First cause [Archive I]

Magazine

January 16, 2003, 08:25 PM

Philosoft

January 16, 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Magazine

So whenever we see something moving, we know that something else was moving it.
This presumes self-movement is impossible, yet you have not demonstrated this. So...
The material universe as a whole is undergoing changes, because it's expanding.
Even granting this premise...
So something outside the universe must be causing this motion.
This conclusion does not follow.
And what could this be but God? The only question we have from here is, which god--the Christian God or some other god or gods?
D. None of the above.

Magazine

January 16, 2003, 09:02 PM

So is it really likely that everything in the universe moves only when something causes it to move, but the universe itself expands all by itself? I think that if the universe is expanding, something other than the universe must have caused it to expand.

Philosoft

January 16, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Magazine
So is it really likely that everything in the universe moves only when something causes it to move, but the universe itself expands all by itself?
I'm not qualified to comment on the likelihood of a self-moving universe.
I think that if the universe is expanding, something other than the universe must have caused it to expand.
If that means the "something other than the universe" is moving as well, you're just sticking the problem of "unmoved mover" on something else. You haven't really explained anything.

Magazine

January 16, 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Philosoft

I'm not qualified to comment on the likelihood of a self-moving universe.

If that means the "something other than the universe" is moving as well, you're just sticking the problem of "unmoved mover" on something else. You haven't really explained anything. [/B]

That's just it. We know the universe is moving, but we don't know that "something other than the universe is moving," and that's why an unmoved mover, a God, would solve this problem.

Biff the unclean

January 16, 2003, 09:25 PM

How can you possibly make a leap between "first cause" and a fictional character that exists only in primitive myths?
This is the same as saying "Me not know what cause rain to fall. Must be heap big JuJu doll" "The volcano erupting is Pele showing her wrath. Get the virgins ready." "Lightening struck our long house. Thor is angry" "The universe began. Yahweh is great." These statements are all of a class. They are incorrect supernatural explanations of natural events.
Since every natural event has had-without exception, in the history of mankind-a natural explanation it is ridiculous to think that for the first time MAGIC will be the answer.

If we don't know the cause then admit that we don't know it. Don't make up something silly like the Big JuJu Doll or Yahweh. That's embarassing.

Philosoft

January 16, 2003, 09:29 PM

January 16, 2003, 09:31 PM

Magazine:

Where is your evidence to show that the universe isn't filled with objects that were always moving? How do you know that the universe hasn't always contained energy that is just continually changing forms?

Aquila ka Hecate

January 16, 2003, 11:50 PM

"The universe is moving"-with respect to what ?

And don't say god.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Magazine
That's just it. We know the universe is moving, but we don't know that "something other than the universe is moving," and that's why an unmoved mover, a God, would solve this problem.

Why, why, why? I want to cry! Why is an "unmoved mover" somehow easier to comprehend then that the universe simply came into existence moving? What in the hell is an �unmoved mover� anyway? Who�s ever seen such a thing? How can you imagine such a thing? What is the property of �unmoved movers� that allows them to come into existence spontaneously, while moving movers can�t do this? How do �unmoved movers� work? Why do people chose to believe in this particular species of metaphysical magic, and yet they won�t accept a simpler possibility? Can you tell I�m frustrated?

Odemus

January 17, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by faustuz
Why, why, why? I want to cry! Why is an "unmoved mover" somehow easier to comprehend then that the universe simply came into existence moving?

The former suggests an active intelligent will as an explanation for existence, the latter suggests existence as an explanation for existence

Originally posted by faustuz
What in the hell is an �unmoved mover� anyway? Who�s ever seen such a thing? How can you imagine such a thing? What is the property of �unmoved movers� that allows them to come into existence spontaneously, while moving movers can�t do this? How do �unmoved movers� work? Why do people chose to believe in this particular species of metaphysical magic, and yet they won�t accept a simpler possibility?

I definately find it easier to believe in an entity that exists outside of space and time, which has always existed outside of space and time, and is responsible for space and time than I do to believe that there is no original cause for everything. There are obviously much bigger brains on the board than mine, so what am I missing?

Originally posted by faustuz
Can you tell I�m frustrated?

Yeah why? Seems to me being an athiest requires you to embrace logic as the only true religion. Your time is short, don't waste it on things you can't control.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Odemus
The former suggests an active intelligent will as an explanation for existence, the latter suggests existence as an explanation for existence
And the former is superior to the later exactly why? Justify your claims, my logic is hungry and wants to be sated.
I definately find it easier to believe in an entity that exists outside of space and time, which has always existed outside of space and time, and is responsible for space and time than I do to believe that there is no original cause for everything.
Do you find no contradiction with the phrase �always existed outside of space and time�?
There are obviously much bigger brains on the board than mine, so what am I missing?
Don�t worry, I�m sure the bigger brains will step in if either of us misses a step. They always do.

Yeah why? Seems to me being an athiest requires you to embrace logic as the only true religion. Your time is short, don't waste it on things you can't control.

Good point. Oh, and I like the one about logic being a religion. Breathing must be my religion too, because I do that intuitively as well (although I'll concede that I'm often better at breathing).

Odemus

January 17, 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by faustuz
And the former is superior to the later exactly why? Justify your claims, my logic is hungry and wants to be sated.

Only the truth is superior, whatever that may be. Your question was: Why is an "unmoved mover" somehow easier to comprehend then that the universe simply came into existence moving?

My answer was only inteded to address that particular query, not provide evidence to demonstrate what comes easier for me to believe is superior than what comes easier for you to believe.

Originally posted by faustuz
Do you find no contradiction with the phrase �always existed outside of space and time�?

I don't think so. Where is the contradiction?

Originally posted by faustuz
Good point. Oh, and I like the one about logic being a religion. Breathing must be my religion too, because I do that intuitively as well (although I'll concede that I'm often better at breathing).

