Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

It's only as relevant as what you would say to any of the other 2869 deities that man has said to exist at one time or another, have you spared any time to think about what you would say to each of these? Even if a god/gods do exist then you have a one in 2870 chance of having picked the right one to devote yourself to so the odds are really stacked against you here. If the prospect of hell really worries you so much then I suggest you spend time thinking about a good excuse for every other god in the world (or at least those that will judge and punish you, you better get researching). Of course this probably sounds preposterous to you just as your question is preposterous to me. Hell is your worry, not mine.

You’re unbelievable. If you keep this up, I am going to be threw with you. LISTEN carefully to me. I keep repeating the point about finite gods and the INFINITE God. Must I make the same point again and not have it addressed again?

Also for the record, let’s assume for the moment my argument about finite and infinite is pathetic or “gibberish” ok, let me ask you a different question then. Do you know for SURE that the 2870 gods including MY God are false? No you don’t. Ok, so, your taking a gamble by rejecting all of them including mine. I am taking a gamble by rejecting them all accept mine. Therefore, we could both end up in hell (unless your right). So, that being said, what if you’re wrong? Also to answer my own question for myself, what if I am wrong? That would SUCK, I would be in hell, in torment, that would suck. I would try to figure out where I went wrong, why I did, and ask some questions to the right God and get some answers possibly if he gave them. And then see if there was a way out, if there was, I would try to follow that way. If there was not, then what would I do? I would say, THIS SUCKS.

Now, what would you do? The point of my question is, YOU SHOULD WORRY, or if not worry, you should ATLEAST be CONCERNED. And why? Because you don’t KNOW if I am wrong or if the 2870 others are wrong.

Do you get the point?

But, why am I not concerned over the 2869 but just concerned over my own God? Because a finite god is not the true God while the infinite one is, I already made that argument and you keep IGNORING IT. No one wants to address it.

Ok so god is the pinnacle of objectivity...

Yes, God is objective.

...hmmm but this sounds highly subjective?

I can say I want everyone to be happy, this is objective as it is undistorted by personal bias or emotion. But if I then say but I don't like apples so I don't want anyone who likes apples to be happy, everyone else can be happy apart from people who like apples... well that is highly subjective. So is god objective or subjective?

You got to be kidding me? If God said he does not want someone to be happy who likes apples, then God has an objective reason for saying apples are bad. You calling it subjective, calling it that implies your being objective, and how would you know you were being objective and not subjective?

Plus, for the record, God don’t care if you like or dislike apples. His moral standard is a lot deeper then that.

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

God=supernatural=magic=miracle.
Physics=natural=real

God=something, something that happens to be able to make the laws as he wants=that does not equal magic=miracle.

Physics=natural=real yes, but not the whole picture of what is real.

You assume it’s the ONLY thing that is real.

It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.

It has not been shown that a cause is unnecessary at the quantum level.

Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.

Really? Says who, you? Why is it not rational to insert cause/effect beyond the singularity?

The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

It has not been shown there is NO cause, nor has it been shown there IS a cause and what it is.

It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

You can repeat it all you want. Ditto in my response.

As of yet, you have not shown a capacity to understand physics.

Bunk, wrong answer. This is only your assertion and it means nothing to me nor should it to any true seeker listening. Show me why I have no understanding of physics. Address what was wrong in what I said.

In other words, at this point and time.
It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

(BTW, you just defeated your own ontological argument)

If your going to say I just defeated my own argument, give some more details, because I certainly did not see how I defeated my own argument.

Nor did I defeat my own argument.

My statement was

“Says who, you? True science has NOT PROVEN there is NO cause, or that no cause is necessary at the quantum level, and true science has not proven there is a cause and what that cause is at the quantum level YET. When it comes to JUST science (facts) without hypothesis and theories, the FACT is, we don’t KNOW if there is a cause or if there is not a cause. That is the fact. Now also the fact may be there is a cause, but the fact is at the moment we do not know what it is.”

How did I just defeat my own argument when I said this sentence?

Yes, on the atomic level and above, it would be foolish to assume there is no cause.
But we are talking not only about the quantum level, but also the lack of physical laws beyond the Singularity.

Yea, I know what we’re talking about, but tell me why it’s foolish to assume there is a cause at the quantum level and beyond the singularity?

I wouldn't know.

Why mention loki then if you don’t know anything about him?

I do not put blind faith in supernatural beings who manipulate physics to fool people.

How do you know that my God’s motive for manipulating physics was to fool people? You’re judging his motive.

