(March 8, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Is humanity better off without... me?

Is humanity better off? Hmm..I don't know. I suppose if you build a giant Super-Weapon or something that takes us all out in 20 years, then yeah! But I don't know that I'd make that claim now. You seem alright to me and I imagine that if you care enough to ask then, there's probably potential for future positive contributions to humanity. That being said, my opinion is that your religious beliefs aren't among the things I'd consider to be a worth-while contribution but it doesn't make you a cancer to society either. I don't like your views on religion, but that has nothing to do with what I think about you. So long as you don't force them on anyone else, you have every right to believe whatever you want! Cheers!

Right. If religious people kept their beliefs to themselves and they lead to no harm to others, I'd be absolutely 100% fine with it. No problem at all.

Sadly, we're a million miles from that right now, and anyone who publicly supports the idea of "faith" as a good thing is doing their bit to keep religion's emotional strangle hold over society.

(March 8, 2015 at 1:39 am)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

A) Insincere in their unbelief
B) In denial
C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite
or D) Demon-possessed

It might surprise you to learn that, at times, atheists view theists in much the same light, that they are either lying, stupid, or crazy — thus the frustrated responses such as those by people such as Sionnach. You may not understand this, but that seems a natural reaction toward people with radically different beliefs. The idea that they just might not understand the other person is quickly removed from the table when misunderstandings ensue; to be quickly replaced with liar, lunatic, or loser. Your suppositions, such as they are, are a projection of your frustration at dealing with people whose ideas make no sense to you; so you force them to make sense by casting them in these molds. I'm not an atheist, but I rather doubt your characterizations here are accurate descriptions of most atheists.

---

(March 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

MilesAbbott81 Wrote:Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

(March 8, 2015 at 3:05 am)Esquilax Wrote: Argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

It's not that I don't understand how, it's that I know it can't as surely as I know gravity exists or that water is wet. You say it's arrogance, I say it's just common sense. It is actually you who are operating from a position of arrogance, and you who are saying the very thing you quote above about God; you don't understand how He could exist, therefore He couldn't/doesn't. I know you will say that you don't discount the possibility for God, but you sure seem hell-bent against accepting a common sense explanation.

It's still an argument from ignorance unless you can demonstrate — there's that word again — that there is no alternative explanation other than God (or God and an impossibility). I'm not even talking something from nothing here — we simply don't know what preceded the big bang. Unless you can demonstrate that no other explanation for the existence of the universe but God is possible, you have an argument from ignorance, and your conclusion that "Goddidit" is worthless. It's as if you were taking a math test, and you come across the question "2 + 2 = ?" You're stumped by this, so you look at a neighbor's paper and notice that he's stumped as well and has yet to write in an answer. The test proctor calls time and you quickly scribble "5" figuring any answer is better than no answer. You get your test back the next week and find you got zero points for your answer of "5." You go to the teacher and complain that the other guy didn't even have an answer, so you should get some points for your answer. Your teacher is unimpressed and refuses to change your grade. That's the argument from ignorance. You claim you should get points because the "other guy" didn't have an answer, that's a fallacy and your argument is invalid. (Logical my ass.)

It is not enough that the idea of an omnipotent god created the universe is consistent with what you know, and that the other guy doesn't have an answer; you need to demonstrate that this god hypothesis is the right answer. This you have not done, though claiming to have done so multiple times.

(March 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: To clarify, your original complaint was that I am claiming a category of things that don't have to come from anything, and assuming that God is the only thing allowed in that category. So what are you saying, then? Are you saying that perhaps the universe always existed, that matter always existed?

I'm saying this: "X category exists, but I'm the only one allowed to use it," has two claims that require justification. The first, the existence of the category at all, is an issue, but the more pressing claim is the one where you assert that god is the only thing in that category/is that category, whatever. How did you determine that this is the case? That's a really important point: your entire argument hinges on this idea that we aren't allowed to use this category, but you're doing nothing to establish that, you're essentially trying to take ownership of the category just by saying "mine!"

Quote:If that is so, then you must concede it possible that God always existed, and isn't subject to the current laws of physics (conservation of energy). Next two points answered, at least as well as I am capable.

It's really not that hard to understand how God could always have existed if you look at time itself as a created thing. Impossible to grasp in its entirety, but not entirely confusing.

The problem is that "it's possible" isn't a compelling case for something having actually happened. Moreover, how did you determine any of this was possible? How do we know gods are possible? Or the creation of time? You're just hanging your position on a collection of hypotheticals.

Quote:But that's my point! It's not demonstrable, and never will be, as I've already said. Perhaps you should look at the rules and stop kicking the dead horse.

