It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[JustWondering]

How many bigfoot witnesses are willing to die for their witness? The Apostles knew him best, believed He had risen, and died for it. And from the creed which was dated back within 5 years of Jesus' life, this was the earliest belief, it didn't develop over decades. How would you explain the Apostles' belief in Jesus' resurrection, which they were willing to die for? Did they all hallucinate the same thing at the same time? And Jesus was their close friend, they couldn't have been fooled by anyone else. They saw him die on the cross, and His tomb was then empty. And if the tomb wasn't empty, the Pharisees would have leapt at the chance to produce the body and prove them wrong.

Really, you think Christians were/are the only ones willing to die for their beliefs? That argument is absurd. The only things we know about the Apostles is what is told to us in the bible. Which is a point you continue to ignore. The other point you continue to ignore is that there is no evidence outside your religion to support it. You can believe what you want but it is not based on evidence, but your personal desire to believe in it despite the lack of rational arguments and evidence supporting it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Really, you think Christians were/are the only ones willing to die for their beliefs? That argument is absurd. The only things we know about the Apostles is what is told to us in the bible. Which is a point you continue to ignore. The other point you continue to ignore is that there is no evidence outside your religion to support it. You can believe what you want but it is not based on evidence, but your personal desire to believe in it despite the lack of rational arguments and evidence supporting it.

I already pointed to the creed that goes back within 5 years of Jesus' death, which Paul himself got from the Apostles. And yes, Christianity is the only religion as far as I know with multiple eye-witnesses of the miraculous event dying for their belief. A Muslim dying for their belief, for example, would be dying for their strong belief in the Quran. This is different to the Apostles dying for what they saw with their own eyes.

 

[JustWondering]

This is different to the Apostles dying for what they saw with their own eyes.

And these stories about the apostles come from where?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And these stories about the apostles come from where?

James was put to death according to Josephus.

We have Clement's letter from the end of the first century attesting to Peter's death.

Many of the other Apostles were also put to death but these are more drawn from church tradition, but we can say concretely that Peter and James were put to death.

 

[ArtieE]

For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.

Since you are mentioning Stephen Hawking here is a documentary where he explains his views. It's well worth watching.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It seems to me that some Christians, being submerged in a social group that is all about Jesus, assume that Atheists don't believe as they do because one of the following:

1. They are bad people who want to sin and so screw god and his rules.
2. Had something bad happen to them or a loved one and blame god for it.
3. Haven't been exposed to the gospel yet so you need to tell them about it and "save" them.

There is at least one other possibility though:

4. They find the claims/stories of Christianity unconvincing and not rooted in reality.

No anger or sin required, just reason and evidence (or lack thereof). Your religion is not the center of the universe. People do not need deep emotional reasons to disbelieve in Christianity.

I have some questions for Christians. Do you hate Hinduism? Can you even say anything good about Hinduism? How did you come to your realization that Hinduism is not the one true religion?

I'm not picking on Hinduism by the way, it's just the first major non-Abrahamic religion that sprang to mind that has beliefs that contradict those of Christianity.

If you are not a Christian then you have been deceived by the devil and do not know Christ. That's about it. Christians attempt to reveal Christ to the world so that the world might be saved through Him.

 

[1robin]

You are the one making the claim the universe came from nothing, please present your evidence for this. How do you KNOW what came before the big bang? You don't. Neither do I. NO ONE does. However, I am not the one saying the universe puffed into existence from nothing, you are. You have yet to present a feasible argument or evidence to support your claim, try again.

I do not get it, I post the conclusions of two of the greatest scientists in history to back up my claims and you ignore them and want my pitiful opinion instead. That is utterly desperate and absurd. However it is easy enough to provide. It is logically incoherent and impossible to have an infinite series of events in time. It is also impossible to have an infinite regress of causation. Done.

Claiming the material universe is eternal and did not begin to exist is as ridiculous as arguing for a square circle or a married bachelor.

