Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

Except the matter that makes up a human body is not destroyed.

Okay, the matter is transformed into another kind of matter. But the term is death.
The same term is used for stars in books and on channel History by Astrohysicists.

The answer is: nobody knows, yet.

See what I mean by fallatious statements? You say that the universe comes from a mass but you don't know where the mass comes from. As I can see, you know only two things. First, that you don't, and second that there is no God. How convenient!

I stated that the Universe, as we know it, started out as a singularity - an infinitely dense singular point of matter. The point is that that is as far back as we can go, and we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, came before then.

God comes before that. Something gave origin to what exists, because only nothing comes out of nothing.

Because there is zero evidence that a creator exists.

Well, Mark Twain was asked for evidence that God exists, he answered and said: The Jews. And I say, the universe, at least by default because you don't know where it comes from.

I have no reason to conclude that a God or Gods exist, but it is - of course - still possible that a God or Gods exist.

Well, that's almost something. You are milder that other hard-to-chew Atheists.

So, you don't believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, then?

It is possible that all the above three theories exist. Although they can be neutralized.

The fact that theories are changed and updated based on the available information makes them more reliable, not less reliable. The ability for science to adjust it's views based on what is demonstrable means that they can continually reach a deeper understanding of a particular subject. What's more, the fact that we are constantly gathering new knowledge does not somehow erase the facts that we already possess. If scientists discover some new facet of gravity that we never knew before, it doesn't suddenly make everything we already knew about gravity null and void.

The same with God. To research about God is all that life is about. According to Psalm 19:1, I have the whole life and the whole universe to study about God.

Of course it couldn't disprove a metaphor - because the whole point of a metaphor is to conjure up an intentionally fictional scenario to explain a non-fictional scenario.

That's why I am not a literalist when researching the Scritures.

You asked me "how science could possibly "refute" the creation claims of the Bible". I went through those claims and explained how this was done, and now you turn around and say "well, they were metaphors, so you can't disprove them".

The whole Genesis account of creation is an allegory. Only metaphorically it becomes
possible to understand what happened.

I am not remotely interested, nor is it even remotely relevant to the discussion. What you personally interpret the Bible's claims about the origin of the Universe to mean has no impact whatsoever on how the Universe actually started.

Well, at least the Bible has something to offer. Atheists don't know anything about the origin of the universe. It's better to think about something than about nothing.

The big bang theory. I thought you would have heard of that one.

What I have heard and read from Astrophysicists is that the theory of the big bang cannot be proved.

"If you use God as a metaphor, then I would contest that there is no difference between you and an atheist. In any case, this is an appeal to authority and irrelevant."

To me God is not anthropomorphic. God is an Incorporeal Spirit, and the only to relate to Him is in a spiritual manner. If this a metaphor, so be it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, the matter is transformed into another kind of matter. But the term is death.
The same term is used for stars in books and on channel History by Astrohysicists.

So? Just because we happen to use the word "death" to describe a similar process doesn't mean anything.

See what I mean by fallatious statements? You say that the universe comes from a mass but you don't know where the mass comes from. As I can see, you know only two things. First, that you don't, and second that there is no God. How convenient!

Firstly, how is that a fallacious statement?

Secondly, where I have I ever claimed to know that there is no God?

God comes before that. Something gave origin to what exists, because only nothing comes out of nothing.

That's just a bald assumption. Again, we have no idea what, if anything, came before the singularity and (this is the important part) we also have no idea what, if any, physical laws the universe operated in until then. Your claim that it "had to come from something" is no more reasonable than saying "it had to come from a fish". What's more, even if your assertion were true, what reasons would we have to conclude that such a thing was any kind of God?

Well, Mark Twain was asked for evidence that God exists, he answered and said: The Jews. And I say, the universe, at least by default because you don't know where it comes from.

And you both present flawed reasoning.

Also, why is God the default position? Why can't the default position simply be "we don't know"? That way, you're being intellectually honest and not making any false assumptions. I see no reason to give any kind of God hypothesis the benefit of any doubt, any more than I should give the existence of bigfoot the benefit of the doubt.

Well, that's almost something. You are milder that other hard-to-chew Atheists.

Actually, I think you'll find that most atheists would state this as their position if you inquire. I know very few who wouldn't.