These are the questions currently being asked in physics. Questions drive science to further study. Nothing is accepted on blind faith. Not are supernatural answers inserted to "fill in the blanks".

I did not ask what questions are being asked in physics right now. I asked you a question which was “Ok, let’s assume your argument is true, no cause is necessary. Ok, why is no cause necessary? Why does something come from nothing? And here is a second question, why is there something rather then nothing?”

If you’re going to make an assumption (which is your argument at the same time) then answer my question posed to your assumption or argument. For if it’s the philosophical path you want to argue on, then let’s do it, answer my question.

 

[Jollybear]

Silly Jolly,

There is no contradiction or dogma in accepting current finding in physics, yet expecting more answers, that may of may not confirm past findings.
This...
"No cause has been found to be necessary."
does no contradict this...
"This does not mean a cause may not yet be found."
in fact, it avoids dogma by leaving open the possibility of further knowledge, while refraining from inserting uneducated speculation.

Science has not shown that a cause is unnecessary and it has not shown that cause is necessary. But philosophically it is more plausible to believe a cause is necessary. And if you want to say there is no cause, then answer the question “why is there something rather than nothing, and why does something come from nothing?”

Oh, I wouldn't say you're LITERALLY blind.......

Only that your dogmatic faith has prevented you from understanding reality.

So I am intellectually blind. Wrong answer. I understand the facts, I understand all the views currently on the table, I understand their arguments, I understand their problems and I understand which one is most plausible and I have predictions. I understand reality.

As I said, you have yet to show an ability or willingness to learn even the basics of these subjects, I leave you to your 99.99% surety of the facts that are facts because you believe them to be facts, and if my facts were facts you would know they were facts.......

I have the ability and the willingness to learn the basics and more on these subjects. Again, wrong answer. You have not proven that no cause is necessary; you have only said no cause is necessary. And that is a fact.

Please note, in this one paragraph, Jolly has eliminated his own cause/effect argument for God.

Ok, now your being foolish. I have not said, nor even implied that no cause is necessary. Here is what I said

“Says who, you? True science has NOT PROVEN there is NO cause, or that no cause is necessary at the quantum level, and true science has not proven there is a cause and what that cause is at the quantum level YET. When it comes to JUST science (facts) without hypothesis and theories, the FACT is, we don’t KNOW if there is a cause or if there is not a cause. That is the fact. Now also the fact may be there is a cause, but the fact is at the moment we do not know what it is.”

I did not say anywhere in these sentences that no cause is necessary, I said science does not KNOW if there is or is not a cause and what that cause is if there is one. The data, the proof is not one way or the other.

Do you understand?

So, I don’t know what the party time is all about.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

wow... looks like I hit a nerve there huh?

Just so you understand EXACTLY what you hit, so your ego does not fly to high, here is what you hit. You hit the area in my emotion that TICKS ME OFF more than anything else when I see this trait in a person. You did not hit an intellectual nerve in me, not at all. Because what you said was either very stupid, or just said to make me mad, in other words you deliberately said something stupid, knowing it was stupid.

Just to remind you of what you said

“You seem to have the term "argument" confused with the term "bald assertion".

I have obviously made arguments not just assertions. I have explained why I make a claim on this or that.

Address something. Don’t make up stupid nonsense like I did not make an argument.

But essentially you are claiming a lot of things to be facts... without any solid evidence to back them up, other than your insistence that they are indeed facts.

There is a lot of interpretation. Data is facts.

You also refuse to acknowledge any information that would in any way alter your views one jot..

Seriously, if I disagree with any information, I will tell you why, and have been telling you why on this whole thread. I am just here shaking my head in amazement at you.

that is the antithesis of an argument, which is an informed back and forth discussion.

Apparently you don’t want discussion you just want to pinch emotional nerves, not intellectual ones by making stupid statements.

You seem to be just shouting your point of view a lot

No, I am reasoning, it seems like you and some others are doing a great job at shouting your views.

and hoping to drown everyone else out.

NO, by you making a stupid statement, you think that is going to drown me out. You got it wrong though, because I don’t get drowned out by stupid statements.

Again, the antithesis of an actual argument.

I have been making arguments. Go get a life man. I don’t got time for this stupid nonsense.

Sorry if that makes you mad.

Like hell your sorry. Don’t tell me I have not been making arguments. Go learn what an argument is. Then come back and we can talk.

