Unconvincing Arguments
I have been catching up on the posts and comments from the last few days and I have something to say to the Christians (like Leann who commented on my last post) who seem to drop out of nowhere and to make themselves feel good by trying to save us. I don't doubt that she did it with the best of intentions but perhaps she and others like her would like a few tips on what won't work here at Debunking Christianity, at least not for me.
It doesn't work to quote scriptures to me. Since I don't believe in the holiness, the infallibility, the revelations or the prophecies from the Bible it does not do you any good to try and make me believe using a book that doesn't hold any value for me. It would be like me trying to convince you to become a Muslim by quoting to you from the Quran. Since you don't believe the Quran can hold a stick to the Bible, you would tend to dismiss anything from it that was not in accordance with your beliefs.
Sharing your or another's personal testimony/experience with me doesn't work for me either. A lot of religious adherents have spiritual experiences, not just Christians. So how do I know yours are better or more true than the Hindu's testimony? How do you know? I know from experience that I can have feelings about just about anything, but it doesn't make them true. Our feelings are deceptive and just because you say you feel God is telling you this or showed you that it won't make me believe you anymore.
Trying to scare me into believing won't work either. I don't believe in hell (or heaven for that matter). Threatening me with hell is like saying to me, "Just wait until your dad gets home" when I have no dad. That is not a threat to me. It doesn't bother me that this is all there is. I live life for the here and now, not for some future pie-in-the-sky existence, sprouting wings and playing harps, sitting at God's feet in endless worship. It actually kind of creeps me out to even picture that for myself.
Don't try to get to me on morality either. I don't believe one needs a god to be moral. I am moral and I am not evil. I do good things, I take care of my family, I am a hard worker, I protect the innocent. In fact I have a much higher moral standard than many of the Christians I have been reading about in the paper these days. I might be willing to listen to you on the biblical stance on morality IF you followed all of the rules yourself, not just the hand picked ones that sound good for these times.
Telling me about miracles and answered prayers won't convince me. Now, if you could show me a miracle you might gain some headway. And if you could show me God answered all of your prayers when you followed all the rules laid out in the Bible (and I don't mean He said no, or wait) then you might get me to listen. But I know that praying is a 50/50 crap shoot. Sometimes things happen when we pray sometimes they don't. Sometimes things happen when we wish upon a star, too. Sometimes doesn't cut it for me.
I used to be a Christian, a sinner, a wretch, a chosen one, a child of God. . I used to try and save people (although I was much better at praying for their souls than I was at actually talking to them). I used to believe in the Bible and study it. I used to teach it to my kids and to yours. I used to read the Bible and pray everyday. I used to pray with my friends and in church. I used to pray with my kids. I've had those feel good experiences that come from worshiping at church or at home. I've felt God touch me before. I know where you are coming from, BUT I have been there and done that and I am not going back.
I realized that it was all in my head. I realized that those feelings and experiences can be reproduced within or without religion. I've learned that when you believe something to be true your mind looks for the things to support it (think of all those Big Foot or UFO sightings - those folks really believe it, just as strongly as you believe in your Christian God and beliefs). I realized that the reason prayers sometimes get answered and sometimes don't is because there is no one up there listening and that it is the luck of the draw. I've realized that my life is what I make it and I don't get a second chance. It's great being free from God, being able to make up my own mind, and living in balance with nature and my fellow man.
127 comments:
Excellent post, Theresa.
I've been there, done that, got the baptismal gown and everything. When the facts of evolution and science finally got through to me all that Biblical mumbo-jumbo couldn't even begin to answer the doubts.
I'm not sure if I was ever able to proselytize anyone, even with all my fanatical witnessing, into the Christian belief system, but I did manage to help my mother and siblings see how ludicrous religious faith is when I finally saw the light. So I'm, no doubt, damned in the worst fires of hell ever imagined by other Christians for turning their hearts away from Jesus. Oh, well, I've always found it way too cold up here in Canada.
How about if I were to tell you that tonight, you too could be a MILLIONAIRE!? All you have to do is send in a faith donation of one thousand dollars. It worked for me and god will multiply your gift 100 fold.
Lynda - I wish I could get my mom and siblings to give up their belief system. I'm the one that got them there in the first place :-(
It seem hopeless, but then probably nobody would have ever thought you or I could ever leave the fold either!
—
Hi Theresa Frasch,
Thanks for the long list of what not to say or try. That will certainly save us a lot of time. Do not be surprized if you start hearing a lot of echos.
Good luck.
Bravo Theresa...
When Christians quote the Bible to me, it's like quoting from Homer.
Jose,
I find your comment interesting.
Theresa explained what she wouldn't listen to and explained why she wouldn't. Do you think pathetic appeals to fear, testimony, and authority is all Christianity has?
What Theresa didn't say she would ignore is good, clear evidence for believing in your God. She just said she would dismiss fallacious arguments.
Are you suggesting that fallacious arguments and appeals are all that Christianity has to offer, that it is either fallacy or "echoes"?
I happen to agree with you, but I find that a fascinating admission on your part.
Personal experience, beliefs, morality, and emotions are all scraped prior to a conversation with you, if someone claims to be a Christian? Is it just me or does this seem a little like a mass generalization of a certain sect of people? It seems like your painting all Christians with the same brush - if that's so - how can they ever converse with you (human to human)? How can they ever be your equal (human to human)?
Logically this fascinates me. I claim to be a Christian - is whatever I say to be of 'no value' since my life has emotions, morality beliefs and personal experiences - all of which help to shape aspects of my life. Does using the name Christian automatically exclude me from the conversation as a valuable member? Am I being judged for a name that I claim - I guess is the main question? If so, justify it - logically - for me so I can understand this all.
—
Echoes.
- Do not quote scriptures. The Bible is of no value to me.
- Do not tell me any "personal testimony/experience."
- Do not use fear tactics. No warnings of impending doom. No hell stories.
- Do not tell me morality stories. I might listen if you followed all the moral rules, if you were perfect.
- Do not tell me any miracle stories or stories about answered prayers. Perhaps if God answered all your prayers and you followed all the rules I might listen. That is, if you were perfect and we could control God completely.
(I had a couple of relevant scriptural verses to share but naaah. Why antagonize people or waste time?)
(Hmm. Homer? I need to read some more Homer. A lot of good stuff there, especially when one chisels beneath the veneer.)
Last one had some horrible typo. This is the proof-read version.
SocietyVS,
Generally, I think you have missed the poster's point. She didn't say all Christians do what she mentioned; she is pointing out why certain strategies that were used by Christian would not work.
You said "Personal experience, beliefs, morality, and emotions are all scraped prior to a conversation with you, if someone claims to be a Christian?"
However, the point is not that they should be scraped, but they should be opened for doubts;therefore, quoting Bible, as if it is a infallible truth, shows nothing - because the Bible is a collection of statements that are opened for doubts, like the Odyssey. I don't think the poster is saying Christians cannot relate to their world view when they talk to an atheist; they just need to realize they are making big claims that require evidences. This is why the poster say this regarding Miracle: "....Now, if you could show me a miracle you might gain some headway..."
I don't think the poster is asking too much here - as matter of fact, I believe she is merely asking Christians to function as only what I would call a normal person. Generally, modern people would not think that their personal experiences or beliefs are inherently superior than others - they think everyone's claim should be opened for doubts and evidences and reason would show who is correct. Only through this human can settle their differences through conversation and rational arguments, instead of fighting, with each other.
SocietyVs,
Personal experience, beliefs, morality, and emotions are all scraped prior to a conversation with you, if someone claims to be a Christian?
We're not talking about any old "conversation." Theresa is talking about conversations intended to persuade her to become a Christian.
-Personal experience: You tell me that you felt God in your religion; a Muslim says he felt God in his religion; a religious Jew tells me he felt God in his religion; a Mormon . . .; a Hindu . . .; an Atheist says that she has never felt God.
The point is that personal experience is not persuasive in light of all the incompatible personal experiences of people of other faiths. If we made our decisions based on people's personal experiences we would have to believe anyone who had an experience.
This isn't to say that personal experience isn't a reason to believe; I think it is a damn good reason to believe (or disbelieve for that matter), but the key is that it has to be a personal experience to qualify. And Theresa accepted this. She said if you were to show her a miracle there would be something to talk about, because then it would be a personal experience.
-Beliefs: also not persuasive for the same reason. Many people have many different beliefs. Which one do you believe? How do you decide between the two, three, four million? It must be more than belief.
-Morality: Her point was that one can be moral with or without religion. Perhaps, someone would disagree (though, I doubt it). Moral justification may be something different altogether and might make for an interesting discussion, but not simple morality as she described.
-Emotions: Whose do we follow? Yours, the Muslim's, the tribal elder's, the Hindu's?
The funny thing is that I think you and Jose agree in principle. If a Muslim came up to you and said you should believe in their God because of their personal experiences, beliefs, moral behavior, and emotions, you wouldn't do so on that basis. You would ask for something more (or, at least, you should ask for something more).
That's all Theresa has done. Stop riding her ass for it.
SocietyVS - I was (as other commenters have pointed out)specifically referring to conversations with Christians regarding the salvation of my soul, in other words trying to get me to believe what they believe.
Many of my friends are Christians but I can guess that they would not be friends with my any longer if I chose not to listen to their personal experiences and and to be open to their way of seeing things.
They feel free to tell me their experiences from their world view and in exchange I am free to tell them my experiences from my world view. In other words, I know they believe in the Bible and that they believe God speaks to them through "His Word" so when they relate an experience like that to me they may use words and phrases that no longer make any sense to me, but I can understand them from their context.
By the same token, they listen to me from my naturalistic world view and don't try to make me see that God had a hand in something that happened.
If they decided to witness to me and to try and save me, the same rules I laid out before would apply. They would have to come up with compelling proof that did not rely on the things I mentioned earlier - the Bible, personal, spiritual experiences, the fear of hell, etc.
I hope this clarifies the stance I made and thanks for caring enough to ask.
I never understood why an atheist would want to convert a religious person to atheism. Even an atheist would have to admit that if there is no God and no afterlife then life is pretty grim. Think about it. Our very existence is a cosmic accident. The universe is some mindless random process. We are born...we amuse ourselves with distractions and then we die. Life is just a waiting room for death...choose a magazine to pass the time until your name is called.
Why would I want to convince anyone who didn't already believe it that this was true?
Maybe truth? Well, if there is no God and this pathetic little life is all we have then who the hell cares about truth? Hello?! You're going to die man who cares what's true? What good is the truth going to do you when you're dead?
Every day you're getting closer to death and you waste time worrying about what is true? You waste time convincing people that there is no God? For what?
To quote Homer, "If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
Hey Anon, Lok, and Theresa - thanks for the responses - I guess I missed context in that whole exchange - and in context I get what you are saying...sorry for that. I appreciate the fact you took the time to let me know your point of views - I am indebted.
How about this
Any honest person should agree that these arguments make it at least possible that God exists.
Since science has demonstrated that the Universe is finite and therefore contingent the cosmological argument leads to a metaphysically necessary being which is the ground of existence for any concrete reality, the moral argument to a locus of moral value which must be as metaphysically necessasary as the moral values it grounds, and a coceptualist argument to an omniscient metaphysically necessary intellegence as the foundation for abstract objects.AGAIN-
These arguments DO NOT PROVE God exists but they do make it possible that God exists.
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
1. Abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities or else concepts in some mind.
2. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities.
3. If abstact objects are concepts in some mind,then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists.(There's an infinite number of them).
