Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Both very interesting. It shows how easily you can jump to the conclusion that something is a god and really makes you think what a god really means. P.S. I don't know Star Trek episodes from memory, I googled them .
Quote: There's a famous problem in computer theory known as the dining philosophers problem. In the problem, you have a number of philosophers sitting at a round table. In front of each philosopher, there is a plate of spaghetti, and to the side, between each is a fork. The philosophers do two things: eat, and think. When they want to eat, they pick up a fork and dig in. To think, they put down the fork and ponder. The problem is, if they all decide to eat at the same time, there aren't enough forks, so there will be a deadlock over the last fork.
Now I bring this up simply to point out that what philosophers do is not esteemed to be the sine qua non of existence. Indeed, they're poked fun at. Now don't get me wrong, I'm an amateur philosopher myself, and have undertaken to correct an ignorance of the subject -- but philosophers doing something, specifically failing to do something isn't exactly hot shit.
Now Cinjin Cain points out something you should pay attention to here. You come across to many here as an arrogant prick. You seem more interested in pummeling anyone who disagrees with you than sharing your worldview. You this very evening mouthed off to me in private message simply because I chose not to talk to you. Dude, if you want to bring glory to God, you're doing something wrong. A little humility, and some mutual respect would go a long way toward getting people to listen to you. But whatever; it's your funeral.
Re: Carl Wieland. I must have been thinking of another Carl or maybe I just didn't know who you were talking about. The only ex-atheists with any name recognition to me are Antony Flew and Lee Strobel. Regardless, my offer still stands. If you can make good on explaining why I am an atheist Taoist, I will make time to learn the story and reasons for the re-conversion of a theist of your choice. That you chose not to take up the gauntlet and focused instead on trying to paint me as ignorant and foolish is yet another example of your butt munchery. Nobody likes you Statler -- that's not helping God display his glory.
Actually I was not rude to you at all, I simply said I was disappointed because you always expect people to give reasons for what they believe but when you are pressed as to what you believe you dodge the issue or just flat out ignore the questions as you did in the PM. Don’t misrepresent the facts please.
Even if everyone hated me on here (which they don’t, I have a positive rep and have several theists I get along with fine on here) it would not bother me in the least. I have been ten times more civil to others on here as they have been to me. I have been called a “F**ker”, “Moron”, “Sh**head”, “A**hole”, told to die, told to suck a fart out of someone’s a**, and a closet homosexual just to name a few of my favorites to date. If you can point to any example where I have used such brutality, be my guest. The fact is though; you give all these atheists a pass and bash the theist just because he does not compromise on his positions. Christ said the world would hate Christians and what they taught. So I would actually be a bit worried if everyone loved my worldview on here. I have never received a warning for personal attacks on here, so I think I am doing alright.
As to why you are an atheist now, I do not know. I know it is one of two things, you are either one of the sheep and just in a period of doubt, or you never were one of the sheep. As to which you are, that is not up to me. You cannot tell me how people as intelligent as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath can denounce their atheism and decide to carry the cross can you?
Quote: Someone explain to me how it is NOT possible that this universe was put together by a mortal?
Therefore making the creator a faulty mortal of a godless universe.
Because it is impossible to have an infinite series of finite causes. So the first cause must be separate from the Universe and also eternal.
(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Because it is impossible to have an infinite series of finite causes. So the first cause must be separate from the Universe and also eternal.
Just 'because' is not an answer Statler.
When reading up on causality within physics you appreciate how complex nature and reality is, causes are happening as we speak and carry indefinitely, the universe is expanding all the time, we are going to have ongoing cause and effect probably occurring endlessly.
Making claims for or against infinity is also senseless; you can't identify, realise, falsify, test for, verify, or even get to infinity, it's not a real number or quantitative property.
And since you've moved the goalposts, if God as uncreated creator is separate from the universe then what is outside the universe? Or rather what does the universe exist in?
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. What evidence would convince you of God’s existence?
Verifiable, falsifiable, testable evidence.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 2. You see the words, “I love you” written in the sand at the beach. Is this man-made? If so, how do you know?
Yes. Either directly or indirectly, humans are very likely to have made those letters at the beach.
Short of physical evidence to the contrary or in support, humans are the only creatures on the planet who have proven to be capable of making (or training other creatures to make) such lettering in the sand. This is because humans are the only ones on the planet with the means and ability (and evidence to support these abilities) to do so.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 3. If the God of the Bible were real, would He set the rules or would man set the rules?
