I love the atheists that do the whole let's-mock-an-idea-we-don't-understand comments ( like the comment below from lashingmynuts,or whatever it's name us )!! Ah well, I suppose it shouldn't be any different than the bulk of YouTube atheists that cling to the enlightenment.
wow! Dawkins is an idiot. "something cant come from nothing". of course it can. god came from nothing. he invented himself and created life from nothing. why is Dawkins on this wild goose chase called evolution?!?! all he has to do is read the bible, all the answers are in there. god impregnated "virgin" with himself then sacrificed himself to himself to forgive his creatures for their sins in which he put there himself in the first place. and he doesnt think jesus is lord... come on!!!!!
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
" Thats what the A does for this word before Theism. Both thoughts are a faith."
And i'm sorry, did you REALLY just state that a NON belief takes FAITH. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Just like EVERYONE who doesn't believe in bigfoot has "FAITH" bigfoot isn't real, right?? I mean, I love wacked out theists, but YOU sir, take the cake. The inability to see why "belief with no proof" is faith, and why not believing because of LACK of proof ISN'T faith is just wow, Just WOW....
You're saying that all life can't come from nothing so "Cosmic Force"? Where did this Cosmic Force come from?
NO actually, YOUR the one putting a creating mind being this "cosmic force" and i'm wondering WHY you are.
Again, i don't see why you assert everything i think when i'm VERY clear on what i "believe." The Cosmic Force, or UNIVERSE, as rational people call it, started with the big bang. That's it, nothing else, and we have FACTS to back that up, that's why it's NOT a faith.
@TacoBurgher327 1. it would be a thought if he didn't act upon it and try to get others(the whole world is his goal) to love Atheism like he does.
2. You're may proof of an eternal life force that all of life is a product of and that man IMO righty calls God. You're really here aren't you? Then God is!
"hypocritical" you should try to look at your faith from the outside looking in.
@DeistReality 1. PSH, what a bunch of hypocritical garbage. YOUR on here, trying to persuade people to think like YOU. F off, He's not trying to get people to "love" atheism, he's getting the mindless drones like you to THINK CRITICALLY about a "cosmic force"
2. Actually, no, just because i'm here, DOESN'T mean god is. god is subject to reality, REALITY, however, is subject to the laws of the universe. Take gravity, a universe with no minds to understand gravity, would still have gravity.
@DeistReality HOWEVER, in a universe with no minds to conceive a god, it wouldn't matter if god existed. Ya see the contrast? No minds, no god, or at least no NEED for god. God is subject to us being here to "create" him. We place "god" in the "i don't know's" of the time. Back in the day: sun= god, moon= god, tides= god, stars= god, i mean everything in the history of humanity has been a god, now were on the verge of the greatest discoveries in mankind, and you wanna just say "god dun it" BAHH
@TacoBurgher327 You Atheists sure do get nasty when someone doesn't believe in your no god! Like your name calling makes you right! You answered your own question,and no I don't see the contrast.
"Take gravity, a universe with no minds to understand gravity, would still have gravity." Just because there're no minds to perceive God doesn't mean there isn't God.
"hypocritical garbage" you say there's no God,yet you say that life didn't come from nothing? "Cosmic Force" IMO another word for God.
@DeistReality This "Cosmic Force" (God) must be infinite (because you can't make something from nothing) defying space and what we call time making it metaphysical. Yes the universe is subject to reality and so is God (Cosmic Theory) but when we're dealing with metaphysics we have to sometimes think abstract.
@DeistReality "god is subject to reality, REALITY, however, is subject to the laws of the universe."
And the laws of the universe come from this "Cosmic Force" that for some reason (IMO you're trapped in the Abrahamic concept of what God is,or is not) you can't call God and can't even understand why others call "IT" God. You have a God complex!
@DeistReality Aw, Sorry if calling you out on your bullshit "it would be a thought if he didn't act upon it" was "mean" to you. All Theists DO is act upon "beliefs" Of course, belief, in my opinion, is blindly saying something is real, without one shred of proof. I, however, don't need to fill the "i don't know's" of the world with god. I'm perfectly fine saying we don't know what started the expansion of the universe. You, however, are claiming you KNOW this force. Prove It
@DeistReality and YES, it's frickin annoying that you claim atheism is a "belief", when, AGAIN, by definition, it isn't a belief. Its a non belief. A non belief in the garbage people like you spew to gullible people.
Yes, your a hypocrite, and no, there's nothing hypocritical about saying you can't get something from nothing, and god doesn't exist. I'd argue that, then, by asking what created god? Obviously, you can't get something from nothing, soooo, where did "this force" come from???
@TacoBurgher327 Could you give me just one example of something coming from nothing? You my friend hate in people what you actually are yourself and your faith has blinded you so badly that you can't even see it. You're the one who talks about "thinking critically" about this cosmic force. Is this so called "cosmic force" eternal,or did it just appear from nothing? What created this so called "cosmic force" that we should think critically of?
You're in the same conundrum as any Theist,wake up!
@DeistReality I never said something can come from nothing. YOUR asserting something came from nothing. You get an exception for this "force" that IYO man calls god, psh i don't think so. Where'd this force come from?? YOUR saying something can't come from nothing, so God???
See, the difference between me and you are, you assert EVERYTHING. Things about me, things about the world, and things about reality. I, on the other hand, care about what i think, and what i believe. I look at EVERYTHING,
@DeistReality not just my side, and I suggest you do the same. You keep calling atheism a faith and belief, WHEN IN REALITY, if you just looked up why we don't believe in god, its very simple to understand. Lack of proof, basically. Billions of people claim god in their lives, and some even go into sects, yet no person worship the same god. Why is that?? Why is evolution and the big bang NOT good enough for you?? What good do you think your doing by having people believe in YOU??
@TacoBurgher327 When one hears the word Theism it implies that this "Cosmic Force" plays an active role in ones life,so the lack of this belief would be that this CFdoesn't play an active role in ones life. Thats what the A does for this word before Theism. Both thoughts are a faith.
Now to think that this CF is not real when all of life is here to prove otherwise is a faith as well. You're saying that all life can't come from nothing so "Cosmic Force"? Where did this Cosmic Force come from?
@DeistReality All these faiths,or sects came about because no one really knows what this Cosmic Force really is,but we all have a faith,or what we trust to be true on the matter,including you. Yours seems to be a faith of denial that propagates the CF that is,but isn't like your cohorts. Go to my video on Dawkins,and Flew and see how Dawkins dogs his one time friend just because he changed his mind. You say Cosmic Force,I say God. Now how would you try to understand this CF?
@DeistReality BUT i'd love to ask you a question if you don't mind. You say IYO, god is this "cosmic force" and i would assume you think god CREATED the "forces" and laws correct?? Your answer HAS to be yes, because if god didn't create, or "put into motion" everything, then that ain't god, SO, can god make X not equal X??
@darylghghgh Pretending to be a believer by defaming a non-believer is lame as well as being pretty silly. Being a Christian is about what we do as well as what we say. Non-violence, humility and meekness are a good start.
How are you not realizing that Dawkins made Stein look like a complete an utter fool? Also, you make yourself look like quite the fool with the misspellings in the subtitles.
GOD DIDN'T CREATE ME I CREATED ME!!!!!! I DID!!!!!!. I WAS AN APE SO ONE DAY I DECIDED TO BECOME AN INTELLIGENT HUMAN. THIS IS THE TYPE OF BULLSHIT THAT EVOLUTION TEACHES.
Congrats... for bringing forth NO compelling arguments that have not yet been already refuted... I suggest expanding on what you have been told and finding your own truth. I am sure if you did with an unpredjudice mind... If you did not become athiest, you'd at least not perscribe to a judeo cristian belief...
@HaajjPojken Lol, its comments like these that just make life worth living. Enjoy the knowledge that when you die you will either go to hell or nothing will happen. Logically even a billion years of this life enjoying the greatest imaginable pleasures wouldn't compare to an eternity in heaven. By your own logic, Atheists are the biggest "idiots" that exist
The Haiti earthquake looks to have killed at least 100,000
The Tsunami of 2005 killed close to 250,000
There are thousands of debilitating diseases in the world, many of which cause indescribable pain and suffering to innocent people who pray to God every hour of every day just to ease the suffering
Amputees don't grow new arms and legs.
Why doesn't the deistic God care about these people? Most of them probably prayed to God all the time. If God exists, he's a dick
@Stringprodigy Simple. If God is an infinitely perfect being, anything he creates is an infinite distance away from him. Because if he were to create perfection, it would just be God himself. Therefore "evil" as we call it exists. This applies to our world. As for why people are evil, in the bible there are passages describing free will. For this purpose, God allows humans to do anything they choose, including evil.
@Joeiisp "If God is an infinitely perfect being, anything he creates is an infinite distance away from him"
This presupposes that you know the nature of God. How could you possibly know this? Also, define "infinitely perfect". What are the characteristics of "infinitely perfect?"
"Because if he were to create perfection, it would just be God himself. Therefore "evil" as we call it exists."
There is no logical correlation there whatsoever. Try again.
@Stringprodigy If there is a God, he posses infinite perfection, if you want the entire works on why God, must be singular, perfect in Being, Beauty, Good, and a few others I don't think a youtube comment will allow me to fulfill your desire. the logical correlation is that anything that is that great, it instantly becomes God.
The only illogical part of my argument is that I assumed you had the philosophical backing to understand my argument. Try some C.S Lewis, Anselm or Aquinas
@Joeiisp "The only illogical part of my argument is that I assumed you had the philosophical backing to understand my argument. Try some C.S Lewis, Anselm or Aquinas"
So because I don't agree with your reasoning based on their philosophies, that means I don't have the philosophical backing to understand your argument? LOL OK. That makes no sense, but OK. Philosophical elitism proves nothing.
"If there is a God, he posses infinite perfection."
"So because I don't accept your ideas based on the philosophies, that means I don't have the philosophical backing to understand your argument?" What it means is that, just like someone who does not know the history of any other event, they don't see the trend in the conversation. You don't have to accept it, but in order to move past it you do have to address it.
@Stringprodigy Since when is saying that you are equally correct as I am an elitist attitude. Nitpicking the word fact which is commonly used in our language to describe scientific discover is as baseless as your argument. Your assuming that if God exists he would be in time. A God that sees everything, and knows everything at once, could not possibly be so.
@Joeiisp btw, why is "God" exempt from being caused himself? Also, why do you posit that it was a 'who' that caused the Universe rather than "what'? The old God-of-the-gaps canard...yawn...
@Stringprodigy I am fully aware that the works of Descartes prevent either one of us from knowing if there is a God or not, but Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God. Regardless of what you call him, the fact is that something started everything and the name I use is God
@Joeiisp "Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God. "
If you knew the nature of science, you would now there are no scientific "facts". Proof is for mathematics, not science. If there is required to be a first cause, then what caused God to exist? If you say he always existed, then the Universe must have always existed as well.
@Joeiisp "Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God."
First of all, there are no scientific "facts". If you knew anything about science, you would know this. Proof is for mathematics, not science. Secondly, if God was the first cause, then what caused God to exist? If you say God has always existed, then the Universe must have always existed as well.
@Stringprodigy God could easily be a what, as we cannot even fathom what God truly is. To say that God is exempt from being created is completely logical. The first thing that was is exempt from creation, because nothing was there before it. God is the name given to the first thing to set everything in motion in our 3rd dimension. It is entirely possible that something created our God, but God is the name I choose to give to the one that created all of this.
@Joeiisp "God could easily be a what, as we cannot even fathom what God truly is."
Then why label it "God"? If it is a singularity or quantum flux, would you still call it God?