Granted these arguments don't prove God exists but any rational person should conclude that its possible that God exists.
I think we are waranted in believing that its possible that God exists.Wouldn't you agree?
Theresa,
Hey, my dad is still there drowsing over his Bible, faithfully attending church every week, praying that his family will recover their faith. He's a gentle kind man who does not push his beliefs on others although he does frown disapprovingly during many of our philosophical discussions at family get-togethers. He's not strong on logic so I really doubt he'll ever come around to our way of seeing the world. He seems to be happy enough to carry on with his fairy tale and as long as he continues to respect our freedom to believe differently I will continue to respect him and love him with all my heart. As Jack Nicholson stated emphatically in that movie "A Few Good Men" some people just "can't handle the truth".
Lory Jean-Baptiste,
Contrary to your belief, despite not believing in the existence of God or an afterlife, I don't feel life is all that grim. Matthew's "The Joy of being a Heathen!" or Theresa's "Things I Like About No Longer Being a Christian" further down this page puts the lie to the caricature of the "joy-less non-believer". As for truth, I suspect that people who feel compelled to seek truth will do so regardless of whether there is an after-life. Speaking for myself, the knowledge that this life is all the time I have makes me *more* resolved to find truth where I can. God or no God, this life is whatever you choose to make of it.
HOUX,
Re: the cosmological argument
Does God have an explanation for His existence? If He does, what is the explanation for God's existence? If not, then you admit that it's possible for something to exist without an explanation. If so, then perhaps the universe simply exists without an explanation. Involving God merely pushes the question back one step, an unnecesssary step that accomplishes nothing.
Re: the moral argument
Do objective moral values and duties exist? And if they do, why is God the only explanation for their existence? Without proving both of these assertions, your conclusion doesn't follow.
Re: the conceptualist argument
You have not shown that God is necessary for the existence of abstract concepts. People have minds, why are our minds insufficient to explain the existence of abstract concepts? You need to show that there exists at least one abstract concept which existence requires a mind beyond that of humans, but I don't see how you can do so (any concept you can think of is by definition containable by the human mind).
To clarify, I do agree that it is *possible* that God exists, just not on the basis of the arguments, because of the problems I listed above. I accept the possibility of His existence because I have yet to see evidence that dis-proves His existence. But I find His existence implausible, primarily due to the Problem of Evil.
HOUX,
I suggest you read the book entitled "The Impossibility of God" edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. It's a collection of essays, disproofs, by a number of philosophers. I'm sure you'd find it both enlightening and challenging.
Houx,
As surprising as it sounds, actually only very few people say that it is impossible for God to exist. As Richard Dawkins points out, in degree of 1 to 10, 1 being hardcore theist and 10 being hardcore atheist, most atheists are 9s - meaning that they can't prove that it is not possible for God to exist. Having said that, we can't prove many other Gods don't exist neither.
Nonetheless, it is utterly pointless to defend any religion like Christianity, which does not only asserts an absolute belief in God but also various claims about God, with the idea that the existence of god is possible. So yes,"we are waranted in believing that its possible that God exists." But that statement is pretty close to saying nothing.
Regardless of the context, all of your arguments have problematic premises. For example:
"2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."
But you need to define your terms. What is God? If God is love, then the explanation for universe is love?Spinoza says God is nature, so the explanation of universe is nature? Some says God is the creator, which is the cause of the universe , and giving explanation often means showing the cause of something.....So the explanation of the universe is the explanation of universe? The cosmological argument has been dealt with in many ways, and there are A LOT MORE to say about it than merely four premises, especially with the so many progress made in physics that explains the universe.
You also say "2. objective moral values and duties do exist." This is a big claim here. Many people do not accept it, including me. You didn't support it, so you assertion can be simply counter by my negation.
Lastly, "3. If abstact objects are concepts in some mind,then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists.(There's an infinite number of them)." Translation without big words: Since it is possible for me to make up idea endlessly (for example, counting 1,2,3,4,.... forever), therefore someone must be all-knowing. So...are you saying that because we can have infinite number of fictional ideas; there must be a factual entity to contain it? I have read this argument before (I think at least Pascal did it), but it just doesn't hold any water. First off, you made a illegitimate move from "abstract objects are not independently existing realities." to "there's an infinite number of [abstract idea]." If abstract ideas are in our mind and we are finite, then it is merely possible to have infinite numbers of idea. When you claim that "there's an infinite number of [abstract idea]," you either beg the question by assuming that the infinite number of ideas are in God or contradicts yourself by saying that abstract ideas exist independently.
Lastly, with all due respect, sir, you have no idea what you talking about, because all of your arguments are not trying to prove it is possible for God to exist - they are (bad) arguments to prove that God necessarily exists. Just look at your conclusion: none of them has the word "possible" - instead we see things like "the explanation of the universe is God" or "an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists." So in other words, you failed to even try to prove that it is possible that God exists.
Everthing has an explanation of its existence either in the NECESSITY OF ITS OWN NATURE or in an external cause. And no God is not the ONLY explanation for moral values.
Human minds cant ground abstract objects because there are too many of them to be grounded in anything less than an infinite intelligence. Anyway I didn't claim ABSOLUTE PROOF. What I claimed was that the arguments make it POSSIBLE that God exists. Surely thats not an unreasonoble claim based on the arguments I presented.
And yes slavery, rape, torture, and child molostation are objectively moraly wrong.
Houx,
Here is an argument:
1. Either Michael Jackson is the president of the United States or God does not exist.
2. It is not the case that Michael Jackson is the president.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
So, what is wrong with this argument. Is it invalid? No. The problem is that I have given you no reason to believe #1 and you have no reason to believe #1.
So, let's look at your arguments again, shall we?
Your first argument:
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Why should I believe this is true? You offered no evidence, but it is not self-evident to me. It is your responsibility to explain why YOUR STATEMENT is true.
Your second argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
Why should I believe this is true? You offered no evidence, but it is not self-evident to me. It is your responsibility to explain why YOUR STATEMENT is true.
Your third argument:
3. If abstact objects are concepts in some mind,then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists.
Why should I believe this is true? You offered no evidence, but it is not self-evident to me. It is your responsibility to explain why YOUR STATEMENT is true.
Are you getting the picture here. Conjecture is not enough. If you make an argument, you must support it. Otherwise, my argument above disproves the existence of God. It is valid and unproven.
Plus, your third argument is invalid. Your "conclusion" (which is actually a conditional) does not follow from the premises. It is, rather, another assumption and should act as another premise.
Lastly, when you write, "Granted these arguments don't prove God exists . . .," you defeat all of your own arguments because that is what each of them claim to do. They all conclude that a God exists and you claim that none of them prove their conclusions. I agree.
Lok
I did define God
The cosmological argumet leads to a metaphysicaly necessary being to ground concrete reality
the moral argument to a locus of moral value that must be as metaphysically necessary as the moral values it grounds
And an omnisciant mind to ground abstract objects.
So you are in agreement then that its possible that a maximally great being exists?
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
(since the actual world is a possible world)
5. If a maxamally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
period
Also I don't think we made up the idea that 2+2=4 or the truth that the earth is round, or the truth that its wrong to torture babies for fun. Truth is dicovered not invented.
Don't try to get to me on morality either. I don't believe one needs a god to be moral. I am moral and I am not evil. I do good things, I take care of my family, I am a hard worker, I protect the innocent. In fact I have a much higher moral standard than many of the Christians I have been reading about in the paper these days. I might be willing to listen to you on the biblical stance on morality IF you followed all of the rules yourself, not just the hand picked ones that sound good for these times.
I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but I cannot see how you can even define what good and bad are if God does not exist. I would agree that you may be more moral than I, but you are making a moral statement that makes no sense in a Godless world. You appear to be borrowing your moral values from another worldview. Feel free to help me out here. Thanks!
Houx,
More unsupported arguments! Wow, that's gotta be a record.
Now, we're onto Plantinga's ontological argument.
I've got an argument for you borrowed from Peter Van Inwagen, one of Plantinga's colleagues.
1. Know-No is a being who knows there are no necessary beings.
2. If it is possible that Know-No exists, then there are no necessary beings.
3. It is possible that Know-No exists.
4. Therefore, there are no necessary beings.
Ta Da! No god exists.
Read more here.
Rob,
Why don't you cut the crap and just present your presuppositionalist argument.
1. If universal morality exists, then God exists.
2. Universal morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.
State it and support it. It is disingenuous to do otherwise.
Okay... I suspect you are just copying and pasting from website, but I will give a benefit of a doubt. Well, it is fun for me too.
"1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
Ok, so far so good.
"2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Ah! Stop here now. There is a serious problem when we talk about existence in terms of possible world. Paraphrasing A.N. Prior, saying that something exists in a possible world is like saying Spiderman exists in comic books. Prior writes "all these ways of talking suggest that the real world or the actual world is just a region of some larger universe which contains other regions as well - possible worlds, imaginary worlds, and so on."
In other words, this sort of ways of talking is misleading. If I say my imaginary friend "Pinky" exists in my mind; what I am really saying is that I imagine Pinky to exist (which entails Pinky is fictitious). If I say "God exists in a possible world" - I am not saying that God exists in some strange dimension; I am merely saying that it is possible for God to exists. I am too lazy to write out the whole translation, which I think any sensible person can do it themselves, but your argument is not much different that this
It is possible for God to exist (which I do not disagree); therefore, he must exist.
I will let the reader to decide the plausibility of this argument.
"Also I don't think we made up the idea that 2+2=4 or the truth that the earth is round, or the truth that its wrong to torture babies for fun. Truth is dicovered not invented."
These are apples and oranges. Torturing babies for fun is morally wrong, but it is not wrong in the sense as in 2+2=4. This is not something to be settle in couple sentences, but I will ask this: Is there a scientific method for us to test if torturing baby for fun is wrong?If yes, how?
Since you are fond of logic games. Let me throw one at you; as matter of fact, I will prove the existence of God for ya.
-----------------------------------
1.God exists.
2.All statements between these two lines is false.
-----------------------------------------
Therefore, God exists.
Have fun.
Ok lets try it from a scientic perspective. In 1970 Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose proved a new theroem: If the equations of general relativity reliably describe the dynamics of the universe, and if the universe contains mass, then time must have originated concurrently with matter and and energy. A corollary to the space-time theroms is that a causal agent must bring the universe into existence independent, or tanscendent, of matter, energy, and all the space time dimensions associated with matter and energy. Since the universe contains mass and general relativity has been proven to a 99.9999999 percent pricision the space-time theorems can be trusted. In Roger Penrose words general relativity is the most acurately tested theory known to science. This establishes a singular origin of space, time, matter and energy and that the cause of the universe arises from some context(dimensins,realm or other)independent of the space time dimensions of our universe.Only the Bibles claims about cosmic creation are consistent with the space-time theorems.
So I don't need to defend an argument I just rely on the scientifically proven space time theorems of general relativity.
So I don't need to defend an argument I just rely on the scientifically proven space time theorems of general relativity.
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
It is your responsibility to defend every assertion your argument makes.
Go back to the Romper Room.
A justification for God's possibility was established a posteriori.
contingent truth=George washington was the first president of the uninted states. Not true in every possible world.
Necessary truth=2+2=4, There are no possible worlds where 2+2=5.
There is no state of affairs where raping children is ok=necessary truth.
Contingent being=me. I don't exist in every possible world.