If the god of the christian bible were real (which is what I assume you mean) then, I would fully expect that, being all powerful and omnipotent, that God would make and brutally enforce his rules upon humanity. The bible depicts several such genocides as a result of his petty and vindictive behavior.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 4. Do moral laws exist? If so, do they exist independent of humans? How do you know what they are?
Yes, moral laws (that is, laws that govern human behavior and action) exist in everything from societal to religious or other organizational rules for living.
In other words, murder and theft is illegal in society, religion can dictate what you can and cannot eat, the US republican party platform includes a strict pro-life stance. All of these dictate human behavior with numerous (including moral) reasoning behind their existence.
Such laws can and do exist outside and independant of humanity in the sense that humans have these laws entirely because we are social creatures that depend on one another and thus laws of all kinds are necessary for any human society to function. Other creatures on this planet also have societies and thus also have rules to interact with one another and exist as a cohesive unit.
I know what many of them are because certain laws are universal in the sense that the lack of certain laws are counterintuitive to a cohesive and structure society. That fact doesn't prevent many human and animal societies from breaking these cardinal rules frequently, however. For example, outlawing murder is an easy 'moral' law for all societies to have as it is conductive to like creatures getting along with one another. Doesn't prevent certain bastards from committing mass murder, like Howard Barton Unruh.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?
That's already happened. It was called slavery, though granted I don't think every human being on the planet did so simulatneously, but that's what happens when you consider people to be property rather than people.
So according to my sensibilities from having been raised in an environment where humans value equalitiy of the genders and respect for your fellow man, then yes, to me it would be morally wrong.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 6. What is the most dangerous religion on Earth?
Any religion that teaches intolerance, suspicion, ignorance, and closed-mindedness is the most dangerous religion on earth.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 7. Where did the laws of logic come from?
Humans.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 8. How did non-rational events and processes lead to a rational human mind?
events aren't not rational.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 9. Why do some atheists such as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath become Christians?
I don't know who those people are. I assume ignorance based on assumption rather than evidence.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 10. How do beliefs and thoughts differ?
A thought is a process of the concious mind. A belief is the idea that something is true, sans evidence of any kind.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 11. Do you believe that God does not exist?
Correct.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 12. Do you think that God does not exist?
Correct.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 13. How do you think life began on Earth?
I don't know. I suspect the answer is most likely through one or more processes of abiogenesis.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
May 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 1:55 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 23, 2011 at 10:37 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:
(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Because it is impossible to have an infinite series of finite causes. So the first cause must be separate from the Universe and also eternal.
Just 'because' is not an answer Statler.
When reading up on causality within physics you appreciate how complex nature and reality is, causes are happening as we speak and carry indefinitely, the universe is expanding all the time, we are going to have ongoing cause and effect probably occurring endlessly.
Making claims for or against infinity is also senseless; you can't identify, realise, falsify, test for, verify, or even get to infinity, it's not a real number or quantitative property.
And since you've moved the goalposts, if God as uncreated creator is separate from the universe then what is outside the universe? Or rather what does the universe exist in?
It's not a "just because" answer; it's a matter of logic. If you had an infinite series of finite causes you would have to traverse an infinite amount of them to arrive where we are today (the present), of course it is impossible to traverse and infinite amount of anything. So therefore, since we are in the present, the first cause must have had to be eternal.
The first cause had to be separate from the universe because nothing can bring itself into existence because it would have to exist and not-exist prior to its existence which violates the law of contradiction.
(May 24, 2011 at 2:51 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. What evidence would convince you of God’s existence?
Verifiable, falsifiable, testable evidence.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 2. You see the words, “I love you” written in the sand at the beach. Is this man-made? If so, how do you know?
Yes. Either directly or indirectly, humans are very likely to have made those letters at the beach.
Short of physical evidence to the contrary or in support, humans are the only creatures on the planet who have proven to be capable of making (or training other creatures to make) such lettering in the sand. This is because humans are the only ones on the planet with the means and ability (and evidence to support these abilities) to do so.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 3. If the God of the Bible were real, would He set the rules or would man set the rules?
If the god of the christian bible were real (which is what I assume you mean) then, I would fully expect that, being all powerful and omnipotent, that God would make and brutally enforce his rules upon humanity. The bible depicts several such genocides as a result of his petty and vindictive behavior.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 4. Do moral laws exist? If so, do they exist independent of humans? How do you know what they are?
Yes, moral laws (that is, laws that govern human behavior and action) exist in everything from societal to religious or other organizational rules for living.
In other words, murder and theft is illegal in society, religion can dictate what you can and cannot eat, the US republican party platform includes a strict pro-life stance. All of these dictate human behavior with numerous (including moral) reasoning behind their existence.
