I'm only putting this for the lol. The ignorance is so astounding that you can only laugh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10
Absolute proof?
Absolut 100 proof can make anyone feel like they've met God, when ingested in sufficient quantities.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/1zggdwo.jpg)
Shout loud enough, and you just may shout away your own quivering remnants of critical thought. The bastard has that down!
Setting up straw men as debate opponents? Makes you feel better at night.
"Part 1". Holy shit, there's more?
The banners at the bottom makes me feel like I'm watching an infomercial. Then I realize, I am.
Most people don't know or don't want to know metaphysics. This is why metaphysical words like "exist" are poorly used and even more poorly understood". It would be like an American football fan, who didn't want to know what a "forward pass" is.
Questions for our Christian trolls (you know who you are):
1. Howcum you never see infomercials for science, atheism, or rational thought? Why doesn't Dawkins need to rely on badvertising to sell his books?
2. Why is it that Christianity relies on such a hard sell, and at this point I'm not talking just the advertising - why the same high-pressure sales of a car dealer, or insurance salesman (sign here and heaven will take care of you, don't get caught in hell)?
3. Why the fear tactics of organized crime racketeers with the threats of eternal hellfire - how can the reality of your likeness to such characters feel right to you?
Kibitzing ... Christians are used religion salesmen. This was long before used cars ... but not before used chariots ;-) Christianity is the kind of Judaism that little old ladies from Pasadena used to drive to the grocery store only on weekends ;-) Islam is more like GTA ;-(
" Proof God exists" would have been enough.. but when you have to state they are "absolute" proofs, that makes me suspicious right off the bat
Quote from: Baruch on November 19, 2015, 07:15:13 PM
Most people don't know or don't want to know metaphysics. This is why metaphysical words like "exist" are poorly used and even more poorly understood".
Just offer them this brief history of philosophy:
(http://i63.tinypic.com/jjvald.jpg)
If you ever wondered what the term "special pleading" meant, look no further.
Behold the poster-child for special pleading.
The entire premise, and all his "proof" is based on fallacies offered in his Buy-Bull.
FAIL.
[insert sad trombone sound here]
Oh the wilful delusion.
I started trying to watch that. I wanted to see this "proof". Spoiler alert, the "proof" is nothing more than, "We don't fully understand this, therefore God!" It boggles the mind how they can simply dismiss all the reality-based evidence for evolution and then go on to call this nonsense "proof". I kept watching waiting for him to introduce some fact, but he never did. Not one. Convoluted argument after convoluted argument without a single "fact" in sight.
I tried watching it, but if quoting a WSJ article is this man's definition of proof, then I have no faith in the rest of the video.
Despite that, there IS absolute proof of the existence of God, and it's incredibly simple: something cannot come from nothing. I've said it before for those of you who actually remember me, but this IS the ultimate proof. Matter simply cannot spontaneously come into existence from nothing. Nothing cannot create anything at all; it has no will, desire, or means. Nothing is nothing, plain and simple. Furthermore, the Law of the Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy can't be created, then how can it possibly exist? This law implicitly states that the existence of the universe is impossible, and therefore only One capable of doing the impossible could've created it: God.
Do you honestly think that a great wad of matter always existed, compacted until it exploded and randomly created such perfect creations as Earth, on which life is sustained by such an extraordinary amalgamation of the elements, an amalgamation that has created economies and landscapes from igloos to skyscrapers, from carpentry to nuclear engineering? Get real, stop fooling yourselves. There IS a God, and His wrath is coming upon us all for our many and grievous sins.
Welcome MilesAbbott!
This should be fun. :popcorn:
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AM
I tried watching it, but if quoting a WSJ article is this man's definition of proof, then I have no faith in the rest of the video.
Despite that, there IS absolute proof of the existence of God, and it's incredibly simple: something cannot come from nothing. I've said it before for those of you who actually remember me, but this IS the ultimate proof. Matter simply cannot spontaneously come into existence from nothing. Nothing cannot create anything at all; it has no will, desire, or means. Nothing is nothing, plain and simple. Furthermore, the Law of the Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy can't be created, then how can it possibly exist? This law implicitly states that the existence of the universe is impossible, and therefore only One capable of doing the impossible could've created it: God.
Do you honestly think that a great wad of matter always existed, compacted until it exploded and randomly created such perfect creations as Earth, on which life is sustained by such an extraordinary amalgamation of the elements, an amalgamation that has created economies and landscapes from igloos to skyscrapers, from carpentry to nuclear engineering? Get real, stop fooling yourselves. There IS a God, and His wrath is coming upon us all for our many and grievous sins.
This is a common and very flawed argument with many problems.
The first problem with the argument is that you must assume that the laws of the universe as we know them are eternal. In Big Bang Theory it is believed that "before" the universe was a singularity. Not surprisingly we have singularities in the universe today, within black holes, and we do not have the slightest understanding of how they might work. It's not surprising because the only way we can come up with to describe a "pre-universe" is based on things we know. There is every chance that this "singularity" is not actually something which relates in the slightest bit to anything we see in the universe today. We don't, and can't know what it was. We can only guess.
Now, the problem with knowing exactly what this thing was is because the math we use to describe the universe, the math that explains how the laws of physics works, breaks down when you get to this singularity. In other words, the laws of physics as we know them do not and can not apply "before" the universe. You can't get something from nothing NOW, but we have no idea how things worked "then".
Another problem is that once you've made the assumption that there must have been a cause you then jump to the conclusion that that cause must have been intelligent, intentional and, specifically, your particular idea of God. None of these things are necessarily true. EVEN IF I accept that the universe has to have a "cause" as you describe it you have no evidence showing that cause was intelligent or intentional and you certainly have no evidence showing it was your particular god.