From: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Oh come off it. I used Steven Hawking for scientific conclusions (which he is qualified to make) and you ignored him, then you used him in a philosophical or theological context (within which he is utterly unqualified) and you expect me to take it seriously. Why the double standards? Hawking does not have any idea (nor could he have) any scientific reason to make this claim, it is not within his area of competence or expertise. It also is an example of exactly what I said. That being that scientists who readily admit that the universe began to exist or that fine tuning exists do not like their own conclusions because they point so much to the need for God that they leave science all together to venture into horrific attempts at philosophy in which they are unqualified. You are literally proving what I said to be correct.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

By all means keep making my arguments for me, saves me time. I often quote the statement you did here from Hawking as an example of how utterly unqualified scientists are in philosophy. The last time I posted this statement I created two pages worth of reasons why what he said was unscientific and pathetically stupid. I will just give a few below:

1. Notice first of all that Hawking is proving that your claim is utterly and hopelessly wrong. He says the universe came from nothing which is exactly what I have been claiming and you have been denying. Again, thanks for defeating your argument and affirming mine.
2. However this is the only thing Hawking got right.
3. Gravity is a function of mass, how on Earth does Hawking think that a property of mass existed prior to that which it requires?
4. Gravity requires mass, yet Hawking says gravity not only predated mass but it created mass. That is an absurd chicken and egg paradox.
5. He says that gravity is the reason that the universe came from nothing, but gravity is not nothing, gravity is something. This is a grammar school philosophical mistake. The definition of nothing is a lack of being, nothing literally mean "no - thing". Gravity is not "no - thing" it is something.
6. I have tried to help Hawking out by thinking he meant the law of gravity, but natural laws have never brought anything into existence. For example the law 2 + 2 = 4 has never created 4 of anything.
7. I can keep going all day but I must stop somewhere. I think your arguments so far have shown that everything I claimed is true.

No, you used made up probabilities in a failed attempt to say "gee, it's very unlikely a universe should exist where life can exist, therefore god!". There is only one universe we know of that exists and it works the way it works. Saying that the universe is fine tuned is an empty claim, and flat out assumption based on YOUR preconceived beliefs. Saying I don't know why the universe is the way it is or fully understand how it came to be is an intellectually honest stance on this subject. You have yet to provide any feasible arguments for you position, try again.

That is a classic case of mistakenly describing the argument. Coincidentally I was reading a philosophical text yesterday that was examining the teleological argument, it said that the exact response you made here is a classic misunderstanding of the argument.

Lets say we paint a ping pong ball red for every possible value a universe must contain to create a universe than can support any conceivable type of life, and lets say we paint a ping pong ball black for every possible value a universe could have that would prohibit life. I do not how many red ping pong balls we would have but I will be generous and say a million, however the number of possible black ping pong balls is estimated according to string theory as 10^500th.

So we throw 1 million red balls and 10^500th black balls into a container. Now a person or machine picks random balls out of the container. Now to get a universe that can support life we must get a red ball on every attempt for thousand upon thousands of attempts in a row without getting a single black ball. If only red balls were selected out of the bin over thousands of attempts any human being ever born would think that some intentional and intelligent agent caused that turn of events. You on the other hand see than only red balls come out of the container and declare chance is the best conclusion. Absurd, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

I do not know how anyone can better illustrate the astronomical improbability of our universe or make your misunderstanding of the argument any more obvious. However I do have another analogy if you still do not get it, but if this one and the other one I can post do not help you get it I will have to give it up trying to get you on board as impossible.

 

[JustWondering]

James was put to death according to Josephus.

We have Clement's letter from the end of the first century attesting to Peter's death.

Many of the other Apostles were also put to death but these are more drawn from church tradition, but we can say concretely that Peter and James were put to death.

Another document made by a religious leader? Doesn't prove anything to a non-believer. That is unconvincing except to those who have already bought into it.

Does the Bible record the death of the apostles? How did each of the apostles die?

How Did the 12 Apostles Die | Apostle (Christian)

Where is the hard evidence for your religion? Stories from twelve guys who presumably witnessed miracles over 2000 years ago in a time of superstition is hardly convincing. It's too far back to get reliable information and those searching for it, want it to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. If this "evidence" is convincing to you then your standard for evidence is very low. That's all I have to say about this. Have a good one.

