe would give the appearance of it being a new universe - not infinitely old. And the physics of the big crunch may very well have been plausible in the old universe as it may have operated under a different set of physical laws.

    Wow. It really is easy to just make stuff up when people point out the obvious problems in your argument. Maybe I should have been a Christian after all.

    But as I say my example is of something outside this universe that began causality. And it's not an intelligence. It's not a god.

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.

    Phil-I-P [2035498]

    I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's just saying he doesn't know. What he doesn't know, you're attributing to God.

    Throughout history, this has always been the case. Something happens that we don't understand, therefore it is some form of higher power. Right until (and usually a little after) we figure out the how using science. People prayed for rain until we discovered that God doesn't make it rain. Giant dung beetles rolled a big ball of fire through the sky. An angry man with a hammer caused thunder and lightning.

    One day we will have more answers to explain the start of the universe, and I have no doubt that it will bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer. God will get the credit (or blame) for these things too until they are answered and bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer... and the cycle continues.

    Strand [2821241]

    Science still doesn't answer the root question, which is where do we come from? Where did the universe come from?

    It used to be a mystery how weather worked, so people said God was responsible for it. Now science explains how God does it--through very comprehensible air and wind patterns. Nothing has changed. God is still necessary to answer for how and why anything exists at all. Even as we learn more and more about the mechanics of it all, we will come back in the end to the original question.
    I never said science does answer the root question. In fact, I said the opposite. It doesn't answer it yet. But you've already shown your hand. When science eventually does explain where the universe comes from, you are just going to credit the big guy anyway, making discussing any of this with you pointless.

    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 58
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 132
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:57:15 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    But I think that's the issue at hand. The issue isn't not knowing, the issue is defending a point without the desire to want to know or make their own conclusion. 

    Let's take string theory. I do not know and I don't desire to learn it. If someone asked me what is my take on it, I would say "Idk" and that's it because I don't know it, nor do I care to learn it. If I want to learn it, I'll say "idk but explain to me what it is so I can understand". But if I start speaking and defending that string theory makes no sense and it's scientists trying to disprove God, I look like a fool. I have no ground to stand and now I'm just fighting to fight due to whatever defensive.

    From vaguely reading the conversation, one is saying God created and the other is saying idk but it definitely can't be God. There is a defensive approach behind it.

    Now with that being said, since you are for sure that it can't be a God, explain to me why it can't be a God.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:12:50 - 10/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    So to be clear you're making stuff up--"it may have been this, it may have been that, we don't know for sure." But you're strictly opposed to there being a God behind it. Gotcha. You have no leg to stand on when advocating reason, since your stance comes down to "I can make things up to explain things no one will ever have an answer to; furthermore, I won't trust anyone who says they have a real answer to it because I've decided X,Y, and Z are unknowable."

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Please stop being deliberately naïve. It's very clear what I am saying:

    1. No one knows what happened before the existence of time/space.
    2. Using logic to posit what happened before the existence of time is pointless because there was no logic, no causality that existed.
    3. Anyone claiming to know what happened before existence is misguided.

    I don't know you personally. But if you're like the average religious person in the world, you've inherited your religious beliefs from your parents and wider community. Now you are retroactively looking to use scientific rationale and logic to justify your beliefs. Unfortunately scientific rationale and logic are in fact that very things that disprove your beliefs.

    I would find it very hard to believe that there's someone out there who used to be an atheist, read Screwtape or heard the ontological argument or was otherwise logically convinced into theism. It's always a retroactive decision.

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.

    Phil-I-P [2035498]

    I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's just saying he doesn't know. What he doesn't know, you're attributing to God.

    Throughout history, this has always been the case. Something happens that we don't understand, therefore it is some form of higher power. Right until (and usually a little after) we figure out the how using science. People prayed for rain until we discovered that God doesn't make it rain. Giant dung beetles rolled a big ball of fire through the sky. An angry man with a hammer caused thunder and lightning.

