Proof of God

[volatile]

Please finish what you were going to say, otherwise, short of reading your mind, I have no way of responding.
Show me how this is an "Argument from Incredulity".
And try to do this without attributing to me something I have not said.

I am incredulous that you did not think your argument incredulous! Billie, I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, but I did quote you directly, making a textbook argument from incredulity.

Argument from incredulity is basically your entire modus operandi here - "I don't know, or understand, therefore [maybe] God." You personally cannot imagine another first cause, therefore you tie yourself in existential knots.

 

[BillyJoe]

...I did quote you directly, making a textbook argument from incredulity.

Argument from incredulity is basically your entire modus operandi here - "I don't know, or understand, therefore [maybe] God." You personally cannot imagine another first cause, therefore you tie yourself in existential knots.

Bu!!$#!+

...I did quote you directly, making a textbook argument from incredulity.

Firstly, I simply asked a question.
Secondly, no one has answered the question yet.
Thirdly, with no answer yet, there is nothing to be incredulous about yet.

"I don't know, or understand, therefore [maybe] God."

Firstly, no one knows or understands the answer.
Secondly, I am not positing god as the answer.
Thirdly, that little word [maybe] destroys your argument in any case.

You personally cannot imagine another first cause

Firstly, what first cause?
Secondly, what first cause can I not imagine being true?
Thirdly, where have I stated that I can not imagine which first cause being true.

BillyJoe: And try to do this without attributing to me something I have not said.

Hmmm...

 

[Belz...]

Wrong, the opposite is true. In simple words, space and time are downright created by matter.

But if you refuse the General Theory of Relativity, well, go ahead...

Herzblut

Source ?

 

[Belz...]

Belz,

I may have one more go, but your arguments are getting more and more....well, there are many adjectives.

Really ? Why don't you simply answer these:

- Why could time not begin at some point but space have existed "prior" to it, or only after ?

- Why do you need quantum fluctuations to arise ? Why can't they be "timeless" ?

 

[Paulhoff]

Darwinism is a farce, I feel sorry for people who believe in the theory of evolution. It's only a theory and a bad one at that!

Oh please, do yourself a big favor, don't feel sorry for people who see thru poor stories of a childish, self center, kiss my butt to death, I may get to your prayers some day, let the children die, some BS plan, work when I feel like it, can't get earth right, all evil must be man's because I just to dam good, I know I made man but I not taking credit for his mistakes, I know they will let me off the hook for anything like cancer in children, earth-quakes etc so-called god.

Like I said before I feel sorry for Mr. Darwin on judgement day boy is he gona get it for misleading so many people. Wake up guys God is there and he isn't mocked!!

Please again, miss christian who thinks that she (being human) is the center of the universe, and has a so-called god that just loves her, to death, but it is that tough kind of love. A christian that just can't get her head around anything that doesn't live up to her narrow mind's idea of how she thinks everything should work. But she will at the same time pound away on a computer keyboard that she doesn't even begin to understand the working off, but dam she just knows everthing about a so-called god.

Paul



Only a childish, self centered, kiss my butt so-called god can't be MOCKED.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oh, goody. Looks like BillyJoe hasn't quit after all. Shall we throw a party?

To be fair, volatile, not all of BillyJoe's arguments are clear-cut arguments from incredulity.

Most of them are clear-cut arguments from ignorance.

 

[Powa]

Darwinism is a farce, I feel sorry for people who believe in the theory of evolution. It's only a theory and a bad one at that!

Fundies invariably have trouble understanding the difference between common usage and scientific usage of the word theory. Here, read this and if you still say "It's only a theory" you're being dumb on purpose.

Oh and can you explain to us why you think the theory of evolution is a bad theory? What are your main objections to it?

 

[Mobyseven]

Really ? Why don't you simply answer these:

- Why could time not begin at some point but space have existed "prior" to it, or only after ?

- Why do you need quantum fluctuations to arise ? Why can't they be "timeless" ?

I should point out, for BJ, that simply saying, "It's self evident," is not an answer.

 

[BillyJoe]

Really ? Why don't you simply answer these:

Okay.

Provided you don't respond with a "no", "wrong", "look it up yourself", or another question.
Please state exactly why you think my answer is wrong, or what you think the correct answer is, and why.

Fair enough?

- Why could time not begin at some point but space have existed "prior" to it...

Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

...or only after?

Because, before space began, time could have existed in exactly zero space.

- Why do you need quantum fluctuations to arise ? Why can't they be "timeless"

I do not require quantum fluctuations to arise.
I have said repeatedly, I require quantum fluctuations to arise IF its something from nothing.
I have repeatedly said that if it is not something from nothing then it must be time without beginning (your "timeless").
Either way there is something to be explained.
And you have steadfastly refused to explain either.


So, now, unless I get answers and not just more inane questions...
...I quit.

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh, goody. Looks like BillyJoe hasn't quit after all. Shall we throw a party?

To be fair, volatile, not all of BillyJoe's arguments are clear-cut arguments from incredulity.

Most of them are clear-cut arguments from ignorance.

I quit you.
Belz looks next.

 

[BillyJoe]

I should point out, for BJ, that simply saying, "It's self evident," is not an answer.

Like "no", "wrong", "look it up", or asking another question IS?

(a smile will have to do, I'm too tired to laugh)

 

[Belz...]

Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

Irrelevant. You have not shown that time is required for anything to exist at all. Therefore the "instant" that exists without time could very well contain space and matter, unless you can show otherwise or point to evidence of it.

Because, before space began, time could have existed in exactly zero space.

