Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

Seems to me that you do not know what unsubstantiated means....

Who, other than you, has said anything about "A self existing, self producing, eternal universe"?

I agree that if something has a beginning that there was likely something before it.
However, You have not establish any reason to believe that the universe had a beginning other than your beliefs.

What you havent been paying attention? They have said it and sometimes if they p***yfoot around it [A self existing, self producing, eternal universe] i just expose what they are trying to hide in long explanations and big words into what they really mean.

You can do this if you pay attention to all the words. Its no different when you have to debunk all the christianity garbage out there.

 

[AK4]

No, Quantum Physics is not a "force" or law", Quantum Physics is an area of physics that explores physics at the sub-molecular level.
Quantum Physics is not a cause of any physical reaction.
Cause/effect does not always apply at the sub-molecular level according to the findings of Quantum Physics.

i feel ya. Am i talking about the title QP or am i talking about the stuff that make up the title.

I figure guys could decipher that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

lol. I understand. You guys cant see because of faulty, inconsistent translations that God what talking about that region that whole time and then makes the statement "every living substance that I have made" and somehow this jumps to the whole global world.

If the writer states "every living thing that I have made", then the writer means "every living thing that God has made".
Where is the mistranslation?

Oh and dont forget to take into that even if "the writers intent" was the whole world, that the whole world that he knew of was more than likely just that region.

Good grief.

If the writers intent was the whole world, but to him the "whole world" was only the land he knew of, then the writer is clearly mistaken.
If the writer was mistaken in his understanding of the world, he was clearly not inspired by an omnipotent God to relay this bit of mistaken history.

Good grief indeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so how do rubber chickens fit in all of this?

They fit in with the help of some Vaseline.

Yup yup....

Okay... and you also believe that not all living things were destroyed in the flood, right?

 

[tumbleweed41]

i feel ya. Am i talking about the title QP or am i talking about the stuff that make up the title.

I figure guys could decipher that.

Maybe if you did not make ridiculous statement such as "QP is the cause", and instead put your focus on what it is at the sub-molecular level that you can prove to be the cause, then there would be no misunderstanding.

 

[AK4]

No, I don't. What I say is that we don't need to consider alternate hypotheses to reject the one that you present us with.

Quote:

Why not? All that would happen then is your "something that started all things" would become a "something that started most things".

Then the whole concept of an USP is useless and therefore the universe is eternal or self producing/existing. See how you can just break through all the jargon and get to the point of what someone is saying.

So? Do you think reality is contingent on your ability to distinguish what happened?

Uh yeah, hence why do you think science is the basically the study of getting know the origin of all things and how it works

Yes - you lost me when you completely failed to address my point.

You claim that something has to be "self-sustaining". While I've got problems with your argument, I'll just set that aside for a moment. You've given no justification for why your choice of "something" is necessarily the something that's self-sustaining. Why does God necessarily fill this role but other things don't?

I address your point exactly. You probably just didn’t like my answer. You asked for an explanation and I gave it. Even addressed some of the arguing points you would have to what I put.
A God concept or USP fills this role because all we have evidence for is that creation came from something and not from nothing. Nothing else fits because we have nothing eternal to base it off of.

Wait... so you do agree that some God-concepts do have a beginning?

Depends. You have the one Ive been stressing---the one true God. Illustrated here
God---> Jesus---> everything else
Then you have others like
God or multiple gods----> everything else
Or
God--->everything else

Either way the God concept starts with a God that has no beginning. Those that don’t believe in a God just substitute God with other things observed in the universe. Replace universe with God up above for illustration. Then also you can add more for this also like
Multiple universes/universes inside universes/plains of reality/dimensions etc etc ---->everything else

I disagree. The fact that the text (kinda) specifies the geographic extent of God's wrath doesn't change the fact that the text also says God planned to kill all his living creations.

I understand you are recognizing the power He does have to do such a thing if He wanted to, but the context when properly translated and then backed up with scientific evidence of no global flood shows conclusively, then you are forced to accept that it wasn’t a global flood. Further evidence, do you really think Noah loaded all the different types of species and animals on even a boat that large? But is it possible to do that that for all the creatures of a local geographic area? Yup, See there is a thing in some believers not to just have "blind faith'" and to have some common sense and rationale.