"The first thing that was is exempt from creation, because nothing was there before it."
Define 'nothing'. Also, how could you know there was nothing before? If that 'first thing' can be exempt from creation, so too can the Universe. You can't just presuppose special rules in place of a lack of knowledge.
Nothing the way I use it, is the lack of anything in our plane of existence. If it was a singularity or a quantum flux, it is still entirely logical to say that something which I choose to call God was the purpose of this flux. To ignore the possibility of this, given the vast amount of knowledge we do not know is just straight up wrong. How can you deny the ability to propose a God.
@Joeiisp you need to do some research into quantum mechanics and cosmology. There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. Quantum field flux is random, and one cannot predict when or where a virtual particle will pop into or out of existence. Given the vast amount of knowledge we do know, it is not necessary to presuppose that a God created the Universe. If you can't even define what God is, then how can you presuppose that it kickstarted the Universe? The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
@Joeiisp There is nothing logical at all in your presupposition. Quantum flux does not require a cause. In fact, an effect can precede a cause at the quantum level. For example,dark matter by actually making space bigger is creating gravitational potential energy, but under QM the act should be simultaneous. So the positive energy exists for a moment before the countering negative energy. Positive and negative energy should create each other, but they don't. No Gawd required, whatever that is.
@Stringprodigy Really. So you can fathom the size of an atom? So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux? A you even serious with me now. And to say that cause and effect can be unlinked, this is true, however only by our understanding of what is linked. Just as you cannot step into the same river twice, you cannot possibly know if on another plane of existence the two were linked. O please, assuming there is no God when natural law exists is just uninformed.
@Joeiisp "So you can fathom the size of an atom? So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux?"
What does me fathoming the size of an atom have to do with fucking anything? What do you mean by "So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux" LMAO. I don't have to fathom anything. These are things that are proven to exist/take place. As I said before, you need to read up on quantum mechanics and cosmology. It is evident you don't have a clue what you're talking about...
@Stringprodigy O please. You just said previously that because you are unable to fathom what God truly is, you cannot presuppose God exists. Like actually, the mer fact you have the audacity to say I have no clue as to what I am talking about instead of actually addressing the subject matter says something.
@Stringprodigy Alright now lets try introducing a new concept. Something created this universe. That something, is most probably out of our dimension (ie. out of time). Is it not entirely possible that a being outside of our own dimension be also outside of our comprehension? Is it not logical to treat a being that created all that is around us with at least curiosity? Like come on. To outright deny the possibility of a central entity from which our universe exists is wrong
@Stringprodigy Like it actually hurts my brain to come to the understanding that some people actually don't think its possible that a being created the universe. We can barely understand the 3 that we live in, yet you still find it impossible to believe that through every one of the possible dimensions that exist, in not one of them exists a being capable of creating what is around you.
@Joeiisp "Like it actually hurts my brain to come to the understanding that some people actually don't think its possible that a being created the universe."
Take 2 Advils and just accept that fact. I do not assert that it is impossible that a being created the Universe, but I'm not going to assert that God-did-it unless there is some supporting evidence that shows that. Even if a being did create the Universe, it doesn't give a crap about us. Why worship an apathetic creator?
@Stringprodigy "Why worship an apathetic creator?" Because if we don't and the bible or any other holy book is right were fucked. The entire argument saying that something created this without any anterior motive, other then to just see what will happen is just as non-nonsensical as any faith you will ever see on this earth. Pick one, or don't. It doesn't really matter with newer faiths anyway. Do good to your fellow man and that should be good enough. Is that really so hard to believe?
@Joeiisp "We can barely understand the 3 that we live in, yet you still find it impossible to believe that through every one of the possible dimensions that exist, in not one of them exists a being capable of creating what is around you."
I don't ground my views in possibilities. Let's see some evidence for extra dimensions existing before we start positing that a supernatural being could exist in them. You said yourself, God exists outside of dimensions, but now you're saying the opposite? LOL
@Stringprodigy Im saying its entirely possible that both could occur. You seem to understand the basic principles of quantum mechanics so, it wouldn't be entirely out of the ordinary for you to believe that it is entirely possible for this to be true. And actually whether you would like to believe it or not you do believe in possibilities. Because just as there is a possibility that God exists, there is also a possibility every truth you hold dear does not exist in the true world
@Joeiisp Just incase the word limit leaves you stumped as to what I mean, the true world is an idea similar to the one employed in the matrix. Your idea of scientific proof being the sole rational that governs anything is just false.
@Joeiisp "Just as you cannot step into the same river twice, you cannot possibly know if on another plane of existence the two were linked. "
This doesn't even make sense! Are you fucking serious? WOW!
"O please, assuming there is no God when natural law exists is just uninformed."
Speaking of uninformed, you assert God exists without any evidence to support that assertion, and you can't even define what "God" is. The natural law argument for the existence of God is a comedy of errors.
@Stringprodigy Really? So you can step into the same river twice? Water flows, therefore it is impossible. Just like atoms of our body and everything else move in and out of this plane of existence, where the go we don't even really know. Learn Sophism and come back when you realize your answers mean nothing. Natural law, yes I will use natural law and why? because if you actually read any of the works of C.S Lewis your errors are dealt with.
@Joeiisp "Really? So you can step into the same river twice? Water flows, therefore it is impossible."
No it isn't. You can easily step into the same river twice, thrice, or hundreds, thousands of times etc etc. If I step into the Amazon river, it is still the Amazon river, no matter how many times I step in or out of it. You never mentioned anything about stepping into the exact same configuration of water molecules. Also, your repeated appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
@Stringprodigy Simply telling you where you can find the rest of my argument instead of writing out the entire works of the many great minds we both base our arguments on is just as illogical as you saying its an appeal to authority. They are reputable sources, which spent the majority of their lives in their field. You might as well say 1+1 = 2 is an appeal to population if your going to call out fallacies like that.
@Joeiisp "Simply telling you where you can find the rest of my argument instead of writing out the entire works of the many great minds we both base our arguments on is just as illogical as you saying its an appeal to authority."
Uh, no. You are wrong. You obviously do not understand what the appeal to authority fallacy is. Also, just because a philosopher has philosophies does not mean we have to accept their philosophies as truths. If we did that then we would all be walking contradictions.
@Stringprodigy All I am saying is my sources are no more fallible then anyone of yours. Not every philosophy is accepted, because new philosophers come along and suppose new things that are more logical then those that proceeded them. That is exactly why you are not a walking contradiction.
@Stringprodigy We are limited in our understanding of the universe and by extension our understanding of God by our senses. Can you really, expect to see the full spectrum of existence through such a poor tool?
@Joeiisp "We are limited in our understanding of the universe and by extension our understanding of God by our senses. Can you really, expect to see the full spectrum of existence through such a poor tool?"
And what is your experience with respect to scientific education and research? It is evident you are not qualified to broadly assess science as a "poor tool". Also, where did I say science has, or claims to have all the answers? Give me 1 reason why a God of the Gaps philosophy is valid.
@Stringprodigy Nobody said science has all the answers, but an educated guess a theory if you will, has been proposed time and time again to bridge a gap in our knowledge. This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close, and thus you are at an impass. Either believe, or with hold verdict. With the knowledge that it is possible for them to be correct is enough evidence to stop any atheists from being so.
@Joeiisp "This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close, and thus you are at an impass. Either believe, or with hold verdict."
I DO suspend a final verdict, as my educational and vocational backgrounds are in science. That is the very nature of science, to always leave the door open a crack, no matter how much supporting evidence we may have. This is a mechanism by which science is able to improve itself. What I will not do is make assertions without supporting evidence,ie Goddidit.
@Stringprodigy But the very act of saying God did not do it begs the question what did, which brings you back to God did it. Unless I've been tripped up by your wording, by my knowledge you have not addressed the ideas of Kant, Hume, and Descartes that make knowing impossible. Therefore asserting without evidence is what we have always done in science and what is being done with God as well. The degree of the assertion is no less in either case
@Joeiisp "But the very act of saying God did not do it begs the question what did, which brings you back to God did it."
No it fucking doesn't. First, you have failed to define what God is, so inserting something you can't define makes ZERO logical sense. The answer to "what did?" can only be God in your own mind, so you are not even open to the possibility that maybe it was a quantum fluctuation or other non supernatural process that kick-started the Universe rather than your undefined God
@Joeiisp ""Why worship an apathetic creator?" Because if we don't and the bible or any other holy book is right were fucked."
You're seriously making an appeal to Pascal's wager? So, you are presuming that an all powerful, all knowing God won't see through your facade to cover your ass? Well, good luck with that. Based on your 'logic', I guess we can at least define your God to be either naive or stupid, or both.
@Stringprodigy Cave allegory, forgive me for using a more modern reference to what I am trying to imply. Scientific proofs hold just as much weight when trying to address something that is unknown. Picking a religious vocation or not, so long as you do good acts for the sake of good acts, the majority of religions are appeased. But were not really talking about religion at this point. The only possible wrong answer as to how the universe started is nothing started it.
@Stringprodigy Please try not to be kept down by your concept of time next time you respond, because whatever created our universe is not limited by that as time had a definite start and has a definite end.
@Joeiisp "Please try not to be kept down by your concept of time next time you respond, because whatever created our universe is not limited by that as time had a definite start and has a definite end."
Nice obfuscation, Joe. You contradicted yourself AND you appealed to Pascal's wager. Not really the hallmarks of a critical thinker, bud. Maybe it's time to admit that you just like arguing for the sake of arguing and you have no real point to make here.
@Stringprodigy Please tell me how telling you that your idea of time (or anyones idea of time) relates to the 4th dimension and above. Pascal's wager is a valid argument though, as it cannot be proven or disproven as fact. But you are correct, I am being vague about my specific religion. I don't affiliate with a church, but I do disagree with the amount of bashing that is being given to Christian thinkers.
@Joeiisp A valid argument -can- be proven or disproven, thusly making it valid. A stalemate goes to the person trying to disprove it because it means there is no evidence of it being valid.
@SocialDissimulation A stalemate is a stalemate. By what logic does a referee come into a debate and declare a victor on merit of who wants to win the most. There is no evidence for either argument if you really want to be difficult. You can't prove that anything exists so why bother arguing?
@Joeiisp So when the prosecution and the defense are deadlocked, they automatically say stay in jail forever until one or the other goes? No, the defense automatically wins because it is the DUTY of the person asserting something is TRUE to prove that it is TRUE. You cannot prove something to be FALSE if it is NEVER proven to be TRUE.
@SocialDissimulation Thats a turn of phrase that can go both ways. Seeing as we are not in a courtroom your analogy does not apply. Especially when we are talking about possibilities, how can you prove a possibility? Commendable, but your trying to synthesize an answer from where as you said there is a deadlock. Unless I am mistaken about something, real life deadlock stays as real life deadlock.
@Joeiisp This is comparable to saying ANY analogy doesn't apply, your attempt at calling a false analogy is admirable, because most faith-based arguments essentially shun logic. You don't prove a possibility, because it's not solid. You can't argue for something that isn't proven.
"I walked on water."
"Prove it."
So, on faith, we should trust you walked on water, and since we can't disprove it, therefore it's proven? Let me guess, we're not in an argument so my analogy doesn't count?
@SocialDissimulation Your bias is pretty obvious. I'm not shunning any logic, I encourage it. The only difference is I acknowledge that a leap of faith is necessary to advance a scientific or any other endeavor. If you keep up with theoretical physicists there is a nothing that is all around us. This "nothing" weighs something but is not matter. Can you really say you know what that nothing is? Is it wrong to give a name to it because it clearly isn't nothing?