Same as above. Why would a dimension require another in order to exist ?

Sorry about the question, but your answer begs it.

I have said repeatedly, I require quantum fluctuations to arise IF its something from nothing.

Again, there was never nothing, so now you don't need them to arise at all. But time did begin to exist with out universe.

I have repeatedly said that if it is not something from nothing then it must be time without beginning (your "timeless").

I think that's a false dichotomy. But I guess we'll have to wait for Herz' evidence about space and time being dependent upon matter/energy.

Fact is, the universe is expanding and there is more space being created all the time, and yet the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, and there is empty space between particles. So how could space be dependent on something that isn't even there is beyond me.

And you have steadfastly refused to explain either.

I have answered, allright. I've asked you why you think that one of them is required, and YOU have stadfastly refused to explain it. You prefer to repeat the same claim over and over.

 

[volatile]

Oh, goody. Looks like BillyJoe hasn't quit after all. Shall we throw a party?

To be fair, volatile, not all of BillyJoe's arguments are clear-cut arguments from incredulity.

Most of them are clear-cut arguments from ignorance.

Well, you're right of course, but the current discussion with Belz is Argument from Incredulity through and through. I just thought it worth mentioning seeing as he claimed "never" to have used an Argument from Incredulity - and persisted in that claim even when I quoted him making one.

I don't think we'll ever make much headway here if he can't even follow his own arguments, let alone other people's.

 

[Belz...]

Herz,

Since you seem completely unable or unwilling to answer my simple question about ethics, I'm going to have to go with my own home-grown definition to answer your question.

Ethics: Rules of conduct.

Okay, so what sciences can help us establish proper ethics ?

"Pretty much all of them" was my answer.

Now of course, you're asking for examples, for some reason, because I gather that you are smart enough to think of them yourself, but are playing the ignorant one because to agree on that point would make you less hostile about the subject as a whole. And who likes to admit to being wrong ?

Of course, it stands to reason that EVERY area of knowledge can lead to ethics. Rules of conduct don't need to have a specific rational cause. I could say that, since I collect DVDs, one needs to handle those disks properly, simply because I place some value upon them. It's somewhat arbitrary, but it does follow from my personal preferences and experience. And since it's possible that someone would inherit those DVDs in the future, I'd rather keep them in good condition, and not just for myself.

Science, like any other activity, preference, area of knowledge or field of interest, can lead to someone adopting rules of conduct. Of course, since science tends to be objective, hopefully the ethics that arise from our scientific knowledge can be understood by all.

For example, we pretty much all agree that pain is a bad thing. We don't like it, so we try to avoid getting too much of it. Biology helps us realise (though we had already guessed) that OTHER people, and indeed a whole lot of animals, experience pain. Of course, if you have no empathy at all this knowledge will have no consequence. But usually, we try to avoid giving pain, as well. Hey, biology can even tell you how to relieve pain.

Now I can already hear you saying "but that just leads to a procedure about what to do." So ? Isn't that what "conduct" is ? A social procedure ?

Anyway. Babbling over. Hopefully I made SOME sense.

For further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

 

[edge]

Fact is, the universe is expanding and there is more space being created all the time, and yet the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, and there is empty space between particles. So how could space be dependent on something that isn't even there is beyond me.

Where do you think that energy comes from?
And then where are the partials going?
There is no time with out motion, what caused things to move?
What's happening to the matter?
Are new universes being created in other dimensions and will time apply there?
And if so how long will that go on? Forever, and there may even be another dimension where God resides separate from this new creation which maybe a chain of universes that are endless, that we can’t even comprehend. Let alone His throne, his seat, and his universe.
If we are the new creation and Gods’ light is the result, where is it going? Is it on its way to bring life to other dimensions?
Is it going to make new universes with different laws call “the string theory”?
Light won't run out but matter will (via black holes in all galaxies) and with out the matter observing time, does it exsist, time?
If it becomes an empty bubble will it burst? Are you willing to move on is the question being asked?
If you are not part of the light then you are part of the darkness.
The way I see it your bubble is going to burst, is that hell or what?

 

[Paulhoff]

How convenient for your so-called god edge, it’s just off in another dimension and all. How convenient for you, no need for you to prove that his exist, just come up with some magical idea that you steal off science without any idea of what the concept really means. I played with the name god, three little letters that explain nothing, teaches nothing and is use to often by some show that they are right. One of the worse ideas humans have ever come up with.

Paul

 

[edge]

One of the worse ideas humans has ever come up with.
You rebel you.
One of the worst Ideas that god came up with may be us, and better than that with you.
The word of god already tells us long before science did that there are at least 6 dimensions.

 

[Paulhoff]

One of the worst Ideas that god came up with may be us, and better than that with you.
The word of god already tells us long before science did that there are at least 6 dimensions.

On the first point, not a very good all-knowing so-called god is it.

On the second point, not in your bible is it.

Paul



chirstian zero, well it is always zero.

 

[patrick767]

Wow, 31 pages? How? I am quite capable of reading at a fairly high level, but come on, the fifth sentence of the first post is this gem:

I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible.

What? Stop trying to sound intellectual and say what you mean. Rough translation of the above: I'm going to post a defense of theism that I think is irrefutable.

It's just not worth parsing this ridiculous phrasing.

 

[Paulhoff]

It's just not worth parsing this ridiculous phrasing.

No, no, you don't get it, you write lots and lots of words, also you try to sound like the bible so no one knows what the hell you said, and they will not admit they don’t.

Paul



The more they say, the less they have to say.