I wish logic came so naturally to me. I'm still trying to find a point of reference.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 01:12 AM

I don't think so. Where is the contradiction?

al�ways ( P ) Pronunciation Key (�lwz, -wz, -wz)
adv.
At all times; invariably: always late.
For all time; forever: They will always be friends.
At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you're unhappy.

Odemus

January 17, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by faustuz
al�ways ( P ) Pronunciation Key (�lwz, -wz, -wz)
adv.
At all times; invariably: always late.
For all time; forever: They will always be friends.
At any time; in any event: You can always resign if you're unhappy.

You posted a definition. Yay! I wasn't baiting you. I honestly do not see an inherent contradiction in the concept of an entity which has always been.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Odemus
You posted a definition. Yay! I wasn't baiting you. I honestly do not see an inherent contradiction in the concept of an entity which has always been.

I'll try again. You said God is outside of time. Then you said he has always been. Which is it?

Odemus

January 17, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by faustuz
I'll try again. You said God is outside of time. Then you said he has always been. Which is it?

Perhaps I need a better grasp of my language? I think of something which has no beginning or end as being "always" and outside of time. If there is a conflict as a result of syntax, please make me aware so that I might learn to better express myself. If there is a logical conflict, feel free to expound. I am all ears (okay, eyes).

January 17, 2003, 07:09 AM

Odemus:

I share faustuz' frustration. You can talk about an entity which has always existed, you can also talk about an entity which exists outside of time (whatever that means), but they can't be the same entity. "Always existed" assigns a temporal description to something that is claimed to be atemporal.

It would be the same as talking about a foul-smelling, odorless object or a bright red, colorless object. If something exists outside of time, then applying any time-related description to it (eg. always) is absolutely meaningless.

It's easy to say that something exists outside of time. It's an entirely different thing to know what that means.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Odemus
Perhaps I need a better grasp of my language? I think of something which has no beginning or end as being "always" and outside of time. If there is a conflict as a result of syntax, please make me aware so that I might learn to better express myself. If there is a logical conflict, feel free to expound. I am all ears (okay, eyes).

Yes, it is in fact a problem with your language, and I will expound as best I am able. "Always" is a term that is integrally tied to the concept of time. The word always refers to an infinite quantity of time. If something will always exist, it will exist for an infinite amount of time. Saying that it will always exist outside of time is the same thing as saying it will always exist in not time. Don�t forget that time is a dimension, just like the three dimensions of space are. Saying that something always exists means saying that it will exist in all points of time. It is exactly equivalent to the spacial meaning of saying something exists everywhere. Would you say that something that exists everywhere exists outside of space? No, that would be ridiculous. You would say that something that exists everywhere would exist at all points in space. So something that exists always, something that is eternal, exists at all points in time. It in no way exists outside of time.

On a further note, if something existed outside of space in time it would be logical to conclude that it was some sort of other dimension in which it existed. If God exists in this other dimension, how does he act in this dimension, without also existing also in this dimension? Are there cases in which something exists in one dimension, but causes action in another? In order to cause motion in a certain dimension, something must move in that dimension. In fact, nothing can move from one dimension to another without external motive force. If something is traveling in a straight line, without some sort of external force applied it will continue in that straight line. This is simple physics and is also very intuitive. Recourse to God to explain motion requires resort to weird metaphysics and very non-intuitive concepts.

Jobar

January 17, 2003, 11:16 AM

Matter is energy, and time is space.

No, I'm not quoting Amos. In fact, Albert Einstein said that, in mathematical form.

All this talk of 'causes', 'effects', 'movement' and 'stillness' are examples of how human language is insufficient to describe reality with perfect fidelity.

Looked at closely enough, there is no *thing* that is moving; there is only moving. What we perceive as matter is a great lot of energy moving in very tiny closed paths. What we perceive as cause and effect are two sides of the same coin, and are fundamentally inseperable.

Our senses are not well suited to seeing that matter and energy are in fact matterenergy, and that space and time is spacetime. I know that I can't intuitively understand these things, despite many years of study and thought; my understanding of them is intellectual, and occasionally poetic. I'm not sure if Einstein himself would have claimed an intuitive understanding of relativity. But when you start examining reality at the level of absolutes, of ultimate explanations, these counterintuitive facts become inescapeable. Trying to apply our everyday understanding of 'things' is ineffective when we realize that the 'things' aren't 'moving'- instead, thing=motion.

I don't know if this helps at all; when I try to wrap my mind around these concepts, I sometimes get dizzy. :)

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 11:33 AM

Thanks, Jobar. I couldn�t have said it any better (or as well, for that matter).

Odemus

January 17, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by faustuz
Yes, it is in fact a problem with your language, and I will expound as best I am able. "Always" is a term that is integrally tied to the concept of time. The word always refers to an infinite quantity of time. If something will always exist, it will exist for an infinite amount of time. Saying that it will always exist outside of time is the same thing as saying it will always exist in not time. Don�t forget that time is a dimension, just like the three dimensions of space are. Saying that something always exists means saying that it will exist in all points of time. It is exactly equivalent to the spacial meaning of saying something exists everywhere. Would you say that something that exists everywhere exists outside of space? No, that would be ridiculous. You would say that something that exists everywhere would exist at all points in space. So something that exists always, something that is eternal, exists at all points in time. It in no way exists outside of time.

I wonder then how exactly are space and time defined? How exactly would the absense of space and time be defined? If indeed everything had it's origin from a point in which there was nothing, what was the nothing? This is where I see the possibility of the unmoved mover. I thought this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33428) thread offered an excellent illustration of just how there could be a creator who exists entirely independant from it's creation. Again, to address your original query, I find it much easier to believe in this type of scenario than I do to believe that there is either a)no original cause, or b)no intelligent cause behind everything.

faustuz

January 17, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Odemus
I wonder then how exactly are space and time defined?