A final problem with your argument is in the last paragraph, where you relate a sense of wonder for how awesome the world is (and wrongly assume that it's "perfect", which is subjective and largely considered unattainable, though being subjected something with a small number of variables could be considered by some to be "perfect", but when you add a lot of variables, such as all the cumulative variables on an entire planet, the actual likelihood that someone will realistically consider it to be "perfect" becomes statistically impossible) and because things amaze you a higher power is required for this to happen.
You act like the belief the universe could exist without, specifically, your god is a stupid belief, but I disagree. In fact, I find your beliefs to be at odds with the obvious reality. Your god loves every human being more than we can possibly imagine, right? Yet he ordered the deaths of babies. He left instructions for how to treat your slaves, never mentioning how said slaves could be "forgiven" by him, get in his good graces and be worthy of being freed from their slavery. Moses, a very devout follower of God, struck a rock with a rod instead of speaking to it as he was commanded and because of this was denied the chance to ever see the promised land with no chance for forgiveness for this "grievous sin". Your god teaches us that we are all born bad, dirty, unworthy and it's only be worshiping him that we can be made clean and worthy. He is the only good and without him we are worthless. He's an abusive, controlling dick. He's essentially saying, "Baby, you know I love you....but if you ever leave me, I WILL LIGHT YOUR ASS ON FIRE!" That's not love. I'm sorry, but it's just not. That's how a wife-beater acts. It's the opposite of how a loving husband acts. We are required to worship him in all ways, at all times. And in return, what do we get? He "forgives us" for not being perfect, exactly was he made us. If I told my wife that if she only served me faithfully for the rest of her life I would forgive her for the time dinner was 20 minutes late, would that make me a good, loving husband? If I told my kids that if they did exactly as I was told and followed all my rules unfailingly well into old age I would forgive them for the lies they told me when they were 5 (but if they didn't, they would die unforgiven and I would shun them), would that make me a good father?
"We are, therefore God!" is a stupid argument. It isn't an argument with the slightest bit of merit because it's not made to convince me, it's made to reassure you. You already don't think critically about your beliefs, so this argument is perfect to reassure you that you were right all along because it doesn't require any thought on your part, you just have to accept it, which you do readily. But to those of us who do think critically, this is a very poor argument full of holes. You claim everything exists, so your God, specifically, must have created it, therefore proving he exists. But that's a "claim", not a "proof". You can't show "what is" by showing "what can't be". EVEN IF you showed that "something cannot come from nothing" all you've shown is that the opposing belief is wrong. You've taken no steps and made no effort to show that your belief is right. You can't prove to me the sky IS orange by proving it IS NOT purple. You can't prove to me that I AM 60 feet tall by proving I AM NOT 3 feet tall. And you can't prove to me your belief IS right by proving scientific understanding IS NOT right. I'm sorry, but reality simply doesn't work that way.
I hav prufe of GID.
JESUS is LORD saz the BIBBLE. Therefor GOD is GOD.
QUED.
:)
Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 11:16:59 AM
This is a common and very flawed argument with many problems.
The first problem with the argument is that you must assume that the laws of the universe as we know them are eternal. In Big Bang Theory it is believed that "before" the universe was a singularity. Not surprisingly we have singularities in the universe today, within black holes, and we do not have the slightest understanding of how they might work. It's not surprising because the only way we can come up with to describe a "pre-universe" is based on things we know. There is every chance that this "singularity" is not actually something which relates in the slightest bit to anything we see in the universe today. We don't, and can't know what it was. We can only guess.
Now, the problem with knowing exactly what this thing was is because the math we use to describe the universe, the math that explains how the laws of physics works, breaks down when you get to this singularity. In other words, the laws of physics as we know them do not and can not apply "before" the universe. You can't get something from nothing NOW, but we have no idea how things worked "then".
Singularity or no singularity, matter does not spontaneously come into existence. You say that you can only guess - is that supposed to be an argument? It really all comes down to pure logic. Everything must have a source, according to physics or not. To say otherwise is simply preposterous. And if everything must have a source, then the universe must have a source. Eventually, you must come to a source that has the ability to defy logic, to do the impossible. God is the only One capable of doing the impossible. You demand proof as though what I say isn't proof. True, it is not proof as provided by something like the scientific method, but the scientific method was never intended to prove existence. You're applying impossible standards to something that is plainly obvious with applied logic. If you can't see that, well, then the Lord has blinded you:
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 11:16:59 AM
Another problem is that once you've made the assumption that there must have been a cause you then jump to the conclusion that that cause must have been intelligent, intentional and, specifically, your particular idea of God. None of these things are necessarily true. EVEN IF I accept that the universe has to have a "cause" as you describe it you have no evidence showing that cause was intelligent or intentional and you certainly have no evidence showing it was your particular god.
A final problem with your argument is in the last paragraph, where you relate a sense of wonder for how awesome the world is (and wrongly assume that it's "perfect", which is subjective and largely considered unattainable, though being subjected something with a small number of variables could be considered by some to be "perfect", but when you add a lot of variables, such as all the cumulative variables on an entire planet, the actual likelihood that someone will realistically consider it to be "perfect" becomes statistically impossible) and because things amaze you a higher power is required for this to happen.