@SocialDissimulation I don't argue that God exists, I argue that it is a likely possibility. Just as any theology or theory on how the universe came to be this one is equally valid. The difference between saying things like "I walked on water" and me saying "its possible a conscious being created the universe" are vastly different.
@Joeiisp It's wrong to assert that you have the answer of what that "nothing" is by calling it a silly superstition. You "don't argue that God exists" is almost -laughable- when in the same line you argue that it's a likely possibility. I think there might be out there, but until THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE, THERE IS NOT. Your idea is not, and will never be respected until there is at least SOME credible evidence. And if there were already, we'd all be believers in God.
@SocialDissimulation But there is solid evidence that there is something out there. That something is nothing. Like I don't think you quite understand what I mean by nothing. The absence of matter, dark or regular has mass. This "nothing" has more mass then all matter in the known universe. This, is what they call God. Whether or not you then take that to believe a religion is your choice.
@Joeiisp How do you know it is -God-? We're so lucky Newton's first response to why things were pulled to Earth wasn't GOD, but GRAVITY. Do you understand how stupid it sounds to say: Well, we don't know what ________ is, so let's call it God? There is nothing more unintelligent than that, ignorance isn't a valid claim for God.
@SocialDissimulation Really? So had Newton named gravity God instead of gravity, would it still not be the same force. To say that a name, a simple name, changes what something is sounds a hell of a lot more unintelligent than what I have said. Religion is different from the conceptual understanding of what God is. If you are so opposed to the use of the name God, come up with another name, it makes no difference.
@SocialDissimulation You must not be serious to say that it is ignorant to place a name on something that exists and we have knowledge of. I cant even fathom how you would get so agitated at the name I give for the "nothing" that everything came from. Nothing isn't nothing in the sense that you would take it. Nothing is only nothing from our perspective. Come on. Don't insult my intelligence with your weak argument, it just makes you look worse.
@Joeiisp The problem with naming Gravity God, is that you stop going deeper into studying it once it's called God. You can see a declination in humanity when religion took the reigns of science. There is no discussion of Gravity if it is named God. You insult your own intelligence when you use an ad ignorantiam. Imagine if we just used metaphysical explanations for everything. We would be a very dumb mammal indeed. Your lack of understanding leaves you in no place to question my intellect.
@SocialDissimulation Nobody questioned your intellect. I was simply saying don't insult my intellect because you said I was unintelligent lol. In addition, calling something by a name does not necessarily mean that the study of that thing has stopped. The idea that simply calling something God negates any scientific process in relation to it is null and void, when considering there are theist chaos theorists and theist theoretical physicists.
@Joeiisp "Does not necessarily mean..." I'm afraid it does. It stops all questions from being asked. "Why did that tree fall?" "God did it." "Why does the wind blow?" "God blew it." "Why does the sun rise?" "God jacked it." Religion is the -very- antithesis progress, especially intellectual progress. If you get your facts on the origins of existence from Genesis, then I'm afraid I cannot help but question your sanity.
@SocialDissimulation O please. Read what I've said earlier in this very comment section about the literal interpretation of the bible. Like really? You want to move from questioning intellect, to questioning sanity, yet you have neither the intellect nor deductive power to assume that someone who follows modern science would hold the bible as 100% fact. The bible like all holy books, are the basis for their specific religions. I adhere to none. Nice try at discrediting me.
@SocialDissimulation When I say it does not necessarily mean, that it would stop questions, I mean the curiosity to find out God's nature is great enough to have caused reformation thought and the enlightenment to occur. Theists were fundamental in both and are fundamental in the advancement of our position today. Can you really say a theist has any less motivation to find out about the world around him? Especially if he/she believes that will lead them to heaven?
@Joeiisp You can -directly- see where scientists believed in God and how we went into the dark ages. The Muslims are in the same world right now. I remember when I asked Priests when I was young and foolish (6, 7) as to why the wind blew, God did it. Why do dogs bark? God commanded it. The problem is, this condescending "you won't understand" outlook from preachers and priests alike doesn't disappear. And frankly, people are stupid and easily led down the wrong path.
@SocialDissimulation Ok, so lets say that we tell people exactly what we know, everything as it comes out. For example, the works of Descartes. The result of this, ended up in the weakening of the Catholic church, and a series of religious wars fueled by new philosophical truth. If that is your argument, that we must tell everyone exactly what science tells us, with full disclosure, you can see where that is false.
@Stringprodigy Out of the several points I have made here, I guess my main goal is to further mine and your understanding of theological concepts. Regardless of what you may think of my ideas, surely you will acknowledge that in the process of clearing up what you would call misconception, your thoughts have been tested.
@Joeiisp "I guess my main goal is to further mine and your understanding of theological concepts."
I understand theological concepts just fine. I reject them because they aren't reasonable or logical and they lack evidence. No philosophy background required.
"Regardless of what you may think of my ideas, surely you will acknowledge that in the process of clearing up what you would call misconception, your thoughts have been tested."
@Joeiisp you bring up the idea of knowing being impossible... either you agree with this premise and don't have a leg to stand on when you claim that "something" had to create the cosmos OR you disagree with it and are trying to set up a strawman.
@jiggymonkey Begging the question. Your implying that a cave allegory scenario for this world is impossible. Whether it is or isn't can never be known. I'm not setting up anything, just confirming what is already common knowledge, that any argument to say that religion is all fairy tails and not true doesn't make sense either. I claim the possibility of a being creating everything. Can you really argue that it is not a possibility?
@Joeiisp no I can't argue that it's not possible, because you can't disprove something that you have no evidence for. Can you prove that dragons never existed? or unicorns? How about gnomes? or the Tooth Fairy? or the Boogeyman? or the Mothman? or that Elvis is still alive?
Living my life as if these things were real would be ridiculous. But if they had a dusty old book saying they were real, then I'm supposed to believe in them?
No you don't have to believe in the bible as not even Christians believe half the parables and stories in it. The bible is not a literal book, and is not the only source of Christian literature. However, to assume that there is no basis in fact in anything they say is faulty. Christianity in the bible speaks of only good works to get to their heaven. Can you honestly tell me something is wrong with that?
@Joeiisp Give me an example of a bit of the bible that should be construed as fact or truth. Besides historical figures, geographical landmarks, or natural law. And yes I do find something VERY wrong with it when the pursuit of said heaven intrudes on the well-being of others (read: all forms of life).
@jiggymonkey ... So your trying to tell me that I can't say that anyone from the bible historically existed, or geographical landmarks or use natural law to prove the possibility of the existence of a God. Well thats quite simple really. Prove their is no possibility. If there is even a 1% chance of infinite happiness after death, so long as you full heartedly believe your life choices will take you there seems like a good deal to me. But alas your trying to pin me to Christianity, and i am not.
@Joeiisp I'm limiting you because god existing should be independent of those three groups. You are asking me to disprove something that noone has evidence for. I asked you to give me an example that we can confirm is true that comes from the bible
And I'm not pinning you to anything, I'm simply using christianity as a medium to argue with, only because it seems we are both familiar with it. But you ARE defending them very diligently.
@jiggymonkey For the bad that Christianity has done to this world, you cannot deny the good that is has done to the mental health of the majority of the world. Being a theist and claiming unknowable knowledge gives people a reason to live and a justification to live above law. Both of these things we should all strive for. To do what is right, regardless of consequence is an easy way to live life. Nowhere does Jesus say you have to do anything but believe and do good things.
@Joeiisp im not impugning the people, i'm impugning the system, i'm impugning the tenets, i'm impugning the spread of distrust in one's own perception of reality. Individuals do good, individuals find morality. Religion causes the problems. And claiming unknowable knowledge is simply a lie.
And "justification to live above the law"? granted, the legal systems of the world are far from perfect, but they are there to protect individuals as best they can. I think maybe you misspoke there.
@jiggymonkey When did I ever say that I am a thiest. You can't prove or disprove aspects of what created this universe down to its core level. At some point, there is a thing that did create. To label me a Christian for reading the bible is false. I've read the bible and do believe that just as Roman records show a man named Jesus did exist. Whether or not he did what those records say is heresay, but the same can be said for any experiment you speak of but haven't done.
@Joeiisp oh boy, here we go. First, sorry for implying you're a theist. I'll venture to say you're in fact an agnostic who majored in philosophy. Regardless, my motive was show your defense of religion is flawed, not to label you. Second, the word "create" implies intelligence, a motive, a plot, which further implies a creator (insert your favorite supernatural power here). Third, I only know of one extraneous record that spoke of "the Christ" whose authenticity is debated. Third...
@Joeiisp Third, EVERY experiment i speak of is falsifiable, testable, and from a credible source. Yeah i haven't done them, mainly because I can't afford a particle accelerator.
@jiggymonkey " therefore you must concede that you also cannot know for certain that the bible is true, in turn, that god is real." Thats the point. Your idea that science and a personal understanding of what God is, are different. Call God what you will, I don't really care, but to say that someone or something did not create the universe and that the possibility that these people are incorrect is false. The only possibility that is false is that it came from nothing.
@Joeiisp first, I just noticed this and I doubt you mistook my meaning, but just to make sure, I meant "...in turn, you cannot know that god is real"
second, I don't ascribe (nor do my peers) ANY level of intelligence to what caused the cosmos to result in the configuration we see it in, because as the theories stand, there is no need for an intelligence to do it. And you say "that these people are incorrect is false" Ergo, it is true that they are not incorrect.
@Joeiisp "This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close"
So that means it never will, just because to you it seems like it never will? Huh? All you are doing is speculating and then inserting God where any lack of understanding exists, which is incredibly illogical and arrogant.
"With the knowledge that it is possible for them to be correct is enough evidence to stop any atheists from being so."
What? Could you translate this into something coherent? Thanks!
No, I won't. please don't use the colloquial definition of the word "theory" in place of the definition of a scientific theory because it's wrong. a scientific theory is not an "educated guess" an educated guess is called a hypothesis.
@Joeiisp "we cannot even fathom what God truly is."
Bingo! Therefore, you can't presuppose God exists if you can't even define what God is. To say otherwise is utter logical incoherency. Are you ever going to grasp this point?
Life did not begin until billions of years after the Big Bang. If there was a deistic God, then why did he wait so long to create us? Why would he remain stagnant for billions of years doing nothing but twiddling his holy thumbs? Is he a little slow in the head? How can you be certain there is just one God? Why not 2 Gods, or 3, or even hundreds, or thousands of Gods? If there is a deistic God or Gods, they would not care about us, otherwise there would not be any misery in the world.
Actually, the unicorn analogy works for both. Just as most people lack a belief in unicorns due to 1.the fact that it's a man made fairy tale creature and 2. that there is no supporting evidence for their existence, people lack belief in a deistic God for the same reasons. Also, in your list of choices, you forgot: The starting point of all life is abiogenesis. Might want to look into that. Finally, the starting point of all life is vastly different than the starting point of the Universe.
Yourself my friend. That's all you need to prove the reality of Deism (God). Look in the mirror,and say I did not make myself.