    One day we will have more answers to explain the start of the universe, and I have no doubt that it will bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer. God will get the credit (or blame) for these things too until they are answered and bring about more questions that we won't be able to answer... and the cycle continues.

    Strand [2821241]

    Science still doesn't answer the root question, which is where do we come from? Where did the universe come from?

    It used to be a mystery how weather worked, so people said God was responsible for it. Now science explains how God does it--through very comprehensible air and wind patterns. Nothing has changed. God is still necessary to answer for how and why anything exists at all. Even as we learn more and more about the mechanics of it all, we will come back in the end to the original question.

    Phil-I-P [2035498]

    I never said science does answer the root question. In fact, I said the opposite. It doesn't answer it yet. But you've already shown your hand. When science eventually does explain where the universe comes from, you are just going to credit the big guy anyway, making discussing any of this with you pointless.
    The steps I walked Heffe through above show that the material universe must have a immaterial cause. That immaterial cause is called God. Period. Science doesn't deal with the immaterial, so it's not going to give us a real answer in this area; even if science was able to say "this universe was born from the gases of the implosion of the universe before it," that would still leave the question--where did the material of that previous universe come from? You can trace this universe back 15 billion years...and heck, even if we trace prior universes back another 500 trillion, it won't make a difference, because at some point time and material began, and there must have been an immaterial cause at the start of all that.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,399
    • Karma: 1,456
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:11:50 - 12/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.
    Strand, if you're going to deliberately mis-read what I have posted and distort it then you should be aware that a false witness who speaks lies is an abomination unto the Lord.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,399
    • Karma: 1,456
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:17:28 - 12/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    But I think that's the issue at hand. The issue isn't not knowing, the issue is defending a point without the desire to want to know or make their own conclusion.

    Let's take string theory. I do not know and I don't desire to learn it. If someone asked me what is my take on it, I would say "Idk" and that's it because I don't know it, nor do I care to learn it. If I want to learn it, I'll say "idk but explain to me what it is so I can understand". But if I start speaking and defending that string theory makes no sense and it's scientists trying to disprove God, I look like a fool. I have no ground to stand and now I'm just fighting to fight due to whatever defensive.

    From vaguely reading the conversation, one is saying God created and the other is saying idk but it definitely can't be God. There is a defensive approach behind it.

    Now with that being said, since you are for sure that it can't be a God, explain to me why it can't be a God.
    Hi, good point about string theory. I would disagree slightly that science is "trying to disprove god". I would rather say that there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea that there is a god. And further say that people who claim there is a god are doing so without a single shred of quality proof.

    In the classic Russel Bertrand "you can't prove there ISN'T a teapot in the centre of the sun" then you are correct, I cannot prove that a god didn't create the universe. But similarly no one can prove it did. Therefore the ONLY correct answer is "we currently do not know how the universe as we understand it came into being".
    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 58
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 132
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:51:56 - 12/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    But I think that's the issue at hand. The issue isn't not knowing, the issue is defending a point without the desire to want to know or make their own conclusion.

    Let's take string theory. I do not know and I don't desire to learn it. If someone asked me what is my take on it, I would say "Idk" and that's it because I don't know it, nor do I care to learn it. If I want to learn it, I'll say "idk but explain to me what it is so I can understand". But if I start speaking and defending that string theory makes no sense and it's scientists trying to disprove God, I look like a fool. I have no ground to stand and now I'm just fighting to fight due to whatever defensive.

    From vaguely reading the conversation, one is saying God created and the other is saying idk but it definitely can't be God. There is a defensive approach behind it.

    Now with that being said, since you are for sure that it can't be a God, explain to me why it can't be a God.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Hi, good point about string theory. I would disagree slightly that science is "trying to disprove god". I would rather say that there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea that there is a god. And further say that people who claim there is a god are doing so without a single shred of quality proof.