It is possible that all the above three theories exist. Although they can be neutralized.

You didn't answer my question. Here it is, reworded:

Do you believe in germ theory, gravitational theory and evolution theory?

The same with God. To research about God is all that life is about. According to Psalm 19:1, I have the whole life and the whole universe to study about God.

If that's so, then please first demonstrate that a God exists. If you cannot do that, then you have no basis on which to claim that your study of God is in any way similar to the study of scientific theories.

That's why I am not a literalist when researching the Scritures.

Then why ask me to refute the creation claims of the Bible? Surely you understand that if such a claims were simply metaphors then you were essentially asking me to waste my time refuting something which wasn't supposed to be true to begin with.

The whole Genesis account of creation is an allegory. Only metaphorically it becomes possible to understand what happened.

You said they were "creation claims" when you asked me. Again, you must understand the difference between a claim and an allegory. What you asked of me was either pointless or dishonest.

Well, at least the Bible has something to offer. Atheists don't know anything about the origin of the universe. It's better to think about something than about nothing.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who knows nothing than he who believes what is wrong".

It's always better to admit when you don't know something and accept it, rather than inventing whatever solution most suits you. Doing so blocks your ability to see and investigate the world for what it is. It is the starting point of all delusions.

What I have heard and read from Astrophysicists is that the theory of the big bang cannot be proved.

Then you probably don't understand how science works, since nothing in science is ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The big bang theory remains a theory no matter how true we find it to be, since it is not a stone cold fact - it is a theory proposed to explain facts, and there is currently no better theory that more adequately explains the facts than the big bang theory.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

What I have heard and read from Astrophysicists is that the theory of the big bang cannot be proved.

A credible theory is a model of reality supported by experimentational or observational evidence that can make accurate predictions.

The most important prediction of the big bang theory is universal expansion...which has been confirmed from observation of red shift in all galactic clusters..they are all moving apart.
The second big one is that the universe should stilll carry a heat signature of the primeval inferno that was the big bang, a uniform backround radiation field that should have cooled (after 15 billion years) to about an average 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero in all directions of the universe and scientists in Bell labs discovered the cosmic backround microwave radiation (the Big Bang afterglow) by accident in the 60's thanks to bird crap on their radio antenna.

 

[Ben Masada]

A credible theory is a model of reality supported by experimentational or observational evidence that can make accurate predictions.

The most important prediction of the big bang theory is universal expansion...which has been confirmed from observation of red shift in all galactic clusters..they are all moving apart.
The second big one is that the universe should stilll carry a heat signature of the primeval inferno that was the big bang, a uniform backround radiation field that should have cooled (after 15 billion years) to about an average 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero in all directions of the universe and scientists in Bell labs discovered the cosmic backround microwave radiation (the Big Bang afterglow) by accident in the 60's thanks to bird crap on their radio antenna.

Well, what can I say? No wonder Atheists are not sure of anything. Even their Scientists declare publicly on the History TV and in books that they doubt their own theories. Now, you appeal to authorities to speak with certainty. All right, let me assume that you know what you are talking about, where did the massive concentration of matter that ended up in the big bang come from? Do you have any idea? If you don't, it could be true that the big bang theory cannot indeed be proved.

 

[Ben Masada]

So? Just because we happen to use the word "death" to describe a similar process doesn't mean anything.

It does. It means cessation of activity; of life; change of form.

Secondly, where I have I ever claimed to know that there is no God?

Have you ever read the Bible? If not, your belief in the possibility of God makes no sense.

What's more, even if your assertion were true, what reasons would we have to conclude that such a thing was any kind of God?

Your impossibility to explain anything plus your belief that God is possible. That's pretty good a reason to conclude an assertion.

Also, why is God the default position? Why can't the default position simply be "we don't know"? That way, you're being intellectually honest and not making any false assumptions. I see no reason to give any kind of God hypothesis the benefit of any doubt.

God is not the default position; you are. You don't know. Why give the benefit of the doubt to empty theories?

Do you believe in germ theory, gravitational theory and evolution theory?

Well, I have told you already as I have learned from you: It's possible, but I can't conclude anything based on the fact that all three possibilities can be neutralized.

