(June 5, 2016 at 5:57 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 5:54 pm)quip Wrote: Or alternately, you could broaden your linguistic horizons....or bow to my cosmic vernacular.    Your choice.

I know the meaning of the words you use but just consider the way you string them together self adulation ... cosmic was being nice

Everyone needs to self adulate now and again, it's good for the ...soul or whathaveyou. 

(June 5, 2016 at 6:12 pm)quip Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 5:57 pm)madog Wrote: I know the meaning of the words you use but just consider the way you string them together self adulation ... cosmic was being nice

Everyone needs to self adulate now and again, it's good for the ...soul or whathaveyou. 

My belief in you

(June 5, 2016 at 4:02 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Edit because I misunderstood.

Yes.

Either way, whether a person believes there was a supernatural element at play, or a person believes nature must have somehow done this all on its own, we are putting our faith in something we have no understanding in and no explanation for. Because as far as we know, as far as we have proof for, things in nature all begin from something else. They don't materialize out of nothing.

Why are theists so scared of "I don't know"? This is a bit difficult to phrase for me: I don't believe nature must have "somehow" done this all on its own neither do I believe there was a supernatural element at play. So no, one must not either believe on of those two options. I can't help but notice when theists speak of the existence of the universe you speak as if there is some purpose to it and if it has meaning to it. Once you stop believing that you can understand that it's very possible and more probable than any of the other options that the universe simply just is. I simply believe that the universe just is, I don't believe nature did it on its own, I don't even believe nature is a thing, really. Nature is just a word describing something, it doesn't have a life, it can't do anything, everything just is and there is no evidence at all for a supernatural element. That's what I think is true based on my knowledge. Long before humans existed, no one could even ask "what caused the existence of the universe", but the universe was still there, clearly. It had no meaning assigned to it, no one was there to give it purpose or meaning, but the universe still existed, and it just was, as far as we know. Before you say, well a god was there to give it meaning, first give me evidence for the existence of a god that was there giving it meaning, and I really mean evidence, not a poem, not sophistry, not arguments, nothing except evidence. If god can't be put in a lab and proved, then there is no convincing reason nor evidence to believe in a god.

And yes, right now, everything I see infront of me is created by something else, but who says that the everyday logic we experience applies to the beginning of the universe? But, afterall I do not know and I'm fine with it, I'm a human with limited power and such, I am not special, I am just as insignificant and purposeless as a planet orbiting its star in the Andromeda Galaxy. I might not be able to know everything and sure as hell never will. And there is no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural being, and nature is just a human concept not capable of doing anything, deep down it's just particles, atoms and matter like everything else, it didn't somehow create something.

Simply put, I don't put my faith in anything.

Why do people keep saying I'm afraid of "I don't know?" Once again, that is not at all what I'm saying.

Also, from what I understand, the "I don't know" is more of an agnostic view. Agnostics say they don't know whether there is or there isn't a supernatural being/force of any kind. The atheist holds that there isn't. Sure, you don't know how things happened, but you do hold the view that it had nothing to do with anything beyond nature. So if there isn't a supernatural, you're saying this all came from nature, as apposed to super nature (supernatural). We also don't have proof that this all came from nature, neither can we understand how it could, because from what we do know, everything in nature comes from something.

And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. We have no proof that nature was ever different enough to have made itself from nothing. Just as we have no proof of anything supernatural.

(June 5, 2016 at 4:44 pm)quip Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 4:20 am)Socratic Meth Head Wrote: God is supposed to be Omnipresent, and Hell is supposed to be a seperation from God.

This makes no sense, they cant co-exist, its one, or neither.
Christians cant sacrifice God's supposed Omnipresense or hell in order to have a somewhat consistent belief.

There's no dichotomy. They're just metaphorical, representations of mankind's moral vicissitudes.

Deepak, is that you?

(June 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. 

Uh.. yeah the world was different way back in the day when it was forming it and the further you dig down you can see the evidence of that. 
You don't need to default onto faith to know the world was different a few million and more years ago. The planet at a point was much more volcanic active
and would have looked like this. 



With science you don't need faith you need evidence. And being wrong is science is a good thing its better to be proven wrong
with evidence. Hawken was proven wrong he didn't get upset he just moved on and thought about a better theory. And said theory
pretty much solved the information paradox with black holes.

(June 5, 2016 at 7:00 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. 

Uh.. yeah the world was different way back in the day when it was forming it and the further you dig down you can see the evidence of that. 
You don't need to default onto faith to know the world was different a few million and more years ago. The planet at a point was much more volcanic active
and would have looked like this. 



With science you don't need faith you need evidence. And being wrong is science is a good thing its better to be proven wrong
with evidence. Hawken was proven wrong he didn't get upset he just moved on and thought about a better theory. And said theory
pretty much solved the information paradox with black holes.

Context, Dyer. 

I wasn't referring to the world being different. I was referring to the basic laws of nature. Particularly, the fact that things and forces all have an origin and all come from something.... and don't materialize from nothing at all.

(June 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1) Why do people keep saying I'm afraid of "I don't know?" Once again, that is not at all what I'm saying.

2) Also, from what I understand, the "I don't know" is more of an agnostic view.  

3) And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. We have no proof that nature was ever different enough to have made itself from nothing. Just as we have no proof of anything supernatural.

1) Afraid may be a bad word, uncomfortable or unsatisfied may be better. But the universe doesn't care whether we like the way it is as it just is.