If it's not demonstrable, it is at best indistinguishable from fantasy. You certainly have no logical or rational reason for believing it.

Quote:Again, you are trying to analyze something that is impossible to analyze. Until scientists figure out how to break on through, we're kind of limited in what we can do.

So why did you attempt to characterize your beliefs as logical and self evident, if in the very next post you admit that it's not demonstrable? Demonstrability is step one of the "evident" part of being self evident.

Quote:You speak as if you are revealing some great mystery to me. I am perfectly aware that the "current" models stop at the point of the big bang. That is why the theory is pointless and invalid, because it doesn't explain the origin of matter.

And if there isn't an explanation, then there isn't an explanation. That's not place where leaping to god solves anything, which is what you're attempting to do every time you say science doesn't have an explanation, but god does.

Quote:And you're right - they would need an entirely new vocabulary, and the laws of physics wouldn't apply, so why are you so averse to the logic of my argument, which is based on an incredibly similar premise?

Because when scientists say that, they're doing so based upon evidence and testing. When you say it, it's to cut out an obvious problem with the argument you've decided is right without evidence, by fiat assertion alone. You have no basis for your argument.

Quote: And what the scientists are actually saying is that God lies beyond the Big Bang, if that is indeed how the universe was set in motion, they are just dressing it up in language that is sympathetic to itching ears such as your own.

Sure, sure.

Quote:Please do point me to where I've actually said such a thing.

God doesn't need to come from anything. Therefore it follows that nothing was where god came from. That's just the flipside of your own beliefs. However you want to dress it up, that is the implication of what you're saying, you've just decided you want to phrase it in a way that makes that acceptable.

Quote:You don't know if something can come from nothing? Please attempt to even begin to tell me how it might be possible, then. What gives you any shred of confidence that it even might be possible? Surely that is implied when you say "I don't know."

No, what's implied is that we don't have enough evidence yet. Intellectual honesty goes both ways; you don't accept claims on bad evidence, but you also don't deny claims based on a lack of knowledge, as that would be an argument from ignorance. Always be prepared for the idea that future evidence may change your perspective.

Quote:Well, I do know, because it's as simple as 1+1. Something cannot come from nothing, period, end of story.

Your certainty is not an argument. You're making the same mistake that presuppositionalists do all the time, in thinking that if they just say that they're absolutely certain, that means that the thing they're certain about is a fact.

Quote:Well, it was a good enough argument for the founding fathers of the United States (we hold these truths to be self-evident...). Guess they were cheating!

I'm not American, and I don't fetishize that document the way some people do. You're not just gonna be able to blow that particular dog whistle and get me to heel. Do better than an argument from authority, please.

Quote:I find gravity to be self-evident; it doesn't need to have a name for me to know it exists, and I certainly didn't need Newton to enlighten me. You drop things, they fall.

Yeah, but what you're describing is the regular kind of evidence.

Quote:Similarly, things don't just appear out of thin air. It just doesn't happen, as surely as apples fall to the ground. Self-evident is absolutely not a cheat.

And men can't fly, there's water above the dome of the sky, the Earth is flat, and the sun moves around it.

All of these things are "self evident" from the limited perspective of people in the past, but new evidence later proved them all to be dead wrong. Perhaps you see my point regarding just whining that something is self evident, now?

Quote:And we can't devise a test because God won't allow it. You really want to figure out if there is a God? Kill yourself. That's the only way to know, you've just gotta have the balls (or lack of brains) to find out that way.

That's very convenient for you, that your claim actively resists testing. But you can use that excuse to justify a lack of results for anything, it's not exactly an effective claim.

Quote:It's not just that they haven't been proven false, it's that no one has even come close to offering a satisfactory explanation.

Doesn't matter how strongly you state it, the fallacy is still there. "You don't have an answer, but I do!" is an argument from ignorance.

Quote:Everyone is clueless except theists, which should tell you something.

Yeah, it tells me that theists are so uncomfortable with the fact that they don't know, same as the rest of us, that they pretend to have a clue rather than being honest. You want to say there's something more to it than that, then you need to prove it.

Quote:Moreover, I could switch that question back at you: Do you always disbelieve things until they've been proven true?

I don't believe things until they're proven true, which is different from disbelieving. You don't actively reject things either, you just don't automatically accept them as true. It's a subtle, but important distinction.

Quote:Hell, how about gravity? It's still just a theory, isn't it?

You don't know very much about the lexicon of science, do you? Try doing a search for "scientific theory," if you please.

Quote:Says who? You? Other atheists? Just because some people live and die by the scientific method doesn't mean it's the holy grail of definition.

