Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 9:22 am
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 9:26 am by robvalue.)
I was covering the "from nothing" argument for the benefit of readers, as it's a very common one. I'm not expecting CL to reply in particular 
I could chop up rationalisations all day and it won't make a difference, because they are not the real reasons people hold such beliefs in my opinion. And they have no duty to tell me what those reasons are, even if they are aware.
I don't think people necessarily even know why they hold such beliefs. Beliefs must have some sort of reason behind them, but it may not be one easily available to the conscious mind. Of course I think being surrounded by the mythology from a young age is the prime factor, in most cases. But who cares what I think, I'm just some guy.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 12:17 pm
(June 20, 2015 at 9:16 am)ignoramus Wrote: Everyone sit back, take a deep breath, and stop fucking persecuting the Christian! 
Bring out the lions! 
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Do you want the regular lions or the special occasion lions?
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:24 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 20, 2015 at 5:08 am)Iroscato Wrote: (June 20, 2015 at 3:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I mean, I know that you don't believe in it lol. I don't mean to be preaching, just explaining my views as I get asked about them.
I understand you're not trying to preach, worry not. That wasn't my point, which is more fundamental - do you at least understand our reaction when you say "The cosmos couldn't have come from nothing, so it must have been made by something...that came from nothing."
The Blind Watchmaker argument has been used many times, and each time it requires special pleading for "god", the most complex and unlikely watch of them all.
As far as I know, your reaction is you disagree. I don't see why I should be thought of as anything less than you.
The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
Of course, the latter seems more logical to me, but as far as we're objectively concerned there is no proof of either and we cannot explain either given what science has provided for us thus far.
They are on equal grounds on that respect, so I don't think I should be considered ignorant or stupid for believing in one over the other.
(June 20, 2015 at 5:13 am)robvalue Wrote: All of science has never so far indicated there ever was "nothing". So to be blunt, to state there once was "nothing" is to make a completely unfounded assumption that goes beyond all scientific knowledge. We simply don't know what happened before a certain point.
But even if there was a "cause" then
cause =/= sentient being =/= god =/= any particular god
[ =/= means is not equivalent to ]
That's 3 non sequiturs in a row following an argument from ignorance/incredulity from an unsupported assertion.
Logic is my only friend.
I agree that there isn't 100% scientific proof for god. I would go further, and say that there is 0%. There isn't even a coherent definition that could be tested for.
But the fact still remains that it escapes our understanding of natural law. Everything in nature comes from something and has some sort of origin. Nothing ever just... was.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 4705
Threads: 38
Joined: April 5, 2015
Reputation:
66
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm
(June 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (June 20, 2015 at 5:08 am)Iroscato Wrote: I understand you're not trying to preach, worry not. That wasn't my point, which is more fundamental - do you at least understand our reaction when you say "The cosmos couldn't have come from nothing, so it must have been made by something...that came from nothing."
The Blind Watchmaker argument has been used many times, and each time it requires special pleading for "god", the most complex and unlikely watch of them all.
As far as I know, your reaction is you disagree. I don't see why I should be thought of as anything less than you.
The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
Of course, the latter seems more logical to me, but as far as we're objectively concerned there is no proof of either and we cannot explain either given what science has provided for us thus far.
They are on equal grounds on that respect, so I don't think I should be considered ignorant or stupid for believing in one over the other. It is far more logical to instead consider that nature creates nature. With the intelligent creator hypothesis you just get a healthy dose of infinite regress, requiring special pleading like "Oh it's not natural, it's SUPERnatural!"
Tell me CL, how much research have you done into alternate theories for the origin of the universe?
![[Image: rySLj1k.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FrySLj1k.png)
If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM
Posts: 67176
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:32 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Quote:The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
One refers to that which is evident. The other does not. That's why they are not on par, though either could be equally wrong and neither being wrong makes the other right, nor would either being right make the other wrong.
The comparison is empty, valueless, useless..... meaningless.
The contention itself, "supernatural" -yada yada yada.... has no explanatory value, and no truth value -can be- attached to it. Here again, it differs from the other contention regarding the natural world...-regardless- of what the right answer to that question may be.