 

[Autodidact]

Audodidact



The church fathers writings all preached and wrote about the resurrection of Jesus. They were not witnesses though, but they did KNOW the witnesses, but the witnesses (apostolic writers of the New Testament) they testified of the resurrection AND were witnesses of it. Do you really want me to dig for all the quotes from the church fathers talking about the resurrection? There will be too many of them, trust me.

Here is one quote for you though (there is lots more) you can dig for them here if you wish http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/

Here is one quote for you from the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
“For He (Jesus) is my hope; He is my boast; He is my never-failing riches, on whose account I bear about with me these bonds from Syria to Rome, these spiritual jewels, in which may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life”

Source of quote herehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-1-apostolic-with-justin-martyr-irenaeus/ignatius/epistle-of-ignatius-ephesians.html

I see, the church's own propaganda ministers, who observed absolutely nothing. O.K. is there a single non-Christian source that attests to the resurrection?

btw, you seem to be unaware that the gospels were not written by witnesses either.

I mean….just claiming someone was raised from the dead and that you saw it happen is NOT evidence, that is what I meant.

But if you die for that claim THEN that is evidence, for who in their right mind dies for a known lie? Makes no sense.



Lol, that is funny. If they didn’t tell us then why do we have 22 new testament writings from a variety of authors? Plus numerous writings from church fathers who knew the writers of the New Testament writings? [/quote] There is not a single line of any gospel that was written by an eye-witness. Sorry to burst your bubble.

They didn’t get martyred? Then how do you explain the church fathers saying they did and how do you explain them testifying themselves they were in danger in the New Testament writings?

We don't even know if they existed or what their names were. The Church fathers said a lot of silly things about which they knew nothing. There is church tradition that the apostles were martyred, but that is all. Most of them, assuming they existed, we have no idea how they died.

Explain how or why they would make this mistake. First off, 12 apostles, plus the women, and 500 witnesses as well, saw him alive.

Really? How do you know?

The apostles saw it over a 40 day period and saw him ascend up into the clouds. They saw his tomb empty, they saw him die on the cross. How were they mistaken?

So basically what you're saying is that if the Bible is true, then the Bible is true? See any problem there?

*hint* you can't use the Bible to show that the Bible is true.

Why does it not make it true?

Because nonsense rarely is.

Why is it gibberish?

Because it doesn't make sense. Try again.

 

[Autodidact]

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see the problem because something has to be a first cause, it’s either nothing (which is crazy) or it’s mindless energy (which is more plausible then nothing, but still not great because it needs to break the cycle of eternity to begin something) or it’s God (which is more plausible then the other 2 because he is something and he knows the cycle of eternity needs to break in order to begin something).

Before you can get anywhere with this argument, your first job is to establish that the universe had a beginning. Get back to me once you do that.

 

[Autodidact]

So here you are saying we should not resort to the god of the gaps, but you assume science has filled the gap with evolution. They have not filled it with facts, but assumptions.

Sorry, you're wrong. Science is the opposite of assumptions. It's conclusions based on the evidence.

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, nothing plus chance plus time did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, eternal mindless energy did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, the animals created themselves! No need to look any further than that”

Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, study the animals because we don’t know how they got here, but we know the first 4 views cannot be it (although we don’t know how we really know that) and then we keep studying and keep studying till doomsday (literally doomsday) and still find no answer.

You really don't know anything about science, do you?

Also one more thing I must add. Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of my position and intelligent design position. I have heard this misrepresentation time and again and I am tired of hearing it and correcting it every time it’s posed to me.

Just because we believe God did it, that does not = no need to look further and study it. Studying it does not mean we doubt that God did it, studying it means we want to know how it works.

Let me illustrate. By looking at a house, it has the hallmarks of design, therefore just by looking at it and knowing what design is, I call the house designed by intelligence. However I have not studied the house, I don’t know how the house works, I don’t know the ins and outs of plumbing, wiring and flooring and all those things. But if I studied those things, then I would know how houses work. I am not a mechanic, but I know when I look at a car, someone made the car, but a mechanic can describe how cars work, while I cannot do so.

So, resorting to intelligent design does not = not studying nature, and studying nature does not = doubting design, it means wanting to know how that design works.

Nope, it's not. ID proponents, when pressed, have admitted under oath that they are not studying the "mechanism," the how, that's not part of their hypothesis, and they don't intend to. You're wrong.

There, that is the correct representation. Please represent it like that, by all means disagree with it if you wish, but this is my position and the position of intelligent design proponents, this is how it should be represented.

Nope, it isn't. Behe himself as admitted, when pressed, that his only mechanism is "magic poofing."