If a thing does things in the real world, the effects of that can be tested. You can observe and document those effects, that's just a knock on consequence of the fact that people have eyes.

Quote:The Greek gods are obviously myth, nor does their "theory of creation" bother to explain the origin of matter in any way, shape or form. The comparison is ridiculous.

The comparison is valid, in that the Greek gods were gods, but were not omnipotent. My point was that saying something is a god doesn't necessarily entail that omniscience is a trait they possess.

Quote:You are just grasping at straws here. No offense, truly, but why should I even bother countering such arguments?

You don't bother countering any argument. You effectively just say "nuh uh!" in more words. What I was pointing out is that you're making a whole heap of unjustified assumptions and then expecting everyone else to partake in the same assumptions just because you hold them.

Quote:Again, this is just silly. If the Creator of the universe actually did what I say He did, then assuming He is anything but omnipotent (which allows for omniscience) is a weak argument at best. What the hell would such a being not be able to do?

Heh, this'll be fun: according to your own logic here, that god would be unable to be unable to do things. Omnipotence is a self refuting claim.

But my point is that "creates universes" is a single ability, and not necessarily one that even requires a terribly large amount of power; you're assuming it requires a lot of power because you don't know how to do it, but ignorance doesn't make a thing insurmountable, just unknown. Universe creation could be trivial, we might be able to do it right now, and we just don't know how. You can't say anything about how much power it takes to create universes when you also say that you don't know how to do it.

Quote:And you still have to give me a reason not to suppose. We're getting nowhere here.

No, I don't need to prove you wrong, that's shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:Perhaps no less evidenced, as I certainly can't explain exactly how He created the universe, but far more ridiculous.

How? How are they any more ridiculous than the claim that a space wizard made the universe from nothing? If anything, the last example is more consistent with what we know to be true about reality than your claim is. You're really finding it hard to disengage from your presuppositions and examine your beliefs from the outside, here.

Quote: If He is capable of creating the universe, why would He be incapable of anything at all? You're trying to create arguments where none should exist. Why is it so difficult to assign omnipotence to a God you don't even believe exists? It is perfectly logical to do so, given what He must have necessarily done in order to create the universe, which is itself far beyond current human comprehension.

I'm saying that "omnipotence" and "can create universes" are separate concepts. Do you disagree with that?

Quote:How many people faulted Einstein for making a "heap of assertions" with his theory of relativity? How many even blame the man today for being wrong? My point is that there is a double standard here. Science makes all kinds of radical assumptions all the time, in heaps, yet people accept them as possible or even probable without a second thought. Yet, when it comes to God, making even simple assertions is condemned as scientifically heretical. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Science makes no assumptions, it makes hypotheses based on current observations. Theists make assumptions, as they have no observations.

Moreover, "science does it too!" is not an argument in favor of you being able to do it. I have to remind christians of this more than I have to remind my little niece and nephew, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:Is that what I said? No. I said the "vast majority of the scientific community." Find some consensus on your end of the stick and we'll talk.

The consensus is that the sort of "something can't come from nothing" claims based on the current physics models aren't applicable prior to the big bang, and yet you're still making them. Let's not pretend you're even acknowledging consensus where it disagrees with you.

Quote:What a smart-ass remark! You know that is simply not what I have done. I've provided a solid argument over and over, to which you can say nothing but "prove it!"

What solid argument would that be? "Something can't come from nothing, end of story"? Because that's precisely the sort of assertions I'm talking about here. It's also all you've been doing.

Quote:It's not that I don't understand how, it's that I know it can't as surely as I know gravity exists or that water is wet.

You know it can't? So you know absolutely everything in the universe, and you know what things were like before the big bang? How do you know that?

See, that's the thing: your certainty isn't an indicator. How do you know? Don't just say you know, don't tell me nobody can say that it's possible, give positive evidence for how you know what you've just claimed to know.

Quote: You say it's arrogance, I say it's just common sense. It is actually you who are operating from a position of arrogance, and you who are saying the very thing you quote above about God; you don't understand how He could exist, therefore He couldn't/doesn't. I know you will say that you don't discount the possibility for God, but you sure seem hell-bent against accepting a common sense explanation.

I'm hell-bent on arguing against bullshit, regardless of how often the bullshitter demands that what he's saying is just common sense. You can't simply talk your claims into being obviously factual.

Quote:I don't have time to play hide and go seek.


All you are doing is repeating yourself in various ways, trying to get me to answer the same damned question over and over and over. I'm just about done playing your game.

Well, you could always stop avoiding the question by laying down a web of baseless assertions and actually provide some justification, that'd be nice.