If you want to understand possible world semantics better let me suggest Alvin Plantinga The Nature of Necessity
What I meant was that I dont have to rely on an argument such as
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therfore the universe has a cause
The space-time theorems of general relativity establish that a cusal agent existing independently of matter, energy,space and time brought the universe into existence.
I rely on the scientific proven facts.
No need to argue. Lets test our beliefs with facts.
Dude,
You are wasting people's time here.
Possible worlds talk started with Leibniz and was expanded greatly by Kripke's rigid designators and Putnam's natural kind terms. Plantinga has nothing new to say about it. He's grabbed onto certain features of modal logic and other features of possible worlds and made a crappy argument.
Van Inwagen's Know-No example disproves a god as much as Plantinga proves a god (which in both cases is not-at-all).
Work on your arguments more and when you have something to say, stop back by.
Come to think of it I don't even have to prove God exist in order to know he exists.
I can know God exists apart from evidence or argument and still be rational in my belief.
I've got the best of both worlds my friend.
Wow, HOUX, I am so convinced by powerful arguments. You do have the best of the both world. You are so right that the evident that God exists just piles up and I am so irrational to deny that God exists. Furthermore, Hawking (who is a devout Christian, needless to say) successfully proved that Bible is the words of God. Praise to the Lord!
I want to accept Jesus as my savior now. Would you baptize me?
I didn't say Alvin invented it I was just recommending his book.
One more time
A version of the Leiniz cosmological argument coupled with the kalam leads to a metaphysically necessary being to ground concrete reality, certain versions of the moral argument to a locus of moral value which must be as metaphysically necessary as the moral values it grounds, and a conceptualist argument to an omniscient, metaphysically necessary intelligence as the foudation of abstract objects.
I don't have to rely on modal intuition. I have a posteriori considerations to establish God's possibility.
And I don't even have to do that.
I can just rely on the proven space-time theorems of general relativity that establish to a 99.9999999 percent precision that a CAUSAL AGENT existing independently of space time matter and energy brought this universe into existence. Not to mention the incredible fine-tuning of the universe.
It sounds like to me we don't like the scientifically established facts.
Are we going to say that the earth is flat now.
Lory wrote: I never understood why an atheist would want to convert a religious person to atheism.
Since I believe this life is the only one we have, I think it is a horrible sin for people to waste it. And Xians do defer their dreams, because they think they'll have their reward in heaven. Theists who believe in reincarnation similarly waste much of their time in the belief that they'll always have another shot at it.
We are born...we amuse ourselves with distractions and then we die. Life is just a waiting room for death...choose a magazine to pass the time until your name is called.
Although this sounds negative, it's basically true that life is all too brief, and it is what you make of it. I'm not sure your characterization is vastly different from the Christian view. You are born, you amuse yourselves for a while and then you die. The difference is that you theists waste much of your life doing things that are useless (praying, going to church, agonizing over what god wants you to do, etc.) because you think you're going to Valhalla, er, the Happy Hunting Grounds, er, Heaven, after you die. Of course you have no evidence of that. At least the atheist viewpoint gives some real immediacy to the idea that you should "seize the day."
...if there is no God and this pathetic little life is all we have then who the hell cares about truth? Hello?! You're going to die man who cares what's true? What good is the truth going to do you when you're dead?
Every day you're getting closer to death and you waste time worrying about what is true? You waste time convincing people that there is no God? For what?
It doesn't do me a lot of good personally. I act out of compassion for other people, who are still suffering under the delusion that a god exists and that there is some kind of afterlife. It took me 46 years to figure this out, primarily because I was never exposed to the information that would disprove those premises. It upsets me that billions of people on this planet are wasting their precious time being similarly deluded. It makes me sick to think of all the human energy wasted in feeling guilt over imagined sins and tormented with fears of hell. I'm disturbed that we are increasingly becoming involved in ideological wars based on Bronze Age theology. I'm frightened for the future of the planet that is being destroyed by people who think it's fine to rape and pillage the Earth, because JESUS IS COMING BACK IN THEIR LIFETIME!
To quote Homer, "If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
Exactly. Carpe diem. Sing, dance and be joyful today. It's a fucking miracle that we're here at all. Celebrate it.
To paraphrase Doug Adams, Isn't it enough to see that the universe is beautiful without having to believe that there are gods at the bottom of it too?
HOUX,
Flaws have been pointed out in your cosmological, moral, and conceptualist arguments repeatedly in this thread, none of which you have addressed. Repeating your arguments doesn't make the flaws go away. As for your "space-time" argument, please cite some sources that supports your peculiar interpretation of relativity.
—
As many of you know, the Christian teaching tells us that we really cannot bring someone to accept God without God’s intervention in that person. We do play a part in that process but ultimately it is God who makes the difference. We are sort of in cahoots with God to bring about the change. The person sort of gets cornered between the Holy Spirit working through the Christian and the Holy Spirit working directly in the person.
Humans use many different strategies in their efforts to convert someone, some may be more effective than others. Some are counterproductive. With some we are told not to even bother trying as the pearls would simply be trampled on.
Ancient methods of proving the existence of God, i.e., cosmological, ontological, teleological, may not hold up to strict rules of logic but are nevertheless sufficiently effective with many when they are expounded properly.
The major problem in most of these discussions is that people are trying to subject articles of faith to the principals of logic. Theists are playing into the limitations being set up by atheists. Some Christians particularly learned and gifted in the methodology of dialectics and the principals of logic do very well. Those of us not as gifted do better to sit back and enjoy the contest between talented dialecticians.
If Christians rest their faith on their ability to engage in dialectics and maintain tight rational discourse then they may end up like some of the atheists on this blog. If atheists subject the working of God to the limitations that they have set for themselves then they will remain where they are at.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the game of wanting God to be proven as you can prove what x equals when 3x = 12 is a real delusion. God’s response is simply, "Who the hell do you think you are? Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" If we stopped to ponder what a Being, the dimension of what is generally understood as God would be, then one would grasp the absurdity of the effort and line of questioning. And so I reject the method of discussion and argumentation that is being imposed here.
Something happens, if and when it happens, and then the true life of faith begins. Christians should not get frustrated by their inability to convince atheists. The Scriptures I believe are more to guide Christians along the path of righteousness than they are for converting infidels. Note that aside from the Gospels, everything in the New Testament is addressed specifically to Christians, to secure their salvation. We do have our hands full with simply preventing apostasy in the churches.
Here's some fun:
While relativity is indeed one of the most well-proven physical theories, so is quantum mechanics. In their respective regimes, both theories are so well-defended by evidence that we have found no apparent contradictions (as far as I know). The math behind these theories is, however, incompatible; they cannot both be correct (certain philosophical assumptions apply). We do not have a unified theory of everything (TOE), though physicists are working on it. People may have heard of "string theory", which is a proposed solution, though yet unvalidated.
Therefore, any attempt to prove something as non-obvious as a god via theories which cannot be correct can be safety ignored. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics, a first cause for events is apparently unnecessary. Yes, QM slightly breaks causality, which is one of the reasons people are looking for deeper theories. So, by cherry picking this theory, I can imply that a god is not necessary.
The origin of the universe was hot and dense and very small, which implies that both physical theories are necessarily involved, so we don't even get to ignore the discrepancy. All we can be sure about physics at the earliest levels is that it has to reduce to known physics under certain approximations.
Finally, I don't know how people can say that the creation stories in the Bible are consistent with modern physics. It takes some serious poetic license to conflate the Big Bang with six days of creation in which light was apparently created separately from matter, and before stars.
I know those arguments are flawed. Thats why I don't claim deductive proof. No philosophical argument reaches that standard. What I claim is that they establish God's possibility.
Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the royal Society of London series A,314(1970):529-48.
Roger Penrose - "the most accurately tested theory known to science"- Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind. 230
HOUX,
A bunch of bad arguments prove nothing. They are not even evidence. They are absolutely useless (except as thought exercises). I can make a zillion bad arguments for astrology and even the weighty sum does not show that astrology might be true.
I think that all the regular posters here would agree that god is possible, and furthermore agree that the existence of such a being is highly improbable. (I don't mean to misrepresent anybody though.)
The bible doesn't teach that light was created before stars.
Eze. 32:7 God's judgement on Egypt
When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light....and put darkness on your land. Notice their is darkness because of the cloud cover.
Job 38:8-9 is a reflection on the creation story.Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth... Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the cloud it's garment and thick darkness it's swaddling band.
There's darkness over the deep because of a thick cloud cover.
Heavens and earth were created in the beginng. Light appears through the cloud cover on day one. Sun moon and stars appear in the sky on day four. In perfect agreement with science
Be honest man.
You know those arguments at least establish God's possibility.
I being VERY generous in saying that
"As many of you know, the Christian teaching tells us that we really cannot bring someone to accept God without God’s intervention in that person."
Hold on there...So you mean that my mother went to hell because God didn't save her?
Houx, I don't want you to baptize me anymore.
YOU BLEW IT, GOD!
HOUX,
If you don't claim deductive proof, then why did you offer deductive arguments? (See Lok's comment at 6:40 pm) If a deductive step doesn't hold in such an argument, then the whole argument falls apart. Nothing is established at all.
Nice references, but where do they talk about the need of a Creator? Citing papers that don't say what you claim they say does nothing for your arguments. It just makes you look bad.
The only thing you are succeeding in right now is amply demonstrating the subject of the thread: Unconvincing Arguments.
I was offering a cumulative case.
It's possible that a maxamally great being exists. There is a possible world in which a maximally great being exists. If a maximally great being exists in a possible world He exists in every possible world. Scince the actual world is a possible world then God exists in the actual world.
The modal version of the Ontological argument encapsulates the thrust of all the arguments together to show that God the supreme being exists.
Or we can just go back to the scientific evidence alone
Bravo, an Unconvincing Meta-Argument: Repeating arguments that don't work.
What do you think of the Book that James Sennette edited and contibuted to "In Defense of Natural Theology?" He claims that Natural Theology is alive and kicking
Written in 2005
They offer a cummulative case
starting with the cosmological argument.
(not the one I offered)
I gave the science reference so you could look it up yourself
Houx, on the Ontological Argument read here, and read here.
Anyway the space-time theorems establish a creator. Once that is established, the fine tuning of the universe falls into place,the moral argument falls into place,the argument from conciousness falls into place,the argument from our rational faculties falls into place.
The evidence seems quite clear to me. I don't understand how people can't see it.
Don't get me wrong, I've struggled myself with Christianity. I still strugle with it.
I think of all the people who have never even heard of the evidence and believe in somthing completely different than me. Do they go to hell when they die? That scares the hell out of me. What if I was one of them? What about all the people that go to AA and get sober and think God is working in their lives. They will go to their grave not believing in Christ. Do they go to hell when they die? They seem to be doing just fine with their God. The atonement is just plain silly to them. It seems that way to me sometimes.I went to AA for six years. It has caused me to do alot of thinking.
I'll be honest. I do doubt the bible. I'm pretty confident there's a God.
Here's a problem I'm having.
To be humble means that you recognize youre not perfect. Well when I think I'm better than someone I Judge. That would make me sinful. Well to be humble means I recognize I'm sinful. If I'm humble I'm sinful. If I'm not humble I'm still sinful. If I'm perfect I have the right to judge.But if I do that I commit a sin. Jesus was humble. Doesn't that mean that he wasn't perfect?
Din't He consider God as being better than himself?
Hold on a minute. You made the assertion that you are moral and not evil (as I quoted earlier). You also stated that you don't need a god to be moral. I have simply asked you to defend your assertion. How do you know you are moral? On what basis? By whose standard?