If that's so, then please first demonstrate that a God exists. If you cannot do that, then you have no basis on which to claim that your study of God is in any way similar to the study of scientific theories.

"The universe speaks of God's handiworks." (Psalm 19:1) Now, demonstrate to me that God does not exist but giving me a reason for the origin of the universe.

Then why ask me to refute the creation claims of the Bible? Surely you understand that if such a claims were simply metaphors then you were essentially asking me to waste my time refuting something which wasn't supposed to be true to begin with.

Is that what you understand by metaphor, something not supposed to be true? You should have consulted a dictionary before giving me the impression that you don't know the meaning of a metaphor.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who knows nothing than he who believes what is wrong".

How do you know that what I believe is wrong? Haven't you told me a few times that it is possible that God exists? Are you contradicting yourself?

Then you probably don't understand how science works, since nothing in science is ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The big bang theory remains a theory no matter how true we find it to be, since it is not a stone cold fact - it is a theory proposed to explain facts, and there is currently no better theory that more adequately explains the facts than the big bang theory.

If nothing in science can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we can never establish anything for a fact. It means we are on the same level. While you wait all your life for a theory to become a fact I spend all mine researching about God. And last but not least, if there is no better theory than the big bang to explain facts, what's taking so long for you to explain to me the facts as a result of the big bang?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It does. It means cessation of activity; of life; change of form.

And?

Have you ever read the Bible? If not, your belief in the possibility of God makes no sense.

I asked you a question. Do you acknowledge now that I have never claimed to know that there is no God?

In any case, I have read the Bible, but even if I hadn't your argument would make no sense. How many holy books other than the Bible have you read?

Your impossibility to explain anything plus your belief that God is possible. That's pretty good a reason to conclude an assertion.

No, it's not. I also believe that it is "possible" that the Universe was created by a giant monkey jumping on a trampoline. Is that a good reason to conclude that assertion?

Also, it's not "impossible" to explain, we just don't have the answers yet.

God is not the default position; you are.

Another addition to the list of "statements which make absolutely no sense".

You don't know. Why give the benefit of the doubt to empty theories?

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They present the evidence, I see that the evidence is well supported, so I believe the theories are credible. I don't believe a theory just because I doubt something else, I accept a theory because it actually demonstrates itself to be true.

Well, I have told you already as I have learned from you: It's possible, but I can't conclude anything based on the fact that all three possibilities can be neutralized.

It's a yes or no question, Ben. Now, please answer it and stop eluding it.

"The universe speaks of God's handiworks." (Psalm 19:1) Now, demonstrate to me that God does not exist but giving me a reason for the origin of the universe.

I asked you to demonstrate that God exists, and in response you turn to me and ask me to demonstrate that God does not exist. Do you understand what people say about "proving a negative", Ben? What's more, I never once claimed that God does not exist. You've repeatedly acknowledged that I hold the position that it is "possible" for God to exist, so at this point you're either playing dumb or being willfully ignorant.

A line from a book written two-thousand years ago by goat herders is not evidence, nor is it a demonstration of your claim that God exists. It lends absolutely no credibility to the hypothesis whatsoever.

Is that what you understand by metaphor, something not supposed to be true? You should have consulted a dictionary before giving me the impression that you don't know the meaning of a metaphor.

I know what a metaphor is Ben, and if you did too then you would realize that asking me to disprove a metaphor is a meaningless task. You might as well ask me to disprove Alice in Wonderland.

How do you know that what I believe is wrong? Haven't you told me a few times that it is possible that God exists? Are you contradicting yourself?

You seem to have completely missed the point again, Ben. Re-read the quote.

If nothing in science can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we can never establish anything for a fact.

There are facts in science, but "proof" is not a term used in science. Something can be established as a fact, but the explanation for that fact can never be proven. This is the difference between facts and proof. A fact is something that exists, proof is something that - in and of itself - makes a given supposition irrefutable. No suppositions or hypotheses in science are irrefutable, hence nothing in science is ever proven.

It means we are on the same level. While you wait all your life for a theory to become a fact I spend all mine researching about God. And last but not least, if there is no better theory than the big bang to explain facts, what's taking so long for you to explain to me the facts as a result of the big bang?

What do you mean "facts as a result of the big bang"? You've never once asked me anything like that.

 

[Ben Masada]

And?