They are defined as dimensions. I think we have long understood space to be three dimensional. We have understood time to be a dimension since Einstein.

How exactly would the absense of space and time be defined? If indeed everything had it's origin from a point in which there was nothing, what was the nothing?

Who says there was ever a nothing? At the beginning of time there is the singularity. Since the beginning of time is, well, the beginning of time it doesn�t even make sense to discuss what was before the big bang. In other words there is no time when there was nothing, there is no such thing as nothing, and no �nothing� that needs to be filled. There has always been the universe, since the beginning of time.

In fact, it�s more complicated than that. Most cosmologists will tell you that we don�t even understand the concepts of time and space at, or even immediately after, the singularity. Our current models of the universe can�t explain what these concepts even mean near t=0. We simply don�t know what happened near t=0, or even exactly what it means to say �t=0�. Since we don�t know, the most intellectually honest thing to do is to leave it at that and accept not knowing. Simply inventing explanations for things one does not know does not help one to understand these things. Inventing God to explain the beginning of the universe does not help one to actually understand what caused the universe, any more than to say that lightning occurs because God wills it helps to explain lightening. If one does not know a thing they (if they wish to be intellectually honest) should acknowledge that they don�t know and either leave it at that or actively try to find the answer.

Again, to address your original query, I find it much easier to believe in this type of scenario than I do to believe that there is either a)no original cause, or b)no intelliget cause behind everything.

I think where we diverge is that you are looking for what is easiest for you to believe. I�m interested in the truth.

January 17, 2003, 10:10 PM

Odemus:

I find it much easier to believe in this type of scenario than I do to believe that there is either a)no original cause, or b)no intelligent cause behind everything.

I find it easier to believe that classical mechanics works all the way down to infinesimal dimensions and that mass and time are independent of the inertial reference frame. However, the evidence has consistently shown that what I find easier to believe is not actually the case. Should I throw out my preconceptions or reality?

HRG

January 19, 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Odemus
The former suggests an active intelligent will as an explanation for existence, the latter suggests existence as an explanation for existence

You mean "the existence of an active intelligent disembodied will as an explanation for existence". And how do you explain the existence of this disembodied will ?

Regards,
HRG.

capnkirk

January 19, 2003, 10:47 AM

Around and around and around we go. This thread is putting me to sleep, so let me see if I can inject some new life into it.

Actually the argument as it is currently constituted is equivalent to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! How so?

First: A creator external to the universe that created the universe (via whatever means)...and remains external to the universe is functionally irrelevant, in that such a creator applies no more control over subsequent events than does the explosive powder of a rifle cartridge continue to intervene and control the projectile AFTER the projectile has left the rifle barrel. In fact, the big bang may well have been the result of just such a non-intelligent event in that presumptive pre-universe reality.

Second: Such a creator as described above must remain unknowable because its existence is external to the limits of existential reality.

Third: The existence or non-existence of (such) a creator does little or nothing to bridge the chasm between the 'act' of creation and the interventionist properties of ALL theistic gods. The former argues for a necessarily unknowable god undetectable by direct observation nor indirect revelation by scripture or supernatural acts. The latter argues for just the opposite.

Fourth: Time is a property of matter, which in turn is a state of energy. The Big Bang (BB) event was a massive conversion of energy (into matter) to say the very least. The relativistic effect of BB conditions on time distort time to the extent that any references to "before" that event are rendered meaningless! Attempting to apply first cause logic to a system that we are prohibited from knowing any of the properties of (by virtue of its non-existence within the created universe) is similarly meaningless.

faustuz

January 20, 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by capnkirk
Fourth: Time is a property of matter, which in turn is a state of energy. The Big Bang (BB) event was a massive conversion of energy (into matter) to say the very least. The relativistic effect of BB conitions on time distort time to the extent that any references to "before" that event are rendered meaningless! Attempting to apply first cause logic to a system that we are prohibited from knowing any of the properties of (by virtue of its non-existence within the created universe) is similarly meaningless. [/B]

Yes! I�ve tried to make this point in some other threads, to little avail. Even many who argue against the cosmological argument don�t seem to grasp this, and insist on talking about what happened before the big bang. There is no before the big bang. It is conceptually meaningless. One can not then apply properties of material things to something that is conceptually meaningless.

Amergin

January 20, 2003, 07:49 PM

Movement is only a phenomenon that can be measured related to another point of reference. If rock A and rock B are moving toward a collision, there are three possibilities all equally true by relativity. A is moving toward a stationary B. A is stationary while B moves toward it. Or A and B are both in motion toward each other.

Something is only moving to our perspective as relatively stationary observers. Is the Earth revolving around the Sun or is the Sun revolving around the Earth with the planets in peculiar eliptical and reversing orbits?

But as Biff put it, even assuming the movement, and further assuming without proof that something put that object into motion, it is a big fecking jump to attribute it to a God YHWH or the God-Man Jesus.

Man invented all of the Gods and Goddesses to give an explanation palatable to his primitive mind for common phenomena like rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, rivers, springs, the existence of life. Since he didn't know squat about science, he invented spirits and gods out of his growing imagination. When are people going to wake up and see this so obvious fact.

The evolution of gods can be traced through the recorded part of history and much inferred from early art (Venus figurines, etc.) but much from oral traditions passed down.

Amergin

Defiant Heretic

January 21, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Magazine :
So whenever we see something moving, we know that something else was moving it�And what could this be but God?Place two stationary magnets a few centimeters away from each other, with north poles facing inwards. Wait a few seconds, and then tell me that motion cannot be generated by entirely natural causes.