HOUX,
Regarding "space-time theorems." Please read my comment. The theories themselves are flawed. There is no dispute in physics about this, either; you can read about this nearly anywhere. The net effect is that nobody can use physics to prove that the universe had a beginning, nor that a beginner is necessary for a beginning.
Please. You do not have scientific evidence. Stop saying that you do. Quoting authors who disagree with you in a currently evolving subject that you don't really understand is not a good tactic.
Hey John!
I'm Getting a copy of your book maybe tomorrow. I can't wait.
I think I will go along with Roger Penrose on the space-time theorems.
99.9999999 percent certainty is good enough for me
Rob,
Hold on a minute. You made the assertion that you are moral and not evil (as I quoted earlier). You also stated that you don't need a god to be moral. I have simply asked you to defend your assertion. How do you know you are moral? On what basis? By whose standard?
We're still not buying it, bro. Your question is loaded. You have an answer in mind. Your first question indicated it.
You said, ". . . you are making a moral statement that makes no sense in a Godless world. You appear to be borrowing your moral values from another worldview."
So, you are not just asking her because you are curious. You have an agenda. The fact that you are being deceptive about your agenda probably reveals something about your character.
You are trying to set the stage for an argument we've heard a thousand times before. Just get some balls and make your argument without all the trickery. You believe that her moral statement ". . . makes no sense in a Godless world." Prove it. Back up your assertion.
How about this for an answer, Rob. You asked, "How do you know you are moral?" I answer, "Duh, I don't know." What now? "Therefore, God exists"? Oops, we missed a step somewhere, didn't we? Oh, yea, you forgot to establish the fact that moral statements only make sense in a God-ful world.
Let's start there.
HOUX,
Please answer the question: where does Penrose say that the "space-time theorems" require a God to explain the beginning of the universe? If you cannot, then you have never read him, and have no business citing him. Or perhaps you are a brilliant comedy troll.
Lory Jean-Baptiste said...
Even an atheist would have to admit that if there is no God and no afterlife then life is pretty grim. Think about it. Our very existence is a cosmic accident. The universe is some mindless random process. We are born...we amuse ourselves with distractions and then we die. Life is just a waiting room for death...choose a magazine to pass the time until your name is called.
Lory – one of the most futile arguments a Christian can make is that an atheist cannot appreciate life. I run into Christians that seem to think that our time on earth is meaningless unless there is a promise of an afterlife to go along with it. I think this has an underlying connection to fear – in particular the fear of death. But to me, dealing with death by pretending that when you die you don’t really die cheapens the life we have in the here and now. What makes life so special to me is the fact that that it is so short, the fact that the end is undetermined, the fact that this is all we have.
Life is not grim to me. Life is full of wonder and excitement. Life is to be enjoyed and pondered. Life is what living is all about. I don’t need an afterlife to make this life meaningful. I don’t view the world as a fallen place full of evil that I want to escape. I view the world and my time on it as a fortuitous gift from the “cosmic accident.”
To me your view of life is the grim one. I can see how you would need to believe in something better when you are done here because, if like many Christians, my sister included, you view the world as evil, with satan at the helm. I feel sorry for Christians who have such a fatalistic view of life when it could be a wonderful experience. Wouldn’t you rather enjoy life right now rather than banking your hopes on some future heaven?
Rob said...
I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but I cannot see how you can even define what good and bad are if God does not exist. I would agree that you may be more moral than I, but you are making a moral statement that makes no sense in a Godless world. You appear to be borrowing your moral values from another worldview. Feel free to help me out here. Thanks!
Rob - I can't say it any better than Martin Wagner said it today on The Atheist Experience:
"Christians wonder how atheists can be moral because they fail to recognize a fact we understand with clarity: this is all we get. If this is all we get, then it's incumbent upon us to create a moral, peaceful world in which to live. Otherwise, we have squandered our only shot at life, and are destined to die with misery and regret. How is it so hard for them to understand just being good as a concept? To many of them, being a good and decent person isn't enough on its own. There must be a divine father waiting in the wings with a reward for all of that goodness. No reward? Then why be good? It's how they think, and it's why they can't understand why atheists can be good when we're not getting any reward. Atheist morality differs from, and is ultimately superior to, Christian morality because atheist morality is not contingent upon the question "What's in it for me?"
Theresa,
Rob isn't being sincere in his question; he's baiting you.
You simply said that you would not be convinced by an "argument" that said you must be a Christian to be moral. You said that this argument is false because you are a moral person.
So, Rob is a trolling slime that looks for certain words, even if the context is completely different than he was looking for. He sees the word "moral" as an invitation to spring an argument on you. He's not asking anything because he is curious.
This is his underlying belief that he betrayed in his first comment, ". . . you are making a moral statement that makes no sense in a Godless world." He believes that moral statements do not make sense without God.
But does he try to support his belief? No, instead, he wants to try to shift the burden to you. Remember, you simply said that you were a "moral" person--meaning you were kind to your family and others. Rob, the slime, is asking you to justify your moral reasoning (a different subject altogether).
You could have any number of justifications of your moral reason. Hell, you could be a relativist for all Rob the Slime knows. Your justification for calling yourself a "moral" person could be based on anything.
But Rob the Slime only saw the word "moral" and decided to hid an argument in the form of a question so that you would have to defend something that you never asserted in the first place.
If Rob wasn't such a slime, he would have simply said, "Hey, I know this is off the subject, but if there are universal moral laws, then God exists. Here's why . . ."
But, instead, slime that he is, he decided to bait you so that he didn't have to back up his assertion.
Hey, and perhaps he could back up his assertion. I'm not saying he can't. It would make for an interesting discussion, and it is an argument that shows promise. It's too bad he was too chickenshit to simply argue it though. Instead he tries to deceive you by making it sound like he has a legitimate question.
Then, when called on it, instead of owning up to it, he simply retreats back to more deceit. He writes, "You also stated that you don't need a god to be moral. I have simply asked you to defend your assertion."
Notice how he still practices deception here. You said that you were a moral person and then gave specific reasons why (viz. you wrote, "I do good things, I take care of my family, I am a hard worker, I protect the innocent."). You've already justified your assertion that you are moral. You defined being moral as taking care of your family, working hard, and protecting the innocent.
What Rob the Slime wants to do, though, is to change the subject to moral judgments in general. He wants to say that you were making some claim about morality in a godless universe, which you weren't.
It's nothing but deceit for him. If he wants to make an argument, let him make it.
Jules said, "The difference is that you theists waste much of your life doing things that are useless (praying, going to church, agonizing over what god wants you to do, etc.) because you think you're going to Valhalla, er, the Happy Hunting Grounds, er, Heaven, after you die. Of course you have no evidence of that. At least the atheist viewpoint gives some real immediacy to the idea that you should "seize the day."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16671785/site/newsweek/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4889
"It’s no wonder that, despite all the liberal bluff and bluster, conservative Christians still give far more support to charities than other people, as noted by a recent book, Who Really Cares, by Prof. Arthur Brooks. Strangely enough, Brooks himself had been raised in a socially liberal environment and was so surprised by the outcome that he had to recheck his data before he would accept it. But the data showed;
‘Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.’
One reviewer summarized:
‘The further to the left you are — particularly to the secular left ’ the less likely you are to donate your time or money to charity. Imagine two demographically identical people, except that Joe goes to church regularly and rejects the idea that the government should redistribute wealth to lessen inequality, while Sam never goes to church and favors state-driven income redistribution. Brooks says the data indicate that not only is Joe Churchgoer nearly twice as likely as Sam Secularist to give money to charities in a given year, he will also give 100 times more money per year to charities (and 50 times more to non-religious ones).’"
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084/83/
Do you honestly believe that atheist are the only people who can carpe diem and Christians are nothing more than useless bumps on a log?
Of course, what your citations neglect to point out is that most people "to the left--particulatly the secular left" believe that it is a vital role of the government (of which they are a part) to provide public services to the poor and needy.
So people "to the left--particulatly the secular left" generally vote for candidates who attempt things like universal health care, welfare programs, inexpensive public education, etc. And all of this through progressive taxation.
And what about people to the right--the religious right? Hmmm, they vote for candidates who oppose universal health care, welfare programs, and inexpensive public education, etc. And they oppose progressive taxation.
Wow, and people "to the left--particulatly the secular left" tend to support organizations like the United Nations who seek to eliminate the underlying causes of disease and poverty, while people to the right--the religious right oppose them.
Personally, I think most charitable giving is a waste because it rarely seeks to eliminate underlying causes. Underlying causes (e.g. regional trade, water systems, road systems, etc.) are matters that only governments can fix. I support those awful liberal governments that try to fix these things and the people to the right--the religious right, oppose those governments.
But hey, at least they give to charities so they can put a bandage on the wounds they inflict by their opposition to agencies that can make an effective change.
HOUX,
Remember. We were Christians once. We argued against atheists about the legitimacy of both Christianity in particular and theism in general. While I can appreciate that these arguments can be brought back up for lurkers to reflect upon, please remember that we considered them, once, too.
And recognize the weaknesses within them.
I will let the others discuss the philosophical arguments you present. However, you began to discuss the bailiwick of the Bible—hope you don’t mind if I jump in.
HOUX: Heavens and earth were created in the beginng. Light appears through the cloud cover on day one. Sun moon and stars appear in the sky on day four. In perfect agreement with science
I am familiar with the “earth perspective” theory of interpreting Genesis 1. There is a huge problem. Since you enjoy science, perhaps you can answer this simple question—when did the atmosphere form? See, a person would not have a “blocked” view of the sun from clouds without atmosphere. They would see the sun (and stars) LONG before atmosphere would ever come along.
(And if you prefer the “clouds of gaseous smoke from volcanoes” theory in the alternative, the same question applies—without atmosphere, what kept the “clouds” in formation around the earth?)
Secondly, the Hebrew writer of Genesis started creation in vs. 3. “Heavens and earth” were NOT created in the beginning. They were taken for granted. The writer is not discussing creation ex nihilo but simply assumes the earth, water, and heavens were already there. It is more accurately translated, “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth…Then God said, “Let there be light.”
Vs. 1 & 2 are merely introductory remarks, explaining what is about to occur. Further, if you are really interested, there is a poetic notion of creation/filling.
Day 1: God creates Light.
Day 2: God creates Water/Sky.
Day 3: God creates Land.
Day 4: God “fills” Light with Sun, Moon, Stars.
Day 5: God “fills” water with fish and sky with birds.
Day 6: God “fills” the land with animals.
Note the symmetry. This was an allegory. Not a scientific expedition. (And, again, in my opinion, it is far more beautiful and informative of our past to recognize it for what was intended to be, rather than mercilessly smash it into a science textbook.)
Further, I hope you appreciate that Job is also poetic. You don’t really believe in literal treasuries of snow and hail, do you? (Job 38:22) I would also note that Job maintains the Hebrew notion of “light” being different than that which the sun provides:
“Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place?…By what way is light diffused, Or the east wind scattered over the earth?: (Job 38: 19, 24)
Ironically, if Christianity recognized Genesis and Job for their allegorical nature, and not scientific description (similar to our saying, “The sun rises”) they could easily maintain inerrancy, inspiration, and the same Christian God. (At least in these passages.) Yet they cannot seem to do so…
Yes, Ezekiel 32:7 does refer to clouds covering stars, the moon and the sun, creating “darkness.” I am uncertain as to the novelty of a 3rd or 4th century B.C.E. person noting that when clouds cover the sun, moon and stars it is darker. (Again, not relevant to the discussion, since this is just the author having God “vent.” Do you think the valleys would literally be filled with corpses? Exe. 32:5. Or is this hyperbole, perhaps?)