That's absurd. Again, you simply assume that God exists because your mind cannot come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Many thousands of other minds have come up with a much more logical answer,because these other minds have knowledge of the natural world that your mind lacks. Can't help but feel you are jealous of those with a post secondary education
Assertions do not offer any truths, DR. You can make these crazy assertions all day, but since you have no evidence to back them up. then why would any rational minded person just assume that they are true? When OJ said "I didn't do it!", according to your way of thinking, we should have just believed him. Whenever any criminal says "I didn't do it!", according to your way of thinking, well, they must be making a true assertion. Right? You are too much and your mind is full of thick cobwebs
All scientific principles come from God including quantum mechanics - assertion
God does the creating.. - assertion
Science does the figuring it all out making the scientist the true prophets of God. - insane statement, and not surprisingly, another baseless assertion
Can you see how this line of thinking would do far better eliminating the dangerous faiths of the world including your faith of Atheism? - Atheism is not a faith. Is it a faith to not believe in unicorns? Think about it
That's not evidence. Their writings do not constitute evidence for a deity, they constitute outdated, simplistic philosophical postulations. Science has advanced so much since that time that to assert the existence of a deist God in today's day and age is a silly position that only makes you look the fool in any academic circle, or in any circle of rational minded, logically bound freethinkers. In Paine's time, God was inserted where a gap in knowledge existed, but that gap has been filled.
You obviously have no clue what intellectual dishonesty is. That you are claiming I am being intellectually dishonest is beyond laughable. Your entire catalog of posts is an egregious comedy of errors. You should really try to gain an understanding of science before you so readily dismiss it. That would at least be intellectually honest, although I don't expect you to follow through. You won't even address the specific points in my posts showing that your position is completely illogical
..and get over yourself. There's a reason why your family has ostracized you, and I'm beginning to think that maybe the best course of action is to seek some professional help for your obvious problems. You are not convincing anyone. Bye, and good luck with life.
...behind our natural world, then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to assume that a God exists. The position of asserting God exists until proven otherwise is entirely irrational and illogical. Do yourself a favour and do some research. You are the epitomy of someone who is being willfully ignorant in the face of logic and reason, and your labeling of atheists as adeists is so obviously part of an agenda to irritate people. Just because you say so, doesn't mean it is. Time to step off the soapbox
You are the ONLY person referring to atheists as adeists. Don't you find that a bit odd that Nobody supports your wacky God theories and mindless arbitrary labeling people as adeists due to your own lack of understanding? You are not saying anything profound or even remotely compelling. What compelling evidence do you have for a non Abrahamic God existing? You look at things in a very superficial manner and if you at least tried to do some intellectually honest research about the science....
My compelling evidence that God is is the same that Antony Flew had before he moved on. Same as Thomas Paine had. I have the same evidence that Mr Dawkins has with the theory of his "IT" that he doesn't know about yet he knows that his life is because of it. You could use some home work as well I think. Maybe your science is off.
I wrote you a note,but it seems you have to be a friend of yours to receive it. You keep going,and coming back to comment more, what's up with that?
Tell me, DR, what homework do I need to do, exactly? What specific sources can you direct me to that offer up a conclusive answer as to who and what a deist God is? I mean, credible sources not outdated like Paine and Flew, not a source where God is inserted where a gap in knowledge exists. I'm talking about concrete evidence here. Philosophical arguments don't amount to much in the face of evidence, DR.
Yourself my friend. That's all you need to prove the reality of Deism (God). Look in the mirror,and say I did not make myself. Then contemplate that thought to the very end,and you'll find that there is no end. Then to confirm this fact look at the only other option, "Nothing". Is it more plausible to believe in a Infinite force that we're a product of,or do we come from absolutely nothing as the word now implies. Either way we're talking metaphysics. We come from something, I call it God.
Just because you stand there slack jawed in wonder at the aesthetic beauty of life and nature, that does not make your assumptions of a deist God existing true. As I CLEARLY explained to you, I am not an adeist. What part of that do you not understand? You don't KNOW God exists. You assert God exists because your simple mind cannot grasp any more complex explanations than "God did it". You are incredibly close minded and you obviously haven't read or thought about one thing I've said
Wow you didn't even read my responses to you....The reason I don't ACCEPT life and nature as being evidence for God is because we have so much evidence showing that life and nature came about without the assistance of God. You have ZERO evidence for God, and you insert God for gaps in knowledge. Science has accepted quantum theory because quantum theory has been tested and observed. There is evidence for quantum theory, yet ZERO evidence for God.
All scientific principles come from God including quantum mechanics,so when you study such principles if they are indeed true then your studying God first hand. Man did not invent these principles, he only discovered them,and then named them. God does the creating. Science does the figuring it all out making the scientist the true prophets of God.
Can you see how this line of thinking would do far better eliminating the dangerous faiths of the world including your faith of Atheism?
Regarding labels - "Willfully ignorant" and "intellectually dishonest" are behavioral characteristics you've exhibited, rather than labels I've assigned to you. As a shining example of your shameless dishonesty, Krauss did not say anything close to "..one could go either way, Deist or Adeist." At the time you quoted, he was paraphrasing the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaitre, who didn't say anything even remotely resembling validation for a deist or adeist position. OK, now I'm done.
I'll let others comment if Mr Krauss said that you could take it anyway you want (around 11:35 "A Universe from nothing by lawrence Krauss" Richard Dawkins YouTube channel),or if he was still quoting Mr Lemaitre. Its clear Mr Krauss is on the Atheist (Adeist) end,or that God need not be relevant for the big bang,or life.
I'm not being dishonest my Adeist brother, that's what I'm really hearing,and seeing the man say. I don't think your being "dishonest". I think you have selective hearing.
You are simply making blind assertions. Cause and effect is a fact of science outside of the subatomic, yes, but what you assert is God as this cause, I say is much more likely to be quantum flux. You really should try to gain an understanding of the subatomic world and quantum mechanics before you presumptively assume that "God did it." Subatomic particles are not subject to the same laws of science that include such things as the law of cause and effect. This is basic stuff, DeistReality.
There's nothing blind about the law of "cause,and effect" ,(it is a law because its never failed us in scientific matters) and there's been nothing in science to prove that "Nothing" can make something like a magician who makes things appear out of thin air.
You're skating here like the evangelical who must prove their god that isn't when you mess with causality like this. You're getting into these very intelligent Atheist scientists faith,or theories,and leaving the divine gift of reason IMO.
@DeistReality, firstly, the law of cause and effect does not affect subatomic particles. This is not a theory or a hypothesis. This is a fact. You really should educate yourself in science before making unsubstantiated assertions about science, DR. I'm skating like blah blah blah? What? Metaphor fail! Your last paragraph is so logically incoherent, I don't even know where to begin. I'll let it stand as a great example of willful ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy corrupting the mind.
Stingprodigy how are subatomic particles made,or where do they come from. If cause,and effect doesn't affect subatomic particles then your saying that they always were,and probably will always be?
You're saying conscious,intelligent life comes from unconscious,unintelligent life?
I realize that active Adeists like yourself believe this,but why should I believe it with the same conviction?
What Force moves these particles to do what they do,or do they just do it because they do it?
@DeistReality, firstly I am not an adeist, and it is not your place to label me with respect to my beliefs as you know nothing about me. As far as subatomic particles go, I would suggest you buy some introductory books on physics and quantum mechanics. I don't think you really watched the Lawrence Krauss video based on your reply in the other vid. That, or you have selective hearing. Anyways, I'm not interested in debating with the willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. /FIN
Its ok for you the Adeist to label me a "willfully ignorant,and intellectually dishonest" ,when you know nothing about me right? Your stance has been that there is no God, so if a Deist is one who believes in God then the opposite of a Deist would be Adeist.
I did watch the vid your talking about,and Mr Krauss truly does inspire. See 11:45 where he says that one could go either way," Deist,or Adeist."
If "Nothing" is indeed where we come from then we need to redefine the word nothing,right?
Ever think that you may have "selective hearing",and that you only take in thoughts that go against the God concept? Know that I do thank you for taking the time with me. I know how frustrating it can be when we feel people aren't really looking for the truth of things.
You've shown me much,and your ideas will send me down other lines of thought.
Physics,quantum mechanics I don't think I'll every really grasp like Mr. Krauss here,but I'll try when the time permits. Peace.
The difference between you and I is that you make positive assertions of a deist God existing without any evidence to back up your claims. I don't make any assertions about a deist God existing or not. I simply lack a belief in this God, the same way I lack belief in unicorns, fairies, and giant lizard people due to a complete lack of evidence If I were an adeist, that would require me to make assertions about the existence or non-existence of a non-Abrahamic God, which is illogical (cont'd)
especially considering that there is absolutely no frame of reference with which to define this God, or this "IT" or whatever you want to call it. Does this God care about us or is he apathetic? Why doesn't God heal amputees if he does? Where is God? What is God? Questions such as these cannot be answered until we have evidence with which to answer them. The fact is, we don't have any evidence, so the position of a deist or adeist person is an absurdly irrational one. I am an atheist (cont'd)
because I lack a belief in any God, and as atheism is a non-belief, it presupposes no dogma, doctrine, or rules. It is not a world view. It is not that I am against the God concept - what I am against is people like you making assertions of absolute truth, that you claim to know of the existence and the very nature of "God". You, nor anybody else has evidence to support these assertions. They are simply inserted where a gap in knowledge exists, and you need to recognize that fact.
The difference is you don't except life,nature,our being as evidence for God,and I do. Your understanding of the word God is limited to mostly the Abrahamic faith understanding of this word. If you gave this God theory as much fudge room as you give the quantum flux theory you might get an idea of what spiritual people are talking about when we use the word God.
Its meaning can be as vast as the Creation itself. We know "IT" (God) exists,we know the correct path of understanding (cont'd)
what we don't have is all the particulars. I could get into my theories,(faith) or what I trust to be true on the matter at this time in my life,but what would that do for your scientific mind that can't even grasp the God concept,and then deliberately (intellectually dishonest) confuses the issue with your pink unicorns,lizard men,and fairies.
You "Atheists" are so damn smart that you miss the big picture. We call it God because we're blessed to be,and the Creation shows us intelligence.
Oh, 2:16, He does not KNOW! And he is still talking about "IT". Why can't he just call "IT" -- "God"? Is he scared or something? Scared to be vulnerable in the eyes of a supernatural being? Calling it "IT" does not take away the fact that Dawkins is still talking about the great life force. All he is doing is giving God a different name.
I love the atheists that do the whole let's-mock-an-idea-we-don't-understand comments ( like the comment below from lashingmynuts,or whatever it's name us )!! Ah well, I suppose it shouldn't be any different than the bulk of YouTube atheists that cling to the enlightenment.
tnmusicman1 6 hours ago
wow! Dawkins is an idiot. "something cant come from nothing". of course it can. god came from nothing. he invented himself and created life from nothing. why is Dawkins on this wild goose chase called evolution?!?! all he has to do is read the bible, all the answers are in there. god impregnated "virgin" with himself then sacrificed himself to himself to forgive his creatures for their sins in which he put there himself in the first place. and he doesnt think jesus is lord... come on!!!!!
lashingsofgaut 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
" Thats what the A does for this word before Theism. Both thoughts are a faith."
And i'm sorry, did you REALLY just state that a NON belief takes FAITH. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Just like EVERYONE who doesn't believe in bigfoot has "FAITH" bigfoot isn't real, right?? I mean, I love wacked out theists, but YOU sir, take the cake. The inability to see why "belief with no proof" is faith, and why not believing because of LACK of proof ISN'T faith is just wow, Just WOW....
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
You're saying that all life can't come from nothing so "Cosmic Force"? Where did this Cosmic Force come from?
NO actually, YOUR the one putting a creating mind being this "cosmic force" and i'm wondering WHY you are.
Again, i don't see why you assert everything i think when i'm VERY clear on what i "believe." The Cosmic Force, or UNIVERSE, as rational people call it, started with the big bang. That's it, nothing else, and we have FACTS to back that up, that's why it's NOT a faith.
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
"I Think its liberating to give up god." That's a THOUGHT.
"Where's your data i mean your a scientist." He said he thought, d*ck. and for that matter, where's YOUR data of god, hypocrite.