Quote:No, I can't read minds, but seeing as how I personally know 100% that there is a God, then I can make certain assumptions about those who do not.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. Knowledge is demonstrated, not merely asserted. All you're doing is trying to tart up your belief that god exists into something with more authority. Not gonna fall for it.

Quote: Just as I know God created something from nothing and thus know that there is no scientific explanation, I know that those who do not believe in God are suffering from any of the aforementioned factors. Call it arrogance if you wish, but I take no pride in these things.

If you know it, then prove it. If you can't prove it, don't just whine that you know it.

Quote:You already think I'm crazy for believing in God, so what difference does it make? And by the way, if God does exist, then how far-fetched does demonic possession become?

"If."

Quote:It is not presumptuous if I know there is a God, nor is it arrogant to tell you the truth of the matter based on that knowledge. You assume that I don't know and can't know, therefore it is you who are being presumptuous and arrogant. Call me crazy if you like, but I am neither presumptuous nor arrogant.

Like I've said, knowledge is demonstrated. Why would I assume you know something just because you say you do? If I said I know your god doesn't exist, would you just accept that as fact? And if not, why on Earth do you expect other people to?

Quote:I don't think they are "nefarious" motivations necessarily, just common human weaknesses. I don't condemn you or anyone else, but I speak the truth, whether you are willing to recognize it or not.

The problem is, you're being asked for more, and instead of giving more, your response was just "you just don't want to know!" which is directly at odds with the things I'm asking you.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm saying this: "X category exists, but I'm the only one allowed to use it," has two claims that require justification. The first, the existence of the category at all, is an issue, but the more pressing claim is the one where you assert that god is the only thing in that category/is that category, whatever. How did you determine that this is the case? That's a really important point: your entire argument hinges on this idea that we aren't allowed to use this category, but you're doing nothing to establish that, you're essentially trying to take ownership of the category just by saying "mine!"

The problem here is that you won't allow a simple conjunction of ideas that every single other person I've ever spoken to automatically allows, that being if God exists, He is omnipotent. It's essentially part of the definition, dictionary.com stops just short: "the One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

Logic dictates that neither matter nor the universe would be eternal, because matter isn't sentient. Furthermore, neither of those things has supernatural powers; God does, therefore He isn't subject to the same logic. I feel as though this is also self-evident, and that you are simply doing anything you can to avoid the substance of my argument (that you claim isn't substance).

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The problem is that "it's possible" isn't a compelling case for something having actually happened. Moreover, how did you determine any of this was possible? How do we know gods are possible? Or the creation of time? You're just hanging your position on a collection of hypotheticals.

I've already mentioned it in this thread; God has spoken to me, literally speaking. That is my personal proof. Of course you won't believe me, nor do I expect you to, but the arguments I'm presenting here I was arguing long before that ever happened. It simply confirmed what I already knew from deductive reasoning.

Possible was good enough for people to believe in relativity, wasn't it? You say it was based on established science, well what do you call the law of the conservation of energy? Is that not science, and is my "hypothesis" not based upon it?

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If it's not demonstrable, it is at best indistinguishable from fantasy. You certainly have no logical or rational reason for believing it.

I will include the above idea here. You're relating my argument to such things as "space wizards" when I am basing my hypothesis on actual science (conservation of energy). It's not only childish and a poorly veiled insult, it's demonstrably wrong, as I've just accomplished.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So why did you attempt to characterize your beliefs as logical and self evident, if in the very next post you admit that it's not demonstrable? Demonstrability is step one of the "evident" part of being self evident.

Because I believe in possibilities that make sense, not things that are obviously impossible. We're not living in the stone age anymore; retarded theories like a flat earth and whatnot no longer have their place.

And how many things have you demonstrated for yourself to make "self-evident" that you currently believe in? I could name hundreds, probably. Your strict interpretation of the language here is illogical; you are obviously using it to suit your argument.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And if there isn't an explanation, then there isn't an explanation. That's not place where leaping to god solves anything, which is what you're attempting to do every time you say science doesn't have an explanation, but god does.

I can also say there is no explanation, currently, for why pigs haven't yet taken to flight. Is it then correct for me to say they're going to, somehow?

If you can't explain the origin of matter, or even come close, then I say your science is unreliable at best, which it has proven itself to be so often in the past. It is quite obvious that science is your god - perhaps you should examine its credibility before placing such faith in it.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because when scientists say that, they're doing so based upon evidence and testing. When you say it, it's to cut out an obvious problem with the argument you've decided is right without evidence, by fiat assertion alone. You have no basis for your argument.

