Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[wastepanel]

Fair enough. As long as you recognize that.


Not sure what you're saying. Scientists assume nothing before the Big Bang. After the big bang, well it's still pretty jumbled, but essentially the entire universe compressed very tightly (compared to today). I'm not a physicist, but I can understand the basic concept.

However, the gist of what you are saying is that you think we could theoretically gather enough information about the timeline of the universe to convince you it was not caused by a diety. That's good. You seem to accept that evidence can provide the answers, even if currently, it doesn't.


I think the general argument among those who are knowledgable here is that there was no "physics" before the big bang, operating differently or otherwise. There was nothing at all.


Not exactly. I can see that you are withholding final judgment until there is enough info (assuming there ever could be), but I still don't understand why, in the lack of said info, your default position is that a creator exists. Actually, I probably do understand it (I gave several examples of why someone might believe this) but you've never stated it, so I don't want to make assumptions.

Thank you again Tricky. It's been nice chatting with you this afternoon (and others).

Your first statement read "Scientists assume...". That is the basis of my beliefs. Why is it ok for somebody to assume for me? Can't I assume on my own? Why are scientists allowed to assume, but we are not?

I believe in a creator because the comfort associated, and the fear of death like every human on this planet. I know Christianity is flawed by humans, but the concept of being fair to one another is novel in my opinion. If it's silly, ignorant, etc., that's it's my choice. I'm not fanatical, and I don't live my life to my church's every whim. If everything is proven wrong about Christianity, how would I change my life? I'd still go to work, I'd still wake up the mornings. But I wouldn't change how I treat somebody. I wouldn't be crying in the streets.

 

[Tricky]

Well, you get points for saying that first. Hopefully no one else will, because it would be inaccurate.

I simply don't lie because I have no need to, and because I abhor falsehoods. I hate it when people lie to me, and so I don't do it to them. I don't see why this would be hard to believe.

Perhaps your current position is that all lies are bad. I'm reasonably certain that I could present you a scenario in which you would agree that a lie was the right thing to do. I'm also reasonably certain that you lied at some point in your childhood. I've never met a child who didn't.

It is a nitpicky thing, but it sets my teeth on edge when people make statements containing absolutes. Always.

 

[Belz...]

EDIT: Forgot to finish my thought...

If God was proved to exist, would it fall under "science" and, thus, not be religion? If the Christian God was proven to be true, how would science accept that? If that is the case, yes, science is always correct in dicatating who's right. But because the law of gravity worked long before somebody thought about prooving it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

That's a good question. I suppose it would depend on whether or not there'd be any way to predict God's actions and how we functionned. Otherwise, he'd still be immune to science.

 

[Belz...]

Are you blind, little boy?:

You call that evidence ? It's a statement of opinion.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, cause-and-effect seems to be the rule after the Universe got here but, not before?

First off, your reply is not relevent to the logical fallacy I was pointing out.
Secondly, and I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS "before".

Stop trying to take statements, especially mine, and force them to fit under your assumptions that was something "before".

I do not make any claims to know whether there was something "before" or not, and if there was something "before" I certainly make know claim as to know/theorize/hypothesize what it may be.

If you can not grasp the fact that I, Arkan_Wolfshade, am saying "I don't know" and I am comfortable with that fact then my discussion with you is at an end.

 

[Tricky]

Thank you again Tricky. It's been nice chatting with you this afternoon (and others).

You too. Come back soon.

Your first statement read "Scientists assume...".

Did I say that? Well, I lied. I should have said, "some scientists assume...", or "some scientist think the evidence points to..." Mia culpa.

Can't I assume on my own? Why are scientists allowed to assume, but we are not?

Of course you can. Everyone can and does. The trick to critical thinking is not letting your assumptions rule you. You may not even care about critical thinking (but based on your posts, you are well on the way there) so it is simply a choice. Your reasons for making that choice are your own. I'm always curious to hear people's reasons for believing what they believe, even when they conflict with mine.

I believe in a creator because the comfort associated, and the fear of death like every human on this planet. I know Christianity is flawed by humans, but the concept of being fair to one another is novel in my opinion. If it's silly, ignorant, etc., that's it's my choice. I'm not fanatical, and I don't live my life to my church's every whim. If everything is proven wrong about Christianity, how would I change my life? I'd still go to work, I'd still wake up the mornings. But I wouldn't change how I treat somebody. I wouldn't be crying in the streets.

That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you WP.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps your current position is that all lies are bad. I'm reasonably certain that I could present you a scenario in which you would agree that a lie was the right thing to do. I'm also reasonably certain that you lied at some point in your childhood. I've never met a child who didn't.

It is a nitpicky thing, but it sets my teeth on edge when people make statements containing absolutes. Always.

Always. Ha.