 

[AK4]

You assume that there was a creation.
Define this "creation" you are saying we must stay inside of.
What is in it?
What is outside of it?

I dont assume, i am going with science and philosophy or logic and rationale and of course scripture.

Creation--anything that does have a beginning. If something has a beginning, then something ELSE mustve brought it into existence. But the alternative to this is having some sort of evidence that something can either come from nothing or produce/create itself.

Outside of it means its not part of the creation. Meaning it didnt come into existence with the creation, it created the creation [even if the creation comes from or out of that something]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then the whole concept of an USP is useless and therefore the universe is eternal or self producing/existing. See how you can just break through all the jargon and get to the point of what someone is saying.

If the concept of a USP is useless, then I'm completely fine with that. It was your idea, not mine, remember?

Uh yeah, hence why do you think science is the basically the study of getting know the origin of all things and how it works

You misunderstand the purpose of science. In fact, taking as given that something exists (e.g. an origin) before actually gathering evidence for it is generally considered to be bad science.

I address your point exactly. You probably just didn’t like my answer. You asked for an explanation and I gave it. Even addressed some of the arguing points you would have to what I put.
A God concept or USP fills this role because all we have evidence for is that creation came from something and not from nothing. Nothing else fits because we have nothing eternal to base it off of.

Nothing? How about an eternal gopher?

There you go: you have something else that is, by definition, eternal. After all, if an eternal gopher weren't eternal, it wouldn't be an eternal gopher, would it? Now... why is God a better explanation than an eternal gopher?

Never mind that we have no idea how a gopher could be eternal, since we have no idea how a god could be eternal either.

Depends. You have the one Ive been stressing---the one true God. Illustrated here
God---> Jesus---> everything else
Then you have others like
God or multiple gods----> everything else
Or
God--->everything else

Either way the God concept starts with a God that has no beginning. Those that don’t believe in a God just substitute God with other things observed in the universe. Replace universe with God up above for illustration. Then also you can add more for this also like
Multiple universes/universes inside universes/plains of reality/dimensions etc etc ---->everything else

I take that as a long-winded way of saying "yes".

I understand you are recognizing the power He does have to do such a thing if He wanted to,

I recognize what the text and the story says. I don't believe that any sort of divine flood ever actually happened.

but the context when properly translated and then backed up with scientific evidence of no global flood shows conclusively, then you are forced to accept that it wasn’t a global flood. Further evidence, do you really think Noah loaded all the different types of species and animals on even a boat that large? But is it possible to do that that for all the creatures of a local geographic area? Yup, See there is a thing in some believers not to just have "blind faith'" and to have some common sense and rationale.

In that case, use your common sense and rationale to tell me how these three statements can all be true at the same time:

- God said he'd destroy every living thing that he created.
- God didn't lie.
- God didn't destroy every living thing.

I can see only one way for all three of these statements to be simultaneously true: that's if "every living thing that God created" is not the same as "every living thing". This means that we have two possibilities:

- at least one of the statements above is incorrect.
- there are (or were) living things that God did not create.

So... which is it?

 

[AK4]

You are so right. There is no "proof" for evolution....but on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence for evolution that validates the theory.

Agreed. I agree with evolution on alot of merits but somethings are just not right or we have no evidence of. See last comment for example

Well, there is a huge difference. One is grounded in the scientific method and welcomes new information and change from previous understandings of said theory where as the other is a mixture or fiction and facts. The book is highly interpretive blurry the line between literal and allegory. Case in point, the biblical creation story, if goes against all that we know about the natural world. It's completely wrong on how man came into being who and what he is today.

No its not. To a degree its vague but not wrong. There is no evidence that man evolved from apes. We share alot of similarities but so does alot of different species with one another. But no evidence to say concretely we evolved from apes. Heres a good challenge for this type of evolution---why if you mate a lion and tiger, the male offspring do not recieve the reproductive things it needs to carry on its genes? Can you see how evolution fails here?

I could bring up more doubtful claims that as one of other posters said "would make this theory unsubstantiated".