And scientists are, incredibly often, stupidly wrong. You laud scientists, evidence and testing as though it is the final authority on anything at all, when it has proven itself over and over to be wrong, which even a cursory Google search will prove to anyone willing to look.

So perhaps the better question is, who says your way is the right way? Why must my arguments be judged by your standards in order to be correct? Not that I discount science on certain things, but you speak as though it and its processes are perfectly infallible. I would call that fiat.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: God doesn't need to come from anything. Therefore it follows that nothing was where god came from. That's just the flipside of your own beliefs. However you want to dress it up, that is the implication of what you're saying, you've just decided you want to phrase it in a way that makes that acceptable.

You just contradicted yourself in the first two sentences. If I say He didn't need to come from anything, you can't say He came "from" nothing. That isn't my argument and you know it, or you simply haven't been paying attention. I said God has always existed, therefore He never came from anything, nor can the verb "come" be applied in any form.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, what's implied is that we don't have enough evidence yet. Intellectual honesty goes both ways; you don't accept claims on bad evidence, but you also don't deny claims based on a lack of knowledge, as that would be an argument from ignorance. Always be prepared for the idea that future evidence may change your perspective.

You claim I must show evidence while claiming you can use future evidence which, by definition, does not exist and so can't be shown, either. Intellectual honesty goes both ways.

Moreover, I am not saying I lack any knowledge. Where did I say such a thing? I know my argument is true because it make perfect sense, and it is based on an existing law of science accepted by the entire scientific community. If you want to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you should get your facts straight.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Your certainty is not an argument. You're making the same mistake that presuppositionalists do all the time, in thinking that if they just say that they're absolutely certain, that means that the thing they're certain about is a fact.

My certainty is not based on supposition, but on scientific fact, the standard upon which you base all of your arguments. Up until now, I thought we both agreed something cannot come from nothing. Perhaps I am wrong, and there's no way I'm going to search this thread up and down looking for the answer. I will say, though, that if you DO believe something can come from nothing, then you either have access to proof the rest of the world doesn't, or you are literally out of your mind. Using non-existent, possible future evidence isn't reasonable at all.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:Well, it was a good enough argument for the founding fathers of the United States (we hold these truths to be self-evident...). Guess they were cheating!

I'm not American, and I don't fetishize that document the way some people do. You're not just gonna be able to blow that particular dog whistle and get me to heel. Do better than an argument from authority, please.

Very well, that's a valid argument, but I was also being somewhat facetious. Basic human rights are universally self-evident.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, but what you're describing [gravity] is the regular kind of evidence.

Fair enough, I'll grant you that.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And men can't fly, there's water above the dome of the sky, the Earth is flat, and the sun moves around it.

All of these things are "self evident" from the limited perspective of people in the past, but new evidence later proved them all to be dead wrong. Perhaps you see my point regarding just whining that something is self evident, now?

The people who came up with such silly theories were also, more often than not, scientists. God is the one "theory" that has existed longer than any other theory, and it has yet to even come close to being proven wrong. You can't categorize it similarly, as you have been wont to do with your "space wizards" and "space cats pooping" or whatever.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: That's very convenient for you, that your claim actively resists testing. But you can use that excuse to justify a lack of results for anything, it's not exactly an effective claim.

I'd say it's more convenient for you, actually. It's much easier to sit back and say someone's logic makes no sense without giving any justification as to why it doesn't make sense; you can just sit back and say "prove it" until you're blue in the face. Must be the life!

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Doesn't matter how strongly you state it, the fallacy is still there. "You don't have an answer, but I do!" is an argument from ignorance.

You call it a fallacy, yet you haven't expressed a single flaw in my logic, you simply say "there's no proof." That's not even an argument, that's a no-brainer!

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, it tells me that theists are so uncomfortable with the fact that they don't know, same as the rest of us, that they pretend to have a clue rather than being honest. You want to say there's something more to it than that, then you need to prove it.

If you're calling me a liar, point out one thing I've said that is a lie. And I don't "need" to do anything. You demanded proof that is impossible to provide, I provided proof of logic that you refuse to address, and we're back where we started. Hopefully someone reading all of this crap will get something out of it, because I certainly am not, and it is apparent you aren't, either. Why even bother continuing?

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You don't know very much about the lexicon of science, do you? Try doing a search for "scientific theory," if you please.

More poorly veiled condescension, though I seriously doubt you are putting in any effort to conceal it. I am aware of the fault in the argument here, and gravity was not a good example, but surely the point still comes across, no? Perhaps not.