 

[JustWondering]

If you are not a Christian then you have been deceived by the devil and do not know Christ. That's about it. Christians attempt to reveal Christ to the world so that the world might be saved through Him.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Another document made by a religious leader? Doesn't prove anything to a non-believer. That is unconvincing except to those who have already bought into it.

Does the Bible record the death of the apostles? How did each of the apostles die?

How Did the 12 Apostles Die | Apostle (Christian)

Where is the hard evidence for your religion? Stories from twelve guys who presumably witnessed miracles over 2000 years ago in a time of superstition is hardly convincing. It's too far back to get reliable information and those searching for it, want it to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. If this "evidence" is convincing to you then your standard for evidence is very low. That's all I have to say about this. Have a good one.

Well, what do you believe in or in whom do you place your faith?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Thank you for proving my point.

Your point is wrong because your point is misunderstood.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Another document made by a religious leader? Doesn't prove anything to a non-believer. That is unconvincing except to those who have already bought into it.

Does the Bible record the death of the apostles? How did each of the apostles die?

How Did the 12 Apostles Die | Apostle (Christian)

Where is the hard evidence for your religion? Stories from twelve guys who presumably witnessed miracles over 2000 years ago in a time of superstition is hardly convincing. It's too far back to get reliable information and those searching for it, want it to confirm their pre-existing beliefs. If this "evidence" is convincing to you then your standard for evidence is very low. That's all I have to say about this. Have a good one.

The document being made by a religious leader doesn't change the fact that for his congregation, it would have been common knowledge that Peter was the previous leader of the church in Rome and killed. There would likely be people old enough to remember it or been told about it by their parents. It's not something Clement would just make up.

And Josephus is a Jewish historian, not a religious leader, certainly not a Christian one. What about that?

And there's twelve men, as well as the 500 that Paul mentions in his creed that goes back to within 5 years of Jesus' death. The question still remains as to what the men saw that so moved them and convinced them that their close friend Jesus had risen from the dead, spurring them on to live dangerous lives for him that resulted in many of their deaths?

 

[JustWondering]

I do not get it, I post the conclusions of two of the greatest scientists in history to back up my claims and you ignore them and want my pitiful opinion instead.

No, I quoted one of them back to you in fact, which invoked a tirade from you (see below).

It is logically incoherent and impossible to have an infinite series of events in time.

This is based on what and has what to do with this debate?

Claiming the material universe is eternal and did not begin to exist is as ridiculous as arguing for a square circle or a married bachelor.

And you base this on? If you are not an immortal being that has witnessed everything than how do you know the material universe is not eternal?

Oh come off it. I used Steven Hawking for scientific conclusions (which he is qualified to make) and you ignored him, then you used him in a philosophical or theological context (within which he is utterly unqualified) and you expect me to take it seriously. Why the double standards? Hawking does not have any idea (nor could he have) any scientific reason to make this claim, it is not within his area of competence or expertise. It also is an example of exactly what I said. That being that scientists who readily admit that the universe began to exist or that fine tuning exists do not like their own conclusions because they point so much to the need for God that they leave science all together to venture into horrific attempts at philosophy in which they are unqualified. You are literally proving what I said to be correct.

Why did you quote someone you think isn't qualified to make any claims regarding what we're debating about to support your position?

That is a classic case of mistakenly describing the argument. Coincidentally I was reading a philosophical text yesterday that was examining the teleological argument, it said that the exact response you made here is a classic misunderstanding of the argument.

Lets say we paint a ping pong ball red for every possible value a universe must contain to create a universe than can support any conceivable type of life, and lets say we paint a ping pong ball black for every possible value a universe could have that would prohibit life. I do not how many red ping pong balls we would have but I will be generous and say a million, however the number of possible black ping pong balls is estimated according to string theory as 10^500th.