There are many pieces of evidence that point to the validity of the Bible. Archaeological evidence has validated many events chronicled in it, but there is one piece of evidence that is the most compelling: Jews. Look at the history of this people, and you will see that they are without a doubt unlike any other race that has ever existed. Furthermore, the Scriptures concerning them have all been fulfilled (save the ones that are yet to happen). Twice their destruction and resurrection has been foretold, with perfect accuracy. Look at the miraculous existence of Israel today and try telling me that the God of Abraham is not the one true God.
The world isn't perfect in the traditional meaning of the word, but it is perfect because it is working just as it should, that is, just as God intended it to work. But on a simpler level, if you can't see the magnificent work of God in everything that exists, from grains of sand to microchips, then I don't know what to tell you.
Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 11:16:59 AM
You act like the belief the universe could exist without, specifically, your god is a stupid belief, but I disagree. In fact, I find your beliefs to be at odds with the obvious reality. Your god loves every human being more than we can possibly imagine, right? Yet he ordered the deaths of babies. He left instructions for how to treat your slaves, never mentioning how said slaves could be "forgiven" by him, get in his good graces and be worthy of being freed from their slavery. Moses, a very devout follower of God, struck a rock with a rod instead of speaking to it as he was commanded and because of this was denied the chance to ever see the promised land with no chance for forgiveness for this "grievous sin". Your god teaches us that we are all born bad, dirty, unworthy and it's only be worshiping him that we can be made clean and worthy. He is the only good and without him we are worthless. He's an abusive, controlling dick. He's essentially saying, "Baby, you know I love you....but if you ever leave me, I WILL LIGHT YOUR ASS ON FIRE!" That's not love. I'm sorry, but it's just not. That's how a wife-beater acts. It's the opposite of how a loving husband acts. We are required to worship him in all ways, at all times. And in return, what do we get? He "forgives us" for not being perfect, exactly was he made us. If I told my wife that if she only served me faithfully for the rest of her life I would forgive her for the time dinner was 20 minutes late, would that make me a good, loving husband? If I told my kids that if they did exactly as I was told and followed all my rules unfailingly well into old age I would forgive them for the lies they told me when they were 5 (but if they didn't, they would die unforgiven and I would shun them), would that make me a good father?
"We are, therefore God!" is a stupid argument. It isn't an argument with the slightest bit of merit because it's not made to convince me, it's made to reassure you. You already don't think critically about your beliefs, so this argument is perfect to reassure you that you were right all along because it doesn't require any thought on your part, you just have to accept it, which you do readily. But to those of us who do think critically, this is a very poor argument full of holes. You claim everything exists, so your God, specifically, must have created it, therefore proving he exists. But that's a "claim", not a "proof". You can't show "what is" by showing "what can't be". EVEN IF you showed that "something cannot come from nothing" all you've shown is that the opposing belief is wrong. You've taken no steps and made no effort to show that your belief is right. You can't prove to me the sky IS orange by proving it IS NOT purple. You can't prove to me that I AM 60 feet tall by proving I AM NOT 3 feet tall. And you can't prove to me your belief IS right by proving scientific understanding IS NOT right. I'm sorry, but reality simply doesn't work that way.
I answered the bulk of this in another thread, and will copy and paste it here for your convenience in a moment. But I tell you now that to suggest I've not thought critically about my beliefs is a dumb assumption; you presume that since I believe in God, that I must be a fool of some sort who is simply accepting what he is told like a stupid ox.
Let me assure you, I've done much thinking about God's existence, but His existence isn't something I've accepted; belief in God is always a gift directly from Him. You can't believe in God by choice; you can't be saved by choice; you can't do anything at all unless He determines it. Those Christians who claim to have chosen or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior aren't saved at all; they've made themselves their own saviors. Perhaps the most critical verses in the Bible that people, for whatever reason, seem to hear but not understand:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by
grace you have been saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.…
Yet those in nominal Christendom shout at the top of their lungs: Accept Christ! All the while they are blind to their own desolation. The day of reckoning is coming.
By the way, I don't say these things as a "saved Christian." I am not saved, and there is nothing I can do about it. I wait on the mercy of Jesus Christ and hope for the gift of repentance.
The bit from the other thread:
The usual arguments; if God is good, then why is there so much suffering in the world? The answer is, quite simply, that the occurrence of tidal waves wiping out villages isn't random, it is the wrath of God and judgment upon sinners. How do you know that those who die in catastrophes are innocent? I can tell you right now that they aren't. They are guilty of sin, and the Bible tells us the wages of sin is death.
I will say that the children are an exception, and no doubt their deaths are fully tragic. What does the Bible tell us about the deaths of innocents?
Jeremiah 49:12
And this is what the LORD says: "If the innocent must suffer, how much more must you! You will not go unpunished! You must drink this cup of judgment!
Do not forget that Jesus Christ was innocent, yet He suffered a horrific death willingly. So to say that it is unfair, that God hasn't Himself drank the cup, would be wrong.
Tragic deaths of innocents serve a purpose - what that purpose is depends on the situation, but in those like you their deaths serve to blind you and make you question the existence of God. You assume these deaths are in vain, and your unbelief in the afterlife exacerbates your anger. But if, in the end, these innocents are resurrected and reconciled to God, then does that not change the entire picture?
It's good to remember these verses:
Revelation 21:4-5
"...and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AMsomething cannot come from nothing.
Wrong. (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/) Try again.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AM
...something cannot come from nothing.
There is the possibility that there was always something... ta-da: no absolute proof!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 04, 2015, 12:45:31 PM
Wrong. (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/) Try again.