    In the classic Russel Bertrand "you can't prove there ISN'T a teapot in the centre of the sun" then you are correct, I cannot prove that a god didn't create the universe. But similarly no one can prove it did. Therefore the ONLY correct answer is "we currently do not know how the universe as we understand it came into being".
    I disagree too that science is trying to disprove God. That was my hyper-religious guy scenario lol. Now there is a difference between evidence and proof. Proof is it’s 100% true or 100% not true. Evidence is given the data I have at hand, I can make a reasonable conclusion. 


    I can prove that 2+2=4, but I can’t prove that my wife won’t kill me in my sleep. But the evidence in our relationship tells me that she won’t do that. And when you really think about it, trusting in evidence is a form of faith. What we don’t realize is, a majority of our lives are built around evidence or faith than it is on proof. If someone built their life on 100% proof, either they are lying or they are crazy.


    Now can I prove that God exist through science, no. I as a Christian or as a human, can not prove that God exist. However, due to the evidence that we discovered in science, I believe it is more reasonable that a God exist than a God doesn’t.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:39:06 - 12/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Strand [2821241]

    Ok, so now you're deciding not to abide by logic. Thanks for clarifying that. So how does a universe come to be if there are no laws that specify what matter is? No code that dictates which atom is which, and which combination of atoms makes which molecules?

    The claim you seem to be making in your second point is just baffling. How did logic "begin"? How did causality "begin"? It just appeared at the same time as the first matter? But how could the matter be generated without having rules stipulating its birth first?

    Matter exists.
    Matter is not self-creating.
    Therefore, something created matter.
    However, since matter doesn't create itself, something that is non-matter must have created/caused matter.

    Whether you call that non-matter thing "God," "logic," the "rules," the "code"--we're still talking about the same thing. The thing that caused every other thing.

    Also, funny you bring up the Screwtape Letters, a book written by a man who used to be an atheist before becoming one of the most influential Christians of modern times.

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Strand, if you're going to deliberately mis-read what I have posted and distort it then you should be aware that a false witness who speaks lies is an abomination unto the Lord.
    So what did you mean when you said we can't use logic to determine the cause of the universe?

    And way to not ever respond to the meat of my posts.
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,399
    • Karma: 1,456
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:45:56 - 12/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Because, as I clearly stated, we have no idea if causality existed before the beginning of the universe.

    If you are correct and the inciting event of creation has to happen beforehand, then you have to be able to demonstrate that causality existed.

    I mean how can anything be said to "exist" when there's no time, no space, no now to exist in.

    I get these are difficult ideas to wrap your head around.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:00:24 - 13/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Because, as I clearly stated, we have no idea if causality existed before the beginning of the universe.

    If you are correct and the inciting event of creation has to happen beforehand, then you have to be able to demonstrate that causality existed.

    I mean how can anything be said to "exist" when there's no time, no space, no now to exist in.

    I get these are difficult ideas to wrap your head around.
    What an easy get out of jail free card for your position! "Maybe the rules didn't apply before the universe, so that means we can discredit them entirely when we talk about how it came to be!"" Well then, good sir, I tip my hat to you and wish you a very happy stay in the funny papers.
    • Violence [2603171]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 96
    • Posts: 1,356
    • Karma: 781
    • Last Action: 2 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:15:32 - 14/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
    Mark Twain

     

     

     

     

    CHINGADERA [2270005]

    Meh, you're just a buzzword foreigner with zero real experience that doesn't involve a news channel...Mind your business scrub, 
     
    18:04:29 - 13/02/24 You used 15 energy attacking Madgod and mugged them for $28,230 (chain #2037) 
    • Latinobull14 [2881384]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 58
    • Posts: 370
    • Karma: 132
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:29:17 - 14/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Violence [2603171]

    I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
    Mark Twain
    You know, I would disagree with that quote. To claim that you were dead for x amount of years says that you were alive prior. There are things in life that can only exist based on the existence of something else. 

    Shadows exist because of Light shining over an object. If you remove the light, there is no such thing as shadows.

    Sunrise and sunset exist because there is an earth that rotates. Remove the earth's rotation or remove the sun and there won't be any sunset or sunrise.