So we throw 1 million red balls and 10^500th black balls into a container. Now a person or machine picks random balls out of the container. Now to get a universe that can support life we must get a red ball on every attempt for thousand upon thousands of attempts in a row without getting a single black ball. If only red balls were selected out of the bin over thousands of attempts any human being ever born would think that some intentional and intelligent agent caused that turn of events. You on the other hand see than only red balls come out of the container and declare chance is the best conclusion. Absurd, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

I do not know how anyone can better illustrate the astronomical improbability of our universe or make your misunderstanding of the argument any more obvious. However I do have another analogy if you still do not get it, but if this one and the other one I can post do not help you get it I will have to give it up trying to get you on board as impossible.

Let me state this again so that maybe you will understand this time. NOBODY knows how the universe came to be how it is today, NOBODY. The greatest minds on the planet are still trying to figure out how the universe ticks. To claim that you know the probabilities of a universe that supports life existing STARTS with the ASSUMPTION, yes, the ASSUMPTION that the universe could even exist in a different way and operate differently. You have yet to provide a rational argument or evidence for your position, keep trying.

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

Have Physicists Just Disproved String Theory? | Mysterious Universe

 

[JustWondering]

Your point is wrong because your point is misunderstood.

I'm sorry you don't understand the point I was making.

 

[JustWondering]

Well, what do you believe in or in whom do you place your faith?

I believe that the great questions most humans want answered will not be answered by looking backwards into ancient mythology and superstition. The scientific method is the best tool for answering these or any question really. Next, you may ask how science can prove if there are any gods or afterlives. Well, it may never discover the answers to that. In the end, I'm more comfortable being intellectually honest and saying I don't know if I don't know. From my perspective your religion is just as plausible as any other religion that makes claims about the supernatural. The problem for these religions however, is that they don't have any evidence or rational arguments to back them up. Else I'd be a believer too.

 

[1robin]

Since you are mentioning Stephen Hawking here is a documentary where he explains his views. It's well worth watching.

Thanks, ArtieE. I am sure that the documentary you gave would be fascinating but unfortunately I debate during down time at work on a DOD server. They have a filter that blocks UTUBE and other sites. If there is something he said you wish to put forward you are welcome to copy and paste from a transcript or other source material.

 

[JustWondering]

The document being made by a religious leader doesn't change the fact that for his congregation, it would have been common knowledge that Peter was the previous leader of the church in Rome and killed. There would likely be people old enough to remember it or been told about it by their parents. It's not something Clement would just make up.

And Josephus is a Jewish historian, not a religious leader, certainly not a Christian one. What about that?

And there's twelve men, as well as the 500 that Paul mentions in his creed that goes back to within 5 years of Jesus' death. The question still remains as to what the men saw that so moved them and convinced them that their close friend Jesus had risen from the dead, spurring them on to live dangerous lives for him that resulted in many of their deaths?

People will believe almost anything. You claim a bunch of people living in superstitious times witnessed miracles. However, these claims are passed on by members of the religion and its leaders. A letter from or about a religious leader does not evidence for supernatural events make. Supposed claims from supposed witnesses thousands of years ago about supernatural events is not convincing.

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks, ArtieE. I am sure that the documentary you gave would be fascinating but unfortunately I debate during down time at work on a DOD server. They have a filter that blocks UTUBE and other sites. If there is something he said you wish to put forward you are welcome to copy and paste from a transcript or other source material.

I'm afraid you have to watch the whole documentary from start to finish at your convenience to see the whole picture.

 

[ArtieE]

I do not know how anyone can better illustrate the astronomical improbability of our universe or make your misunderstanding of the argument any more obvious.

I also like calculations of probabilities. Suppose Adam and Eve actually existed. Now what is the probability that your exact DNA would come up after thousands of years. I know this chart doesn't start off with Adam and Eve, but it should at least give some indication about the unlikeliness of you existing. We can see straight away that the odds against you existing are so great that a god must personally have seen to it that you are here.
What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

 

[1robin]

No, I quoted one of them back to you in fact, which invoked a tirade from you (see below).

Yes I posted the SCIENTIFIC conclusions from non-theistic SCIENTISTS. They are qualified to make the SCIENTIFIC conclusions they made and their claims are KNOWABLE. You however, posted a quote from one of the SCIENTISTS I used where he made a PHILISOPHICAL conclusion which he is in no way qualified to make and it was also a conclusion he has no way to know even if he was right.