I asked you a question. Do you acknowledge now that I have never claimed to know that there is no God?

Yes, then, what is Atheism all about, not knowing or not believing? Carl Sagan used to say that there are millions of galaxies out there in the universe. Of course, you don't know. But tell me do you believe him?

In any case, I have read the Bible, but even if I hadn't your argument would make no sense. How many holy books other than the Bible have you read?

Many. What's the point?

Also, it's not "impossible" to explain, we just don't have the answers yet.

So, if you don't have the answers to anything you stand for, why are we having this discussion after all?

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They present the evidence, I see that the evidence is well supported, so I believe the theories are credible. I don't believe a theory just because I doubt something else, I accept a theory because it actually demonstrates itself to be true.

To you, of course! Not to me. Therefore, we are both talking nonsense.

I asked you to demonstrate that God exists, and in response you turn to me and ask me to demonstrate that God does not exist. Do you understand what people say about "proving a negative", Ben? What's more, I never once claimed that God does not exist.

God is a Spirit. How can you require from me to prove a Spirit. I told you that, according to Psalm 19:1, the universe shows the handiwork of God. You don't know anything about the origin of the universe, where and how it came about. You claim that you just don't have the answers yet. So, wait. You claim that it is possible that God exists. You just don't have the answers yet. Wait as you are waiting for the answers abut the origin of the universe. Somehow the certainty about the existence of God will come to you too. It has come to me spiritually because I don't believe that the universe came out of nothing or that matter is eternal.

A line from a book written two-thousand years ago by goat herders is not evidence, nor is it a demonstration of your claim that God exists. It lends absolutely no credibility to the hypothesis whatsoever.

Solomon, David's son was not a goat herder and he was considered the wisest of all men at the time. At least, a little more than you and I. Would he be simply playing stupid and ignorant to believe in the existence of God? Hardly!

I know what a metaphor is Ben, and if you did too then you would realize that asking me to disprove a metaphor is a meaningless task. You might as well ask me to disprove Alice in Wonderland.

I don't think your simile makes sense. For example, the whole Genesis account of Creation is an allegory, whose truth is understood only by metaphorical means. Read bellow in post # 488 my explanation about ''The Double Allegories of Creation."

There are facts in science, but "proof" is not a term used in science. Something can be established as a fact, but the explanation for that fact can never be proven. This is the difference between facts and proof. A fact is something that exists, proof is something that - in and of itself - makes a given supposition irrefutable. No suppositions or hypotheses in science are irrefutable, hence nothing in science is ever proven.

Nevertheless, you demand that I prove a Spirit.

What do you mean "facts as a result of the big bang"? You've never once asked me anything like that.

If you believe in the big bang, as you have told me before, you do, I am asking for an explanation for the facts as a result of the big bang.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Double Allegory of Creation


There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.


The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.

The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with freewill and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.

Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.

Nex, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.

The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."

Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it was not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.

It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's freewill. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.

Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.

Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.

Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.

Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.


Ben

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, then, what is Atheism all about, not knowing or not believing? Carl Sagan used to say that there are millions of galaxies out there in the universe. Of course, you don't know. But tell me do you believe him?

Atheism is about not believing.

Do I believe there are millions of galaxies in the Universe? Considering how undoubtedly vast the Universe is, I'd say I do.

Many. What's the point?

The point is that your argument made no sense. Why is my position on God and it's rationality dependent on my reading the Bible? If you don't believe in magic, is your rationality for not believing it dependent on you reading Harry Potter?

So, if you don't have the answers to anything you stand for, why are we having this discussion after all?

I don't have the answer to anything I stand for? What are you talking about?

The question this entire discussion was based around was a very simple, singular question: where did the Universe come from. That's the question I don't know the answer to. I fail to see how not knowing it means I don't have any answers for anything that I stand for. As a matter of fact, given you're even asking me this, I doubt you have any idea what I do actually stand for.

To you, of course! Not to me. Therefore, we are both talking nonsense.

Except I only believe something once it is either logically valid or demonstrable, your beliefs - on the other hand - rely on neither logic nor demonstration or evidence to be believed. Reality is not a matter of perspective.

God is a Spirit. How can you require from me to prove a Spirit. I told you that, according to Psalm 19:1, the universe shows the handiwork of God.