"well, I've had letter written to me saying that." There's your data d*ck. Still waiting for YOURS....
"there are 8 billion people on this planet. how many letters do you have?"
Creationists are the sickest, most deranged, most hypocritical, most self centered people I have ever seen.
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 1. it would be a thought if he didn't act upon it and try to get others(the whole world is his goal) to love Atheism like he does.
2. You're may proof of an eternal life force that all of life is a product of and that man IMO righty calls God. You're really here aren't you? Then God is!
"hypocritical" you should try to look at your faith from the outside looking in.
DeistReality 8 months ago
@DeistReality 1. PSH, what a bunch of hypocritical garbage. YOUR on here, trying to persuade people to think like YOU. F off, He's not trying to get people to "love" atheism, he's getting the mindless drones like you to THINK CRITICALLY about a "cosmic force"
2. Actually, no, just because i'm here, DOESN'T mean god is. god is subject to reality, REALITY, however, is subject to the laws of the universe. Take gravity, a universe with no minds to understand gravity, would still have gravity.
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
@DeistReality HOWEVER, in a universe with no minds to conceive a god, it wouldn't matter if god existed. Ya see the contrast? No minds, no god, or at least no NEED for god. God is subject to us being here to "create" him. We place "god" in the "i don't know's" of the time. Back in the day: sun= god, moon= god, tides= god, stars= god, i mean everything in the history of humanity has been a god, now were on the verge of the greatest discoveries in mankind, and you wanna just say "god dun it" BAHH
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 You Atheists sure do get nasty when someone doesn't believe in your no god! Like your name calling makes you right! You answered your own question,and no I don't see the contrast.
"Take gravity, a universe with no minds to understand gravity, would still have gravity." Just because there're no minds to perceive God doesn't mean there isn't God.
"hypocritical garbage" you say there's no God,yet you say that life didn't come from nothing? "Cosmic Force" IMO another word for God.
DeistReality 8 months ago
@DeistReality This "Cosmic Force" (God) must be infinite (because you can't make something from nothing) defying space and what we call time making it metaphysical. Yes the universe is subject to reality and so is God (Cosmic Theory) but when we're dealing with metaphysics we have to sometimes think abstract.
DeistReality 8 months ago
@DeistReality "god is subject to reality, REALITY, however, is subject to the laws of the universe."
And the laws of the universe come from this "Cosmic Force" that for some reason (IMO you're trapped in the Abrahamic concept of what God is,or is not) you can't call God and can't even understand why others call "IT" God. You have a God complex!
DeistReality 8 months ago
@DeistReality Aw, Sorry if calling you out on your bullshit "it would be a thought if he didn't act upon it" was "mean" to you. All Theists DO is act upon "beliefs" Of course, belief, in my opinion, is blindly saying something is real, without one shred of proof. I, however, don't need to fill the "i don't know's" of the world with god. I'm perfectly fine saying we don't know what started the expansion of the universe. You, however, are claiming you KNOW this force. Prove It
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
@DeistReality and YES, it's frickin annoying that you claim atheism is a "belief", when, AGAIN, by definition, it isn't a belief. Its a non belief. A non belief in the garbage people like you spew to gullible people.
Yes, your a hypocrite, and no, there's nothing hypocritical about saying you can't get something from nothing, and god doesn't exist. I'd argue that, then, by asking what created god? Obviously, you can't get something from nothing, soooo, where did "this force" come from???
TacoBurgher327 8 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Could you give me just one example of something coming from nothing? You my friend hate in people what you actually are yourself and your faith has blinded you so badly that you can't even see it. You're the one who talks about "thinking critically" about this cosmic force. Is this so called "cosmic force" eternal,or did it just appear from nothing? What created this so called "cosmic force" that we should think critically of?
You're in the same conundrum as any Theist,wake up!
DeistReality 8 months ago
@DeistReality I never said something can come from nothing. YOUR asserting something came from nothing. You get an exception for this "force" that IYO man calls god, psh i don't think so. Where'd this force come from?? YOUR saying something can't come from nothing, so God???
See, the difference between me and you are, you assert EVERYTHING. Things about me, things about the world, and things about reality. I, on the other hand, care about what i think, and what i believe. I look at EVERYTHING,
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
@DeistReality not just my side, and I suggest you do the same. You keep calling atheism a faith and belief, WHEN IN REALITY, if you just looked up why we don't believe in god, its very simple to understand. Lack of proof, basically. Billions of people claim god in their lives, and some even go into sects, yet no person worship the same god. Why is that?? Why is evolution and the big bang NOT good enough for you?? What good do you think your doing by having people believe in YOU??
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
@DeistReality ummmmmmm helloooo??
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 When one hears the word Theism it implies that this "Cosmic Force" plays an active role in ones life,so the lack of this belief would be that this CFdoesn't play an active role in ones life. Thats what the A does for this word before Theism. Both thoughts are a faith.
Now to think that this CF is not real when all of life is here to prove otherwise is a faith as well. You're saying that all life can't come from nothing so "Cosmic Force"? Where did this Cosmic Force come from?
DeistReality 7 months ago
@DeistReality All these faiths,or sects came about because no one really knows what this Cosmic Force really is,but we all have a faith,or what we trust to be true on the matter,including you. Yours seems to be a faith of denial that propagates the CF that is,but isn't like your cohorts. Go to my video on Dawkins,and Flew and see how Dawkins dogs his one time friend just because he changed his mind. You say Cosmic Force,I say God. Now how would you try to understand this CF?
DeistReality 7 months ago
@DeistReality BUT i'd love to ask you a question if you don't mind. You say IYO, god is this "cosmic force" and i would assume you think god CREATED the "forces" and laws correct?? Your answer HAS to be yes, because if god didn't create, or "put into motion" everything, then that ain't god, SO, can god make X not equal X??
TacoBurgher327 7 months ago
So you don't get what empirical philosophy means? Do you?
movcrit 10 months ago
Richard D YOUR A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER< YOUR GOING TO <FRY IN HELL < AND THE DEVIL IS GOING TO BBQ U AND EAT YOUR RIBS
darylghghgh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darylghghgh Richard D YOUR A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER< YOUR GOING TO <FRY IN HELL < AND THE DEVIL IS GOING TO BBQ U AND EAT YOUR RIBS
That's real Christian of you. Idiot
dangioplasty 11 months ago
@darylghghgh Pretending to be a believer by defaming a non-believer is lame as well as being pretty silly. Being a Christian is about what we do as well as what we say. Non-violence, humility and meekness are a good start.
dashan091 10 months ago
How are you not realizing that Dawkins made Stein look like a complete an utter fool? Also, you make yourself look like quite the fool with the misspellings in the subtitles.
georgeandpfunk 1 year ago
GOD DIDN'T CREATE ME I CREATED ME!!!!!! I DID!!!!!!. I WAS AN APE SO ONE DAY I DECIDED TO BECOME AN INTELLIGENT HUMAN. THIS IS THE TYPE OF BULLSHIT THAT EVOLUTION TEACHES.
Theboxer500 1 year ago
Congrats... for bringing forth NO compelling arguments that have not yet been already refuted... I suggest expanding on what you have been told and finding your own truth. I am sure if you did with an unpredjudice mind... If you did not become athiest, you'd at least not perscribe to a judeo cristian belief...
DualForceTraining 1 year ago
Religion exist because idiots exist
HaajjPojken 1 year ago
@HaajjPojken Lol, its comments like these that just make life worth living. Enjoy the knowledge that when you die you will either go to hell or nothing will happen. Logically even a billion years of this life enjoying the greatest imaginable pleasures wouldn't compare to an eternity in heaven. By your own logic, Atheists are the biggest "idiots" that exist
Joeiisp 1 year ago
Religion is for i
HaajjPojken 1 year ago
Stringprodigy believes God should hold his hand all thro' life.
He probaly thinks since his Mother gave him birth, that he should be able to suck her tit forever.
53dumey 2 years ago
Hitler killed 6 million Jews
The Haiti earthquake looks to have killed at least 100,000
The Tsunami of 2005 killed close to 250,000
There are thousands of debilitating diseases in the world, many of which cause indescribable pain and suffering to innocent people who pray to God every hour of every day just to ease the suffering
Amputees don't grow new arms and legs.
Why doesn't the deistic God care about these people? Most of them probably prayed to God all the time. If God exists, he's a dick
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
@Stringprodigy
"Hitler killed 6 million Jews"
this is a proof that jew god doesnt exist.
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Simple. If God is an infinitely perfect being, anything he creates is an infinite distance away from him. Because if he were to create perfection, it would just be God himself. Therefore "evil" as we call it exists. This applies to our world. As for why people are evil, in the bible there are passages describing free will. For this purpose, God allows humans to do anything they choose, including evil.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "If God is an infinitely perfect being, anything he creates is an infinite distance away from him"
This presupposes that you know the nature of God. How could you possibly know this? Also, define "infinitely perfect". What are the characteristics of "infinitely perfect?"
"Because if he were to create perfection, it would just be God himself. Therefore "evil" as we call it exists."
There is no logical correlation there whatsoever. Try again.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy If there is a God, he posses infinite perfection, if you want the entire works on why God, must be singular, perfect in Being, Beauty, Good, and a few others I don't think a youtube comment will allow me to fulfill your desire. the logical correlation is that anything that is that great, it instantly becomes God.
The only illogical part of my argument is that I assumed you had the philosophical backing to understand my argument. Try some C.S Lewis, Anselm or Aquinas
Joeiisp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeiisp "The only illogical part of my argument is that I assumed you had the philosophical backing to understand my argument. Try some C.S Lewis, Anselm or Aquinas"
So because I don't agree with your reasoning based on their philosophies, that means I don't have the philosophical backing to understand your argument? LOL OK. That makes no sense, but OK. Philosophical elitism proves nothing.
"If there is a God, he posses infinite perfection."
Define "infinite perfection".
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
Comment removed
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy
"So because I don't accept your ideas based on the philosophies, that means I don't have the philosophical backing to understand your argument?" What it means is that, just like someone who does not know the history of any other event, they don't see the trend in the conversation. You don't have to accept it, but in order to move past it you do have to address it.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp take your philosophical elitist attitude and shove it directly up your ass. ;)
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Since when is saying that you are equally correct as I am an elitist attitude. Nitpicking the word fact which is commonly used in our language to describe scientific discover is as baseless as your argument. Your assuming that if God exists he would be in time. A God that sees everything, and knows everything at once, could not possibly be so.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Nitpicking the word fact which is commonly used in our language to describe scientific discover is as baseless as your argument"
Nope. Sorry but it's not nitpicking, it's the truth, and shows that you have a very limited understanding as to the nature of science.
"God that sees everything, and knows everything at once, could not possibly be so."
How do you know that "God" can see, or is capable of knowing? Outside of time is an abstract concept that doesn't make sense.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp btw, why is "God" exempt from being caused himself? Also, why do you posit that it was a 'who' that caused the Universe rather than "what'? The old God-of-the-gaps canard...yawn...
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy I am fully aware that the works of Descartes prevent either one of us from knowing if there is a God or not, but Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God. Regardless of what you call him, the fact is that something started everything and the name I use is God
Joeiisp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeiisp "Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God. "
If you knew the nature of science, you would now there are no scientific "facts". Proof is for mathematics, not science. If there is required to be a first cause, then what caused God to exist? If you say he always existed, then the Universe must have always existed as well.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Scientific fact that is based in cause and effect lead to the conclusion, that there must of been a first cause, that cause being God."
