(March 6, 2014 at 7:15 pm)Lek Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Quite true. He even says as much.

However, in the absence of such knowledge he does not infer God as an alternative.

You're right, but with all the learned people attesting to experiences with a god throught human history, it leaves it open for consideration.

Are you seriously saying that you are dumber than a Middle East guy who lived four thousand years ago who claimed to have spoken to a "god"?

(March 6, 2014 at 6:50 pm)Lek Wrote: Despite all the ununderstandable scientific jibberish, Dawkins really just doesn't know how something could come from nothing.

So, I got a great idea!


Why not take that ignorance and place it up on a pedestal and call it 'God'?

Because of course, not having the answer always = 'god did it'.

---

(March 6, 2014 at 7:15 pm)Lek Wrote: You're right, but with all the learned people attesting to experiences with a god throught human history, it leaves it open for consideration.

Who says that atheists (including Dawkins), does not leave the possibility that a god exists?

(March 6, 2014 at 6:17 pm)JesusLover1 Wrote: I've spent the day reading Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and I got to page 146 but at that point I couldn't take it anymore. Despite this apparently being an easy to read explination of the case for Atheism, all of this scientific talk of the origin of the universe just blows my mind too much, I was sweating just trying to take in all this knowledge. But I don't get it. I'm too dumb scientifically to try and comprehend what scientists truly believe to be the case against God. [snip]
But this talk of how the universe started, and all this talk involving chemistry and single atoms are beyond me.

If you don't understand something, don't just throw your hands up in the air and exclaim that you're not smart enough to learn it.

You're never going to get across the Grand Canyon in one leap; you need to build a bridge to get yourself to the other side.

It's the same thing with learning.

Issac Newton invented calculus, but he began learning math by counting on his fingers, just like every other kid.

Shakespeare wrote some of the most famous plays in history, but he began by learning his letters.

What you're trying to do is the equivalent of going from learning to count on your fingers to performing trigonometry equations in one jump. Before you do that you need to learn to add and subtract, multiply and divide, you need to learn your times tables, algebra, geometry, all before you even try to understand trig. It's daunting and it'll take time but it's worth it.

If you don't understand the science of the God Delusion, try finding a science book you do understand and start building your bridge, progressing to more and more challenging books until you reach the other side of the canyon and can understand what Dawkins is saying.

And then don't stop learning.

Quote:I understand that atheism is probably the most logical position, but I do not have the capacity to aqquire all of this knowledge needed.

I think you do have the capacity JL. You're just trying to make the jump across the canyon in one go. It's way easier to build the bridge and walk to the other side.

you're in the state of the doubt and you're not 100% sure .

solution: Read more articles and books and watch more youtube videos on the subject .

(March 6, 2014 at 7:15 pm)Lek Wrote: You're right, but with all the learned people attesting to experiences with a god throught human history, it leaves it open for consideration.

I see. So, we spend maybe fifty percent of the OP's other threads trying to dissuade him from using the fallacious argument from popularity, and then here you are bringing it up again, and adding a fallacious- not to mention incredibly vague- argument from authority to the mix!

As for you, JL, I'll tell you a secret: the science of universal origins is difficult just in general, not just to you. It's a knowledge base that you build up over time, and it starts by having a healthy need to learn, which you seem to be developing. Don't let this early lack of understanding pin you down; keep pushing, keep learning things, and it'll all get clearer in time.

You've made the most important first step, which is taking a look. Keep it up!

JL, Rome wasn't built in one day. My suggestion is to start simple. If you have access to a library, go there, pick science books meant for children and once you find topics you'd like to know more about, step it up and go through material at a higher level. I do not know what previous education you've had, but if you are starting from zero, there's no shame in it. "I don't know" is a valid position, but there are a lot of topics that can be known and understood. There is a fantastic world out there to be explored and you are in for a treat, if you stay on this path.

As for wondering how everything could come from nothing, I wonder if you've ever questioned what evidence you have for thinking that there was ever an absolute, total nothing before there was anything at all. Christians don't believe that. They think the means to everything was already there all along in the form of God. Physicists don't think that either. They think each successive state of the universe(s) were always preceded by the necessary pre-existing conditions. The only difference is the scientists don't begin by assuming they already know everything.

(March 6, 2014 at 7:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can never be too dumb to be an atheist

Yes, I have to admit that that is very true.

However, one could easily argue that you actually HAVE TO BE dumb to be a Christian.

(March 7, 2014 at 12:48 am)whateverist Wrote: As for wondering how everything could come from nothing, I wonder if you've ever questioned what evidence you have for thinking that there was ever an absolute, total nothing before there was anything at all. Christians don't believe that. They think the means to everything was already there all along in the form of God. Physicists don't think that either. They think each successive state of the universe(s) were always preceded by the necessary pre-existing conditions. The only difference is the scientists don't begin by assuming they already know everything.

By definition everything had to originate from Nothing. The stumbling block is that it is very difficult to understand what Nothing is and what its properties are.

When the Earth was first formed did it have any dirt on it?

(March 7, 2014 at 1:45 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 7, 2014 at 12:48 am)whateverist Wrote: As for wondering how everything could come from nothing, I wonder if you've ever questioned what evidence you have for thinking that there was ever an absolute, total nothing before there was anything at all. Christians don't believe that. They think the means to everything was already there all along in the form of God. Physicists don't think that either. They think each successive state of the universe(s) were always preceded by the necessary pre-existing conditions. The only difference is the scientists don't begin by assuming they already know everything.

By definition everything had to originate from Nothing. The stumbling block is that it is very difficult to understand what Nothing is and what its properties are.

When the Earth was first formed did it have any dirt on it?

Unless everything was always....