1. Use SCIENTISTS for SCIENCE, do not use SCIENTISTS for THEOLOGY or PHILOSOPHY.
2. Even worse do not ignore SCIENTISTS when used by me for SCIENCE, then expect me not to ignore SCIENTISTS you use for PHILOSOPHY and THEOLOGY.

Please get this figured and use the proper source for the type of claims you make, and do not ignore scientists when their science is inconvenient for you.

Do you realize your actually doing the exact same thing you wrongly accused me of?

This is based on what and has what to do with this debate?

Mainstream philosophy and common sense. I would have supplied source after source for this but you simply ignore sources you do not like, so why should I bother. This stuff is freshmen level philosophy. Why is it a mystery to you?

And you base this on? If you are not an immortal being that has witnessed everything than how do you know the material universe is not eternal?

Logical laws and philosophic principles, but this stuff is apparent to anyone with common sense. You can not have an infinite regression of causation and actually have a cased thing. There is no known actual infinite in the natural world, and there is every reason to thing that natural infinites are impossible. You cannot traverse an infinite series of seconds to arrive at the present one but you can start at second number one and arrive at this particular second. You can have an infinite series of events in time so as to arrive at this particular event, but you can start at event number 1 and reach this particular event. This is kindergarten stuff. Even if you ignore the mountain of philosophical problems with actual infinites all the evidence we have suggests that the universe began to exist. I posted two of the best scholars there are as to the scientific reasons why the universe is finite. You ignore everything and cling to your preference no matter how impossible it is.

Again you are actually doing the exact things you falsely accused me of doing. I am getting quite exhausted with it.

Why did you quote someone you think isn't qualified to make any claims regarding what we're debating about to support your position?

For at least the third time. I quoted qualified SCIENTISTS concerning SCIENCE. You quoted a SCIENTIST concerning a PHILISOPHICAL conclusion that even if it was true he has no way of knowing it and he is utterly unqualified in philosophy to begin with.

Let me state this again so that maybe you will understand this time. NOBODY knows how the universe came to be how it is today, NOBODY. The greatest minds on the planet are still trying to figure out how the universe ticks. To claim that you know the probabilities of a universe that supports life existing STARTS with the ASSUMPTION, yes, the ASSUMPTION that the universe could even exist in a different way and operate differently. You have yet to provide a rational argument or evidence for your position, keep trying.

Let me state this again I DID NOT EVER SAY I KNEW how the universe came to be. I said that the evidence WE DO KNOW about the universe all points to the universe coming into being a finite time ago and WE DO KNOW that the universe seems astronomically fine tuned for life. I said THE BEST CONCLUSION from that scientific evidence is the philosophical and theological conclusion that there exists an eternal intelligence which explains all the SCIENTIFIC evidence WE DO KNOW about. Doing that is not an assumption, it is a sound and logical deduction as to the best conclusion from the evidence.

To put a final nail in the coffin as to what WE KNOW: Here is the same unbelievably well qualified secular scientist speaking about one of the greatest and most robust cosmological models to have ever been created called the BGVT.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider

Have Physicists Just Disproved String Theory? | Mysterious Universe

You are not going to overturn well established theories of applied science which are validated by the massively overwhelming preponderance of the evidence by quoting fringe theoretical scientists with brand new theories that have yet to be vetted. Their claims must pass the same tests Hoyle's theories have before they can challenge the BBT. If I had a dollar for every discovery that comes out of the LHC that falls flat after a test or do I would be doing pretty well. I will tell you this however, even if whatever kooky string theory you linked to was actually true (and it almost certainly isn't) it will not get you a universe that did not begin to exist a finite time ago because all potential infinites (outside of thought experiments) are utterly impossible.

I am really getting bored here, please post an example of a known infinite of any kind in the known universe and please stop ignoring the quotes of SCIENTISTS concerning SCIENCE that I provide as in the bolded text above. If your going to actually do over and over that which you falsely accused me of doing there is not really any reason to keep this up on my part.