Thugpreacha

August 2, 2004, 12:51 AM

Why, why, why? I want to cry! Why is an "unmoved mover" somehow easier to comprehend then that the universe simply came into existence moving? What in the hell is an ?unmoved mover? anyway? Who?s ever seen such a thing? How can you imagine such a thing? What is the property of ?unmoved movers? that allows them to come into existence spontaneously, while moving movers can?t do this? How do ?unmoved movers? work? Why do people chose to believe in this particular species of metaphysical magic, and yet they won?t accept a simpler possibility? Can you tell I?m frustrated?
It is easier to believe in a Creator who eternally existed rather than eternally existing creation with no other external link.Unless your mind wishes to conceive/create its own explanations.

Biff the unclean

August 2, 2004, 09:19 PM

Yahzi

August 3, 2004, 12:09 AM

It is easier to believe in a Creator who eternally existed rather than eternally existing creation with no other external link.Unless your mind wishes to conceive/create its own explanations.
But what created your Creator?

Why is it easier to assign the property of "not requireing creation" to an intelligent entity than it is to a universe?

All the universe required was a single particle; and thanks to Hawking, we know those pop in and out of existance all the time, all by themselves (well, in pairs). It seems to me that one stray pair of photon and anti-photon is a heck of a lot easier to come up with than one immaterial intelligent being.

joedad

August 3, 2004, 12:29 AM

Observation: Everything has a cause.
Conclusion: Not everything has a cause because my deity has no cause.

Observation: Everything has a mover.
Conclusion: Not everything has a mover because my deity has no mover.

Observation: Everything gets created.
Conclusion: Not everything gets created because my deity was never created.

Observation: Everything has a beginning.
Conclusion: Not everything has a beginning because my deity has no beginning.

Doesn’t make any sense to me either, unless this deity isn’t anything.

nikk

August 3, 2004, 03:18 AM

Hang on, I don't get it. Surely the explanation is very simple - the universe is expanding because of the Big Bang, a physical event, end of story. You can reconstruct your cosmological proof using the "what caused the Big Bang", but it's uninteresting as to what causes the universe to expand.

Drew J

August 3, 2004, 03:37 AM

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1640842&postcount=1)'s my little critique of the first cause.

To expand:
The initial premise of kalam says there are things that begin to exist and things that do not. Dan Barker in his article "Cosmological Kalamity" says that the category of things that do not begin to exist needs to possibly accomodate more than entity rather than be a pseudonym for God. However, 'begin to exist' and 'not begin to exist' are both problematic, if not useless. A little side trip to the contingency argument is necessary. For this, we need look no further than Atheism: The Case Against God.

"We do not observe the creation or anihilation of matter...empirical evidence points to matter as a metaphysical primary, which cuts the ground from under any attempt to establish the contingency of the universe by empirical means...The contingecny argument is made plausible only by the ambiguity when we say that something has ceased to exist. It is true that man would cease to exist if the Sun moved away from the Earth, but this does not mean that man would collapse into nonexistence, that the constituent elements of his body would completely disappear...At the risk of sounding Aristotelian, we may say that the entity "man" represents a certain form of existence, and this form is contingent upon certain causal conditions; but the substance of man, the irreducible atomic constituents the compromise man, do not depend upon anything. They do not risk disappearance."
Smith, George H.
p. 250-251

From this, it is clear that kalam borrows terminology from the contingency argument. But as indicated, this terminology of beginningless existence or existence with a beginning is ambiguous and useless. So since the contingent argument suffers from it, kalam does as well.

Hedshaker

August 3, 2004, 04:48 AM

It is easier to believe in a Creator who eternally existed rather than eternally existing creation with no other external link.Unless your mind wishes to conceive/create its own explanations.

As Biff as pointed out, "eternally existing creation" is an oxymoron. The only reason YOU find it easier to believe in a creator is because you really, really want a creator. Can you not take off those religion tinted glasses for one second and accept that time/space/energy may well have always existed in some form or another?

After all, a universe is apparent, gods are not.

Orbit

Thugpreacha

August 4, 2004, 01:32 AM

Hedshaker

August 4, 2004, 06:36 AM

OK, OrbitV2 ...I took off the glasses. The common sense is evident. The supernatural has no proof. The ONLY proof that I have of Him, caring about me, and about others..is in my heart. Are you suggesting that this love and internal comfort and power that I feel,which I feel to be a personality, is in fact a deceptive feeling? Well, I DID take off my glasses...can you take off your scientific thinking cap and admit that the mystery of God is NOT an impossibility?

Who mentioned an impossibility? Not me. And if that's taking off your religion tinted glasses I'm afraid it looks more to me like being totally spellbound by religion. Take a day off. Examine the alternatives. If your God really exists she surly wouldn't be too concerned about a little honest enquiry, a little healthy skepicism, would she? Think about it. You're even referring to the universe as "creation" :banghead:

You're right, the supernatural has no proof, nor a single shread, nor a single atom of evidence outside of anacdotes and subjective feelings. And yes, feelings are often deceptive. How can you be sure this feeling in your heart is not the result of deep wishful thinking and indoctrination? In the absence of any gods, what is the difference?

And yes, I have spent a lot of time pondering the mystery of gods and other mystical, supernatural ideas and so far I have find them ALL to be fake. I try to keep an open mind but that doesn't mean I will allow someone else to fill it with bullshit.

Orbit

Biff the unclean

August 4, 2004, 09:32 AM

Are you suggesting that this love and internal comfort and power that I feel,which I feel to be a personality, is in fact a deceptive feeling? Well, I DID take off my glasses...can you take off your scientific thinking cap and admit that the mystery of God is NOT an impossibility?

I'll more than suggest it, I'll say it point blank. Your "feelings" are no more proof of God than millions of emotionally over wrought children spending a sleepless night is proof of Santa Claus.
God is not a mystery, the answer is simple and plain as the nose on your face. God is a myth...exactly the same as the tens of thousands of other gods.