If you make a claim, you support it with evidence. If you have no evidence, then you have no basis with which to make the claim. It's simple burden of proof. If God really is impossible to demonstrate, then I can only assume you must have no logical reason to conclude God's existence.

You don't know anything about the origin of the universe, where and how it came about.

I know a few things about the start of the big bang. I'm by no means an expert, but I don't know nothing. As for "before" the big bang (were such a concept valid) I have no more or less of an idea than you do. Or scientists do. Or any single person on the planet does.

You claim that you just don't have the answers yet. So, wait. You claim that it is possible that God exists. You just don't have answers yet. Wait as you are waiting for the answers abut the origin of the universe. Somehow the certainty about the existence of God will come to you too. It has come to me spiritually because I don't believe that the universe came out of nothing or that matter is eternal.

Now you just sound arrogant. Of course, you could be right (you could also be horribly wrong), but what's going to change my mind is evidence, logic and reason, not superstition, fear and appeals to emotion.

Solomon, David's son was not a goat herder and he was considered the wisest of all men at the time. At leas, a little more than you and I. Would he be simply playing stupid and ignorant to believe in the existence of God? Hardly!

Appeal to authority. Wise people can be mislead, deceived and deluded as well. More importantly, wise people can also be wrong.

I don't think your simile makes sense. For example, the whole Genesis account of Creation is an allegory, whose truth is understood only by metaphorical means. Read bellow in post # my explanation for that allegory.

Well then, if what you were asking made sense, then present me with something to disprove.

Nevertheless, you demand that I prove a Spirit.

Firstly, we're not engaging in a scientific study.

Secondly, you claimed that God exists, hence the burden of proof lies with you.

If you believe in the big bang, as you have told me before, you do, I am asking for an explanation for the facts as a result of the big bang.

So you're asking me to explain everything that has happened in the Universe over the last 14.5 billion years?

Also, you still haven't answered my question: Do you believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution?

 

[Ben Masada]

Atheism is about not believing.

It means that even if you know, you still won't believe, isn't that so?

Do I believe there are millions of galaxies in the Universe? Considering how undoubtedly vast the Universe is, I'd say I do.

Great! This is already something not too atheistic about you. You believe something although you are not sure it exists. But since you cannot believe what the Bible says about God, this is equally a fallatious appeal to authority. Why, because Carl Sagan was an Astrophysicist? How banal man is in his vanity!

The point is that your argument made no sense. Why is my position on God and it's rationality dependent on my reading the Bible? If you don't believe in magic, is your rationality for not believing it dependent on you reading Harry Potter?

See what I mean? That's exactly how I believe in any book about scientific theories of the universal laws.

I don't have the answer to anything I stand for? What are you talking about?

You are the one who claims all the time that you don't have the answers to anything.

The question this entire discussion was based around was a very simple, singular question: where did the Universe come from. That's the question I don't know the answer to. I fail to see how not knowing it means I don't have any answers for anything that I stand for. As a matter of fact, given you're even asking me this, I doubt you have any idea what I do actually stand for.

You stand for Atheism, the doctrine of not believing in anything until you have the answers. And since, as far as Schience is concerned, you never will. Is it not what you stated above?

Except I only believe something once it is either logically valid or demonstrable, your beliefs - on the other hand - rely on neither logic nor demonstration or evidence to be believed. Reality is not a matter of perspective.

It means that you will never be able to believe in anything because that's the nature of Science, never to present demonstrable evidence to be believed.

If you make a claim, you support it with evidence. If you have no evidence, then you have no basis with which to make the claim. It's simple burden of proof. If God really is impossible to demonstrate, then I can only assume you must have no logical reason to conclude God's existence.

The exact same thing I can say of the universe. If you have no evidencial answers to give about its origin and existence, you have no evidence to claim that it has always been there. You can only assume anything about it.

I know a few things about the start of the big bang. I'm by no means an expert, but I don't know nothing. As for "before" the big bang (were such a concept valid) I have no more or less of an idea than you do. Or scientists do. Or any single person on the planet does.

So, you cannot claim that it did not come out of the works of a Creator.

Now you just sound arrogant. Of course, you could be right (you could also be horribly wrong), but what's going to change my mind is evidence, logic and reason, not superstition, fear and appeals to emotion.