The article you cited is proof positive of the foolishness of this kind of thinking, and the desperation of trying to come up with an explanation for things we don't understand. I don't claim to be a scientist or even that I can fully grasp what's in the article, but this is NOT something from nothing. Even empty space had to be created in the first place. Empty space has no reason to exist, and did not simply appear. So what if particles seem to "wink" in and out of existence? In and out of existence
of what? Empty space is
not nothing. And even here, there isn't something from nothing; if empty space creates a force, is that force not a thing? Would that thing exist if space itself didn't exist in the first place?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 04, 2015, 12:56:34 PM
There is the possibility that there was always something... ta-da: no absolute proof!
That's just silly. Why would there have always been something? Based on logic, that doesn't wash at all. I will say that in a way the existence of God is illogical, because He shouldn't have always existed - but the thing here is that it is because God is impossible that He is God.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 01:05:59 PM
That's just silly. Why would there have always been something? Based on logic, that doesn't wash at all. I will say that in a way the existence of God is illogical, because He shouldn't have always existed - but the thing here is that it is because God is impossible that He is God.
Wat?!
Quote from: pr126 on December 04, 2015, 01:09:28 PM
Wat?!
Luke 18:27
He replied, "What is impossible for people is possible with God."
You can't think of God in terms of physics or science. God is beyond both, as He created both, including time and space. We can't understand this power, but we can certainly see that it is there (e.g. existence).
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 01:02:00 PMEmpty space is not nothing.
(http://lymediseaseuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
I've dealt with your type many times, and I know you'll never be satisfied with any answer I give. You're more concerned with my position being wrong than your own being right, and it shows. You change your definitions on the fly, and never hold yourself accountable to demands for evidence. Go back to your Christian echo chamber, you would clearly be much happier there.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PM
Singularity or no singularity, matter does not spontaneously come into existence.
It doesn't spontaneously come into existence NOW. We cannot say what things were like before our universe and its laws existed.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMYou say that you can only guess - is that supposed to be an argument?
If I'm not trying to convince you of anything it's not an argument, it's a statement. I know you've been taught otherwise, but "I don't know" is a far superior answer to "You can't prove it's not, therefore..."
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMIt really all comes down to pure logic. Everything must have a source, according to physics or not.
Show me your evidence that, were the laws of physics to not exist, all the laws of physics would apply.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMTo say otherwise is simply preposterous.
Yes, if you're too small-minded to understand that the laws of physics within our universe do not exist "before" our universe, meaning that we have no possible way of knowing what was and was not possible and applying our understanding of this universe to a pre-universe is simply ignorant.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMAnd if everything must have a source, then the universe must have a source. Eventually, you must come to a source that has the ability to defy logic, to do the impossible.
Again, small-minded tripe that you cannot say with any certainty. You are again applying what you know about this universe to a time when this universe did not exist. Also, this pathetic "argument" is just a way of bringing God into the picture. Yes, eventually (by your flawed logic) you must come to a "source" that is able to defy logic...meaning your attempt at arguing your point LOGICALLY is completely flawed because you insist that your argument follow logic (which, by the way, your argument does not, but beside the point) right up UNTIL the point where YOU WANT to remove logic from the argument. Why do you, alone, get to determine when logic no longer applies to the argument? I think the universe was created by a magic unicorn fart. Arguing logical, the universe needs a cause and that cause needs a cause (because a cause MUST ITSELF have a cause), but this idiotic argument goes on forever if you just leave it at that, SO THEN we must do away with logic to get myself out of the infinite regress trap that I, myself, demanded into existence and the only way to do that is, of course, MAGIC! And since I am the one who determined that's the only way out I get to pick the magic that gets us out! That's the rules of logic!!!
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMGod is the only One capable of doing the impossible.
This is a "claim", not a "proof". In other religions other gods are the only ones capable of doing the impossible. That you believe that your god, specifically, is the only true one is your belief, not proof of anything.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMYou demand proof as though what I say isn't proof. True, it is not proof as provided by something like the scientific method, but the scientific method was never intended to prove existence. You're applying impossible standards to something that is plainly obvious with applied logic. If you can't see that, well, then the Lord has blinded you:
I don't even know where to go with that. First you admonish me for asking for proof even though you've provided it (you did not), then you admit you didn't provide anything which would be considered proof by any accepted standard. Look up "special pleading" to see where you went wrong there. And the scientific method was not intended to prove "existence" because "existence" is pretty much a given or we wouldn't "exist" to have come up with the scientific method. That statement was just....weird. The fact that we exist is "plainly obvious". We are, after all, having this conversation as far as I can tell. The notion that your god, specifically, is the creator of everything, that is not "plainly obvious". To be "plainly obvious" would require that, given no special knowledge, we would come to the same conclusion. If you had never heard of your god, never read the Bible, never heard the name "Jesus" mentioned, would you STILL come to the conclusion that your god, specifically, created everything? Certainly not. You wouldn't even know about him. To come to that conclusion requires a whole lot of special knowledge, meaning it cannot be "plainly obvious". And if the Lord has blinded me then he wants me to be blind. Who are you to try to undo what the Lord has done?
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMThere are many pieces of evidence that point to the validity of the Bible. Archaeological evidence has validated many events chronicled in it, but there is one piece of evidence that is the most compelling: Jews. Look at the history of this people, and you will see that they are without a doubt unlike any other race that has ever existed. Furthermore, the Scriptures concerning them have all been fulfilled (save the ones that are yet to happen). Twice their destruction and resurrection has been foretold, with perfect accuracy. Look at the miraculous existence of Israel today and try telling me that the God of Abraham is not the one true God.
I once watched a George Carlin video where, in 20 minutes, he accurately predicted 6 things that came to pass within the 10 years that followed, including Columbine, which I believe happened mere months after. That's a pretty good record. Imagine how good he'd be if we waited 2,000 years.