Let me use another theory, then, say evolution. Obviously there is no "law of evolution," because the phenomenon has never been observed or tested or proven. Do you believe in that? Perhaps not. Even if you don't, it's a favorite of atheists, so I should hope you are at least consistent in pointing out to them that they have no right to assert it as fact. Nowhere else to go on this particular point, really.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The comparison is valid, in that the Greek gods were gods, but were not omnipotent. My point was that saying something is a god doesn't necessarily entail that omniscience is a trait they possess.

The comparison is not valid, because the Greek gods are obviously myth, at least from a creationist standpoint, which is the standard you must apply to this particular argument we are having. Just because they share a title doesn't make the comparison accurate (it's not even in the ballpark of reasonable, sorry).

And again, you are still grasping at straws in your insistence that I must include omniscience and omnipotence as traits not inherent to God, when everyone but apparently you agrees that God, if He exists, must be omnipotent to create the universe. And, by the way, it is still a straw man that ignores the crux of my argument.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You don't bother countering any argument. You effectively just say "nuh uh!" in more words. What I was pointing out is that you're making a whole heap of unjustified assumptions and then expecting everyone else to partake in the same assumptions just because you hold them.

That's not true, I simply refuse to keep repeating myself. Either attack the logic in the argument or stop arguing, because "prove it" is getting extremely old.

You know what the big problem here is? You can't provide any alternative whatsoever, and you can't even come close to doing so. Therefore, you demand proof for things that can't be proven and label it an argument. It's one gigantic cop-out. You're not even really arguing with me, you're just shaking your fist at the sky and making unreasonable demands. Good luck getting the ruler of the universe to capitulate.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Heh, this'll be fun: according to your own logic here, that god would be unable to be unable to do things. Omnipotence is a self refuting claim.

But my point is that "creates universes" is a single ability, and not necessarily one that even requires a terribly large amount of power; you're assuming it requires a lot of power because you don't know how to do it, but ignorance doesn't make a thing insurmountable, just unknown. Universe creation could be trivial, we might be able to do it right now, and we just don't know how. You can't say anything about how much power it takes to create universes when you also say that you don't know how to do it.

I laughed at the first part, but the rest is just nonsense. Creation of the universe could be a trivial matter? Gimme a break!

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, I don't need to prove you wrong, that's shifting the burden of proof.

No it isn't. I'm not asking for any kind of evidence, I'm simply asking for anything resembling a reasonable hypothesis. There are no reasonable hypotheses explaining the origin of matter. If you can't even come up with that, then why should I be required to come up with actual evidence? At least I have a supposition that makes sense! Yet, you equate it with fantasies like "space wizards" and blah blah blah I've said it before.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How? How are they any more ridiculous than the claim that a space wizard made the universe from nothing? If anything, the last example is more consistent with what we know to be true about reality than your claim is. You're really finding it hard to disengage from your presuppositions and examine your beliefs from the outside, here.

Again, the basis of my logic - the cornerstone of it, in fact, is the law of the conservation of energy. I am not weaving a fantastical story out of thin air like J.K. Rowling, and to make such a comparison is simply careless. I'm sure must be one of your favorite lines or something, but it doesn't apply here, sorry.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm saying that "omnipotence" and "can create universes" are separate concepts. Do you disagree with that?

No - but I am saying it's unreasonable to assume that "can create universes" would not require omnipotence.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Science makes no assumptions, it makes hypotheses based on current observations. Theists make assumptions, as they have no observations.

Moreover, "science does it too!" is not an argument in favor of you being able to do it. I have to remind christians of this more than I have to remind my little niece and nephew, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Now we're just talking semantics, which is a total waste of time.

You're right that two wrongs don't make a right, but my point is that it is unreasonable for you to demand that I conform to your scientific standards, yet reject my argument even though I do that satisfactorily, basing my hypothesis on the observable law of the conservation of energy. By your own definition, my assumption IS a hypothesis.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The consensus is that the sort of "something can't come from nothing" claims based on the current physics models aren't applicable prior to the big bang, and yet you're still making them. Let's not pretend you're even acknowledging consensus where it disagrees with you.

Confusing language here, not sure what you're saying.

Fringe theory by definition means it is not consensus. And to be honest, there really are no theories on the origin of matter. There are some wild speculations that are completely retarded, and if you want to go ahead and offer some of those as an argument, well, at least we'd be making some progress here.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What solid argument would that be? "Something can't come from nothing, end of story"? Because that's precisely the sort of assertions I'm talking about here. It's also all you've been doing.

Essentially, yes. Based on the observable law of the conservation of energy, the existence of the universe is an impossibility, therefore one must point to the impossible. I hate myself for saying that one more time, but there it is.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You know it can't? So you know absolutely everything in the universe, and you know what things were like before the big bang? How do you know that?