The very same thing happens to me; what is going to change my mind is eviidence, logic and reason; not superstitions based on empty theories by humans who themselves are not sure about anything they believe in.

Appeal to authority. Wise people can be mislead, deceived and deluded as well. More importantly, wise people can also be wrong.

So, since Carl Sagan died before demonstrating his millions of galaxies, he could have been wrong. But you still believe him. It means I am not too out of place by believing what the Bible says about the unieverse. If this is appeal to authority, you are committing the same sin.

Firstly, we're not engaging in a scientific study.

That's the only thing sure you have said here so far. The forum is about religious education, and I don't understand why discussions with Atheists have to end up with
Austrophysics, when they don't have the answers to anything.

Secondly, you claimed that God exists, hence the burden of proof lies with you.

Third, you claim to be an Atheist, and Atheists in general claim that the universe had no Creator. Now, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that assertion by coming up with some answers.

So you're asking me to explain everything that has happened in the Universe over the last 14.5 billion years?

And you are asking me to explain a Spirit that has existed for all eternity? I think your burden of proof is lighter. What is 14.5 billion years in the context of eternity?

Also, you still haven't answered my question: Do you believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution?

I haven answered to you more than several times, but you don't get it when you don't want to get it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It means that even if you know, you still won't believe, isn't that so?

Nope. Knowledge doesn't come into it. Atheism is simply the stance that you do not believe a God exists, but I can personally attest that if I ever were to know a God exists (or find a good reason to believe God exists) then I would no longer be an atheist. I don't know any atheists who feel any differently.

Great! This is already something not too atheistic about you. You believe something although you are not sure it exists. But since you cannot believe what the Bible says about God, this is equally a fallatious appeal to authority. Why, because Carl Sagan was an Astrophysic? How banal man is in his vanity!

Firstly, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God. Aside from my position on God, not a single other belief I may hold could be considered "atheistic".

Secondly, it is not an appeal to authority since I don't take accept Sagan's judgement purely because he was "smart". I apply reason and observation of the evidence and reach a conclusion. I also trust his judgement more than the average layman as an astrophysicist because to become one requires a great deal of research and understanding of the concepts involved, and as an astrophysicist Carl Sagan is well respected and his research widely published. I accept his word because he proven himself a reliable source on the subject.

See what I mean? That's exactly how I believe in any book about scientific theories of the universal laws.

You don't seem to following the thread of discussion.

You are the one who claims all the time that you don't have the answers to anything.

Where have I ever claimed I don't have the answers to anything? I've repeatedly stated that I don't have an answer for the origin of the Universe.

I have to ask: have you been paying any attention to a single thing I've written?

You stand for Atheism, the doctrine of not believe in anything until you have the answers.

That's not what atheism is. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a God - anything else you may interpret it to mean regarding any subject other than a God is largely imagined.

And since, as far as Schience is concerned, you will never will. Is it not what you stated above?

What do you mean we never will? Science produces answers all the time.

It means that you will never be able to believe in anything because that's the nature of Science will never present demonstrable evidence to be believed.

Again, what are you talking about? Science is entirely based on what is demonstrably true.

The exact same thing I can say of the universe.

So you're saying there's no evidence of the Universe? Seriously?

If you no evidence answers to give about its origin and existence, you have no evidence to claim that it has always been there. You can only assume anything about it.

I never claimed that the Universe had always been there - I only did so earlier as a counter-argument to show you how your argument was fallacious. I've explained this multiple times.

Also, we don't need to understand everything about the origin of the Universe in order to see and understand how the Universe currently functions.

So, you cannot claim that it did not come out of the works of a Creator.

Once again, I never claimed it didn't. You are the one making the claim that it did come from a creator, so the burden of proof rests with you.

At this point, Ben, I can only assume you're being willfully ignorant. You should know by now that I have not once made any claims with regards to the absence of a creator, only that I do not believe in a creator. I've explained this multiple times, and if you continue to construct this straw-man argument I will cease this discussion immediately as you're obviously incapable of taking on board a single thing I say.

The very same thing happens to me; what is going to change my mind is eviidence, logic and reason; not superstitions based on empty theories by humans who themselves are not sure about anything they believe in.