It is well established that many books in the Bible were added to after the fact to make it appear as if they made some predictions which had come true. Also, Jesus described the rapture as happening during the lifetimes of the apostles, which did not happen.
Many things mentioned in the Bible have, in fact, been confirmed. There were places in there which have been found. There were events in there which have been confirmed. But do you know what's in the Bible that has never been confirmed? Magic. I can pick up a Steven King book and a map and confirm that Maine is a real place. I wouldn't even have to look hard to find a creepy clown because all clowns are creepy (I was at a circus once where I hear 2 clowns standing on the side talking about their balls and it was JUST WRONG!). But I would spend the rest of my life looking for a MAGIC creepy clown.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMThe world isn't perfect in the traditional meaning of the word, but it is perfect because it is working just as it should, that is, just as God intended it to work. But on a simpler level, if you can't see the magnificent work of God in everything that exists, from grains of sand to microchips, then I don't know what to tell you.
This is the perfect example of what is wrong with your entire argument. You have to assume you're right to prove you're right. You say, "...it is working just as it should, that is, the way God intended it to work." Okay, to believe that the world is working just as God intended it to work I have to believe God is real and the creator of all. THEN I look at the whole picture to see if I am correct. Well, the world IS working. Is it working just as God intended? Well, he made it, so it must be. So if the world is working just as God intended it because he made it then that proves that God made the world. It's nonsensical, not "logic" by any stretch of the word.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMI answered the bulk of this in another thread, and will copy and paste it here for your convenience in a moment. But I tell you now that to suggest I've not thought critically about my beliefs is a dumb assumption; you presume that since I believe in God, that I must be a fool of some sort who is simply accepting what he is told like a stupid ox.
No, to assert that you have not thought critically about your beliefs is not an assumption, it's an observation based on your argument. And you are very much simply "asserting" what you believe, even going so far as to admit yourself (see above) that you are not offering any "proof" by the traditional definition. That is because the "proof" you are offering is really nothing more than "assertions".
Here are a few examples of clear exertions:
"Singularity or no singularity, matter does not spontaneously come into existence." - Here you are asserting that it is impossible for matter to be spontaneously created (currently correct based on our observations of the known universe). But there are further implications here. The improper assertion you are making is that because this is true now, this was always true, which you have no way of even knowing, much less proving. For all you know the laws of physics change every billion years like clockwork. There is no possible way you could say with any certainty that, because this is true now, it always was true and always will be.
"God is the only One capable of doing the impossible." - Here you are asserting, not proving that your god is the only one capable of doing "the impossible" while just previously asserting that, without invoking your god there would be an infinite regress of "causes" which would necessitate the existence of, not just any god, but yours, specifically, for which you have given no reason whatsoever.
"The world isn't perfect in the traditional meaning of the word, but it is perfect because it is working just as it should, that is, just as God intended it to work." - Here you are asserting, not proving, that the world is working exactly as your creator intended it to work.
I haven't read the entirety of your response yet, but I'm sure there are many more assertions to be found.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMLet me assure you, I've done much thinking about God's existence, but His existence isn't something I've accepted; belief in God is always a gift directly from Him. You can't believe in God by choice; you can't be saved by choice; you can't do anything at all unless He determines it. Those Christians who claim to have chosen or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior aren't saved at all; they've made themselves their own saviors. Perhaps the most critical verses in the Bible that people, for whatever reason, seem to hear but not understand:
I see you immediately gave me many more assertions. Thank you. And yes, I'm sure you have done much "thinking" about God in the form of "How can I prove I'm right?" thoughts. What you have not done is ANY "critical thinking". I know you believe you have, but if you could see your argument the way I do you would very much know that is not true. There is precisely zero "critical" thought in this argument.
Also, by your argument there sin doesn't exist. It cannot. Sin is doing "bad things" in the eyes of the Lord. But if God determines whether I am "saved" or not for me then when I "sin" I am doing exactly as he intends. If I am doing exactly what God wants me to do then I am doing God's will and, therefore, it cannot be a sin. In this case there is no "punishment" for "sin", it's predetermination. He has already determined who will be "saved" and who will be punished. Those who are not "saved" do not have a choice in the matter, meaning God doesn't really love his creation at all and has no redeemable traits. This is a very odd belief system. Why are you even here? God doesn't want me to listen to you, so he won't let me, so your actions are futile and stupid. This is the strangest belief I've ever heard. How fortunate for you that you, alone, "understand" the Bible like nobody who doesn't hold your beliefs does. The funny thing is, they say the same thing about you.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMYet those in nominal Christendom shout at the top of their lungs: Accept Christ! All the while they are blind to their own desolation. The day of reckoning is coming.
Yeah, I just skip over the Bible quotes. They hold no special meaning for me, so I don't even read them.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMBy the way, I don't say these things as a "saved Christian." I am not saved, and there is nothing I can do about it. I wait on the mercy of Jesus Christ and hope for the gift of repentance.
Okay. I'll just wait and hope, too, doing exactly what God wants me to do in the meantime. How convenient that what God wants me to do is exactly what I want to do.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMThe bit from the other thread:
The usual arguments; if God is good, then why is there so much suffering in the world? The answer is, quite simply, that the occurrence of tidal waves wiping out villages isn't random, it is the wrath of God and judgment upon sinners. How do you know that those who die in catastrophes are innocent? I can tell you right now that they aren't. They are guilty of sin, and the Bible tells us the wages of sin is death.