Such laws can and do exist outside and independant of humanity in the sense that humans have these laws entirely because we are social creatures that depend on one another and thus laws of all kinds are necessary for any human society to function. Other creatures on this planet also have societies and thus also have rules to interact with one another and exist as a cohesive unit.
I know what many of them are because certain laws are universal in the sense that the lack of certain laws are counterintuitive to a cohesive and structure society. That fact doesn't prevent many human and animal societies from breaking these cardinal rules frequently, however. For example, outlawing murder is an easy 'moral' law for all societies to have as it is conductive to like creatures getting along with one another. Doesn't prevent certain bastards from committing mass murder, like Howard Barton Unruh.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?
That's already happened. It was called slavery, though granted I don't think every human being on the planet did so simulatneously, but that's what happens when you consider people to be property rather than people.
So according to my sensibilities from having been raised in an environment where humans value equalitiy of the genders and respect for your fellow man, then yes, to me it would be morally wrong.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 6. What is the most dangerous religion on Earth?
Any religion that teaches intolerance, suspicion, ignorance, and closed-mindedness is the most dangerous religion on earth.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 7. Where did the laws of logic come from?
Humans.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 8. How did non-rational events and processes lead to a rational human mind?
events aren't not rational.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 9. Why do some atheists such as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath become Christians?
I don't know who those people are. I assume ignorance based on assumption rather than evidence.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 10. How do beliefs and thoughts differ?
A thought is a process of the concious mind. A belief is the idea that something is true, sans evidence of any kind.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 11. Do you believe that God does not exist?
Correct.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 12. Do you think that God does not exist?
Correct.
(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 13. How do you think life began on Earth?
I don't know. I suspect the answer is most likely through one or more processes of abiogenesis.
Hey TDOA,
Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate on two things for me though? You say that the laws of logic come from humans, but then how could we have a law of contradiction when human minds contradict one another all the time? So could you explain your point?
Secondly, I don't follow your answer to number 7, are you saying natural events are indeed rational?
(May 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for the response. Could you elaborate on two things for me though? You say that the laws of logic come from humans, but then how could we have a law of contradiction when human minds contradict one another all the time? So could you explain your point?
My answer was fairly short because we covered this point in one of our earlier discussions, though I don't blame you for not remembering anything in those cumbersome posts.
Humans being able to contradict one another is irrelevant to the fact that we created them.
More to the point, the reason we have the laws of logic is because we have several strong languages. It is a result of a very nuanced method of communication with one another. Humans not always seeing eye to eye, not always having all the necessary information, and sometimes following to seporate but logical conclusions don't always follow with a lack of contradiction.
The very nature of law (such as US law) and formal debate stems from equally valid and logical but contradictory conclusions.
Computer sofware is built on very basic 'yes-no' bionary dynamic and yet computers have compatibility issues all the time, even within the same programming language (as any Windows owner will attest).
Being logical and possessing laws of logic (or creating them) doesn't always mean perfectly aligned thinking.
(May 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Secondly, I don't follow your answer to number 7, are you saying natural events are indeed rational?
Yes. "rational" in the sense that things don't just happen for no reason. The laws of physics are built upon the operation of cause and effect and other natural processes. Not knowing the cause or how an effect is brought about from a cause (or whatever) or a natural process that leads to a known result doesn't mean that an event is irrational (meaning without rhyme or reason).
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
May 24, 2011 at 7:56 pm (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 8:02 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Waldork Wrote: I have been ten times more civil to others on here as they have been to me. I have been called a “F**ker”, “Moron”, “Sh**head”, “A**hole”, told to die, told to suck a fart out of someone’s a**, and a closet homosexual just to name a few of my favorites to date.
Yeah..Im 100% guilty of that entire list...LMFAO...I especially like the "suck a fart out of my asshole" bit. Its one of my personal favorites.
Waldork, you should expect to be made fun of and cussed at..you are a hard headed, delusional moron.
How else do you expect us to react to you saying the Earth is young, The ark story was real, and some Jebus dude healed blindness with spit and came back from the dead only to blast off into the sky like he had a rocket in his ass to return to his home in the clouds where he would join with the other "him" up in his invisible kingdom?
No...Im SURE of it... You are a fucking kook!
(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Because it is impossible to have an infinite series of finite causes. So the first cause must be separate from the Universe and also eternal.
Really? And how did you come about that information? Have you lived an infinite amount of time and scratched your chin and say "it is impossible"
Oh..I get it...Like Jesus you just make it up. Make up an answer, act like its truth, and then hold it with faith.
P.S. - since when does "infinite series" has to be part of the equation? So tired of your deluded fucks rigging the questions and answers to set yourself up for the next swing.
.