Yes, I know it can't, and so do you and anyone else who accepts the law of the conservation of energy to be fact. Are you saying it isn't, or are you saying it simply hasn't been disproved yet? Either argument=fail.

I never said I knew absolutely everything in the universe, and your making the implication shows how desperate you've become in this argument.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: See, that's the thing: your certainty isn't an indicator. How do you know? Don't just say you know, don't tell me nobody can say that it's possible, give positive evidence for how you know what you've just claimed to know.

Not going to keep saying it, so I'll abbreviate it: L.o.t.C.o.E.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm hell-bent on arguing against bullshit, regardless of how often the bullshitter demands that what he's saying is just common sense. You can't simply talk your claims into being obviously factual.

What you just wrote is bullshit, ya bullshitter. I have to admit you've got a talent for it. Are you a politician by chance?

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, you could always stop avoiding the question by laying down a web of baseless assertions and actually provide some justification, that'd be nice.

That's all I've been doing, you simply aren't listening. I've tried putting it in your language now, all scientifficky and whatnot. Maybe now you'll finally hear (shah right).

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you can't show it, you don't know it. Knowledge is demonstrated, not merely asserted. All you're doing is trying to tart up your belief that god exists into something with more authority. Not gonna fall for it.

"Knowledge is demonstrated" sounds nice, but it's just not true. I swear, you've got so many one-liners and punchlines you should make a living creating bumper stickers.

Whether you wish to believe me or not, God has spoken to me on two separate occasions, and so I know He exists, therefore I know I am right and that your arguments are foolish. (I'm not saying you're stupid; you are obviously a smart person, but smart people are fools all the time)

I've already said I don't expect you to believe me; my point in telling you was to prove that I am not being presumptuous or arrogant, because I am operating from a position of actually knowing the truth (this doesn't require belief on your part, just that you believe that I believe I know the truth). If I know that I am right, then I know that you are wrong, and therefore you must be wrong for any of a few different reasons. I only see one, perhaps, that I didn't mention before that might apply to atheists:

E) You are so angry at God for the way your life has turned out, or because He hasn't revealed Himself to you, that you turn your back on Him to spite Him, i.e. you purposefully become His enemy.

Outside of that, from my perspective, there is really no other reason for atheism. I might add stupidity at some point, as it seems a reasonable option, but I've never met a stupid atheist so I'll exclude it for now.

(March 8, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Like I've said, knowledge is demonstrated. Why would I assume you know something just because you say you do? If I said I know your god doesn't exist, would you just accept that as fact? And if not, why on Earth do you expect other people to?

I don't. But why would I accept you saying God doesn't exist if He has already proven His existence to me personally? I'd be pretty stupid in that case, don't you think?

People can only believe what God wills them to believe. Either you were predestined to never believe in Him in this life, or you were predestined to eventually be convinced in this life, and only He can make it happen. However, He does use people to accomplish His will, so perhaps someone will read what I say and change their mind. I don't expect it, but it's possible, if and only if it is His will.

---

(March 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm)rasetsu Wrote: It might surprise you to learn that, at times, atheists view theists in much the same light, that they are either lying, stupid, or crazy — thus the frustrated responses such as those by people such as Sionnach. You may not understand this, but that seems a natural reaction toward people with radically different beliefs. The idea that they just might not understand the other person is quickly removed from the table when misunderstandings ensue; to be quickly replaced with liar, lunatic, or loser. Your suppositions, such as they are, are a projection of your frustration at dealing with people whose ideas make no sense to you; so you force them to make sense by casting them in these molds. I'm not an atheist, but I rather doubt your characterizations here are accurate descriptions of most atheists.

---

No, I wasn't raised in a bubble; my own father is an atheist, and he has been just as insulting to me as Sionnach. I know all the reasons, but please note that I never called anyone stupid, crazy, or a loser.

I would also hope that Sionnach's reaction is decidedly unnatural, or it doesn't paint the atheist community in a favorable light. Unfortunately, I know better; it is both natural and exclusive, at least overall. How many theists have you witnessed frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, spittle flying everywhere in rage?