Stop right there! There can be NO SUCH THING as "sinners" by your beliefs! If God makes them "sin" then they are doing God's will and thus cannot be "sinning". This is how "critical" thought works. You are "critical" of an idea, see if it makes any sense and, if it does not, laugh at it for being a stupid claim.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMI will say that the children are an exception, and no doubt their deaths are fully tragic. What does the Bible tell us about the deaths of innocents?
There's always an exception with your god, isn't there? "Nothing can create something...EXCEPT..."
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMDo not forget that Jesus Christ was innocent, yet He suffered a horrific death willingly. So to say that it is unfair, that God hasn't Himself drank the cup, would be wrong.
Actually, God doing exactly as God wants is not the same as ME doing exactly as God wants. To equate the two is wrong.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMTragic deaths of innocents serve a purpose - what that purpose is depends on the situation, but in those like you their deaths serve to blind you and make you question the existence of God. You assume these deaths are in vain, and your unbelief in the afterlife exacerbates your anger. But if, in the end, these innocents are resurrected and reconciled to God, then does that not change the entire picture?
More assertions, more beliefs, still no "evidence" to back any of it.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:01:12 PMIt's good to remember these verses:
I disagree.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 04, 2015, 01:22:02 PM
(http://lymediseaseuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
I've dealt with your type many times, and I know you'll never be satisfied with any answer I give. You're more concerned with my position being wrong than your own being right, and it shows. You change your definitions on the fly, and never hold yourself accountable to demands for evidence. Go back to your Christian echo chamber, you would clearly be much happier there.
I liked the hell out of that response!
Quotesomething cannot come from nothing.
0 is nothing.
But 0 is the sum of 1 and -1, both of which are something. (Or perhaps something and anti-something.)
So maybe 0 can count as something. Maybe there's no such thing as "nothing".
Still people assert that something cannot come from nothing. On a related note, they also assert there can't be an infinite regression. I'd like to see some evidence of both.
Quote from: Atheon on December 04, 2015, 01:31:51 PM
0 is nothing.
But 0 is the sum of 1 and -1, both of which are something. (Or perhaps something and anti-something.)
So maybe 0 can count as something. Maybe there's no such thing as "nothing".
Still people assert that something cannot come from nothing. On a related note, they also assert there can't be an infinite regression. I'd like to see some evidence of both.
Haven't you read anything he has said? He has clearly given you all the evidence in the form of unfounded, unproven claims! You just cannot see it because God doesn't want you to!
Widdershins, I'm not going to go point by point with you ad naseum. It's too time-consuming and fruitless. I will respond to a couple of things, though.
It doesn't spontaneously come into existence NOW. We cannot say what things were like before our universe and its laws existed.
What a nonsensical argument. You cite a lack of knowledge as knowledge. The Big Bang theory is just a theory, and looking beyond that theory is simply pointless. Just because you say "we cannot say" doesn't prevent us from applying logic that is perfectly reasonable, that is, that something cannot come from nothing. You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because the baby doesn't suit your argument. There is no reason to assume that something could've come from nothing in any context, if we're being reasonable. Again, this is not difficult to grasp: nothing does not create anything, can't, won't, never will and never did, because nothing doesn't DO anything, isn't anything. Logically, you MUST come to a point at which there was simply nothing at all, and for something to come from that is impossible.
It is quite another thing as well to assert that a random explosion of matter and gases resulted in the extraordinary symmetry that is fully evident in creation, but I suppose that's another argument altogether.
Yes, if you're too small-minded to understand that the laws of physics within our universe do not exist "before" our universe, meaning that we have no possible way of knowing what was and was not possible and applying our understanding of this universe to a pre-universe is simply ignorant.
Is it my being small-minded to question the validity of a thing that scientists claim is the way the universe was created, all while they say it is pure theory? And just because they say "we don't know how it was before" I am small-minded for pointing to reasonable logic that explains everything perfectly? It's fine to say "I don't know," but to say that a lack of knowledge completely discounts reasonable logic it quite another thing.
This is a "claim", not a "proof". In other religions other gods are the only ones capable of doing the impossible. That you believe that your god, specifically, is the only true one is your belief, not proof of anything.
Yes, it is certainly a claim. But this is a section entitled "Religion General Discussion," which naturally should include theological claims and arguments. Nonetheless, your requirements for proof are stupendous and entirely unreasonable. From your perspective, if there actually is a God, you think you have the right to demand proof of His existence. Who are you compared to God? It's arrogant presumption.
Okay. I'll just wait and hope, too, doing exactly what God wants me to do in the meantime. How convenient that what God wants me to do is exactly what I want to do.
If you're living in sin, you aren't doing what God wants you to do, but you are doing what He is willing you to do. You must continue in your sins until they have destroyed you, physically or spiritually, and you realize your need for Him fully.
Yes, it is God's will that we sin, but that doesn't negate our responsibility. Why should it? We aren't robots. Why do you think God is going to have mercy on you, as He will have on all men, eventually? Would He be so cruel as to make you a sinner and never fix you? No, that isn't how He works.
Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 01:34:11 PM
Haven't you read anything he has said? He has clearly given you all the evidence in the form of unfounded, unproven claims! You just cannot see it because God doesn't want you to!
Bibble sez so so it must be TRU!
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Blah, blah, blah, I don't get it.