 

[AK4]

Really?
By what law of physics do you assert that matter/energy disappear from the Universe?

Matter is converted to energy, energy to matter. At no time does either simply disappear.


Yeah!!! I win!!!

Ha nice try though because even though after they were created they dont disappear, the fact remains they were still created.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No its not. To a degree its vague but not wrong. There is no evidence that man evolved from apes. We share alot of similarities but so does alot of different species with one another. But no evidence to say concretely we evolved from apes.

Au contraire: CC050: Hominid transition

Heres a good challenge for this type of evolution---why if you mate a lion and tiger, the male offspring do not recieve the reproductive things it needs to carry on its genes? Can you see how evolution fails here?

If you think that shows the failure of evolution, then you don't understand evolution.

Lions and tigers are two different species. If you mate a lion and a lion, you'll get another lion that's generally similar to, but still slightly different from, its parents. Do this enough times and those slight differences will add up to the point where what you get isn't a lion any more.

Have a look at the Wiki article on ring species to see the same phenomenon stretched out over distance instead of time: Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AK4]

Please show where it says "every living thing I have made in this tiny little area only"?

Lol. I will now do what theologians and thier puppets do....Call on the god of

context context context.


Its all in the context when you read a consistent translation. Just try it. Read the context of the whole account and replace earth with land and see what you get. Then try it the other way, make it all say earth. Then read it the way alot of translations have with them mixed together and see which one makes more sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol. I will now do what theologians and thier puppets do....Call on the god of

context context context.


Its all in the context when you read a consistent translation. Just try it. Read the context of the whole account and replace earth with land and see what you get. Then try it the other way, make it all say earth. Then read it the way alot of translations have with them mixed together and see which one makes more sense.

Both ways, it says that God's going to kill every living thing he created. The only difference is how spread out those living things are.

 

[AK4]

We are not talking opinion here. We are talking empirical evidence. Or do you accept unverified claims as substantial based on the "belief" of those making the claim?

Believe me i am not defending them. To them they have empirical evidence and all the rest of the stuff is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[AK4]

Quote:


Which is more unsubstantiated? A self existing, self producing, eternal universe or the fact that if something has a beginning, it demands that something was before it.
Such is the case for "God"......right...?

Actually so far it {God] is substantiated in the fact that nothing inside of creation is eternal. For all we know something outside of creation can be eternal [if it was never created].

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is more unsubstantiated? A self existing, self producing, eternal universe or the fact that if something has a beginning, it demands that something was before it.
Such is the case for "God"......right...?

Actually so far it {God] is substantiated in the fact that nothing inside of creation is eternal. For all we know something outside of creation can be eternal [if it was never created].

You mean God or the eternal gopher, right?

 

[AK4]

Your right!! I mean, with all the evidence of scriptural mistranslations, adding to and taking away from the original scriptures, early church canonization of certain books and letters while discarding those that did not fit their early theology.
One would have to be crazy to accept the current scripture as the actual "Word of God"

It depends on what you call scripture. Ah but cannot the same thing be said of science and those who do bad science? Case in point the global warmists.

 

[AK4]

If the writer states "every living thing that I have made", then the writer means "every living thing that God has made".
Where is the mistranslation?

If the writers intent was the whole world, but to him the "whole world" was only the land he knew of, then the writer is clearly mistaken.
If the writer was mistaken in his understanding of the world, he was clearly not inspired by an omnipotent God to relay this bit of mistaken history.

Good grief indeed.

Or it is like Paul said "that these things examples were written for our admonition" and in Hebrews it says "those things were a shadow of the true".

Do you get that last one? Actually Paul states this in one his epistles. It means the regional flood is a shadow of what will happen to the whole world. Now if you dont understand what the symbols in the Noah Ark story mean then you have no clue what i am talking about. heres one: earth/land basically mean the carnal mind

 

[AK4]

Okay... and you also believe that not all living things were destroyed in the flood, right?

It says all/every so yeah i believe all did. [the part of the world that was flooded]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It says all/every so yeah i believe all did. [the part of the world that was flooded]

You're answering a different question than the one I asked. You do believe that some living things not on the Ark survived the flood somewhere, right?