(March 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm)rasetsu Wrote: It's still an argument from ignorance unless you can demonstrate — there's that word again — that there is no alternative explanation other than God (or God and an impossibility). I'm not even talking something from nothing here — we simply don't know what preceded the big bang. Unless you can demonstrate that no other explanation for the existence of the universe but God is possible, you have an argument from ignorance, and your conclusion that "Goddidit" is worthless. It's as if you were taking a math test, and you come across the question "2 + 2 = ?" You're stumped by this, so you look at a neighbor's paper and notice that he's stumped as well and has yet to write in an answer. The test proctor calls time and you quickly scribble "5" figuring any answer is better than no answer. You get your test back the next week and find you got zero points for your answer of "5." You go to the teacher and complain that the other guy didn't even have an answer, so you should get some points for your answer. Your teacher is unimpressed and refuses to change your grade. That's the argument from ignorance. You claim you should get points because the "other guy" didn't have an answer, that's a fallacy and your argument is invalid. (Logical my ass.)

As I've said, perhaps not in these words but in essence: science has already demonstrated that there is no other logical argument, notable not only by the law of the conservation of energy, but as well by the extraordinary lack of theories period explaining the origin of matter/energy. But then, why should science bother to argue against itself? [/i]

(March 8, 2015 at 4:30 pm)rasetsu Wrote: It is not enough that the idea of an omnipotent god created the universe is consistent with what you know, and that the other guy doesn't have an answer; you need to demonstrate that this god hypothesis is the right answer. This you have not done, though claiming to have done so multiple times.

See above.

(March 7, 2015 at 3:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: Did they have music back then?

Yeah, but having the band in the bedroom was kinda awkward.

---

(March 7, 2015 at 6:57 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: The difference is Al Capone was a criminal out for his own selfish gain, maiming and killing any and all who stood in his way.

Sounds like the OT gawd to me.

---

(March 7, 2015 at 7:17 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: Most atheists deride, mock and scorn anyone who believes in a God of any kind.

Mostly we only mock and scorn the ones who come here to tell us about their gawd or the ones the preach it out in public. Keep your gawd to yourself and we won't laugh at your funny beliefs.

---

(March 7, 2015 at 7:57 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: And why does God, if He exists outside the laws of physics, have to come from anything? Why do you apply the standards of the creation to the Creator? Why does everything have to operate under rules?

You claim that something cannot come from nothing (bullshit by the way) yet you claim there is a gawd. Either your gawd is something, so you have to explain where it came from, or it is nothing. Anything else is special pleading.

(March 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: How many theists have you witnessed frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog, spittle flying everywhere in rage?

Quote:As a result of this lawsuit, Jessica Ahlquist is now being bullied, ostracized and threatened with violence in her community. She has been called "evil" in public by her state representative, and is being targeted with multiple threats of violence, rape and death. (Jan 18, 2012)

Quote:"Let's all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho"

"I want to punch the girl in the face that made west take down the school prayer... #Honestly"

"hail Mary full of grace @jessicaahlquist is gonna get punched in the face"

"Fuck Jessica alquist I'll drop anchor on her face"

"lol I wanna stick that bitch lol"

"We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her."

"Brb ima go drown that atheist in holy water"

""But for real somebody should jump this girl" lmao let's do it!"

"shes not human shes garbage"

"wen the atheist dies, they believe they will become a tree, so we shld chop her down, turn her into paper then PRINT THE BIBLE ON HER."

"May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!"

"definetly laying it down on this athiest tommorow anyone else?"

"yeah, well i want the immediate removal of all atheists from the school, how about that?"

"If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!"

"U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!"

"Nothing bad better happen tomorrow #justsaying #fridaythe13th"

"How does it feel to be the most hated person in RI right now? Your a puke and a disgrace to the human race."

"I think everyone should just fight this girl"

"I hope there's lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist fuck #TeamJesus"

"literally that bitch is insane. and the best part is she already transferred schools because shes knows someone will jump her #ahaha"

"Hmm jess is in my bio class, she's gonna get some shit thrown at her"

"gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag"

"I found it, what a little bitch lol I wanna snuff her"

"if I wasn't 18 and wouldn't go to jail I'd beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet"

"nail her to a cross"

"When I take over the world I'm going to do a holocaust to all the atheists"

~ http://www.alternet.org/story/153803/why...th_threats

(March 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: God has spoken to me, literally speaking.

Honey, you are just schizo.

(March 10, 2015 at 10:49 am)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: God has spoken to me, literally speaking.

Honey, you are just schizo.

There is also a possibility that Miles has no mental illness and simply hallucinated the voice of God. I think there is a gray area between mentally well and mentally ill. A lot of people probably drift back and forth in that gray area at different periods in their life IMO.

Quote:Anomalous experiences, such as so-called benign hallucinations, may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_experiences

I have hallucinated voices too. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.

There is no way you can know the difference between God talking to you, and a voice you hear which is exactly like you would expect God to be like talking to you, except it's not God. It may be an imposter, or maybe it's all in your head. Either way, you cannot accurately draw such a conclusion.