Come back when you understand the meanings of really complicated words like "science", "logic", "assertion", "theory" and "argument". Since you obviously do not understand a thing I've told you and, in fact, do not even seem to understand that the argument "Something cannot come from nothing" by necessity assumed the laws of physics as we know them there is nothing I can teach you. You have no interest in entertaining a point of view which does not wholeheartedly agree with yours, refusing even the slightest attempt to understand. So I won't cast my pearls before the swine, so to speak. IF you decide you would like to have an INTELLIGENT conversation then, by all means, let me know. Until then just assume any time you post something I am responding with something witting pointing out how imbecilic your post was. It will save us both some time.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Widdershins, I'm not going to go point by point with you ad naseum. It's too time-consuming and fruitless. I will respond to a couple of things, though.
It doesn't spontaneously come into existence NOW. We cannot say what things were like before our universe and its laws existed.
What a nonsensical argument. You cite a lack of knowledge as knowledge. The Big Bang theory is just a theory, and looking beyond that theory is simply pointless. Just because you say "we cannot say" doesn't prevent us from applying logic that is perfectly reasonable, that is, that something cannot come from nothing. You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because the baby doesn't suit your argument. There is no reason to assume that something could've come from nothing in any context, if we're being reasonable. Again, this is not difficult to grasp: nothing does not create anything, can't, won't, never will and never did, because nothing doesn't DO anything, isn't anything. Logically, you MUST come to a point at which there was simply nothing at all, and for something to come from that is impossible.
It is quite another thing as well to assert that a random explosion of matter and gases resulted in the extraordinary symmetry that is fully evident in creation, but I suppose that's another argument altogether.
Yes, if you're too small-minded to understand that the laws of physics within our universe do not exist "before" our universe, meaning that we have no possible way of knowing what was and was not possible and applying our understanding of this universe to a pre-universe is simply ignorant.
Is it my being small-minded to question the validity of a thing that scientists claim is the way the universe was created, all while they say it is pure theory? And just because they say "we don't know how it was before" I am small-minded for pointing to reasonable logic that explains everything perfectly? It's fine to say "I don't know," but to say that a lack of knowledge completely discounts reasonable logic it quite another thing.
This is a "claim", not a "proof". In other religions other gods are the only ones capable of doing the impossible. That you believe that your god, specifically, is the only true one is your belief, not proof of anything.
Yes, it is certainly a claim. But this is a section entitled "Religion General Discussion," which naturally should include theological claims and arguments. Nonetheless, your requirements for proof are stupendous and entirely unreasonable. From your perspective, if there actually is a God, you think you have the right to demand proof of His existence. Who are you compared to God? It's arrogant presumption.
Okay. I'll just wait and hope, too, doing exactly what God wants me to do in the meantime. How convenient that what God wants me to do is exactly what I want to do.
If you're living in sin, you aren't doing what God wants you to do, but you are doing what He is willing you to do. You must continue in your sins until they have destroyed you, physically or spiritually, and you realize your need for Him fully.
Yes, it is God's will that we sin, but that doesn't negate our responsibility. Why should it? We aren't robots. Why do you think God is going to have mercy on you, as He will have on all men, eventually? Would He be so cruel as to make you a sinner and never fix you? No, that isn't how He works.
you clearly don't know what a scientific theory from just the word theory is. Go do some research and then come back because the big bang theory isn't just theory. it's based on math and facts not just theorized. And something did come from nothing a pretty big something, the universe. So now you are just coming from ignorance on the fact that science has facts and observable evidence to back it up!
as for whether we are robots or not why don't you go read your precious bible because it pretty clearly shows god interfering with free will and implies that we don't even have free will. It clearly states that god chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn't. And it seems pretty arbitrary considering that he chose paul who was literally hunting down christians and killing them. So actions don't matter.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 02:03:55 PM
Widdershins, I'm not going to go point by point with you ad naseum. It's too time-consuming and fruitless. I will respond to a couple of things, though.
It doesn't spontaneously come into existence NOW. We cannot say what things were like before our universe and its laws existed.
What a nonsensical argument. You cite a lack of knowledge as knowledge. The Big Bang theory is just a theory, and looking beyond that theory is simply pointless. Just because you say "we cannot say" doesn't prevent us from applying logic that is perfectly reasonable, that is, that something cannot come from nothing. You want to throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because the baby doesn't suit your argument. There is no reason to assume that something could've come from nothing in any context, if we're being reasonable. Again, this is not difficult to grasp: nothing does not create anything, can't, won't, never will and never did, because nothing doesn't DO anything, isn't anything. Logically, you MUST come to a point at which there was simply nothing at all, and for something to come from that is impossible.
It is quite another thing as well to assert that a random explosion of matter and gases resulted in the extraordinary symmetry that is fully evident in creation, but I suppose that's another argument altogether.
Yes, if you're too small-minded to understand that the laws of physics within our universe do not exist "before" our universe, meaning that we have no possible way of knowing what was and was not possible and applying our understanding of this universe to a pre-universe is simply ignorant.
Is it my being small-minded to question the validity of a thing that scientists claim is the way the universe was created, all while they say it is pure theory? And just because they say "we don't know how it was before" I am small-minded for pointing to reasonable logic that explains everything perfectly? It's fine to say "I don't know," but to say that a lack of knowledge completely discounts reasonable logic it quite another thing.
This is a "claim", not a "proof". In other religions other gods are the only ones capable of doing the impossible. That you believe that your god, specifically, is the only true one is your belief, not proof of anything.
Yes, it is certainly a claim. But this is a section entitled "Religion General Discussion," which naturally should include theological claims and arguments. Nonetheless, your requirements for proof are stupendous and entirely unreasonable. From your perspective, if there actually is a God, you think you have the right to demand proof of His existence. Who are you compared to God? It's arrogant presumption.
Okay. I'll just wait and hope, too, doing exactly what God wants me to do in the meantime. How convenient that what God wants me to do is exactly what I want to do.