I do not see how utilizing the Tanakh as a science book (when it was not written, nor intended to be so) is helpful to your position.
Guys, I am amazed. I asked a simple question, which according to your self proclaimed abilities in apologetics should be easy to answer.
Rather than ANSWER my honest question, some of you have resorted to character attacks, name calling and speculation about my motives.
What am I to assume from this?
Now, back to my point. YOU made the assertion:
Don't try to get to me on morality either. I don't believe one needs a god to be moral. I am moral and I am not evil. I do good things, I take care of my family, I am a hard worker, I protect the innocent. In fact I have a much higher moral standard than many of the Christians I have been reading about in the paper these days. I might be willing to listen to you on the biblical stance on morality IF you followed all of the rules yourself, not just the hand picked ones that sound good for these times.
Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
As for my question "being loaded": well, of course it is. I have a perspective on this issue just as you do. Please tell me what is wrong with that? And yes, I admit it -- I do have an agenda -- just like everyone else.
So, will you now answer my question? Please?
Heavens and earth created
As job says there is darkness upon the surface of the deep because of a cloud cover(common sense interpretation)
Light penetrates to the surface of earths ocean
Evapration takes place and the ATMOSPHERE is formed. The waters above (rain clouds) form a stable water cycle.(stable water cycle is required for life)
Dry land emerges and vegetation appears on the continental land masses.
Vegetation consumes carbon dioxiode and releases oxygen into the atmosphere - as a rusult
the sun, moon, and stars become visible from the surface of the earth
notice:
Advanced animals REQUIRE the visibility of the sun,moon, and stars to regulate their biological clocks.
Once again the three arguments I used establish God's possibility.
I'm not relying on MODAL INTUITION.
Keep in mind I'm refering to METAPHYSICAL POSSIBILITY not EPESTEMIC POSSIBILITY.
To learn the difference read Alvin Plantinga's The Nature of Necessity.
Physical possibility
Strict logical possibility
Broad logical possibility
The three arguments don't establish the possibility of just NECESSARY BEING
but a MAXIMALLY GREAT BEING
Cosmological
Moral
Conceptual
The Slime oozed:
I asked a simple question, which according to your self proclaimed abilities in apologetics should be easy to answer.
1) It is an irrelevant question. She wasn't talking about moral judgments. She defined her terms within the context of her statement (viz. she said that she was moral and based that on the fact that she took care of her family and others).
2) It's a dishonest question. You're asking because you want to involve her in a debate that has nothing to do with her post. You aren't seeking information from her, you are baiting a trap.
3) It's unreasonable to ask someone for an answer to a question for which they reject the premise without giving reasons to accept the premise.
4) You're an idiot and a slime if you think it is an easy question. There are volumes of books written on meta-ethics from both Christian and non-Christian sources. On the non-Christian side, you have moral relativists (of various stripes), moral realists, Platonists, neo-Platonists, etc. On the Christian side, you have divine command theorists, modified divine command theorists, appeals to God's nature, theistic Platonists, theistic neo-Platonists, etc.
The question is anything but simple.
5) Even if some have the ability to answer the question, it doesn't follow that we need to unless you explain why it is relevant to this topic at this time.
What am I to assume from this?
Assume that we don't let slimes dictate terms and introduce red-herrings to discussions.
Or, better yet, assume that our answer is "Duh, I don't know," and proceed with your ridiculous argument.
Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.
The burden of proof would lie with her if she was making a meta-ethical point, slime. As it stands, she used the word moral in a normative sense and defined what she meant by it within her statement. You are introducing another issue altogether.
As for my question "being loaded": well, of course it is.
No shit. Loaded questions are different than presuppositions. We all have presuppositions, but we all don't ask loaded questions. Loaded questions are dishonest. Questions when you aren't looking for answers but are trying to bait people are dishonest.
If you want to have a discussion, make statements, not statements dishonestly hidden in questions.
I have a perspective on this issue just as you do. Please tell me what is wrong with that? And yes, I admit it -- I do have an agenda -- just like everyone else.
Nobody faults you for having a perspective, slime. It's the dishonesty of your question that I have a problem with.
Since you have an agenda, state it, don't hide it in questions.
Sure we all have agendas in our actions, but we can either pursue our agendas honestly or dishonestly. You've chosen to pursue your agenda dishonestly by asking loaded questions instead of stating your argument outright. This speaks to the kind of person you are. Others choose to state their agendas openly and honestly. Not you, though, slime.
Your argument is simple. It is like I stated above:
1. If universal moral laws exist, then God exists.
2. Universal moral laws exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is your simple, presuppositionalist argument. It is a form of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. It was developed by van Til, popularized by Bahnsen and Frame, and often supplemented by Plantinga. Two younger apologists seem to be moving it further along, viz. James Anderson and Greg Welty.
We know it; we've heard it; we've discussed it before.
The difference being? These guys will (usually) state their arguments upfront without deception and support its claims. They are what I call "good apologists," you, though, are a dishonest slime.
So, will you now answer my question? Please?
Sure, I will (even though you didn't ask me).
You asked:
How do you define what good and bad are if God does not exist?
My answer:
"Duh, I don't know."
Now, it is your move. Do you say, "Ah ha! Therefore, God exists"--as if that follows at all.--or do you finally give your argument and support it?
The ball is in your court, slime.
HOUX said: "Once again the three arguments I used establish God's possibility."
Which should really read: Once again the three arguments I used establish God's possibility *in my own mind*.
Are you trying to argue for the possibility of God, or the plausibility of God? As Lok said, most people here accept the possibility (though not because of the pathetic arguments you have presented), but most people here don't think God is very plausible. You can stop now if all you wanted to establish is His possibility.
If you want to establish more, though, you'll need to do better than the arguments you have presented so far, all of which have been refuted. If you really want to convince people of something, it's better to find one strong argument and be able to defend it, rather than dance from one broken argument to another. And don't bother repeating refuted arguments.
It's wrong to rape little children - necessary truth - true in all possible worlds
2+2=4 - True in all possible worlds
George Washinton was the first president of the U.S.- True in some possible world
Human beings - exist in some possible worlds
Maximally Great Being - exists in every possible world
Cosmological argument - Necessary Being
Moral argument - Locus of moral value that must be a as metaphysically necessary as the moral values it grounds
Conceptualist argument - An infinite necessary intelligence to ground necessary truths
Conclusion - It's possible that a maximally great being exists
A maximally great being exists in some possible world therefore
A maximally great being exists in every possible world
It's that simple
Benny,
All that Houx (or is it Hoax?) is doing is trying to get to Plantinga's Ontological argument. He'll jump all over your suggestion that god is "possible" because his argument is that if it is possible that god exists in some possible world, and god is a necessary being, then god must exist in all possible worlds.
What he is doing is equivocating on the term "possible." We've both pointed him to exapologist's post to correct him, but he has proven time and time again that he will not be corrected and that he simply wants to repeat himself over and over again without addressing anything that has been said to him.
Apparently, someone is telling all of the bad apologist to come here. That's the only reason I can think that this site is being graced by Rob and Houx
HOUX,
Perhaps you can help me clear up some of my confusion. Can you provide me the order in which the following items came into existence?
Sun
Earth
Earth’s Atmosphere.
Thanks.
Everybody who likes science, including HOUX:
Both Hawking and Penrose are working on alternative physical theories because the established canon is apparently not good enough. General Relativity is certainly supported by evidence in our current universal arrangement, which involves both high speeds and large spaces. But, the state of the universe at the beginning also involves extremely high density. We are sure that, under those conditions, our current established theory is wrong. This discrepancy is the driving force behind much of physics today.
As for the universe coming from a singularity: currently, Penrose is working, in part, on "Loop Quantum Gravity," which is one of the deeper theories meant to unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. According to recent research, "In 2006, Abhay Ashtekar released a paper claiming that according to loop quantum gravity, the singularity of the Big Bang is avoided." (Wikipedia entry on Loop Quantum Gravity--you can also follow the links to find authoritative sources).
While I certainly buy that Relativity implies a singular origin, I also know that Relativity fails at concurrent high density and high energy. So, physics has nothing yet to say about a general kind of creator god, existing outside of our ability to sense or measure. Arguments for any god based on physics can be safety ignored. Also, while I am not working on physical cosmology, I am a physicist, and I am not making this up.
Since your a physicist you should know that theese theories are speculation. Audiences should always beware of any cosmology based on the breakdown of known phisical laws. Since those laws hold for 99.999999999999999999999.. percent of the universe's history.
Loop Quantum gravity hasn't been proven it is speculation based on a very tiny gap in our knowlege.
Ten-dimensional string theory provides a solution to how gravity and quantum mechanics can successfully coexist all the way back to the creation event.
There's no need to prefer speculative theories that contrdict the the proven space-time theorems. Theese are attempts to try to avoid the overwhelming evidence for a cosmic creation event.
Once again the three arguments I provided establish the METAPHYSICAL POSSIBILITY of God's existence.
Broad logical possibility(metaphysical possibility)
Strict logical possibility
(merely free from contradiction)
The equivication is a figment of your imagination
I'm starting to detect delusion
Thanks for the wake-up call, Anonymous. Though I hesitate to apply the term "apologist" to HOUX, since he seems incapable of doing anything more than copying and pasting the same text repeatedly. You're right, he's not worth the time.
You can say it's possible that God exists and it's possible God does't exist. But this is true only with respect to epistemic possibility. But if God is maximally great being, then His existence is either necessary or impossible, regardless of our epistemic uncertainty.
There is a difference between metaphysical and epestemic possibility
You can come up with a possible explanation for somthing and yet that explanation be metaphysically absurd.
Re: ontological proofs, I admire Gödel's proof. A good discussion of it can be found here.
John 3:17-21 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
HOUX,
Perhaps you missed my question.
What was the order in which the following items came into existence?
Sun.
Earth.
Earth’s Atmosphere.
See, if you are trying to use science to back up the claims of the Bible as literal, then we would think the Bible falls into line with the order science indicates these three items came into being.
However, what you are claiming does NOT fall in line with science. Not to say that a God could not create in any order S/He chooses. God could create animals, let them hang in suspended animation in bubbles of air, and the next day creates the land upon which they walk.
Equally God could create the Earth and its atmosphere, let it hang in suspended animation until the sun came along.
However, if that is what you are claiming, then science does NOT back up the Bible, because Science says something different occurred.
So, if you could help—what is the order those three items came into existence?
Kevin,
"Mary had a little lamb. It's fleece was white as snow. And everywhere that Mary went the lamb was sure to go."
In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth
The "early atmosphere" was opaque.
All planets start off with opaque atmospheres. Thick layers of gasses as helium, hydrogenn, and amonia surround them with a dense shroud of interplanetary debri. This blocks out the light from the sun.
Or how about this
In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth
The days of creation refer to God preparing "the land" - a phrase used in the pentatuch to refer to the promised land - for adam and eve. God is preparing a land for his people. The land that God would later promise to Abraham.
Let me restate my claim.
It's possible to harmonize the days of creation with Science.
there's no provable contradiction
Anonymous,
The question is not the transparency or lack thereof of the atmosphere at a particular point in time. The question is when the atmosphere came into existence (regardless of transparency) in relation to the sun being visible from earth.
Prior to the atmosphere, standing on the volcanic, turbulent molten Earth, the only thing between the surface of the Earth and the Sun was space. The stars, moon and sun would have been plainly (even blindingly) visible.