First of all, there are no scientific "facts". If you knew anything about science, you would know this. Proof is for mathematics, not science. Secondly, if God was the first cause, then what caused God to exist? If you say God has always existed, then the Universe must have always existed as well.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy God could easily be a what, as we cannot even fathom what God truly is. To say that God is exempt from being created is completely logical. The first thing that was is exempt from creation, because nothing was there before it. God is the name given to the first thing to set everything in motion in our 3rd dimension. It is entirely possible that something created our God, but God is the name I choose to give to the one that created all of this.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "God could easily be a what, as we cannot even fathom what God truly is."
Then why label it "God"? If it is a singularity or quantum flux, would you still call it God?
"The first thing that was is exempt from creation, because nothing was there before it."
Define 'nothing'. Also, how could you know there was nothing before? If that 'first thing' can be exempt from creation, so too can the Universe. You can't just presuppose special rules in place of a lack of knowledge.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago 2
@Stringprodigy
Nothing the way I use it, is the lack of anything in our plane of existence. If it was a singularity or a quantum flux, it is still entirely logical to say that something which I choose to call God was the purpose of this flux. To ignore the possibility of this, given the vast amount of knowledge we do not know is just straight up wrong. How can you deny the ability to propose a God.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp you need to do some research into quantum mechanics and cosmology. There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. Quantum field flux is random, and one cannot predict when or where a virtual particle will pop into or out of existence. Given the vast amount of knowledge we do know, it is not necessary to presuppose that a God created the Universe. If you can't even define what God is, then how can you presuppose that it kickstarted the Universe? The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp There is nothing logical at all in your presupposition. Quantum flux does not require a cause. In fact, an effect can precede a cause at the quantum level. For example,dark matter by actually making space bigger is creating gravitational potential energy, but under QM the act should be simultaneous. So the positive energy exists for a moment before the countering negative energy. Positive and negative energy should create each other, but they don't. No Gawd required, whatever that is.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Really. So you can fathom the size of an atom? So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux? A you even serious with me now. And to say that cause and effect can be unlinked, this is true, however only by our understanding of what is linked. Just as you cannot step into the same river twice, you cannot possibly know if on another plane of existence the two were linked. O please, assuming there is no God when natural law exists is just uninformed.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "So you can fathom the size of an atom? So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux?"
What does me fathoming the size of an atom have to do with fucking anything? What do you mean by "So you can fathom a quark? A quantum flux" LMAO. I don't have to fathom anything. These are things that are proven to exist/take place. As I said before, you need to read up on quantum mechanics and cosmology. It is evident you don't have a clue what you're talking about...
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy O please. You just said previously that because you are unable to fathom what God truly is, you cannot presuppose God exists. Like actually, the mer fact you have the audacity to say I have no clue as to what I am talking about instead of actually addressing the subject matter says something.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Alright now lets try introducing a new concept. Something created this universe. That something, is most probably out of our dimension (ie. out of time). Is it not entirely possible that a being outside of our own dimension be also outside of our comprehension? Is it not logical to treat a being that created all that is around us with at least curiosity? Like come on. To outright deny the possibility of a central entity from which our universe exists is wrong
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Like it actually hurts my brain to come to the understanding that some people actually don't think its possible that a being created the universe. We can barely understand the 3 that we live in, yet you still find it impossible to believe that through every one of the possible dimensions that exist, in not one of them exists a being capable of creating what is around you.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Like it actually hurts my brain to come to the understanding that some people actually don't think its possible that a being created the universe."
Take 2 Advils and just accept that fact. I do not assert that it is impossible that a being created the Universe, but I'm not going to assert that God-did-it unless there is some supporting evidence that shows that. Even if a being did create the Universe, it doesn't give a crap about us. Why worship an apathetic creator?
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy "Why worship an apathetic creator?" Because if we don't and the bible or any other holy book is right were fucked. The entire argument saying that something created this without any anterior motive, other then to just see what will happen is just as non-nonsensical as any faith you will ever see on this earth. Pick one, or don't. It doesn't really matter with newer faiths anyway. Do good to your fellow man and that should be good enough. Is that really so hard to believe?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "We can barely understand the 3 that we live in, yet you still find it impossible to believe that through every one of the possible dimensions that exist, in not one of them exists a being capable of creating what is around you."
I don't ground my views in possibilities. Let's see some evidence for extra dimensions existing before we start positing that a supernatural being could exist in them. You said yourself, God exists outside of dimensions, but now you're saying the opposite? LOL
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Im saying its entirely possible that both could occur. You seem to understand the basic principles of quantum mechanics so, it wouldn't be entirely out of the ordinary for you to believe that it is entirely possible for this to be true. And actually whether you would like to believe it or not you do believe in possibilities. Because just as there is a possibility that God exists, there is also a possibility every truth you hold dear does not exist in the true world
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp Just incase the word limit leaves you stumped as to what I mean, the true world is an idea similar to the one employed in the matrix. Your idea of scientific proof being the sole rational that governs anything is just false.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Just as you cannot step into the same river twice, you cannot possibly know if on another plane of existence the two were linked. "
This doesn't even make sense! Are you fucking serious? WOW!
"O please, assuming there is no God when natural law exists is just uninformed."
Speaking of uninformed, you assert God exists without any evidence to support that assertion, and you can't even define what "God" is. The natural law argument for the existence of God is a comedy of errors.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Really? So you can step into the same river twice? Water flows, therefore it is impossible. Just like atoms of our body and everything else move in and out of this plane of existence, where the go we don't even really know. Learn Sophism and come back when you realize your answers mean nothing. Natural law, yes I will use natural law and why? because if you actually read any of the works of C.S Lewis your errors are dealt with.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Really? So you can step into the same river twice? Water flows, therefore it is impossible."
No it isn't. You can easily step into the same river twice, thrice, or hundreds, thousands of times etc etc. If I step into the Amazon river, it is still the Amazon river, no matter how many times I step in or out of it. You never mentioned anything about stepping into the exact same configuration of water molecules. Also, your repeated appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Simply telling you where you can find the rest of my argument instead of writing out the entire works of the many great minds we both base our arguments on is just as illogical as you saying its an appeal to authority. They are reputable sources, which spent the majority of their lives in their field. You might as well say 1+1 = 2 is an appeal to population if your going to call out fallacies like that.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Simply telling you where you can find the rest of my argument instead of writing out the entire works of the many great minds we both base our arguments on is just as illogical as you saying its an appeal to authority."
Uh, no. You are wrong. You obviously do not understand what the appeal to authority fallacy is. Also, just because a philosopher has philosophies does not mean we have to accept their philosophies as truths. If we did that then we would all be walking contradictions.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy All I am saying is my sources are no more fallible then anyone of yours. Not every philosophy is accepted, because new philosophers come along and suppose new things that are more logical then those that proceeded them. That is exactly why you are not a walking contradiction.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy We are limited in our understanding of the universe and by extension our understanding of God by our senses. Can you really, expect to see the full spectrum of existence through such a poor tool?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "We are limited in our understanding of the universe and by extension our understanding of God by our senses. Can you really, expect to see the full spectrum of existence through such a poor tool?"
And what is your experience with respect to scientific education and research? It is evident you are not qualified to broadly assess science as a "poor tool". Also, where did I say science has, or claims to have all the answers? Give me 1 reason why a God of the Gaps philosophy is valid.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Nobody said science has all the answers, but an educated guess a theory if you will, has been proposed time and time again to bridge a gap in our knowledge. This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close, and thus you are at an impass. Either believe, or with hold verdict. With the knowledge that it is possible for them to be correct is enough evidence to stop any atheists from being so.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close, and thus you are at an impass. Either believe, or with hold verdict."
I DO suspend a final verdict, as my educational and vocational backgrounds are in science. That is the very nature of science, to always leave the door open a crack, no matter how much supporting evidence we may have. This is a mechanism by which science is able to improve itself. What I will not do is make assertions without supporting evidence,ie Goddidit.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy But the very act of saying God did not do it begs the question what did, which brings you back to God did it. Unless I've been tripped up by your wording, by my knowledge you have not addressed the ideas of Kant, Hume, and Descartes that make knowing impossible. Therefore asserting without evidence is what we have always done in science and what is being done with God as well. The degree of the assertion is no less in either case
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "But the very act of saying God did not do it begs the question what did, which brings you back to God did it."
No it fucking doesn't. First, you have failed to define what God is, so inserting something you can't define makes ZERO logical sense. The answer to "what did?" can only be God in your own mind, so you are not even open to the possibility that maybe it was a quantum fluctuation or other non supernatural process that kick-started the Universe rather than your undefined God
Stringprodigy 1 year ago 2
@Joeiisp "Therefore asserting without evidence is what we have always done in science"
No it fucking isn't. Sorry, but you're dead wrong here.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp ""Why worship an apathetic creator?" Because if we don't and the bible or any other holy book is right were fucked."
You're seriously making an appeal to Pascal's wager? So, you are presuming that an all powerful, all knowing God won't see through your facade to cover your ass? Well, good luck with that. Based on your 'logic', I guess we can at least define your God to be either naive or stupid, or both.
"Pick one, or don't. It doesn't really matter"
According to you, it does!
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "...the true world is an idea similar to the one employed in the matrix."
Can I get some of what you're smoking?
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Cave allegory, forgive me for using a more modern reference to what I am trying to imply. Scientific proofs hold just as much weight when trying to address something that is unknown. Picking a religious vocation or not, so long as you do good acts for the sake of good acts, the majority of religions are appeased. But were not really talking about religion at this point. The only possible wrong answer as to how the universe started is nothing started it.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Please try not to be kept down by your concept of time next time you respond, because whatever created our universe is not limited by that as time had a definite start and has a definite end.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Please try not to be kept down by your concept of time next time you respond, because whatever created our universe is not limited by that as time had a definite start and has a definite end."
Nice obfuscation, Joe. You contradicted yourself AND you appealed to Pascal's wager. Not really the hallmarks of a critical thinker, bud. Maybe it's time to admit that you just like arguing for the sake of arguing and you have no real point to make here.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Please tell me how telling you that your idea of time (or anyones idea of time) relates to the 4th dimension and above. Pascal's wager is a valid argument though, as it cannot be proven or disproven as fact. But you are correct, I am being vague about my specific religion. I don't affiliate with a church, but I do disagree with the amount of bashing that is being given to Christian thinkers.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeiisp "Please tell me how telling you that your idea of time (or anyones idea of time) relates to the 4th dimension and above."
What does that have to do with anything?
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp A valid argument -can- be proven or disproven, thusly making it valid. A stalemate goes to the person trying to disprove it because it means there is no evidence of it being valid.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation A stalemate is a stalemate. By what logic does a referee come into a debate and declare a victor on merit of who wants to win the most. There is no evidence for either argument if you really want to be difficult. You can't prove that anything exists so why bother arguing?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp So when the prosecution and the defense are deadlocked, they automatically say stay in jail forever until one or the other goes? No, the defense automatically wins because it is the DUTY of the person asserting something is TRUE to prove that it is TRUE. You cannot prove something to be FALSE if it is NEVER proven to be TRUE.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation Thats a turn of phrase that can go both ways. Seeing as we are not in a courtroom your analogy does not apply. Especially when we are talking about possibilities, how can you prove a possibility? Commendable, but your trying to synthesize an answer from where as you said there is a deadlock. Unless I am mistaken about something, real life deadlock stays as real life deadlock.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp This is comparable to saying ANY analogy doesn't apply, your attempt at calling a false analogy is admirable, because most faith-based arguments essentially shun logic. You don't prove a possibility, because it's not solid. You can't argue for something that isn't proven.
"I walked on water."
"Prove it."
So, on faith, we should trust you walked on water, and since we can't disprove it, therefore it's proven? Let me guess, we're not in an argument so my analogy doesn't count?