So, the only thing that can change your mind is evidence, logic and reason, but you don't accept scientific theories? Scientific theories are entirely comprised of facts, evidence, logic and reason. If you accept those things, why on earth would you reject them? That's an extremely irrational (not to mention contradictory) position.

So, since Carl Sagan died before demonstrating his millions of galaxies, he could have been wrong. But you still believe him. It means I am not too out of place by believing what the Bible says about the unieverse. If this is appeal to authority, you are committing the same sin.

No, I'm not. Carl Sagan demonstrated a great deal of understanding and personal research into the Universe, and backed his assertions up with evidence. The Bible does not present any of these things, and is an unreliable source for understanding the Universe since, as you say, it is largely filled with metaphors and allegory. What's more, it is of largely unknown authorship.

That's the only thing sure you have said here today. The forum is about religious education, and I don't understand why discussions with Atheists have to end up with
Austrophysics, when they don't have the answers to anything.

I've presented you with tonnes of responses and answers. Are you reading any of it?

Third, you claim to be an Atheist, and Atheists in general claim that the universe had no Creator. Now, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that assertion by coming up with some answers.

[rhetorical counter-claim]And "Christians in general" claim that gays are of the Devil, so prove that.[/rhetorical counter-claim]

An atheist is someone who does not hold a belief in a God. I have never once claimed, with any degree of certainty, that a God does not exist. I am not the one making any claims in this discussion, you are. The burden of proof lies solely with you, and since you are clearly eager to avoid the burden of proof I can only assume you cannot meet it.

And you are asking me to explain a Spirit that has existed for all eternity? I think your burden of proof is lighter. What is 14.5 billion years in the context of eternity?

I never asked you to "explain God". Once again, this is a strawman on your part.

Regardless, ask me about a particular aspect of the Universe and I will make an honest attempt at explaining it.

I haven answered to you more than several times, but you don't get it when you don't want to get it.

Your response to the question was "it's possible", but that is not an adequate answer to the question and more than "maybe" is an adequate answer to a true or false question. I'll ask again:

Do you believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution?

If you cannot give a straight answer to such a simple question, I will happily conclude this discussion.

 

[Ben Masada]

Your response to the question was "it's possible", but that is not an adequate answer to the question and more than "maybe" is an adequate answer to a true or false question. I'll ask again:

Do you believe in germ theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution?

If you cannot give a straight answer to such a simple question, I will happily conclude this discussion.

When I asked, and for several times, if you believed that God exists, you have answered by saying that's possible. Do you find this an adequate answer? You probably do. Why mine about germs, gravity and evolution as possible is not adequate? I say it is possible because germs can be exterminated, gravity can be neutralized, and evolution has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, because we could very well have been brought here from out of space, by extra-terrestrial beings who found planet earth adaptable to their species. Then, returned home, and probably are still on their way back. Everything is possible, to coin your most common statement.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When I asked, and for several times, if you believed that God exists, you have answered by saying that's possible.

I have stated, repeatedly, that my answer is no, I don't believe a God exists. Are you honestly reading a thing I've written?

Do you find this an adequate answer? You probably do. Why mine about germs, gravity and evolution as possible is not adequate?

Because I gave an answer, you did not.

I say it is possible because germs can be exterminated,

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not you accept germ theory.

gravity can be neutralized,

Again, completely irrelevant to whether or not you accept the theory of gravity.

and evolution has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt,

And, as I have already explained, no theory is ever proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in science, so this is also irrelevant as to whether or not you accept the theory of evolution.

because we could very well have been brought here from out of space, by extra-terrestrial beings who found planet earth adaptable to their species.

You don't understand what evolution theory actually states, do you?

Then, returned home, and probably are still on their way back. Everything is possible, to coin your most common statement.

I have not once, in this entire discussion, ever said "everything is possible".

Seriously, at this point, I can only assume you're illiterate. You have clearly not understood a single thing I've written.

 

[Oneatatime]

Belief in God and that God created the universe does not become credible because from a naturalistic perspective we do not know conclusively how the universe arose. Atheism is not dependent on knowing the naturalistic explanation of how the universe arose.

 

[proffesb]

Just found this thread and would like to point out an issue I have with it's ground rules. (sorry if this has been addressed already)

And please, do not discard my question as nonsense or tell me that you don't know, because Atheism itself will lose all its raison d'etre. One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option.