If you're living in sin, you aren't doing what God wants you to do, but you are doing what He is willing you to do. You must continue in your sins until they have destroyed you, physically or spiritually, and you realize your need for Him fully.
Yes, it is God's will that we sin, but that doesn't negate our responsibility. Why should it? We aren't robots. Why do you think God is going to have mercy on you, as He will have on all men, eventually? Would He be so cruel as to make you a sinner and never fix you? No, that isn't how He works.
Interesting that you come in to a primarily atheist site, saying things like we're giving you a "nonsensical argument" when you're trying to convince us something you can't even prove.
Evidence or GTFO. For now, I'm dumping you in purgatory and putting a watch notice on you.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 01:02:00 PM
The article you cited is proof positive of the foolishness of this kind of thinking, and the desperation of trying to come up with an explanation for things we don't understand. I don't claim to be a scientist or even that I can fully grasp what's in the article, but this is NOT something from nothing. Even empty space had to be created in the first place. Empty space has no reason to exist, and did not simply appear. So what if particles seem to "wink" in and out of existence? In and out of existence of what? Empty space is not nothing. And even here, there isn't something from nothing; if empty space creates a force, is that force not a thing? Would that thing exist if space itself didn't exist in the first place?
It's pretty ironic for you to make a comment about desperately trying to come up with an explanation for things we don't understand. Since claiming that it came from god is exactly that!
I wonder if you think we should just go "OH GOD DID IT!" and then never ask another question or search for the answers?
Miles is in purgatory right now. If anyone would like to discuss his brand of bullshit with him, go to that section. If you do not have access to Purgatory and would like to, let me know.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 01:05:59 PM
That's just silly. Why would there have always been something? Based on logic, that doesn't wash at all. I will say that in a way the existence of God is illogical, because He shouldn't have always existed - but the thing here is that it is because God is impossible that He is God.
How far will you go in order to sink in absurdity??!?
Whatever logic you might use to justify that a god always existed can also be used to justify that something always existed. Your so-called "absolute proof" of a god has been totally defeated. It boils down to your unsubstantial leap of faith. You're entitled to believe in God, but not that you have an absolute proof - that's only for stupid fucking assholes. and if the shoe fits, wear it.
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 01:05:59 PM
That's just silly. Why would there have always been something? Based on logic, that doesn't wash at all. I will say that in a way the existence of God is illogical, because He shouldn't have always existed - but the thing here is that it is because God is impossible that He is God.
Why would there have been nothing before there was something? And how is that logical? And how is a God that always existed nothing? That ain't washing either.....
Gerard
Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 04, 2015, 04:02:15 PM
How far will you go in order to sink in absurdity??!?
Whatever logic you might use to justify that a god always existed can also be used to justify that something always existed. Your so-called "absolute proof" of a god has been totally defeated. It boils down to your unsubstantial leap of faith. You're entitled to believe in God, but not that you have an absolute proof - that's only for stupid fucking assholes. and if the shoe fits, wear it.
Sorry, I didn't read your post before I posted mine.... Exactly!
Gerard
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AM
I tried watching it, but if quoting a WSJ article is this man's definition of proof, then I have no faith in the rest of the video.
Despite that, there IS absolute proof of the existence of God, and it's incredibly simple: something cannot come from nothing. I've said it before for those of you who actually remember me, but this IS the ultimate proof. Matter simply cannot spontaneously come into existence from nothing. Nothing cannot create anything at all; it has no will, desire, or means. Nothing is nothing, plain and simple. Furthermore, the Law of the Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy can't be created, then how can it possibly exist? This law implicitly states that the existence of the universe is impossible, and therefore only One capable of doing the impossible could've created it: God.
Do you honestly think that a great wad of matter always existed, compacted until it exploded and randomly created such perfect creations as Earth, on which life is sustained by such an extraordinary amalgamation of the elements, an amalgamation that has created economies and landscapes from igloos to skyscrapers, from carpentry to nuclear engineering? Get real, stop fooling yourselves. There IS a God, and His wrath is coming upon us all for our many and grievous sins.
As others have said, one way or another, the law of conservation of energy is true
within the universe. It may or may not apply
to the universe. Furthermore, quantum fluctuations seem to contradict your statement that "something cannot come from nothing."
Quote from: MilesAbbott on December 04, 2015, 02:03:55 PM...The Big Bang theory is just a theory...
I'm going to borrow from our friend Tim Minchin here:
Try walking out from your second floor balcony and, after you have been discharged from the hospital, come and tell us gravity is "just a theory."
Quote from: Sylar on December 08, 2015, 04:57:15 PM
As others have said, one way or another, the law of conservation of energy is true within the universe. It may or may not apply to the universe. Furthermore, quantum fluctuations seem to contradict your statement that "something cannot come from nothing."
He's gone now, banished to purgatory and presumably left the board. He wasn't at all interested in any form of reality anyway. He only ever accepted any idea which fed his delusions. All others were rejected outright without a single thought. Because really a brain doesn't have room for both idiotic beliefs such as his and thoughts at the same time.
Quote from: Sylar on December 08, 2015, 04:59:21 PM
I'm going to borrow from our friend Tim Minchin here:
Try walking out from your second floor balcony and, after you have been discharged from the hospital, come and tell us gravity is "just a theory."
Yes, that's one of their big guns there. "It's
just a theory." It's pointless to explain to them just how much support there has to be for an idea before it can become "just" a theory, or that there is nothing beyond theory in science. They believe the word has the same meaning in science than it does on TV, "Wild-ass guess".