RE: God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?
September 28, 2011 at 5:23 pm
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm by lucent.)
I have to keep nothing in mind, I presuppose nothing. I could be convinced that there was something beyond the natural world if only evidence would materialize.
What I am trying to explain to you is that the evidence is there, it is the same evidence we are both looking at, it the way you're interpreting that evidence which prevents you from seeing it. It is your worldview that is the problem here, not a lack of evidence.
You may start with the presupposition of god, I did not start with any such presupposition, for or against.
You've started with the presupposition that my God does not exist, as you've stated earlier.
I don't even have to encumber myself with the original axioms of scientific endeavour, because the past few hundred years has given me every reason to believe that their assumptions were correct.
Science works.
Here is another presupposition of yours. I'm not arguing against science. I know science works. Just because it works doesn't mean it is infallable.
Firstly, Genesis 1 refutes nothing unless you can provide evidence for it's accuracy. With such a wonderfully prosaic and vague verse you're going to have trouble doing that (short of proving the existence of god himself).
Again, I don't know if you're new to debating, but that's what I am doing. One way we can demonstrate its accuracy is to see if it matches up to the basic facts of the big bang, which it does. Time space and matter are all finite and had a beginning. Genesis matches up to that perfectly.
Secondly, Christianity is absolutely not the only religion with a creator god, that is blatantly ignorant, just google creator gods and save yourself further embarrassment.
I never said there aren't any other creator gods. If you actually read what I said you'll find that I stated that Genesis is the only account which says God created independently of time. All other creation accounts say that God created within time. Thus it is the only one that matches up to the evidence.
I understand you'd love to focus only on this verse, and that's probably because the minute you go any further we drift into lala-land where the narrative has been absolutely destroyed by actual science.
It doesn't matter to me how long we spend on it, but from here we could go to basically every contention that we have.
You go from this verse straight to an un-caused cause, the unmoved mover, The Cosmological argument, followed immediately by the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and other variants of the same). Abandoned evidence in favor of arguments so quickly
Let's get this straight right now..are you saying that there is no such thing as logical truth?
Well, unfortunately both of these arguments are garbage. Each commits a rap sheet of logical fallacies that reads like a demons resume. As such, we don't have anything at all that matches up with whatever you believe gods attributes to be. The last bit of your post here was just word salad. The universe came from -we don't know-. Again, you're espousing your beliefs, but no evidence, and definitely not giving an accurate representation of "what we know".
Using the internet as your brain isn't going to cut it. Saying "you're wrong, and we don't know" isn't an argument. How about you give logical reasons as to why what I am saying isn't true? Are you saying the Universe doesn't have a cause? Are you saying that cause can't be as I described? Are you saying it isn't logically necessary for there to be a first cause? How about you state what your position actually is.
What I am trying to explain to you is that the evidence is there, it is the same evidence we are both looking at, it the way you're interpreting that evidence which prevents you from seeing it. It is your worldview that is the problem here, not a lack of evidence.
You may start with the presupposition of god, I did not start with any such presupposition, for or against.
You've started with the presupposition that my God does not exist, as you've stated earlier.
I don't even have to encumber myself with the original axioms of scientific endeavour, because the past few hundred years has given me every reason to believe that their assumptions were correct.
Science works.
Here is another presupposition of yours. I'm not arguing against science. I know science works. Just because it works doesn't mean it is infallable.
Firstly, Genesis 1 refutes nothing unless you can provide evidence for it's accuracy. With such a wonderfully prosaic and vague verse you're going to have trouble doing that (short of proving the existence of god himself).
Again, I don't know if you're new to debating, but that's what I am doing. One way we can demonstrate its accuracy is to see if it matches up to the basic facts of the big bang, which it does. Time space and matter are all finite and had a beginning. Genesis matches up to that perfectly.
Secondly, Christianity is absolutely not the only religion with a creator god, that is blatantly ignorant, just google creator gods and save yourself further embarrassment.
I never said there aren't any other creator gods. If you actually read what I said you'll find that I stated that Genesis is the only account which says God created independently of time. All other creation accounts say that God created within time. Thus it is the only one that matches up to the evidence.
I understand you'd love to focus only on this verse, and that's probably because the minute you go any further we drift into lala-land where the narrative has been absolutely destroyed by actual science.
It doesn't matter to me how long we spend on it, but from here we could go to basically every contention that we have.
You go from this verse straight to an un-caused cause, the unmoved mover, The Cosmological argument, followed immediately by the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and other variants of the same). Abandoned evidence in favor of arguments so quickly
Let's get this straight right now..are you saying that there is no such thing as logical truth?
Well, unfortunately both of these arguments are garbage. Each commits a rap sheet of logical fallacies that reads like a demons resume. As such, we don't have anything at all that matches up with whatever you believe gods attributes to be. The last bit of your post here was just word salad. The universe came from -we don't know-. Again, you're espousing your beliefs, but no evidence, and definitely not giving an accurate representation of "what we know".
Using the internet as your brain isn't going to cut it. Saying "you're wrong, and we don't know" isn't an argument. How about you give logical reasons as to why what I am saying isn't true? Are you saying the Universe doesn't have a cause? Are you saying that cause can't be as I described? Are you saying it isn't logically necessary for there to be a first cause? How about you state what your position actually is.
(September 28, 2011 at 10:35 am)Rhythm Wrote: I have to keep nothing in mind, I presuppose nothing. I could be convinced that there was something beyond the natural world if only evidence would materialize. My opinions stem from what we are able to demonstrate. Don't imagine for one moment that there is any equality between our worldviews, or how we arrived at them. You may start with the presupposition of god, I did not start with any such presupposition, for or against. I don't even have to encumber myself with the original axioms of scientific endeavour, because the past few hundred years has given me every reason to believe that their assumptions were correct. Science works. I'm not here to give your beliefs even an ounce of respect or deference, I'm here to see you support them with evidence (and only because you claimed that you could). That much should be clear by now.
Firstly, Genesis 1 refutes nothing unless you can provide evidence for it's accuracy. With such a wonderfully prosaic and vague verse you're going to have trouble doing that (short of proving the existence of god himself). Secondly, Christianity is absolutely not the only religion with a creator god, that is blatantly ignorant, just google creator gods and save yourself further embarrassment. I understand you'd love to focus only on this verse, and that's probably because the minute you go any further we drift into lala-land where the narrative has been absolutely destroyed by actual science.
You go from this verse straight to an un-caused cause, the unmoved mover, The Cosmological argument, followed immediately by the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and other variants of the same). Abandoned evidence in favor of arguments so quickly? Well, unfortunately both of these arguments are garbage. Each commits a rap sheet of logical fallacies that reads like a demons resume. As such, we don't have anything at all that matches up with whatever you believe gods attributes to be. The last bit of your post here was just word salad. The universe came from -we don't know-. Again, you're espousing your beliefs, but no evidence, and definitely not giving an accurate representation of "what we know".
"In the beginning" is a nice prologue, but let's see if the actual meat of the story lines up with our observations.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...used_cause
Is this going to be the template for our entire conversation btw? Make claims to evidence, provide none, and immediately offer apologetics and philosophy in it's stead? You do realize that I'm thoroughly uninterested right? I going to call massive bullshit if this is the case.
(lol, it is a club Epi, regardless of whatever else it may be)