Thugpreacha

August 5, 2004, 02:59 AM

I'll more than suggest it, I'll say it point blank. Your "feelings" are no more proof of God than millions of emotionally over wrought children spending a sleepless night is proof of Santa Claus.
God is not a mystery, the answer is simple and plain as the nose on your face. God is a myth...exactly the same as the tens of thousands of other gods.
Not so fast! I have seen evidence of the supernatural. One time I distinctly heard several voices at once coming from a guy, in a controlled environment where there was no trickery afoot and I was not smoking anything! So I was convinced!

Hedshaker

August 5, 2004, 05:22 AM

Not so fast! I have seen evidence of the supernatural. One time I distinctly heard several voices at once coming from a guy, in a controlled environment where there was no trickery afoot and I was not smoking anything! So I was convinced!

Lol! I've seen that done too. The guy had Punch & Judy puppets on his hands at the time :p

Orbit

Sven

August 5, 2004, 06:49 AM

One time I distinctly heard several voices at once coming from a guy, in a controlled environment where there was no trickery afoot
Who controlled and who determined that there was no trickery afoot?

Looks like this guy could be 1 million dollar richer (http://www.randi.org) soon.

Edited to add: And how is this proof that the Christian god exists/created the universe (that's what this thread is about)?

Yahzi

August 5, 2004, 01:37 PM

Not so fast! I have seen evidence of the supernatural. One time I distinctly heard several voices at once coming from a guy, in a controlled environment where there was no trickery afoot and I was not smoking anything! So I was convinced!
The only thing that is evidence of is your gullibilty. :rolleyes:

I once saw Penn & Teller shoot each other with .357 magnums and catch the bullets in their teeth. Praise Jesus!

Thugpreacha

August 5, 2004, 07:31 PM

The only thing that is evidence of is your gullibilty. :rolleyes:

I once saw Penn & Teller shoot each other with .357 magnums and catch the bullets in their teeth. Praise Jesus!
Penn and Teller were in show business. The event that I witnessed was in a private home and was not staged to convince anybody of anything! I am attempting to convince you that I am a sane individual as you are and am capable of forming an educated consensus. Obviously you are not easily convinced, which is human nature and I respect you for that. I am merely showing you how your conclusions should not be close minded as there are actual bits of evidence that are not what you normally hear. You may not be convinced that I am drawing a thorough conclusion. In that case, I rest my case without further comment, only asking that it be considered with equal weight as any of your opinions and arguments should also be.

Thugpreacha

August 5, 2004, 07:35 PM

Edited to add: And how is this proof that the Christian god exists/created the universe (that's what this thread is about)?
I ask that my observation be considered as proof of a supernatural realm.
Need I gather 100 other stories? What is faulty with personal observation as a valid argument? If your mind is already made up based on preconceived notions of your personal beliefs,(which many accuse Christians of, also) nothing will convince you and, I suppose, that defines Atheism.
I could with great effort gather 10,000 people who upon close observation would be determined to be sane and sincere and, most importantly, honest. There are large amounts of anecdotal evidence beyond whimsical fabletelling.
Just because science cannot measure spirit does not mean that there exists NO spiritual reality. This is my point. In a Court of Law, firsthand testimony carries as much weight as material evidence. Why not so in this informal courtroom??

Vorkosigan

August 5, 2004, 08:05 PM

Just because science cannot measure spirit does not mean that there exists NO spiritual reality. This is my point. In a Court of Law, firsthand testimony carries as much weight as material evidence. Why not so in this informal courtroom??

Scientists do not make judgments the same way courtrooms do. In any case, your assertion is incorrect. If a witness says Smith was with her, and DNA says it is Smith's semen in the rape/murder victim, which do you believe?

In any case, even if it was true that one person can generate many voices supernaturally, how did you make the attribution to one particular supernatural entity out of the thousands that people have thought of? There isn't any way to do that.

Vorkosigan

Biff the unclean

August 5, 2004, 08:17 PM

I ask that my observation be considered as proof of a supernatural realm.
Sorry Thug but it's only proof of how gullible you are
What is faulty with personal observation as a valid argument?
You aren't giving us obsservation. You aare ggiving us interpretation.
There is nothing supernatural about someone speaking in two voices, I can do it myself
If your mind is already made up based on preconceived notions of your personal beliefs,(which many accuse Christians of, also) nothing will convince you and, I suppose, that defines Atheism.
Our minds can be easily changed by actual evidence. But such tom foolery as you present is laughable.
Just because science cannot measure spirit does not mean that there exists NO spiritual reality.
No only can't science measure it, science can't detect it. Not for lack of trying. Duke U had an entire dept devoted to supernatural research for almost 50 years. Both the KGB and the CIA had top people working on the supernatural with budgets in the millions. The Russian program lasted almost 30 years the US more than 15.
They all came to the same conclusion. There is no supernatural.
This is my point. In a Court of Law, firsthand testimony carries as much weight as material evidence. Why not so in this informal courtroom?? Because you conclusions do not follow from your experience. In any court you could present your testimony, but the jury, and not you, would reach it's conclusion. And that is just what has happened here.
Your Honor, we find him silly on all counts.

Furyus George

August 5, 2004, 09:04 PM

Our minds can be easily changed by actual evidence.

God is a myth.

And your actual evidence would be...?

Furyus George, clean

Biff the unclean

August 5, 2004, 09:25 PM

And your actual evidence would be...?

Furyus George, clean

That our minds would change with evidence I submit our minds changing in the past when new data warranted it. Note that most of us were at one time Christians.
That God is a myth I submit the tens of thousands of other gods, all of whom are mythological, all of whom behave in the real world exactly like yours does. Your God is a standard Oriental tyrant type (mythological gods come in types, in case you didn't know) easily traced as an updated version of Marduk ( the patron god of Hammurabi)

wiploc

August 5, 2004, 09:32 PM

No only can't science measure it, science can't detect it. Not for lack of trying. Duke U had an entire dept devoted to supernatural research for almost 50 years. Both the KGB and the CIA had top people working on the supernatural with budgets in the millions. The Russian program lasted almost 30 years the US more than 15.