"I don't know" is a completely legitimate honest and fair answer.

Like Han Solo said in episode IV something along the lines of I've never seen anything in my life to make me believe in an all encompassing force.

Also if I were to ask you where God came from what would you say?

 

[Ben Masada]

Just found this thread and would like to point out an issue I have with it's ground rules. (sorry if this has been addressed already)

"I don't know" is a completely legitimate honest and fair answer.

Like Han Solo said in episode IV something along the lines of I've never seen anything in my life to make me believe in an all encompassing force.

Also if I were to ask you where God came from what would you say?

If God had come from somewhere or dwells anywhere, He wouldn't be God. I am not talking about the anthropomorphic god of religions but the real God, Creator of the universe, Who is always creating. Now, since you committed the fallacy to appeal to authority in the quotation of Han Solo, I thank you for giving me the same right to appeal to the Scriptures. "The universe declares the handiwork of God." That's in Psalm 19:1.

Yes, I agree with you that "I don't know" could be an honest answer, but when you are ready to acknowledge other possibilities, at least until you know for sure what you don't know yet. But to deny the possibility of a Creator for the universe, is pride and arrogance, when you don't know anything about its origin.

 

[Ben Masada]

Belief in God and that God created the universe does not become credible because from a naturalistic perspective we do not know conclusively how the universe arose. Atheism is not dependent on knowing the naturalistic explanation of how the universe arose.

I know. Aatheism is dependent on the knowing that there is no possibility for the existence of a Creator of the universe, although they don't know the ABC's about the origin of the universe. This is called arrogance and some kind of grudge against Theists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I agree with you that "I don't know" could be an honest answer, but when you are ready to acknowledge other possibilities, at least until you know for sure what you don't know yet. But to deny the possibility of a Creator for the universe, is pride and arrogance, when you don't know anything about its origin.

I think you're misunderstanding atheism.

I certainly don't deny the possibility of a "Creator for the universe". Not with philosophical certainty, anyhow. What I do deny is that the evidence I'm privy to suggests a Creator. I also deny that you have access to any special knowledge of a Creator that I do not.

But none of that's strictly necessary for atheism anyhow. All that is necessary for atheism is to simply fail to be convinced when we encounter a theistic claim.

 

[Ben Masada]

I have not once, in this entire discussion, ever said "everything is possible".

Seriously, at this point, I can only assume you're illiterate. You have clearly not understood a single thing I've written.

You assume! I don't. I am sure you are the one illiterate or a fool to think that I don't know the difference between a statement "that there is no God" and another "that's possible that God exists."

Go back to your post #481 and see who of us declared the following statement: "I have no reason to conclude that God or gods exist, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A GOD OR GODS EXIST. "

Seriously, at this point, we have nothing else to say to each other any more. You either don't know anything about what you say, or you forget immediately what you have said. If a physical ailment is the case, I beg your pardon for being too rough in my response to your ad hominem above. But here we adjourn; I have been just wasting my time with you.

 

[Ben Masada]

I think you're misunderstanding atheism.

I certainly don't deny the possibility of a "Creator for the universe". Not with philosophical certainty, anyhow. What I do deny is that the evidence I'm privy to suggests a Creator. I also deny that you have access to any special knowledge of a Creator that I do not.

But none of that's strictly necessary for atheism anyhow. All that is necessary for atheism is to simply fail to be convinced when we encounter a theistic claim.

Consider what you are telling me in your last statement. "All that is necessary for atheism is to simply fail to be convinced." Necessary to fail to be convinced! Why atheists must fail to be convinced? And why by necessity? Is this a kind of competition which atheists must not lose? And to be convinced, as far as I am oncerned, is an involuntary action that takes place in the mind and not in the will. You have made of any debate between Theists an Atheists a kind of contention which Atheists should, by no means allow themselves to be convinced, no matter what. Like Christians who, according to Luke 16:29-31, are not to listen to Moses even if the dead resurrect to tell them that's the only way to escape Hell. I never thought I would find among atheists this kind of faith. A faith that kills as a result of lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) That's the faith that took 960 of the faithful of Jim Jones down to the poinson of any possibility to be convinced about any other way.