It is at least conceptually possible to establish one, the natural end, as a fact -even if we are currently wrong about that fact and many others-. It is not -possible- to establish the other as a fact, the supernatural end....-even if you are currently right-.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:34 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:39 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 20, 2015 at 5:15 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's the thing, Cat Lady. You've stated that there is no evidence for your pet god and that it all comes down to faith (and then knock me for having "more faith" in something that actually has physical evidence, but that's by the by). The point I'm aiming for is that you've also made statements which run counter to that, about the (super)nature of this god, its powers and actions. For example, what makes you call it a 'he' and how do you know it created the Universe? Not to mention the question I already asked, by what mechanism is it supposed to have done so?
1. I didn't knock you for it, neither would not do something like that. I only showed you that we are on equal footing at this point given the fact that we don't have proof.
2. Is there physical evidence that either
a. something could come from absolutely nothing
or
b. something could ever just always have existed
3. I call it a He for practicality since that is what is done. But you are correct that God has no sex. Your next question pretty much delves into "why do you believe in God" which we have already covered in a different thread and has no short/easy answer. The answer to the question after that is, by supernatural mechanisms that we do now know of and cannot explain, as it is above the laws of our natural world.
(June 20, 2015 at 5:22 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How would you explain it?
It just is. No reason, no creation, no design. Basically the same as your god, but without the baggage.
Just to clarify, you mean certain concrete things in nature have just always existed, therfore they did not just appear at some point in time?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 67176
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:43 pm
You keep drilling a point which will not level the ground you wish to see flattened Catholic.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:46 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:50 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 20, 2015 at 9:16 am)ignoramus Wrote: (June 20, 2015 at 5:15 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's the thing, Cat Lady. You've stated that there is no evidence for your pet god and that it all comes down to faith (and then knock me for having "more faith" in something that actually has physical evidence, but that's by the by). The point I'm aiming for is that you've also made statements which run counter to that, about the (super)nature of this god, its powers and actions. For example, what makes you call it a 'he' and how do you know it created the Universe? Not to mention the question I already asked, by what mechanism is it supposed to have done so?
In fairness to CL, she's already admitted to believing and having faith without needing solid scientific evidence.
And we all persist in asking her for scientific evidence?
Everyone sit back, take a deep breath, and stop fucking persecuting the Christian!
Hey, thank you for this post! :-)
(June 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm)Iroscato Wrote: (June 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As far as I know, your reaction is you disagree. I don't see why I should be thought of as anything less than you.
The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
Of course, the latter seems more logical to me, but as far as we're objectively concerned there is no proof of either and we cannot explain either given what science has provided for us thus far.
They are on equal grounds on that respect, so I don't think I should be considered ignorant or stupid for believing in one over the other. It is far more logical to instead consider that nature creates nature. With the intelligent creator hypothesis you just get a healthy dose of infinite regress, requiring special pleading like "Oh it's not natural, it's SUPERnatural!"
Tell me CL, how much research have you done into alternate theories for the origin of the universe?
That is your opinion. Whether it is more logical or not, it is, nonetheless, something that cannot be explained and has not been scientifically proven. In my opinion, it is not more logical.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 4705
Threads: 38
Joined: April 5, 2015
Reputation:
66
RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 5:12 pm
(June 20, 2015 at 4:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: (June 20, 2015 at 9:16 am)ignoramus Wrote: In fairness to CL, she's already admitted to believing and having faith without needing solid scientific evidence.
And we all persist in asking her for scientific evidence?
Everyone sit back, take a deep breath, and stop fucking persecuting the Christian!
Hey, thank you for this post! :-)
(June 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm)Iroscato Wrote: It is far more logical to instead consider that nature creates nature. With the intelligent creator hypothesis you just get a healthy dose of infinite regress, requiring special pleading like "Oh it's not natural, it's SUPERnatural!"
Tell me CL, how much research have you done into alternate theories for the origin of the universe?
That is your opinion. Whether it is more logical or not, it is, nonetheless, something that cannot be explained and has not been scientifically proven. In my opinion, it is not more logical.
That is where we dramatically disagree.
Apologies if I come across as stand-offish, I'm more used to dealing with creationists and arrogant oafs. You at least seem like a fundamentally decent human being, which helps.
What of the second part of my post, however? Have you looked into the theories that have been formulated?
Bear in mind science is still very much in its infancy, yet it's unlocking the secrets of the universe at a quite astonishing rate.
If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM
|