Don't forget the multi-million dollar Psy laboratories that have been open twenty-four hours a day for decades in Las Vegas.

crc

Biff the unclean

August 5, 2004, 09:35 PM

Don't forget the multi-million dollar Psy laboratories that have been open twenty-four hours a day for decades in Las Vegas.

crc

There you have it. Vegas...absolute proof that there is no supernatural

Furyus George

August 6, 2004, 12:14 AM

That God is a myth I submit the tens of thousands of other gods, all of whom are mythological, all of whom behave in the real world exactly like yours does. Your God is a standard Oriental tyrant type (mythological gods come in types, in case you didn't know) easily traced as an updated version of Marduk ( the patron god of Hammurabi)

Sorry, Biff, but you have not presented evidence that God is a myth. You have also not presented evidence that tens of thousands of other gods don't exist. And if you did, this would not be evidence that God doesn't exist. In fact, the "actual evidence" you constantly demand of theists, you are unable to provide yourself. You can make all the positive statements you like about the mythology of God, but you cannot back them up with a shred of evidence.

Not the strongest of positions to be in when in court, is it?

Furyus George, Esq.

Biff the unclean

August 6, 2004, 02:40 AM

Not the strongest of positions to be in when in court, is it?

Furyus George, Esq.

It's a fine position to be in in court. In court you are innocent until proven guilty. Meaning that a negative is assumed until a positive is proven. God remains innocent of being real (ie: a myth) until you can prove Him guilty.

Sven

August 6, 2004, 04:19 AM

Need I gather 100 other stories?

No. Just one controlled by someone who knows the tricks.

What is faulty with personal observation as a valid argument?

Because most people are not able to determine if it's genuine or not.

If your mind is already made up based on preconceived notions of your personal beliefs,(which many accuse Christians of, also) nothing will convince you and, I suppose, that defines Atheism.

That doesn't define atheism at all. Give me evidence and I'll believe.
If this guy is able to get the million dollars from Randi, this would be a very good start.

I could with great effort gather 10,000 people who upon close observation would be determined to be sane and sincere and, most importantly, honest.

So what? Being sane doesn't prevent one from being wrong/deluded from time to time. The human mind is often very bad at observing the right things and even remembering correctly what one observed.

Just because science cannot measure spirit does not mean that there exists NO spiritual reality.

Yeah. The same holds true for Santa Claus and an invisble dragon in your garage. That's why I'm agnostic about this "spiritual reality" while believing its existance to be unlikely.

In a Court of Law, firsthand testimony carries as much weight as material evidence. Why not so in this informal courtroom??
You forgot that often experts are questioned in a court to determine the accuracy/feasibility of what the eyewitness told. In this case, Randi is a good expert to ask. As I said, this guy you told us about has a good chance to get 1 million dollars if his abilities are genuine.

Hedshaker

August 6, 2004, 04:50 AM

Sorry, Biff, but you have not presented evidence that God is a myth. You have also not presented evidence that tens of thousands of other gods don't exist. And if you did, this would not be evidence that God doesn't exist. In fact, the "actual evidence" you constantly demand of theists, you are unable to provide yourself. You can make all the positive statements you like about the mythology of God, but you cannot back them up with a shred of evidence.

Not the strongest of positions to be in when in court, is it?

Furyus George, Esq.

I've heard it said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Well, that's as may be, but total absence all of the time sure is damming evidence against the existance of God. Let's face it, there just is no God to be found :huh: or if there is she sure acts the part of non-existant well.

I submit the absence of God as good evidence against the existance of God and conclude it is reasonable and logical to disbelieve.

Extraordiary claims require extraordiary evidence and the figment of someones imagination, anacdotes and subjective experiences do not even come close.

Orbit

Furyus George

August 6, 2004, 06:44 AM

It's a fine position to be in in court. In court you are innocent until proven guilty. Meaning that a negative is assumed until a positive is proven. God remains innocent of being real (ie: a myth) until you can prove Him guilty.

You demand "actual evidence" from Thugpreacha when he asserts God exists.

You claim God "is" a myth. You made the assertion, not me, therefore the burden of proof lies squarely in your lap.

Again, please detail your "actual evidence" that God is a myth.

Furyus George, won't hold breath

Furyus George

August 6, 2004, 07:05 AM

I've heard it said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Well, that's as may be, but total absence all of the time sure is damming evidence against the existance of God. Let's face it, there just is no God to be found :huh: or if there is she sure acts the part of non-existant well.

I submit the absence of God as good evidence against the existance of God and conclude it is reasonable and logical to disbelieve.

Extraordiary claims require extraordiary evidence and the figment of someones imagination, anacdotes and subjective experiences do not even come close.

Orbit

The absence of God, total or otherwise, is not evidence that God does not exist. That you find no evidence of God's existence proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that you found no evidence of God's existence. Without such evidence, it is questionable whether your conclusion is either reasonable or logical.

Furyus George, advises to keep looking

Angrillori

August 6, 2004, 10:01 AM

You demand "actual evidence" from Thugpreacha when he asserts God exists.

You claim God "is" a myth. You made the assertion, not me, therefore the burden of proof lies squarely in your lap.

Again, please detail your "actual evidence" that God is a myth.

Furyus George, won't hold breath

Except that, the position that god is a myth, is equivalent to the position that god doesn't exist, which is equivalent to the position that "I do not have sufficient evidence or reason to postulate that this entity exists."

So, until evidence of existence is available, the statement "god is a myth" is supported.

OTOH, the statement "god exists" is equivalent to: "I have sufficient reason and evidence to postulate that this entity exists." So, where is the reason and evidence?