 

[McBell]

I think conscience itself declares an objective standard that is independent of all of us, but demands our adherence to it. If not, why do you feel compelled to justify actions that aren't necessarily against judicial law? Comments like, "I was here first", or "that's not fair", or "c'mon you promised", or "your stingy". When people make remarks like this they are appealing to a standard of behavior that they expect the other party to know about. I think this should at the very least make anyone consider the existence of an objective standard.

If indeed there is an objective law that is independent of every human being then there is a lawgiver that isn't human.

What?
You want to try and twist the extremely subjective phrase "that's not fair" to mean that there is some sort of objective standard?

Talk about a stretch...


OASN:
My daughter all the time says "that's not fair."
But gets dead silent when I ask: "what is your basis for comparison?"

 

[McBell]

I see, the church's own propaganda ministers, who observed absolutely nothing. O.K. is there a single non-Christian source that attests to the resurrection?

Um...
Actually they still used the Bible as their source.
So quoting them is still actually using the Bible for his source, just not directly.

 

[McBell]

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see the problem because something has to be a first cause, it’s either nothing (which is crazy) or it’s mindless energy (which is more plausible then nothing, but still not great because it needs to break the cycle of eternity to begin something) or it’s God (which is more plausible then the other 2 because he is something and he knows the cycle of eternity needs to break in order to begin something).

Are you seriously saying that everything has to have a cause except god, which you rename "first cause"?

 

[Danmac]

Before you can get anywhere with this argument, your first job is to establish that the universe had a beginning. Get back to me once you do that.

Do you agree with science on everything or just some things? Here is a news flash. Science believes the universe had a beginning. It's called the big bang theory. That is a scientific conclusion, not a religious one. You can't even agree with science if it doesn't agree with your position. That is amazing.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jollybear,

you assume science has filled the gap with evolution. They have not filled it with facts, but assumptions

I'll ask you the same question as everyone else: How do you know? When was the last time you were in a science library perusing the biology journals? What conferences on evolutionary biology have you attended? Which specific evolutionary biologists have you discussed their work with?

 

[Danmac]

What?
You want to try and twist the extremely subjective phrase "that's not fair" to mean that there is some sort of objective standard?

Talk about a stretch...


OASN:
My daughter all the time says "that's not fair."
But gets dead silent when I ask: "what is your basis for comparison?"

Do you ever get angry when some cuts in line in front of you at the supermarket, in traffic, at any given time, etc.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you ever get angry when some cuts in line in front of you at the supermarket, in traffic, at any given time, etc.

Would you get angry if some Israelite came over, ran a sword through your head, chopped up your wife and two-year old son, and kept your 11-year old daughter for his own use?

What if right before he did that, he told you his god told him to do all that? Would that change your view?

 

[Danmac]

Jollybear,


I'll ask you the same question as everyone else: How do you know? When was the last time you were in a science library perusing the biology journals? What conferences on evolutionary biology have you attended? Which specific evolutionary biologists have you discussed their work with?

We need millions of years to prove that their is a God. In the mean time we will call it a theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

We need millions of years to prove that their is a God. In the mean time we will call it a theory.

???????? You're not even making sense.

The question must have been a little tough for you. Should I type slower?

What's the matter? Don't want to actually put your standard for "morality" to an actual test?

 

[Danmac]

???????? You're not even making sense.

Thank you. I was talking about evolution.

What's the matter? Don't want to actually put your standard for "morality" to an actual test?

In the "does the bible agree with evolution" thread, post 158. You accused me of giving a non answer. You answered my question with a question. It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Answer my question and I will answer yours.

 

[Danmac]

Would you get angry if some Israelite came over, ran a sword through your head, chopped up your wife and two-year old son, and kept your 11-year old daughter for his own use?

What if right before he did that, he told you his god told him to do all that? Would that change your view?

Let me ask you a question and then I will answer this one. Would it bother you if Osama bin Laden suffered for what he caused on 9/11?

 

[McBell]

Do you ever get angry when some cuts in line in front of you at the supermarket, in traffic, at any given time, etc.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[McBell]

Would you get angry if some Israelite came over, ran a sword through your head, chopped up your wife and two-year old son, and kept your 11-year old daughter for his own use?

What if right before he did that, he told you his god told him to do all that? Would that change your view?

The question must have been a little tough for you. Should I type slower?

If you type slower will you then actually answer his questions?

Though I have no idea how your typing slower will let you understand what he said any better....