-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Then he's given a sufficient answer to the question, no? He's said he could be wrong. He strongly implied he didn't think he was (which makes him like just about everyone else on that point) but he allowed it was possible.
You're assuming the existence of Y. Having made reasonably thorough enquiries, I can't even find a definition of Y appropriate to a real being, one with objective existence.
So we're on different pages.
Perhaps that's all we need say.
What is "life?"
So you've done this before?
Yes, like you and everyone else, i am comprised of dead people and dead things
I can't decide whether to make a Frankenstein joke or a Sixth Sense joke, so I'll forego the funny.
So if I am comprise solely of dead people and dead things, how is it that I'm alive?
no, he did not say what happens then, in his opinion.
As @viole says he did address Pascal's wager.
But still he didn't answer what if he was wrong. Even if this question is the same for anyone and the Christian inquirer didn't have any positional advantage, as Viole puts it, he still didn't answer it.
To give an example:
- What happens if you can't go shopping tonight, Richard?
- well what happens if you don't go shopping tomorrow? and well, what happens if Peter doesn't go swimming this week?
It sounds genious. At the same time, it just doesn't answer it.
He could have said:
- if I don't go shopping tonight, I don't make me a potatoe soup. Because I don't have the potatoes.
100 points. That would have answered the question indeed.
@viole, there is evidence, I think.
What do you think of this one:
https://pixabay.com/photos/seascape-lake-nature-bavaria-2895017/It's entirely beautiful, from the region, I live in.
For me this points to a loving creator God.
The first law of thermodynamics tells you what you are made of. How that matter/energy reacts when brought together gives you life
So a closed saucepan on the lit stove is alive?
Did i say that? Or anything like that?
No, but you didn't really answer my question, either. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The body is a closed system of energy, as is a close saucepan.
I asked you how I'm alive, and you threw a thermodynamic law at me to tell me how matter has energy. In essence, you told me that having energy means one is alive. I gave you an example of something that has energy that isn't.
No the body is not a closed system, example, skin sheds constantly, nutrients are absorbed and skin is made. Cells are constantly dying and new cells replace them. Your body is essentially replaced every 7 years (give or take)
If it were a closed system life could not exist.
I stated
Thats as good as i have got. I am not sure neuroscience can give much more
well, looks like God loves Bavaria. He has point, since I like that, too. I am also a big fan of beer, which helps.
However, By the same token we should conclude that He does not love the third world, and all those kids starving or become blind because of parasites eating their eyes from the inside out.
For, if we praise God for the good, then intellectual honesty would demand we damn Him for the bad. Unless we artificially create a system where he can only, tautologically, win. But of course, that system cannot be used to show how good god is to outsiders, but it is only useful to make already believers happy.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
It's even more "open system" than that.
Just look all the things going in & out second
by second & day by day...breathing & eating.
(I'll spare you further comings & goings.)
So there's no thermodynamic problem at all.
Closed systems are typically something invoked when
students study thermodynamics. )Seldom do we
encounter them in nature.) But they're a good place
to start in understanding systems, & then moving on
to open system performance, eg, heat engines.
Last edited:
There are few things less closed than a saucepan.
Heat entering from underneath.
Fluid evaporated from contents on top.
It's an open system.
On a similar note, after hubby returned to his exercise routine following his radiotherapy and all those cancer cells were killed he said "i feel like a new man"
My quick reply was "so do i".
I to was being polite and ladylike;-)
Except maybe the universe
Not sure you understood, a new man in place of hubby. A joke of course, i wouldn't swap him for the world
I don't see any succinct answer to the question ─ it's far too general. There are so many ways in which an atheist could be wrong ─ one for each god, for a start.
My own view is somewhat different. It seems to me I can't be an atheist if I don't know what a real god is, since the example of imaginary gods is trivial. And despite my constant asking, I don't even know a definition of 'god' appropriate to a real god, such that if I found a real candidate, i could determine if [it] were God, or a god, or not.
Indeed, I can't even find a definition of 'godness', the quality a real god would have that a superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time and so on would lack. And who'd want to worship just a superscientist?
But Dawkins may know what I don't, so his answer is sufficient.
Fixed.
Big "maybe" there.
Space is big. Really big.
We really don't know what happens at
the edge (boundary in thermo-speak).
Or if there even is an edge.