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation Your bias is pretty obvious. I'm not shunning any logic, I encourage it. The only difference is I acknowledge that a leap of faith is necessary to advance a scientific or any other endeavor. If you keep up with theoretical physicists there is a nothing that is all around us. This "nothing" weighs something but is not matter. Can you really say you know what that nothing is? Is it wrong to give a name to it because it clearly isn't nothing?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation I don't argue that God exists, I argue that it is a likely possibility. Just as any theology or theory on how the universe came to be this one is equally valid. The difference between saying things like "I walked on water" and me saying "its possible a conscious being created the universe" are vastly different.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp It's wrong to assert that you have the answer of what that "nothing" is by calling it a silly superstition. You "don't argue that God exists" is almost -laughable- when in the same line you argue that it's a likely possibility. I think there might be out there, but until THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE, THERE IS NOT. Your idea is not, and will never be respected until there is at least SOME credible evidence. And if there were already, we'd all be believers in God.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation But there is solid evidence that there is something out there. That something is nothing. Like I don't think you quite understand what I mean by nothing. The absence of matter, dark or regular has mass. This "nothing" has more mass then all matter in the known universe. This, is what they call God. Whether or not you then take that to believe a religion is your choice.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp How do you know it is -God-? We're so lucky Newton's first response to why things were pulled to Earth wasn't GOD, but GRAVITY. Do you understand how stupid it sounds to say: Well, we don't know what ________ is, so let's call it God? There is nothing more unintelligent than that, ignorance isn't a valid claim for God.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation Really? So had Newton named gravity God instead of gravity, would it still not be the same force. To say that a name, a simple name, changes what something is sounds a hell of a lot more unintelligent than what I have said. Religion is different from the conceptual understanding of what God is. If you are so opposed to the use of the name God, come up with another name, it makes no difference.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation You must not be serious to say that it is ignorant to place a name on something that exists and we have knowledge of. I cant even fathom how you would get so agitated at the name I give for the "nothing" that everything came from. Nothing isn't nothing in the sense that you would take it. Nothing is only nothing from our perspective. Come on. Don't insult my intelligence with your weak argument, it just makes you look worse.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp The problem with naming Gravity God, is that you stop going deeper into studying it once it's called God. You can see a declination in humanity when religion took the reigns of science. There is no discussion of Gravity if it is named God. You insult your own intelligence when you use an ad ignorantiam. Imagine if we just used metaphysical explanations for everything. We would be a very dumb mammal indeed. Your lack of understanding leaves you in no place to question my intellect.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation Nobody questioned your intellect. I was simply saying don't insult my intellect because you said I was unintelligent lol. In addition, calling something by a name does not necessarily mean that the study of that thing has stopped. The idea that simply calling something God negates any scientific process in relation to it is null and void, when considering there are theist chaos theorists and theist theoretical physicists.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "Does not necessarily mean..." I'm afraid it does. It stops all questions from being asked. "Why did that tree fall?" "God did it." "Why does the wind blow?" "God blew it." "Why does the sun rise?" "God jacked it." Religion is the -very- antithesis progress, especially intellectual progress. If you get your facts on the origins of existence from Genesis, then I'm afraid I cannot help but question your sanity.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation O please. Read what I've said earlier in this very comment section about the literal interpretation of the bible. Like really? You want to move from questioning intellect, to questioning sanity, yet you have neither the intellect nor deductive power to assume that someone who follows modern science would hold the bible as 100% fact. The bible like all holy books, are the basis for their specific religions. I adhere to none. Nice try at discrediting me.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation When I say it does not necessarily mean, that it would stop questions, I mean the curiosity to find out God's nature is great enough to have caused reformation thought and the enlightenment to occur. Theists were fundamental in both and are fundamental in the advancement of our position today. Can you really say a theist has any less motivation to find out about the world around him? Especially if he/she believes that will lead them to heaven?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp You can -directly- see where scientists believed in God and how we went into the dark ages. The Muslims are in the same world right now. I remember when I asked Priests when I was young and foolish (6, 7) as to why the wind blew, God did it. Why do dogs bark? God commanded it. The problem is, this condescending "you won't understand" outlook from preachers and priests alike doesn't disappear. And frankly, people are stupid and easily led down the wrong path.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
@SocialDissimulation Ok, so lets say that we tell people exactly what we know, everything as it comes out. For example, the works of Descartes. The result of this, ended up in the weakening of the Catholic church, and a series of religious wars fueled by new philosophical truth. If that is your argument, that we must tell everyone exactly what science tells us, with full disclosure, you can see where that is false.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
"And frankly, people are stupid and easily led down the wrong path." Exactly why blind faith works.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy Out of the several points I have made here, I guess my main goal is to further mine and your understanding of theological concepts. Regardless of what you may think of my ideas, surely you will acknowledge that in the process of clearing up what you would call misconception, your thoughts have been tested.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeiisp "I guess my main goal is to further mine and your understanding of theological concepts."
I understand theological concepts just fine. I reject them because they aren't reasonable or logical and they lack evidence. No philosophy background required.
"Regardless of what you may think of my ideas, surely you will acknowledge that in the process of clearing up what you would call misconception, your thoughts have been tested."
Nope. It's nothing new, and nothing profound.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp you bring up the idea of knowing being impossible... either you agree with this premise and don't have a leg to stand on when you claim that "something" had to create the cosmos OR you disagree with it and are trying to set up a strawman.
Which one is it?
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey Begging the question. Your implying that a cave allegory scenario for this world is impossible. Whether it is or isn't can never be known. I'm not setting up anything, just confirming what is already common knowledge, that any argument to say that religion is all fairy tails and not true doesn't make sense either. I claim the possibility of a being creating everything. Can you really argue that it is not a possibility?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp no I can't argue that it's not possible, because you can't disprove something that you have no evidence for. Can you prove that dragons never existed? or unicorns? How about gnomes? or the Tooth Fairy? or the Boogeyman? or the Mothman? or that Elvis is still alive?
Living my life as if these things were real would be ridiculous. But if they had a dusty old book saying they were real, then I'm supposed to believe in them?
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey
No you don't have to believe in the bible as not even Christians believe half the parables and stories in it. The bible is not a literal book, and is not the only source of Christian literature. However, to assume that there is no basis in fact in anything they say is faulty. Christianity in the bible speaks of only good works to get to their heaven. Can you honestly tell me something is wrong with that?
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp Give me an example of a bit of the bible that should be construed as fact or truth. Besides historical figures, geographical landmarks, or natural law. And yes I do find something VERY wrong with it when the pursuit of said heaven intrudes on the well-being of others (read: all forms of life).
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey ... So your trying to tell me that I can't say that anyone from the bible historically existed, or geographical landmarks or use natural law to prove the possibility of the existence of a God. Well thats quite simple really. Prove their is no possibility. If there is even a 1% chance of infinite happiness after death, so long as you full heartedly believe your life choices will take you there seems like a good deal to me. But alas your trying to pin me to Christianity, and i am not.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp I'm limiting you because god existing should be independent of those three groups. You are asking me to disprove something that noone has evidence for. I asked you to give me an example that we can confirm is true that comes from the bible
And I'm not pinning you to anything, I'm simply using christianity as a medium to argue with, only because it seems we are both familiar with it. But you ARE defending them very diligently.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "But alas your trying to pin me to Christianity, and i am not."
You might as well be based on your previous comment appealing to Pascal's wager.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey For the bad that Christianity has done to this world, you cannot deny the good that is has done to the mental health of the majority of the world. Being a theist and claiming unknowable knowledge gives people a reason to live and a justification to live above law. Both of these things we should all strive for. To do what is right, regardless of consequence is an easy way to live life. Nowhere does Jesus say you have to do anything but believe and do good things.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp im not impugning the people, i'm impugning the system, i'm impugning the tenets, i'm impugning the spread of distrust in one's own perception of reality. Individuals do good, individuals find morality. Religion causes the problems. And claiming unknowable knowledge is simply a lie.
And "justification to live above the law"? granted, the legal systems of the world are far from perfect, but they are there to protect individuals as best they can. I think maybe you misspoke there.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@Joeiisp therefore you must concede that you also cannot know for certain that the bible is true, in turn, that god is real.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey When did I ever say that I am a thiest. You can't prove or disprove aspects of what created this universe down to its core level. At some point, there is a thing that did create. To label me a Christian for reading the bible is false. I've read the bible and do believe that just as Roman records show a man named Jesus did exist. Whether or not he did what those records say is heresay, but the same can be said for any experiment you speak of but haven't done.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp oh boy, here we go. First, sorry for implying you're a theist. I'll venture to say you're in fact an agnostic who majored in philosophy. Regardless, my motive was show your defense of religion is flawed, not to label you. Second, the word "create" implies intelligence, a motive, a plot, which further implies a creator (insert your favorite supernatural power here). Third, I only know of one extraneous record that spoke of "the Christ" whose authenticity is debated. Third...
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@Joeiisp Third, EVERY experiment i speak of is falsifiable, testable, and from a credible source. Yeah i haven't done them, mainly because I can't afford a particle accelerator.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey " therefore you must concede that you also cannot know for certain that the bible is true, in turn, that god is real." Thats the point. Your idea that science and a personal understanding of what God is, are different. Call God what you will, I don't really care, but to say that someone or something did not create the universe and that the possibility that these people are incorrect is false. The only possibility that is false is that it came from nothing.
Joeiisp 1 year ago
@Joeiisp first, I just noticed this and I doubt you mistook my meaning, but just to make sure, I meant "...in turn, you cannot know that god is real"
second, I don't ascribe (nor do my peers) ANY level of intelligence to what caused the cosmos to result in the configuration we see it in, because as the theories stand, there is no need for an intelligence to do it. And you say "that these people are incorrect is false" Ergo, it is true that they are not incorrect.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "The only possibility that is false is that it came from nothing."
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Watch the hour long video on Youtube entitled A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "This gap however, does not seem to ever be able to close"
So that means it never will, just because to you it seems like it never will? Huh? All you are doing is speculating and then inserting God where any lack of understanding exists, which is incredibly illogical and arrogant.
"With the knowledge that it is possible for them to be correct is enough evidence to stop any atheists from being so."
What? Could you translate this into something coherent? Thanks!
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "an educated guess a theory if you will"
No, I won't. please don't use the colloquial definition of the word "theory" in place of the definition of a scientific theory because it's wrong. a scientific theory is not an "educated guess" an educated guess is called a hypothesis.
Thanks.
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@jiggymonkey exactly. Joelisp displays a stunning ineptitude in understanding the fundamental nature of science.
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
@Stringprodigy yeah this is probly the #1 thing that pisses me off about theists: dismissing the status of theories in science due to vernacular
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
@Joeiisp "we cannot even fathom what God truly is."
Bingo! Therefore, you can't presuppose God exists if you can't even define what God is. To say otherwise is utter logical incoherency. Are you ever going to grasp this point?
Stringprodigy 1 year ago
Life did not begin until billions of years after the Big Bang. If there was a deistic God, then why did he wait so long to create us? Why would he remain stagnant for billions of years doing nothing but twiddling his holy thumbs? Is he a little slow in the head? How can you be certain there is just one God? Why not 2 Gods, or 3, or even hundreds, or thousands of Gods? If there is a deistic God or Gods, they would not care about us, otherwise there would not be any misery in the world.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Actually, the unicorn analogy works for both. Just as most people lack a belief in unicorns due to 1.the fact that it's a man made fairy tale creature and 2. that there is no supporting evidence for their existence, people lack belief in a deistic God for the same reasons. Also, in your list of choices, you forgot: The starting point of all life is abiogenesis. Might want to look into that. Finally, the starting point of all life is vastly different than the starting point of the Universe.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yourself my friend. That's all you need to prove the reality of Deism (God). Look in the mirror,and say I did not make myself.