Anyway, as I've said, and hopefully this little derail of mine isn't too invasive, I did lie as a kid. I was just pointing out that, now, I don't lie. And as you and I have both pointed out, there are some situations that may warrant lying.

However, I challenge anyone to find a single person who can point to a single lie uttered by me in the last 20 years.

ETA: And I DO mean LIE, not an honest error or something answered at the top of my head, then corrected. A knowing lie.

 

[wastepanel]

However, I challenge anyone to find a single person who can point to a single lie uttered by me in the last 20 years.

Here we go again, proving and disproving a negative...

 

[Tricky]

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I used to lie when I was a kid. One day, when I was 10, I decided I'd stop that for the above mentionned reasons, and because it never actually brings anything good. So It's become somewhat of a principle. I don't lie.

Of course, if somebody threatens to kill me and my only way out is a lie... sure! But it'll need some mighty damn reason. In fact, I once told my boss that I would not lie to a client, even if he threatened to fire me.

That's more like it. You are a highly principled person who would not lie unless circumstances called for it. I think we can all respect that, though frankly, I will lie every time if my wife asks me the "is my ass fat" question. It is a matter of self-preservation.

 

[Iacchus]

If God was proved to exist, would it fall under "science" and, thus, not be religion? If the Christian God was proven to be true, how would science accept that? If that is the case, yes, science is always correct in dicatating who's right. But because the law of gravity worked long before somebody thought about prooving it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I think part of the problem with proving that God exists, is that there are those who are afraid it might compromise science and, rightfully so.

 

[wastepanel]

I think part of the problem with proving that God exists, is that there are those who are afraid it might compromise science and, rightfully so.

Are you saying that scientists would not disclose this information?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Good, since most of the time I have no idea what YOU are talking about, that goes a ways towards making us even.

But in this case, I'll explain myself. "The Wookie Defense" is from an episode of South Park. It is explained here. It can be summed up thusly

The Chewbacca Defense is a term for any legal strategy or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It is thus a kind of logical fallacy: specifically, a red herring fallacy and non sequitur similar to argumentum ad nauseam.

The term originated in the animated television series South Park. In its typically hyperbolic style, the show satirized attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O.J. Simpson in his murder trial.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you blind, little boy?:

Tricky's post is also an assertion. I asked you for evidence.

 

[Mercutio]

I think part of the problem with proving that God exists, is that there are those who are afraid it might compromise science and, rightfully so.

Who are the "those" you speak of? Seriously, names or titles or anything...

If some scientist managed to prove (or provide good evidence, since "proof" is limited to logic and math) that a god (any god, whether it is God or some other god) actually exists, would be bigger than Einstein, bigger than Copernicus. There are tremendous social and financial reasons to publicize such a finding. Who and what are your alleged pressures against?

 

[uruk]

Whoa dude! So, if anybody else comes along and claims to have had such an experience, does this make them ready for the loony bin? Or, at the very least a liar?

It certainly does not make them a liar, but in the least one should be sure as possible that the experiance is genuine and not due to some other mundane phenomena. You should at least try rule out all other possibilities. If I had an experiance of a religious or a paranormal sort I would try to make sure that I was not hallucinating, or that some less fantastic explination was the case.

In my fourty-some-odd years I have never had any experiance that I could not attribute to some "natural", everyday phenomena.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky's post is also an assertion. I asked you for evidence.

It was an assertion, but it is an assertion that upon expansion, even Belz did not contest. I think we all know that the meaning was that he is as scrupulously honest as he can be, but nobody is perfect.

Really, this isn't very important. Iacchus simply got upset because someone disagreed with him and he accused them of calling him a liar. Let's not let the little mistakener drag us into the mud.

 

[Genesius]

Really, this isn't very important. Iacchus simply got upset because someone disagreed with him and he accused them of calling him a liar. Let's not let the little mistakener drag us into the mud.

Well, not unless it's a mud pit in a seedy little bar with a couple of bikini-clad beauties about to get down 'n' dirty. Then I say we go for it! YEE-HAW!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It was an assertion, but it is an assertion that upon expansion, even Belz did not contest. I think we all know that the meaning was that he is as scrupulously honest as he can be, but nobody is perfect.

Really, this isn't very important. Iacchus simply got upset because someone disagreed with him and he accused them of calling him a liar. Let's not let the little mistakener drag us into the mud.

Of course. However, I think you're being entirely too kind in this instance.

 

[Belz...]

It was an assertion, but it is an assertion that upon expansion, even Belz did not contest. I think we all know that the meaning was that he is as scrupulously honest as he can be, but nobody is perfect.

Except him:

 

[Belz...]

I think part of the problem with proving that God exists, is that there are those who are afraid it might compromise science and, rightfully so.

That's ridiculous. You don't even know WHAT science is all about, Iacchus. It's about understanding how things work, no matter what the answer turns out to be. If, somehow, there's a God involved, then scientists would accept that.