That is why Thug needs must present evidence, and we just need to bask in the absence thereof.

whichphilosophy

August 6, 2004, 10:19 AM

Furyus George

August 6, 2004, 10:53 AM

Except that, the position that god is a myth, is equivalent to the position that god doesn't exist, which is equivalent to the position that "I do not have sufficient evidence or reason to postulate that this entity exists."

So, until evidence of existence is available, the statement "god is a myth" is supported.

Supported by what? The fact that one has insufficient evidence or reason to postulate that God exists? The only fact you can support is that you have no evidence for God's existence. You are perfectly free to make assumptions and draw conclusions from your lack of evidence, but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist or that God is a myth. Biff asserts God is a myth - that God does not exist. When pressed for "actual evidence" to back up his assertion, he fails to produce anything except to say other Gods don't exist - which proves squat, and is itself an unsupported assertion.

Furyus George, good for the goose

Hedshaker

August 6, 2004, 11:53 AM

The absence of God, total or otherwise, is not evidence that God does not exist. That you find no evidence of God's existence proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that you found no evidence of God's existence. Without such evidence, it is questionable whether your conclusion is either reasonable or logical.

Furyus George, advises to keep looking

So are you saying God exists or not? What's your take on it? I think the complete, utter and total absense of any trace of God or even the slightest shread of evidence for God is pretty compelling evidence that your invisible, imaginary friend doesn't exist. It is therefore reasonable and logical, and indeed obvious that disbeif is the only rational option.

Orbit, advises to not bother, it's just a myth.

Biff the unclean

August 6, 2004, 12:12 PM

You claim God "is" a myth. You made the assertion, not me, therefore the burden of proof lies squarely in your lap.

Again, please detail your "actual evidence" that God is a myth.

Sure, no problem. But please try not to get upset like you did when you found out Santa Claus was a myth. No holding your breath until you turn blue.
I just happen to have copies of many myths on my desk at this moment. I have the King James version of the myth we are talking about, Middle Eastern myths by Campbell, Greek by Bulfinch & Graves & Fagles, Polynesian by Andersen & Beckwith, and a nice scholarly volume of Irish myths by Heaney.
They all have exactly the same kinds of stories about Gods. They all claim that their God created the world, but none of them know what the world actually is. They all claim that one of their Gods created people, but none of them know the actual origins of humanity. Personally I like the one where Tane-Mahuta makes the first humans out of coconuts and that's why the end of a coconut looks vaguely like a face. They all have talking animals and creatures that never existed like Cherubs and Sphinxes and Dragons. They are all filled with magic and ridiculous impossible events. The sun stands still in sky…because Maui caught it with his lasso to give his mom more time to make dinner. People all die because a woman disobeyed God…Pandora opened a gift box she was told not to look in. Water is turned into wine at a wedding feast...by Dionysus.
All of these Gods share the same attributes that only mythological characters have. In their stories they can do anything. The impossible is their bread and butter. But in reality they can't even make themselves seen. A rock has the power to do something as simple as that.
Your God is a myth because He has all the attributes of something mythological and none of the attributes of something real.
Now please stop these pathetic attempts to switch the burden of proof. There is no Santa, there is no God. Get over it.

Furyus George

August 6, 2004, 11:33 PM

I just happen to have copies of many myths on my desk at this moment....Now please stop these pathetic attempts to switch the burden of proof. There is no Santa, there is no God. Get over it.

I'd say the only pathetic attempts evident here are your arguments proving God is a myth. Similarities between storylines proves that there are similarities between the storylines, nothing more. Books on your desk aren't sufficient proof that God is a myth. I have books on my desk claiming that God exists, but they are not proof that God does exist.

By the way, the "get over it" argument isn't sufficient, either.

Furyus George, a-c-t-u-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e

Thugpreacha

August 7, 2004, 12:26 AM

That our minds would change with evidence I submit our minds changing in the past when new data warranted it. Note that most of us were at one time Christians.
That God is a myth I submit the tens of thousands of other gods, all of whom are mythological, all of whom behave in the real world exactly like yours does. Your God is a standard Oriental tyrant type (mythological gods come in types, in case you didn't know) easily traced as an updated version of Marduk ( the patron god of Hammurabi)

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that from a Christian perspective, there is really only One God and we did not make Him up! From an occultic, Hindu, or relativistic mindset, however, all of the demons that fool the minds of man become little gods in their own crafty deception. Yahweh is no mere invention of human intellect or lack thereof....from a Jewish perspective as well. Conclusion: Either you believe and pay homage to a greater source than yourself, or you yourself pay homage only to works of humanity.

Biff the unclean

August 7, 2004, 01:46 AM

Conclusion: Either you believe and pay homage to a greater source than yourself, or you yourself pay homage only to works of humanity.
See this homage crap you are spouting? That's more proof that not only is your God a myth, your religion is a scam.
Remember Capt Kirk asking "Excuse me, but why does God need a starship?"
Excuse me but why would God need homage? Simple answer, He wouldn't. But the humans who are feeding you this fake God con job stand to profit from it very much.

Biff the unclean

August 7, 2004, 01:56 AM

Books on your desk aren't sufficient proof that God is a myth. I have books on my desk claiming that God exists, but they are not proof that God does exist.

By the way, the "get over it" argument isn't sufficient, either.

Furyus George, a-c-t-u-a-l e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e

"Get over it" isn't an arguement. It's advise on dealing with losing your belief in Santa and other childish fantasies.
The books on my desk don't say that God doesn't exist. They don't have to. They are all the same types of story as that of your God, and in some cases earlier versions of exactly the same story as your God has. And it is the Christians who insist that all of these stories are false. If it's a myth when the lead character in a story is Dionysus it's not going to stop being a myth when he is swapped out with Jesus.