In order for this claim that the reason “light” was created first was that it was not visible to an observer on earth, and only after the atmosphere cleared (or the clouds rolled away) then the sun became visible, means that the sun had to be created when an atmosphere was already in place.
Meaning you make the order:
1. Earth
2. Earth’s atmosphere
3. Sun.
Which is fine for an allegorical creation story. Not so fine for someone wanting to claim that science backs up a literal creation story.
Well the bible says that in the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth - space,time, matter, energy, sun, moon, stars,earth, and atmosphere. When planets first form they all start out dark and empty of life
The bible is silent on the order
Or
God creates the Heavens and the Earth
Heavens and Earth = The organized universe.
Then at a particular point in time for whatever reason "the land" is without form and void. There is darkness over the deep in "the land". Why? Well as Job so clearly trys to communicate there is a thick cloud covering the deep. God "brings clouds and darkness". "The Land" is without form and void. In Jer. 4:23 when God brings judgement against Juduah "the land" once again becomes "without form and void" with darkness. I looked on the land, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens and they had no light...there was no man....all the birds of the air had flown away....I looked and behold, the fruitful land was a dessert.
The Holy Spirit is hovering over the waters preparing the "Good Land" for His people.
Science pressuposes that this is an ordered universe. An ordered universe pressuposes God. Is it just coincidence that science was birthed out of the Cristian world view and has stumbled upon a beginning to the universe that just so happens to be incredibly fine tuned for life to exist?
Let the reader decide.
I've made my decision.
Creation of the universe(space,time,matter,energy, sun, moon,stars,planets)
At its beginning earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and earths primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the earths surface
clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavens penatrate to the surface of the earths ocean
Formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
Formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
Production of plants on the continental land masses
Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Sun, moon, stars, can be seen from earth's surface
Relativity is the best proven principle in all of physics. While there is some doubt it is beyond reasonable doubt.
Loop theory is one of many which has no scientific credibility.
Hawking is currently taking a Deistic view
(I wonder why?)
BY THE WAY THIS IS NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE
A LIST OF EVIDENCES
1. EVIDENCES FOR GENERAL RELATIVITY
Recent measurements now elevate the theory of general relativity to the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in all of physics. The solution to the equations demonstrate that the univerese must be expanding from a beginning in the finite past.
2. SPACE-TIME THEOREM
If the universe contains mass, and if it's dynamics are govened by general relativity, then time itself must be finite and must have been created when the universe was created. Also, there must be a CAUSE responsible for bringing the universe into existence.
3. EXISTENCE AND TEPURATURE OF THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman calculated in 1948 that cooling from a big bang creation event would yeild faint cosmic background radiation with a current temperature of roughly 5 degrees Kelvin. In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a cosmic background radiation and determined that it's temperature was about 3 degrees kelvin.
4. BLACK BODY BODY CHARACTER OF THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
Deviations between the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation and the spectrum expected from a perfect radiator measured to be less than .03 percent over the entire range of observed wavelengths. the only possible explanation for such an extemely close fit is that the entire universe must have expanded from infinitely hot and compact beginning.
5. COOLING RATE THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
Acooording to the big bang, the older the universe becomes, the cooler will be the cosmic background radiation. Measurements of distances so great show teperature measures that are hotter than the present 2.726 degrees K. That is, astronomers actually witness the universe getting hotter and hotter as they look back in time.
6. TEMPERATURE UNIFORMITY OF THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
The temperature of the background radiation varies by no more than one part in ten thousand from one direction in the heavens to any other. Such high uniformity can only be explained if the background radiation arises from an extremely hot primordial creation event.
To this list I could add 24 more evidences. But to save space I will refrain
References:
Ralph A. Alpher and Robert C. Herman, "Evolution of the Universe," Nature, 162 (1948), pp. 774-775.
Arno A. Penzias and Robert Wilson, "A measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s," Astrophysical Journal, 142 (1965) pp. 419-421
John C. Mather, et al., "Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum by the COBE FIRAS Instument,"Astrophysical journal, 420(19994), 439-444.
Antoinette Songaila, et al. "Measurement of the Microwave Background Tempurature at Redshift 1.776," Nature, 371 (1994), pp 43-45.
Juan M. Uson and David T. Wilkenson,"Improved Limits on Small-Scale Ansitopy in Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 312 (1984), pp. 427-429.
P. Kaaret et al., "Strong-Field Gravity and X-Ray observations of AU 1820-30," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 520 (1999), pp. L37-L40.
Physicists tell us that when the probabilities of something happening reach up to 10 to the 100th power then chance can be sucessfully ruled out.
They don't use the completly unreliable and highly controversial Bayes theorem to calculate the probabilities involved. An attempt at calculating the possibility that a randomly selected planet in our universe with the copacity to support life has been calculated by physicists and astronomers. Here is a list of the parameters with the probability that the feature will fall into the required feature for life.
If you want references I will provide them.
local abundance and distribution of dark matter .1
galaxy cluster size .1
galaxy cluster location .1
galaxy size .1
galaxy type .1
galaxy location .1
variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate .1
star location relative to galactic center .2
star distance from corotation circle of galaxy .005
star distance from closest spiral arm .1
z-axis extremes of stars orbit .02
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption .01
number of stars in system .7
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption .01
number of stars in system .7
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars .01
proximity of close stellar encounters .1
masses of close stellar encounters .1
star birth date .2
star age .4
star metallicity .05
star orbital ecentricity .1
star mass .001
star luminosity change relative to speciation types and rates .0001
star color .4
star's carbon to oxygen ratio .01
stars space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest .05
Stars short term luminosity variability .05
stars long term luminosity variability .05
number and timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds .1
H3+production .01
supernovae rates & locations .01
white dwarf binary types, rates, and locations .01
planetary distance from star .001
inclination of planetary orbit .5
axis tilt of planet .3
rate of change of axial tilt .01
period and size of axis tilt variation .1
planetary rotation period .1
rate of change in planetary rotation period .05
planetary orbit eccentricity .3
rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity .1
rate of change of planetary inclination .5
rate of change of planetary inclination .5
period and size of eccentricity variation .1
period and size of inclination variation .1
number of moons .2
mass and distance of moon .01
suface gravity .001
tidal force from sun and moon .1
magnetic field .01
rate of change and character of change in magnetic field .1
albedo .1
density .1
thikness of crust .01
oceans to continents ratio .2
rate of change in oceans to continents ratio .1
global distribution of continents .3
frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages .1
frequency, timing, & extent of global snowbal events .1
asteroidal & cometary collision rate .1
change in astroidal & cometary collision rates .1
rate of change in astroidal & cometary collision rates .1
mass of body colliding with primordial earth .002
timing of body colliding with primordial earth .05
location of body's collision with primordial earth .05
position & mass of Jupiter relative to earth .01
major planet orbital instabilities .05
drift and rate of drift in major planet distances .05
number and distribution of planets .01
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric pressure .01
atmospheric viscosity .1
atmospheric electric discharge rate .01
atmospheric temperature gradient .01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .01
rate of change in carbon dioxide in atmosphere .1
rate of change in water level vapor in atmosphere .01
rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere .01
oxygen quantity in atmosphere .1
chlorine quantity in atmosphere .1
cobalt quantity in crust .1
arsenic quantity in crust .1
copper quantity in crust .1
boron quantity in crust .1
flourine quantity in crust .1
iodine quantity in crust .1
manganese quantity in crust .1
nickel quantity in crust .1
phosphorus quantity in crust .1
tin quantity in crust .1
zinc quantity in crust .1
molybdenum quantity in crust .05
vanadium quantity in crust .1
chromium quauntity in crust .1
selenium quantity in crust .1
iron quantity in oceans .1
troposperic ozone quantity .01
stratospheric ozone quantity .01
mesospheric ozone quantity .01
water vapor level in atmosphere .01
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere .1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
quantity of forest & grass fires .01
quantity of sea salt aerosols .1
soil mineralization .1
quantity of anaerobic bacteria in the oceans .01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans .01
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil .01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil .01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil .01
quantity and timing of vascular plant introductions .001
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate producing animals .00001
quantity, timing & placement of methanogens .00001
Quantity of soil sulfur .1
quantity of sulfur in the planets cor .1
quantity of silicon in the planet's core .1
quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust .01
hydration rate of subducted minerals .1
tectonic activity .05
rate of decline in tectonic activity .1
volcanic activity .1
rate of decline in volcanic activity .1
viscocity at Earth core boundaries .01
viscosity of lithosphere .2
biomass to comet infall ratio .01
regularity of cometary infall .1
number, intensity, & location of hurricanes .02
dependency factors estimate 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
longevity requirements estimate .0000001
probability for the occurrence of all 128 parameters = 10 to the -166th power
Maximum possible number of planets in the universe = 10 to the 22 power
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10 to the 144th power exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.
Here's a short list of ALL scientific evidences for a big bang creation event
1. Existence and temperature of the cosmic background radiation
2. Black body character of the cosmic background radiation
3. Cooling rate of the cosmic background radiation
4. Temperature uniformity of the cosmic background radiation
5. Ratio of photons to baryons in the universe
6. Temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation
7. Power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation
8. Cosmic expansion rate
9. Stable orbits of stars and planets
10. Existence of life and humans
11. Abundance of helium in the universe
12. Abundance of deuterium in the universe
13. Abundance of lithium in the universe
MY TWO FAVORITE
14. EVIDENCES FOR GENERAL RELATIVITY
15. SPACE-TIME THEOREM OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
16. Space energy density measurements
17. Stellar ages
18. Galaxy ages
19. Decrease in galaxy crowding
20. Photo album history of the universe
21. Ratio of ordinary matter to exotic matter
22. Abundance of beryllium and boron in elderly stars
23 Numbers of Population I,II, and III stars.
24. Population, locations, and types of black holes and neutron stars
25. Dispersion of star clusters and galaxy custers.
26. Number and type of space time dimensions
27. Masses and flavors of neutrinos
28. Populations and types of fundemental particles
29. Cosmic density of protons and neutrons.
Although string theory has not been proven yet -
30. Ten-dimensional creation calculation.
A team led by Andrew Strominger demonstrated that in a universe framed in ten space-time dimensions where six of the ten dimensions stop expanding when the universe is a 10 millionth of trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old is it possible to have gravity and quauntum mechanics coexist. This calculation also successfully predicted both special and general relativity. It implies that the big bang and the laws of physics are valid all the way back to the creation event itself.
Oh my!
I almost forgot the the fine tuning
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values. Given the intricacy of some of their interrelationships, the indication of divine fine-tuning seems incontrovertible.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electon mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons.
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expasion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distibution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos.
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile nutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistc dialation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by first supernova
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Possitive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxy
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quazars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic space-time fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constacy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnethtohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the the obsovable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event in the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the ealy history of the earth
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygens kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of Paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies in the middle aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of initial mass function of the univerdse made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to percieve with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehesible universe, forms my idea of God. - Albert Einstein
Anonymous, that "probability calculation" is crap. They are estimating the probability of an event happening that already happened; that is, they are estimating the probabitlity of a random planet being able to support life as we know it here on Earth. This has nothing to do with the ability of a planet to maintain life at all. Therefore, to use this probability for a post hoc analysis, you would have to assume that the only life possible is life as it exists on Earth, which is an unsupported assumption.
Relativity is an excellent approximation of reality, but physicists are very familiar with its limitations, in that it does not account for all of the forces, and cannot be reconciled with quantum theory. Therefore, it cannot determine what occured at the time of the Big Bang. Of course, no one knows what happened "before" the Big Bang (if that question has any meaning at all), but some physicists and mathematicians think that the universe is in an eternal expand-contract cycle (a UNC mathematician just made the news with a mathematical model of this phenomenon). So, the anthropic principle is not useful for supporting deism by probability if an infinite universe has not been ruled out (which it has not).
As physicist Robert Dicke obsereved thirty-two years ago, if you want life, you must have carbon. Boron and silicon are the only other elements on which complex elements can be based, but boron is rare, and cilicon can hold together no more than about a hundred amino acids. Given the constraints of physics and chemistry, we can reasonably assume that physical life must be carbon based. Life is life. You can speculate about imaginary beings all you want to. I'll stick with the established facts.
Like I said RECENT developments have laid to rest any nagging doubts about relativity and therefore the space-time theorem. If you want to say the universe popped into existence out of nothing then you have violated law of of cause and effect. What you have done is undermined all of science. Thats a big price to pay to avoid a cause. Maybe you missed all 30 evidences that I listed for the big bang creation event. Relying on what happened in a tiny uncertainty in our knowledge at 10 to minus 43 seconds after the bang
seems to to me quite bizzare. Even with the consideration of exotic matter, the total mass of the universe falls short of what would be needed to force an eventual collapse of the universe. Even if the universe did contain enough mass to reverse it's expansion and even if a bounce mechanism were discovered the number of bounces would be limited because of entropy. The ultimate creation, at most could be pushed back only to about a trillian years ago. Latest measurements now establish beyond any reasonable dout that there is insufficiant mass to halt cosmic expansion. Discoveries show that the universe's space fabric has an ongoing self-streach property and it has a flat geometry and therefore will continue to stretch forever. Therefore, the search for a loophole has failed.
Shygetz,
There's little point in trying to reason with Anonymous/Houx. He doesn't understand your objections, and will merely repeat refuted arguments, as if that does away with your objections. This is sadly evident throughout this thread.
Anonymous/Houx,
As I said to you elsewhere, stop hiding by posting Anonymously, because we can see quite well which posts are yours, simply by their incoherence.
You said, "You can speculate about imaginary beings all you want to. I'll stick with the established facts."
This coming from a guy who believes in an imaginary Creator! That's rich!
Science does not claim definite knowledge about what took place prior to the Big Bang, so trying to use science to justify your God is useless. No one's falling for it. Arguing for God because you don't see how the universe can come into being without a creator is similarly useless, because a God who has no creator makes no more sense than a universe with no creator. But I'm sure this won't stop you from spouting more incoherence. Please do continue, because if nothing else, your posts have great comedic value.
Well, I never claimed science provides definite knowledge. It does reach prctical certainty though. (beyond reasonable doubt)
Your right I can't see how the universe can pop into existence out of nothing. Like I said I'll stick with science and reason. You can stick with magic and your imagination.
Why would God need a creator?
The Universe and everything in it is confined to a single finite dimension of time. Time in that dimesion always moves foward. The flow of time can never be reversed. Any entity confined to such a dimension must have a starting point. This applys to the creation and everything in it. The necessity for god to be created, however, would apply, if God were confined to this half dimension. God's not so confined. Since cause and effect phenomena take place in time and the space-time theorems say that that time was caused independent of time dimension of the universe then God would exist in at least one additional time dimension. In the equivilent of two or more dimensions of time, an entity is free from the necessity of being created. Two dimensions of time have legnth and width. Time would expand from a line to a plane. In a plane of time an infinite number of lines would run in an infinite number of directions.
IT IS TIME WE STOP THIS NONSENSE AND GET BACK TO GOD FELLAS.
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE. OPEN YOU EYES! IF YOU DON'T SEE IT YOUR BLIND! GOD IS NO DELUSION! HE IS THE CREATOR OF THE COSMOS!
THE BIBLE GAVE BIRTH TO SCIENCE.
SCIENCE PRESSUPOSES A RATIONAL ORDER. RATIONAL ORDER PRESSUPOSES A RATIONAL ORDERER.
IS ALL THIS COINCIDENCE?
As physicist Robert Dicke obsereved thirty-two years ago, if you want life, you must have carbon. Boron and silicon are the only other elements on which complex elements can be based, but boron is rare, and cilicon can hold together no more than about a hundred amino acids.
And how exactly did physicist Robert Dicke do this experiment? The idea that the only complex compounds (not elements, compounds--get your terminology right) can be from boron, silicon, and carbon is silly, and easily refutable.
Given the constraints of physics and chemistry, we can reasonably assume that physical life must be carbon based.
But you are talking about what would happen if we CHANGE the constraints of physics and chemistry. Even IF you assume that he is correct, and that you could not form life from other elements, that holds only in a universe with the physical laws that we have here. You change those laws, and you can throw that chemistry out the window (along with your "proof" of a creator).
I'll stick with the established facts.
Welcome to the agnostic fold, my brother.
If you want to say the universe popped into existence out of nothing then you have violated law of of cause and effect.
There Is No Law Of Cause And Effect. If you refute this, please state the law in formal terms and reference the proof.
Maybe you missed all 30 evidences that I listed for the big bang creation event.
No, I heartily believe in the Big Bang; you cannot use the Big Bang to refute infinite universal series, as what happened at the beginning of the Big Bang is not known, and what occurred before the Big Bang is not known and probably unknowable (if not meaningless). For all you know, the Big Bang happened innumerable times before. And that's not even counting the possibility of alternate universes, in which case that AP falls apart completely (as in an infinite universe, everything that can happen will happen).
Even if the universe did contain enough mass to reverse it's expansion and even if a bounce mechanism were discovered the number of bounces would be limited because of entropy.
Which does not hold, as the laws of thermodynamics would be invalid at and before the singularity.
Latest measurements now establish beyond any reasonable dout that there is insufficiant mass to halt cosmic expansion.
Really? You should publish those results and accept your Nobel, because the physics community still considers it an open question. In fact, many physicists think that the fermion-boson fate of universe theory is the leading theory. It predicts that, after the universe cools to Bose-Einstein condensate and fermionic condensate, it would lead to an implosion, which causes a chain reaction that leads to one or multiple Big Bangs...thus, a cyclical universe without gravitational collapse, but rather a magnetic collapse of the condensates.
The Universe and everything in it is confined to a single finite dimension of time. Time in that dimesion always moves foward. The flow of time can never be reversed. Any entity confined to such a dimension must have a starting point.
That's odd...I thought the Universe WAS time (you know, spacetime, relativity...fascinating subject). So, if the Universe IS time, then it would not need a "starting" event, as outside of the Universe, there is no concept of time (wow, kinda like your argument for God not needing a starting point...maybe you should think about that before you read the response off your sheet).
the space-time theorems say that that time was caused independent of time dimension
No they don't...they don't say anything about time being caused...either cite your sources or quit making stuff up.
There's little point in trying to reason with Anonymous/Houx. He doesn't understand your objections, and will merely repeat refuted arguments, as if that does away with your objections.
I don't argue for his benefit, I argue for the benefit of those who may be reading along...if you leave an idiot unanswered, he may appear wise.
It's all a big conspiracy isn't it?
I must have got ahold of bad information from a delusional person.
I thougt scientists searched for causes
Your right, my mistake
There is no cause and effect
By the way what CAUSED you to come to that conclusion?
You keep searching for the TRUTH.
Those who seek find.
I've made my decision.
O.K.
Wait a minute. I just thought of something.
You can argue this thing either way.
If Cuase and effect operate in time and time has a beginning. Then that wound mean there's no cause because there is no time.
What about that one?
That would undermine the law of causality and destroy rationality and the sciences.
Since the Causl Agent transcends time he must exist in at lest two dimensions of time. In a plane of time there can be an infinite number of timelines running in an infinite number of directions removing the necessisty for the Cuase to be created.
Again the bible gave birth to science
science pressuposes a rational order
a rational order pressupeses a rational orderer
The law of cause and effect is self evident. Deny it and you self destruct and undermine science and rationality
By the way quantum mechanics doesn't destroy causality.
Causality was used to discover Quantum mechanics. If Quantum mechanics makes causality unreliable then quantum mechanics becomes unreliable because causality was used to discover Quantum mechanics
Again this is self defeating
We have the wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics. The beginning of uthe universe has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
If you want to know where I get my science from see
The Creator and the Cosmos Third Expanded Edition Hugh Ross PH.D
Hugh Ross earned a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. and PhD. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto.
I thougt scientists searched for causes
No, scientists seek to accurately describe reality. In some instances, that does involve searching for causes, but not in all cases.
There is no cause and effect
No, there is no LAW of cause and effect. There is no LAW of short sleeved t-shirts, either. Doesn't mean that there are no short sleeved t-shirts.
That would undermine the law of causality and destroy rationality and the sciences.
OK, until you can formally state this fabled Law of Causality, or Law of Cause and Effect (and that means use math if needed, and source who discovered this law), then stop using it. It isn't real.
Wait a minute. I just thought of something...
I took your gibberish and put it in the form of a logic statement.
Axiom--Cause and effect operate in time--possibly true (and true in the trivial sense in which you probably mean it)
Axiom--Time has no beginning (false--spacetime began at the expansion of the singularity. In the singularity, spacetime would have no meaning)
Conclusion--Time does not exist (unsupported conclusion--a circle has no beginning, but it still exists. Having a "beginning" is not a prerequisite for "existing")
Conclusion--Cause does not exist (unsupported conclusion--the fact that not everything must be caused does not mean that nothing is caused)
Again the bible gave birth to science
Nope, science predates the Bible.
a rational order pressupeses a rational orderer
The same way a nut presupposes a nutter--that is, not at all.
The law of cause and effect is self evident.
Then you should easily be able to state it formally and cite who discovered it. Wonder why you haven't done that yet...
By the way quantum mechanics doesn't destroy causality...We have the wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics.
If you mean that quantum mechanics doesn't destroy the idea that causality is universal (i.e. that the universe is deterministic), then someone should really tell Neils Bohr. He'll be crushed. But until you can predict molecular and spectroscopic phenomena with the same accuracy, then you should really hold off on the criticism. Put up or shut up.
I am not saying that causality is not, at the worst, a useful abstraction. It is. But, it is not essential for understanding phenomena, and it is a topic that is being revolutionized by physicists.
The beginning of uthe universe has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The beginning of this spacetime has been established--the idea that the universe is not cyclical, but rather open-ended, is NOT.
Hugh Ross earned a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. and PhD. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto.
This is not an argument that you want to try to stack credentials on. The side of indeterminacy far outweighs you. Just one example
Again what CAUSED you to come to the conclusion that there is no law or principle of cause and effect? This is self-contradictory. An effect is something that has a cause. True by definition and common sense. Science operates on that principle.
Time did begin.
The whole universe began.
Established beyond reasonable doubt.
Since the universe had a beginning it must have had a Beginner.
It was created out of nothing.
Hebrews 11:3 teaches creation out of nothing.
Only the bible teaches creation out of nothing.
Since the Cause transcends space and time it doesn't require a cause. Ony things that exist in one dimension of time are created. To see the origins of the scientific method see Thomas Torrence and Alvin Plantinga.
There is more than one interpretation of quantum mechanics and the fact that the interpretation that you can have an effect without a cause leads to self contradiction shows we should addopt a different interpretation.
Every Effect has a cause
The Universe is an effect
Therefore the universe has a Cause
Again what CAUSED you to come to the conclusion that there is no law or principle of cause and effect?
The fact that no such law has ever been formalized. The fact that you cannot cite this supposed "law" supports that conclusion. Cite it or drop it.
The whole universe began.
Depends on what you mean by "began". The universe in its current interation certainly did begin, apparently from the singularity. As far as what (if anything) happened "before" that, it is an open question, as I have pointed out.
Since the universe had a beginning it must have had a Beginner.
And since I have a headache, I must have a headacher.
It was created out of nothing.
Really? Evidence, please. Last I heard, we lost grip of the origins of the universe a fraction of a second after the initial expansion. You have additional evidence that "before" the singularity there was nothing?
Only the bible teaches creation out of nothing.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, etc. Since you've been demonstrably wrong so many times, why should anyone listen to you?
Since the Cause transcends space and time it doesn't require a cause. Ony things that exist in one dimension of time are created.
Special pleading--my god created the universe because he exists out of time. I know he exists out of time because he has to in order to create the universe. Neener, neener.
To see the origins of the scientific method see Thomas Torrence and Alvin Plantinga.
Who? The origins of the scientific method dates back to at least Ancient Egypt, CA 2000-3000 BCE. It was further progressed through Aristotle and others in Ancient Greece, and was formalized in what is very similar to its current form by Oersted in the early 1800's. I have no idea who Torrence and Plantinga are, but they had nothing to do with the development of the scientific method, and the roots of the scientific method (much more thorough roots than the brief and vague exhortations in the Bible) predate the NT.
the fact that the interpretation that you can have an effect without a cause leads to self contradiction shows we should addopt a different interpretation.
No, the fact that the Copenhagen interpretation leads to an indeterminate universe leads to you not liking it. There is no self-contradition there.
Axiom--Every Effect has a cause (unproven and at odds with current science--numerous quantum effects are thought to be indeterminate)
Axiom--The Universe is an effect
(depends on your definition of effect. If you are defining effect as something that has a cause, then this is unproven; if you are defining effect as any phenomenon, then this is acceptable)
Conclusion--Therefore the universe has a Cause (unsupported, as it is based on at least one if not two unproven axioms).
Until you can A) prove that the Universe is determinate and B) prove that the Universe cannot be self-causing, then you cannot even begin to demonstrate the necessary existence of an outside agent as a "beginner", much less insist that it must be your particular god.
Oh, and just a reminder--there is no Law of Cause and Effect. Next time you say there is and don't cite it, the appropriate response will be to shout "Time Cube!"
There is no law of cause and effect?
Well, what CAUSED you to come to that conclusion.
premises = cause
conclusion = effect
What caused you to come to that conclusion?
You said
The fact that no such law has ever been formalized = The CAUSE
There is no law of cause and effect = The EFFECT
A cause is that which produces its effect
The four essential principles of knowledge attacted by atheists assumed in scripture.
The Law of Causality
The Law of Sense Perception
The Bsic (Altough not Perfect) Reliability of Sense Perception
The Anological use of Language
See R.C. Sproul
Defending Your Faith
The Law of Non- Contradiction
Anything can be speculated in the realm of human ignorance (10 to minus 43 seconds)after the Big Bang. Modern day physicists have developed nine tests for general relativity in addition to the three Einstein had. Scince general relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorems can be trusted. Theese theorems establish a single origin of matter energy space and time. It's kind of like a no-God of the gaps argument.
If the universe creates itself then the law of cause and effect has been violated. Also, one law of quauntum mechanics states that the smaller the time interval, the smaller the probability for a quantum event. The singulary theorems establish that at the cosmic creation event the time interval is zero. This means that the probability of a quantum event is zero therefore eliminating quantum tunneling as a possible canidate to be the creator.
Shygetz said: "I don't argue for his benefit, I argue for the benefit of those who may be reading along...if you leave an idiot unanswered, he may appear wise."
Keep fighting the good fight, sir.
To place your trust darwinian cosmology and the unknowable existence of an infinite number of universes is to commit a form of the gamblers fallacy that is so extreme that it exposes irrationallity. If you flipped a coin ten thousand times and came up heads all ten thousand times isn't it obvious that the coin has been designed? But their might be 2 to the 10,000 coins, 2 to the 10,000 different coin flippers, producing 10 to the 2 to the 10,000 outcomes different from the observed result of 10,000 consecutive heads. But if you had no evidence for theese coins, coin flippers, or distincted outcomes, then a form of the gambler's fallacy will have been committed. You would be assuming the benefit of a large sample size when the sample size is one. We only have one universe to consider. A split second after the universe existed the space time manifold has been thermodynamically closed. This means the space-time manifold cannot overlap the space-time manifold of any other hypothetical universes. We can go with the universe we can ever possibly know or we can speculate about hypothetical universes that will forever remain outside our realm of knowledge.
There is no law of cause and effect?
No, there is only...Time Cube!
Tell me who discovered the Law of Cause and Effect.
A cause is that which produces its effect
So something that is not caused is not an effect. Therfore, your fictional "Law of Cause and Effect" is merely a tautology--it is true only because you define it as true, and is worthless as a physical law.
The four essential principles of knowledge attacted by atheists assumed in scripture.
The Law of Causality
The Law of Sense Perception
The Bsic (Altough not Perfect) Reliability of Sense Perception
The Anological use of Language
See R.C. Sproul
Defending Your Faith
You refer me to apologetic literature for physical science, written by a person who adamantly denies evidentialism? No wonder you are so screwed up. None of those are laws, they are conjectures made by apologists seeking to defend their mythology. Get your science from a science book, sir (or madam).
Scince general relativity has been established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorems can be trusted.
Relativity does not apply near the singularity. A quantum theory of gravity is needed. Do you think the theoretical phyicists are just having fun trying to find a unified field theory? Well after the singularity, relativity does work wonderfully, but not near the singularity. At the singularity and "before", we cannot know anything.
This means that the probability of a quantum event is zero therefore eliminating quantum tunneling as a possible canidate to be the creator.
You know nothing of cosmology or quantum mechanics. As far as I know, no one of any stature has asserted that "quantum tunnelling" was a "creator". Indeed, no one knows what the physical laws were at the singularity. So, stating what is and is not possible at the singularity is silly.
To place your trust darwinian cosmology...
No such thing as darwinian cosmology--are you referring to multiverse theory?
is to commit a form of the gamblers fallacy that is so extreme that it exposes irrationallity
That is not the gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy is the belief that past results influence future independent events. Multiverse theories postulate that a number of other universes exist, and is based on cosmological and quantum observation extended into theory. It is an active area of theoretical research, and has the potential for testing in the future (although at the moment, it is still hypothesis and conjecture, much like the various closed universe models).
If you flipped a coin ten thousand times and came up heads all ten thousand times isn't it obvious that the coin has been designed?
Actually, the fact that it is a coin, and that I know that humans make coins, and that I know (basically) how humans make coins, make it obvious that the coin was designed. The fact that it came up heads 10000 times in a row indicates that it is not a fair coin.
A split second after the universe existed the space time manifold has been thermodynamically closed. This means the space-time manifold cannot overlap the space-time manifold of any other hypothetical universes.
Really? Prove it. Cite it. Reference it. Heck, come up with a convincing formula for us to examine. But no, true to form, you just state it as fact and hope (and, dare I say, pray) that no one dares call you on it.
We can go with the universe we can ever possibly know or we can speculate about hypothetical universes that will forever remain outside our realm of knowledge.
Or, we can do both. We can include multiverse in our theoretical models of this universe. We can make precise predictions about our universe based on a multiverse model. We can experimentally test these predictions, and either support or refute the model. With enough of these confirmed experiments, we can elevate a successful model to the level of theory, and thereby begin to understand (and manipulate) the world better.
Or, we can just say "Goddidit" and call it a day.
Science opperates by the laws of logic
See Norman Geisler
I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist
The law of causality holds firm
There's nothing you can do about it
The laws of logic apply to reality
Deny causality and you self destruct
Youve done it over and over again.
Did the idea That their is no law of cause and effect just pop into your head out of nothing?
Violate the principle of cause and effect and you undermine the entire foundation of the sciences, mathematics, and logic.
Since general relativity is beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem is reliable.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
belief in causes is an aspect of a commitment to reason. Causes are reasons and reasons are causes. To say that event A took place is to say that there is some reason why event A took place. To those who believe that reason is reliable and the universe can be rationally analyzed like the idea that all events in the world have causes. To deny this is to say that some events are irrational happenings. The rational quest can never reamain content with a claim like that.
Causality was used to discover quantum mechanics. if quantum mechanics shows the principle of cause and effect to be unreliable then quantum mechanics becomes unreliable because the principle of cause and effect was used to discover quantum mechanics.
This is self-defeating
There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics.
IF THERE IS A CAUSE THERE IS A REASON. IT'S COMMON SENSE.
THIS IS WHAT SCIENTIST DO. THEY SEARCH FOR CAUSES. ITS NOT A LAW IN THE SENSE OF A PHYSICAL LAW. IT IS AN USSUMPTION THAT SCIENTIST MAKE WHEN THEY DO THEIR WORK. IT'S NOT REALLY A LAW BUT A PRINCIPLE. IT IS ASSUMED IN THE BIBLE. A CAUSE IS A REASON. IT'S AN EXPLANATION. IF SOME EVENT TOOK PLACE WITHOUT A REASON HOW WOULD REASON KNOW IT? THE NATURE OF REASON IS TO INQUIRE AFTER CAUSES. WE WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. WE ARE SEEKERS AFTER TRUTH. YOU ARE ASSUMING IT WHEN YOU TRY TO CONVINCE SOMEONE NOT TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE. TO SEARCH FOR A CAUSE IS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE RATIONALLY THAT THERE IS ANY EVENT IN THE WORLD THAT IS CAUSLESS. AN EVENT IS THAT WHICH HAS A CAUSE.
We try to form our ideas (cause) to reach conclusions (effect).
Thats one way we gain our knowledge.
Once reason finds it's complete explanation for somthing then it stops it's inquiry. To that extent those who claim that some events in the world are uncaused are irrationalist.
Look, until you can cite the law of cause and effect so I can see how it was proven, you can't cite it in a scientific argument. Otherwise, you violate the Law of You're a Tool. It's real simple. Tell you what, I'll meet you halfway. You cite the article where the Law of Cause and Effect was formalized, and I will look it up on my own. I tried to find it, and failed. It's not in the SciFinder database, nor in the World of Science database. It's not in my physics textbooks. It's not even in Wikipedia, and you can find all sorts of weird ideas in there. So, show me a reliable source where I can find this Law of Cause and Effect (and some guy named "Anonymous" babbling on a religous comment thread is not a reliable source for a scientific law).
Deny causality and you self destruct Youve done it over and over again.
And yet my gooey remains still manage to type. Astounding.
Since general relativity is beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem is reliable.
And quantum mechanics is beyond reasonable doubt. And the two cannot be reconciled. So, what is your conclusion, bright boy (or girl)?
Honestly, your arrogance is breathtaking. You proclaim knowledge that eludes the greatest scientists of our time, and yet you do not know simple scientific facts (or even what science is for). It is not a shameful thing to admit ignorance; it is a shameful thing to declare knowlege when you are ignorant.
And by the way, you can put your "ideas" into a single comment. I have a sufficient attention span to read them all together. Unless you really need six whole hours to formulate your crappy repetitive argument. Then, by all means, take a potty break.
Post a Comment