That's absurd. Again, you simply assume that God exists because your mind cannot come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Many thousands of other minds have come up with a much more logical answer,because these other minds have knowledge of the natural world that your mind lacks. Can't help but feel you are jealous of those with a post secondary education
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Assertions do not offer any truths, DR. You can make these crazy assertions all day, but since you have no evidence to back them up. then why would any rational minded person just assume that they are true? When OJ said "I didn't do it!", according to your way of thinking, we should have just believed him. Whenever any criminal says "I didn't do it!", according to your way of thinking, well, they must be making a true assertion. Right? You are too much and your mind is full of thick cobwebs
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All scientific principles come from God including quantum mechanics - assertion
God does the creating.. - assertion
Science does the figuring it all out making the scientist the true prophets of God. - insane statement, and not surprisingly, another baseless assertion
Can you see how this line of thinking would do far better eliminating the dangerous faiths of the world including your faith of Atheism? - Atheism is not a faith. Is it a faith to not believe in unicorns? Think about it
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Unicorns work on the Abrahamic faiths not on the pure Deist who takes life as their proof for God.
What sounds more reasonable?
The starting point of all life is a unicorn.
The starting point of all life is Jesus
The starting point of all life is quantum flux.
The starting point of all life is God.
The starting point of all life is we don't know so lets not name IT.
DeistReality 2 years ago
That's not evidence. Their writings do not constitute evidence for a deity, they constitute outdated, simplistic philosophical postulations. Science has advanced so much since that time that to assert the existence of a deist God in today's day and age is a silly position that only makes you look the fool in any academic circle, or in any circle of rational minded, logically bound freethinkers. In Paine's time, God was inserted where a gap in knowledge existed, but that gap has been filled.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You obviously have no clue what intellectual dishonesty is. That you are claiming I am being intellectually dishonest is beyond laughable. Your entire catalog of posts is an egregious comedy of errors. You should really try to gain an understanding of science before you so readily dismiss it. That would at least be intellectually honest, although I don't expect you to follow through. You won't even address the specific points in my posts showing that your position is completely illogical
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Comment removed
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
..and get over yourself. There's a reason why your family has ostracized you, and I'm beginning to think that maybe the best course of action is to seek some professional help for your obvious problems. You are not convincing anyone. Bye, and good luck with life.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
...behind our natural world, then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to assume that a God exists. The position of asserting God exists until proven otherwise is entirely irrational and illogical. Do yourself a favour and do some research. You are the epitomy of someone who is being willfully ignorant in the face of logic and reason, and your labeling of atheists as adeists is so obviously part of an agenda to irritate people. Just because you say so, doesn't mean it is. Time to step off the soapbox
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
You are the ONLY person referring to atheists as adeists. Don't you find that a bit odd that Nobody supports your wacky God theories and mindless arbitrary labeling people as adeists due to your own lack of understanding? You are not saying anything profound or even remotely compelling. What compelling evidence do you have for a non Abrahamic God existing? You look at things in a very superficial manner and if you at least tried to do some intellectually honest research about the science....
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Stringprodigy
My compelling evidence that God is is the same that Antony Flew had before he moved on. Same as Thomas Paine had. I have the same evidence that Mr Dawkins has with the theory of his "IT" that he doesn't know about yet he knows that his life is because of it. You could use some home work as well I think. Maybe your science is off.
I wrote you a note,but it seems you have to be a friend of yours to receive it. You keep going,and coming back to comment more, what's up with that?
DeistReality 2 years ago
Tell me, DR, what homework do I need to do, exactly? What specific sources can you direct me to that offer up a conclusive answer as to who and what a deist God is? I mean, credible sources not outdated like Paine and Flew, not a source where God is inserted where a gap in knowledge exists. I'm talking about concrete evidence here. Philosophical arguments don't amount to much in the face of evidence, DR.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Yourself my friend. That's all you need to prove the reality of Deism (God). Look in the mirror,and say I did not make myself. Then contemplate that thought to the very end,and you'll find that there is no end. Then to confirm this fact look at the only other option, "Nothing". Is it more plausible to believe in a Infinite force that we're a product of,or do we come from absolutely nothing as the word now implies. Either way we're talking metaphysics. We come from something, I call it God.
DeistReality 2 years ago
Comment removed
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Just because you stand there slack jawed in wonder at the aesthetic beauty of life and nature, that does not make your assumptions of a deist God existing true. As I CLEARLY explained to you, I am not an adeist. What part of that do you not understand? You don't KNOW God exists. You assert God exists because your simple mind cannot grasp any more complex explanations than "God did it". You are incredibly close minded and you obviously haven't read or thought about one thing I've said
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Wow you didn't even read my responses to you....The reason I don't ACCEPT life and nature as being evidence for God is because we have so much evidence showing that life and nature came about without the assistance of God. You have ZERO evidence for God, and you insert God for gaps in knowledge. Science has accepted quantum theory because quantum theory has been tested and observed. There is evidence for quantum theory, yet ZERO evidence for God.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
All scientific principles come from God including quantum mechanics,so when you study such principles if they are indeed true then your studying God first hand. Man did not invent these principles, he only discovered them,and then named them. God does the creating. Science does the figuring it all out making the scientist the true prophets of God.
Can you see how this line of thinking would do far better eliminating the dangerous faiths of the world including your faith of Atheism?
DeistReality 2 years ago
Regarding labels - "Willfully ignorant" and "intellectually dishonest" are behavioral characteristics you've exhibited, rather than labels I've assigned to you. As a shining example of your shameless dishonesty, Krauss did not say anything close to "..one could go either way, Deist or Adeist." At the time you quoted, he was paraphrasing the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaitre, who didn't say anything even remotely resembling validation for a deist or adeist position. OK, now I'm done.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
I'll let others comment if Mr Krauss said that you could take it anyway you want (around 11:35 "A Universe from nothing by lawrence Krauss" Richard Dawkins YouTube channel),or if he was still quoting Mr Lemaitre. Its clear Mr Krauss is on the Atheist (Adeist) end,or that God need not be relevant for the big bang,or life.
I'm not being dishonest my Adeist brother, that's what I'm really hearing,and seeing the man say. I don't think your being "dishonest". I think you have selective hearing.
DeistReality 2 years ago
You are simply making blind assertions. Cause and effect is a fact of science outside of the subatomic, yes, but what you assert is God as this cause, I say is much more likely to be quantum flux. You really should try to gain an understanding of the subatomic world and quantum mechanics before you presumptively assume that "God did it." Subatomic particles are not subject to the same laws of science that include such things as the law of cause and effect. This is basic stuff, DeistReality.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
There's nothing blind about the law of "cause,and effect" ,(it is a law because its never failed us in scientific matters) and there's been nothing in science to prove that "Nothing" can make something like a magician who makes things appear out of thin air.
You're skating here like the evangelical who must prove their god that isn't when you mess with causality like this. You're getting into these very intelligent Atheist scientists faith,or theories,and leaving the divine gift of reason IMO.
DeistReality 2 years ago
@DeistReality, firstly, the law of cause and effect does not affect subatomic particles. This is not a theory or a hypothesis. This is a fact. You really should educate yourself in science before making unsubstantiated assertions about science, DR. I'm skating like blah blah blah? What? Metaphor fail! Your last paragraph is so logically incoherent, I don't even know where to begin. I'll let it stand as a great example of willful ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy corrupting the mind.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Stingprodigy how are subatomic particles made,or where do they come from. If cause,and effect doesn't affect subatomic particles then your saying that they always were,and probably will always be?
You're saying conscious,intelligent life comes from unconscious,unintelligent life?
I realize that active Adeists like yourself believe this,but why should I believe it with the same conviction?
What Force moves these particles to do what they do,or do they just do it because they do it?
DeistReality 2 years ago
@DeistReality, firstly I am not an adeist, and it is not your place to label me with respect to my beliefs as you know nothing about me. As far as subatomic particles go, I would suggest you buy some introductory books on physics and quantum mechanics. I don't think you really watched the Lawrence Krauss video based on your reply in the other vid. That, or you have selective hearing. Anyways, I'm not interested in debating with the willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. /FIN
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
Its ok for you the Adeist to label me a "willfully ignorant,and intellectually dishonest" ,when you know nothing about me right? Your stance has been that there is no God, so if a Deist is one who believes in God then the opposite of a Deist would be Adeist.
I did watch the vid your talking about,and Mr Krauss truly does inspire. See 11:45 where he says that one could go either way," Deist,or Adeist."
If "Nothing" is indeed where we come from then we need to redefine the word nothing,right?
DeistReality 2 years ago
Stringprodigy
Ever think that you may have "selective hearing",and that you only take in thoughts that go against the God concept? Know that I do thank you for taking the time with me. I know how frustrating it can be when we feel people aren't really looking for the truth of things.
You've shown me much,and your ideas will send me down other lines of thought.
Physics,quantum mechanics I don't think I'll every really grasp like Mr. Krauss here,but I'll try when the time permits. Peace.
DeistReality 2 years ago
The difference between you and I is that you make positive assertions of a deist God existing without any evidence to back up your claims. I don't make any assertions about a deist God existing or not. I simply lack a belief in this God, the same way I lack belief in unicorns, fairies, and giant lizard people due to a complete lack of evidence If I were an adeist, that would require me to make assertions about the existence or non-existence of a non-Abrahamic God, which is illogical (cont'd)
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
especially considering that there is absolutely no frame of reference with which to define this God, or this "IT" or whatever you want to call it. Does this God care about us or is he apathetic? Why doesn't God heal amputees if he does? Where is God? What is God? Questions such as these cannot be answered until we have evidence with which to answer them. The fact is, we don't have any evidence, so the position of a deist or adeist person is an absurdly irrational one. I am an atheist (cont'd)
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
because I lack a belief in any God, and as atheism is a non-belief, it presupposes no dogma, doctrine, or rules. It is not a world view. It is not that I am against the God concept - what I am against is people like you making assertions of absolute truth, that you claim to know of the existence and the very nature of "God". You, nor anybody else has evidence to support these assertions. They are simply inserted where a gap in knowledge exists, and you need to recognize that fact.
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
The difference is you don't except life,nature,our being as evidence for God,and I do. Your understanding of the word God is limited to mostly the Abrahamic faith understanding of this word. If you gave this God theory as much fudge room as you give the quantum flux theory you might get an idea of what spiritual people are talking about when we use the word God.
Its meaning can be as vast as the Creation itself. We know "IT" (God) exists,we know the correct path of understanding (cont'd)
DeistReality 2 years ago
what we don't have is all the particulars. I could get into my theories,(faith) or what I trust to be true on the matter at this time in my life,but what would that do for your scientific mind that can't even grasp the God concept,and then deliberately (intellectually dishonest) confuses the issue with your pink unicorns,lizard men,and fairies.
You "Atheists" are so damn smart that you miss the big picture. We call it God because we're blessed to be,and the Creation shows us intelligence.
DeistReality 2 years ago
Listen very carefully near 3:25 - 3:44
sandbar3000 2 years ago
Oh, 2:16, He does not KNOW! And he is still talking about "IT". Why can't he just call "IT" -- "God"? Is he scared or something? Scared to be vulnerable in the eyes of a supernatural being? Calling it "IT" does not take away the fact that Dawkins is still talking about the great life force. All he is doing is giving God a different name.
sandbar3000 2 years ago