    To die means to have been alive at one point. If you were never alive, dying isn't possible.

    So unless you are claiming you believe in reincarnation and that you were dead for x period and came back to life and you remember your time between life 1 and life 2, the logic doesn't make sense.

    Now I don't fear death either, but that's because if I keep trusting in God, I'll spend an eternity with him.
    • Strand [2821241]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 400
    • Karma: 254
    • Last Action: 7 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 21:31:31 - 14/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Because, as I clearly stated, we have no idea if causality existed before the beginning of the universe.

    If you are correct and the inciting event of creation has to happen beforehand, then you have to be able to demonstrate that causality existed.

    I mean how can anything be said to "exist" when there's no time, no space, no now to exist in.

    I get these are difficult ideas to wrap your head around.
    As I sit with your arguments, the more I come to realize that you've accidentally answered your own question as to how intellectuals come to believe. 

    You've stated that logic, reason, and causality can't answer how the universe came to be, since at one point there was no causality, logic, etc for the universe to exist in and govern.

    This explains, then, the necessity of faith.
    • Violence [2603171]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 96
    • Posts: 1,356
    • Karma: 781
    • Last Action: 2 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:31:48 - 14/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Violence [2603171]

    I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
    Mark Twain

    Latinobull14 [2881384]

    You know, I would disagree with that quote. To claim that you were dead for x amount of years says that you were alive prior. There are things in life that can only exist based on the existence of something else.

    Shadows exist because of Light shining over an object. If you remove the light, there is no such thing as shadows.

    Sunrise and sunset exist because there is an earth that rotates. Remove the earth's rotation or remove the sun and there won't be any sunset or sunrise.

    To die means to have been alive at one point. If you were never alive, dying isn't possible.

    So unless you are claiming you believe in reincarnation and that you were dead for x period and came back to life and you remember your time between life 1 and life 2, the logic doesn't make sense.

    Now I don't fear death either, but that's because if I keep trusting in God, I'll spend an eternity with him.
    I'm going to quote the great band Autopsy as I find their song speaks directly to my head.

    It's from severed survival album which is the title track about a man starving who lops off bits of himself to eat.

    Anyway, here is the song I meant.


    Dead
    Stiff and cold
    In a box
    To decay
    Dead


    Meaning the meatsack that contained energy is going to release it back into the floating mass of other energies. Perhaps a worm will feast upon my dead flesh.

    I'll be dead. No afterlife, no rebirth, no assention nor decent.
    No pergatory to flay my skin. Just back to being nothing significant whatsoever.


    Life's only certainty.
    Last edited by Violence on 22:32:31 - 14/01/24

     

     

     

     

    CHINGADERA [2270005]

    Meh, you're just a buzzword foreigner with zero real experience that doesn't involve a news channel...Mind your business scrub, 
     
    18:04:29 - 13/02/24 You used 15 energy attacking Madgod and mugged them for $28,230 (chain #2037) 
    • ElHeffe [2564022]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 42
    • Posts: 1,399
    • Karma: 1,456
    • Last Action: 32 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 10:41:39 - 15/01/24 (3 months ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    ElHeffe [2564022]

    Because, as I clearly stated, we have no idea if causality existed before the beginning of the universe.

    If you are correct and the inciting event of creation has to happen beforehand, then you have to be able to demonstrate that causality existed.

    I mean how can anything be said to "exist" when there's no time, no space, no now to exist in.

    I get these are difficult ideas to wrap your head around.

    Strand [2821241]

    As I sit with your arguments, the more I come to realize that you've accidentally answered your own question as to how intellectuals come to believe.

    You've stated that logic, reason, and causality can't answer how the universe came to be, since at one point there was no causality, logic, etc for the universe to exist in and govern.

    This explains, then, the necessity of faith.
    No, it explains the necessity of saying "I don't know the answer". Not in making up fairy stories and then saying "you can't prove me wrong".
Reply
Thread Title: