(February 4, 2016 at 1:36 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:Well, haven't you guys ever had a Mormon?

I almost married one, but she was holding out for marriage, so I can't truthfully say I've 'had' one.

Were you a mormon?

(February 4, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Catholic_Lady Wrote:I don't see how. I feel confident enough in my beliefs that other people not believing it doesn't bother me. That's all there is to it.

What you believe doesn't bother me. I only respond to what you say. I don't think I'm the only person here for whom that is true.

I know you are cool about it, and there are others here who are as well. If you see who I am making that response to though, you'll see why I said that.

Catholic_Lady Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I almost married one, but she was holding out for marriage, so I can't truthfully say I've 'had' one.

Were you a mormon?

No, but she was tolerant of atheists. Our different takes on God weren't really our problem.

Well, technically, your take and her takes.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm)GodCherry Wrote: The Epicurus thread reminded me of a conversation that I once had in university with an extremist christian kid. 

It was after a physics class and a group of us had gone down to play pool in the student hall.  The kid asked me if I believed in god and I said not really and then he started ranting about the day's class.  The conversation went something like this:

Kid:  "The big bang theory is obviously wrong.  I don't know why we study it at all."
Me:  "Well, there's significant evidence to support the theory."
Kid:  "Can't be..."
Me:  "Why?"
Kid:  "Obviously because you can't create something from nothing."
Me:  "Well, by that logic, where did your god come from."

Kid:  "He's god."


Of course, it ended up with me explaining to him that that made zero sense using his own logic and asking why can't he simply accept that while there is evidence supporting the original origins of our particular universe, the overall understanding is beyond our current ability of understanding.  Its fine to make something up if you need the comfort to sleep at night but its no better than believing that glitter farting magic unicorns are real.


Is it just me or do most conversations with theists just end up being similarly idiotic?

He may not have presented it well, but his point is valid. 

If I allow that an eternally existing god is possible, then yes, I must allow that an eternally existing universe is also possible. If the evidence indicated that the universe has existed eternally, or back when we didn't have evidence one way or another on that question, your counter argument was fine. But, now that the evidence indicates that the universe has a beginning, that counter argument no longer holds.

(February 5, 2016 at 11:25 am)alpha male Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm)GodCherry Wrote: The Epicurus thread reminded me of a conversation that I once had in university with an extremist christian kid. 

It was after a physics class and a group of us had gone down to play pool in the student hall.  The kid asked me if I believed in god and I said not really and then he started ranting about the day's class.  The conversation went something like this:

Kid:  "The big bang theory is obviously wrong.  I don't know why we study it at all."
Me:  "Well, there's significant evidence to support the theory."
Kid:  "Can't be..."
Me:  "Why?"
Kid:  "Obviously because you can't create something from nothing."
Me:  "Well, by that logic, where did your god come from."

Kid:  "He's god."


Of course, it ended up with me explaining to him that that made zero sense using his own logic and asking why can't he simply accept that while there is evidence supporting the original origins of our particular universe, the overall understanding is beyond our current ability of understanding.  Its fine to make something up if you need the comfort to sleep at night but its no better than believing that glitter farting magic unicorns are real.


Is it just me or do most conversations with theists just end up being similarly idiotic?

He may not have presented it well, but his point is valid. 

If I allow that an eternally existing god is possible, then yes, I must allow that an eternally existing universe is also possible. If the evidence indicated that the universe has existed eternally, or back when we didn't have evidence one way or another on that question, your counter argument was fine. But, now that the evidence indicates that the universe has a beginning, that counter argument no longer holds.

Who said the beginning of our universe is the beginning of existence? It may have arisen as part of an endless cycle, it could have sprung from a different, or even a dying dimension. Lack of evidence for such ideas doesn't make them any less logically valid than theistic ideas, which also have the problem of infinite regress. So let's not be stupid and bow down to deities who clearly won't even lift a finger to announce their presence without the suggestion of their so-called prophets. What isn't known isn't known, deal with that!

Oscillating models have been proposed, but observations don't support them. At this point, the evidence indicates that the universe had a start, it's headed toward heat death, and then that's that.

(February 6, 2016 at 1:26 pm)alpha male Wrote: Oscillating models have been proposed, but observations don't support them. At this point, the evidence indicates that the universe had a start, it's headed toward heat death, and then that's that.

According to the rainbow gravity theory, the universe may have had no beginning.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...beginning/

It may soon be the next big universe theory ...

(February 6, 2016 at 1:26 pm)alpha male Wrote: Oscillating models have been proposed, but observations don't support them. At this point, the evidence indicates that the universe had a start, it's headed toward heat death, and then that's that.

And still your theistic ideas cannot, nor will they ever be lifted out of the hole you dig for them with the infinite regress fallacy. If the existence of anything must have a beginning, then so must everything, no exceptions for your god.

(February 5, 2016 at 11:25 am)alpha male Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:24 pm)GodCherry Wrote: The Epicurus thread reminded me of a conversation that I once had in university with an extremist christian kid. 

It was after a physics class and a group of us had gone down to play pool in the student hall.  The kid asked me if I believed in god and I said not really and then he started ranting about the day's class.  The conversation went something like this:

Kid:  "The big bang theory is obviously wrong.  I don't know why we study it at all."
Me:  "Well, there's significant evidence to support the theory."
Kid:  "Can't be..."
Me:  "Why?"
Kid:  "Obviously because you can't create something from nothing."
Me:  "Well, by that logic, where did your god come from."

Kid:  "He's god."


Of course, it ended up with me explaining to him that that made zero sense using his own logic and asking why can't he simply accept that while there is evidence supporting the original origins of our particular universe, the overall understanding is beyond our current ability of understanding.  Its fine to make something up if you need the comfort to sleep at night but its no better than believing that glitter farting magic unicorns are real.


Is it just me or do most conversations with theists just end up being similarly idiotic?

He may not have presented it well, but his point is valid. 

If I allow that an eternally existing god is possible, then yes, I must allow that an eternally existing universe is also possible. If the evidence indicated that the universe has existed eternally, or back when we didn't have evidence one way or another on that question, your counter argument was fine. But, now that the evidence indicates that the universe has a beginning, that counter argument no longer holds.

1.No, the evidence doesn't really show that. The evidence suggests something like inflation in the early phase, and no one knows what was at the beginning of that.
2. Even if it did have a temporal beginning as seen from inside, it would not present a paradox of creation ex nihilo