2) Agnostics and all other terms are often just atheists trying to fit in with society ... the term atheist is understood and reviled by a lot of the religious ... agnostic, secularist, humanist, freethinker is not generally understood by the general population so allows some atheists to fly under the radar  (another thread maybe).

3) not many if any of the science community state they know how everything came into existence, but they keep looking with an open mind. maybe they will never know? note supernatural is not ruled out, just considered as an unlikely theory.

So lets put supernatural on the table. Why would the supernatural have to be a "God"?, why not hundreds of "Gods"? ... why not a computer program?, why not the wicked witch of the west? why not father Christmas? this can go on infinitum.

So just conceding that the universe/multiverse/etc came into existence by supernatural means still doesn't result in a "God" or even less in your particular "God", there needs to be empirical evidence and a 6000 year old fiction book revised 2000 years ago isn't empirical evidence.

Remember there are other claims for different Gods that have as much if not more hearsay evidence than the religions based on the Bible.

What happens is people are indoctrinated with a "God" and when they grow up they defend the "God" they were indoctrinated with ... They start from the premise there is a "God" and then try to validate that "God" when questioned, through a closed mind.

Science starts with the assumption the questions haven't yet been answered, religions start with the assumption that the questions have been answered then try to find arguments to support that premise .....

(June 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Why do people keep saying I'm afraid of "I don't know?" Once again, that is not at all what I'm saying.

Also, from what I understand, the "I don't know" is more of an agnostic view. Agnostics say they don't know whether there is or there isn't a supernatural being/force of any kind. The atheist holds that there isn't. Sure, you don't know how things happened, but you do hold the view that it had nothing to do with anything beyond nature. So if there isn't a supernatural, you're saying this all came from nature, as apposed to super nature (supernatural). We also don't have proof that this all came from nature, neither can we understand how it could, because from what we do know, everything in nature comes from something.

And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. We have no proof that nature was ever different enough to have made itself from nothing. Just as we have no proof of anything supernatural.

No. The gnostic atheist says there isn't. But the majority of atheists (at least the ones I've met) say they simply lack a belief in a god (including me) because god is the claim and there is no evidence for that claim. I don't care if we can know if there is a god or if no one can know, I do not believe in a god because god is the claim and there is no evidence for that claim. But yes, I agree with what you say, we don't know everything, but still, god is the claim therefore you need to give me the evidence for this god, if that's not the case, please enlighten me. But, no I don't put my faith in anything, faith is blind, and I say I don't know, that is not faith. Faith is when one comes with a claim and blindy believes in it without any evidence for that claim.

And no, I didn't say all this came from nature, I said I do not know and that nature is just a concept, not a divine thing acting, and I do not believe in the supernatural because it hasn't been proven. I said that it's very likely that everything just is, because life has no objective meaning or purpose, and it will stay that way until a higher being is proven. I didn't say it all came from nature, I said everything just is, maybe the big bang was the beginning of the universe, maybe matter existed before and we're just one of many big bangs, maybe our universe is actually infinite and has existed forever maybe it's nonsensical to ask "why does something exist", why can't it be the default state? Just because the glass I'm holding was created does it mean the beginning of the universe also had to be created? Or is our universe in a bowl of other universes (multiverses). I don't know, and neither do you, your god isn't the answer because it hasn't been proven. But all of it probably just is until you prove a higher being that has given it purpose and meaning. 

After all what do you mean when you say everything in nature comes from something? You know all the things that are manmade, when they were created, they weren't popped into existence, all the matter, atoms and such that was needed for it already existed, when it was created what simply happened was that man "manipulated" the matter so it represents e.g a glass, and a human can use it in different ways etc. In a sense it was always there. It wasn't created in the way you think it was created, a glass is just matter manipulated so it represents a glass for a human. Nature doesn't create anything, every different thing is all made of the same stuff just organized in different ways. So when something in nature is created, it's just matter organized in another way, not created in the way you think it is. It was difficult to explain this, but you'll get it.

Also when you present the option that everything came from nature, you're implying that nature existed before the universe. Nature didn't exist before the universe, nature is just a manmade concept to describe something. The word nature has no objective meaning, nature didn't create anything, nature is that something, yet again nature didn't exist before our universe. So, just strike nature off the list because it's irrelevant and strike god off too for the matter, he hasn't been proven. If nature didn't exist beforehand you can't use the rules and laws of our nature to explain something that happened before the existence of nature itself.

And I apolgise if I have typos and such or if my writing is wacky, I wrote this late at night.

Ah, nevermind. You guys are blowing this way out of the simple concept I'm bringing to the table, and still making assumptions about things that I never even said.

(June 5, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ah, nevermind. You guys are blowing this way out of the simple concept I'm bringing to the table, and still making assumptions about things that I never even said.

The simple concept you are bringing to the table is that something must have started everything ..... and no one knows what that was ... hence it could be supernatural .... if its supernatural it could be a "God" ..... because it could be a "God" it could be your "God" ..... if it could be your "God" the bible might be right .... if the Bible could be right the Pope might be right .... If the Pope could be right it follows that what he says might be right .... and that is good enough reason to ban condoms ... treat women and gays and other minorities like second hand citizens ...

I know you are a nice lady but that doesn't give you the right to raise an issue then dismiss the answers because they don't agree with what you wanted to hear ....