Thugpreacha

August 7, 2004, 03:02 AM

See this homage crap you are spouting? That's more proof that not only is your God a myth, your religion is a scam.
Remember Capt Kirk asking "Excuse me, but why does God need a starship?"
Excuse me but why would God need homage? Simple answer, He wouldn't. But the humans who are feeding you this fake God con job stand to profit from it very much.
Biff, I do not think that you understand God as I understand Him. First, you declare Him to be a myth, which is fine, but then when I explain how He is to me, you take Him and redefine Him as you would feel if you were Him. I do not know about you, but far too many people think that their own human intellect is the font of wisdom. Humans wrote many books about made up gods who were demons at best and fables at worst. From a Christian perspective, however, God created us. We did not invent Him. Captain Kirk may well have concluded that God not only needed no starship, but was capable of exercising omnipotent authority without James T. Kirk as well!

heusdens

August 7, 2004, 08:00 AM

All kinds of events take place in the world. At any moment, there are all kinds of different objects moving.

And every time something moves, it is moved by something else. Something always caused the objects to move, whether it's the sun's heat, a human will, or a direct result of the Big Bang.

So whenever we see something moving, we know that something else was moving it. The material universe as a whole is undergoing changes, because it's expanding. So something outside the universe must be causing this motion. And what could this be but God? The only question we have from here is, which god--the Christian God or some other god or gods?

#1 The universe is not an object, and to confirm it's definition, neither are there are objects "oustide" of the universe. In the physical sense, the universe does not even exist (any physical statement about the existence of "thing_X" requires observation which are interactions with things/matter/energy other then "thing_X")

#2 Based on #1, one can not realy say that "the universe" is moving or in motion, we can only claim that about seperate/distinguishable objects within the universe.

#3 Not only it is therefore senseless to talk about entities (deities) "outside" of the universe which "cause", "create" or "move" the universe, the explenation itself requires it's own explenation (what "causes", "created" or "moved" that entity/deity?) and is therefore a non-sequiter.

#4 superfluously, perhaps: "immaterial" things, or "things" outside of space/time can't interact with matter/energy that is in motion in spacetime.

Furyus George

August 7, 2004, 08:14 AM

See this homage crap you are spouting? That's more proof that not only is your God a myth, your religion is a scam.
Remember Capt Kirk asking "Excuse me, but why does God need a starship?"
Excuse me but why would God need homage? Simple answer, He wouldn't. But the humans who are feeding you this fake God con job stand to profit from it very much.

Homage - anything given or done to show reverence, honor or respect

One can safely assume God doesn't need homage, God wants homage from lesser beings. The jump from "paying homage" to other humans profitting is nothing more than commentary based on your assumptions that a) all money donated to Christian charity ends up in the pocket of a thief, and b) homage can only be "paid" by using cash. Neither is absolutely true.

Paying homage is not "more proof" that God is a myth. To argue that some people choose to pay homage to God proves that God is a myth is a nonsensical, illogical, unsupportable assertion.

Furyus George, pays homage

Furyus George

August 7, 2004, 08:26 AM

"Get over it" isn't an arguement. It's advise on dealing with losing your belief in Santa and other childish fantasies.
The books on my desk don't say that God doesn't exist. They don't have to. They are all the same types of story as that of your God, and in some cases earlier versions of exactly the same story as your God has. And it is the Christians who insist that all of these stories are false. If it's a myth when the lead character in a story is Dionysus it's not going to stop being a myth when he is swapped out with Jesus.

Funny how advice like "get over it" is usually offered only when the rest of the argument is weak. Again, similarities in the stories of Dionysus and Jesus prove nothing about either story, other than that they are similar. To argue that one story is false, therefore another similar story is false, is nonsense, Biff, and you know it is. Time for you to pony up some "actual evidence" that God is a myth.

Furyus George, patient

Hedshaker

August 7, 2004, 09:14 AM

Again, similarities in the stories of Dionysus and Jesus prove nothing about either story, other than that they are similar.
Furyus George, patient

Perhaps you could clear things up then by showing which story is myth and which is not :huh: The difference if you please?

Orbit

Gawen

August 7, 2004, 09:32 AM

Thugpreacha

August 7, 2004, 10:45 AM

I once used the analogy of the American folk myth of Paul Bunyan who it's told drug his axe on the ground and by doing so, made the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon exists. Therefore Paul Bunyan MUST have made the Grand Canyon. But Paul Bunyan does not exist. But try telling that to the Paul Bunyan Intitute of Grand Canyon Creation. There were eyewitness accounts back in the day. People wrote all about him. They saw his blue ox Babe. Even Paul's mother and father were known. Paul, as a woodcutter and canyon builder was like a god.

Traditional stories of ostensible historical events and places which become popular belief and embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society using unfounded or false notions of a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence is a myth and does not prove a god. Nor does symbolic representation of fictional figures and/or actions of alledged truths or generalizations (an allegory) about human existence and/or an instance of such expression.

If the above is intended for display or open to view and being such in appearance that it is not or cannot be demonstrably true or real is a myth, in the god context bordering on pious fraud and wishful thinking. Stories (myths) cannot either make nor claim the truth or existance of gods. But neither can they be refuted. And therefore should be relegated to the fictional stories told to your children as they sit on your lap.
You are right in calling them stories. You lose me when you conclude that the stories are mythical. When My Dad told me stories, I knew even at five which ones were true and which ones were not true. The truth continues down through the lineage of some people but by no means all. Just because you were told that something was a fable does not mean that you are absolutely correct. If we took an informal poll of a cross section of humanity, I would wager that the poll would look something like this:
Which of the following characters are mythological?
Santa Claus---85% myth, 15% reality(as the historical Saint)
Easter Bunny----95% myth
Jesus Christ-----no more than 20% would classify Him as mythological.

Biff the unclean

August 7, 2004, 11:51 AM

Again, similarities in the stories of Dionysus and Jesus prove nothing about either story, other than that they are similar. To argue that one story is false, therefore another similar story is false, is nonsense, Biff, and you know it is. Time for you to pony up some "actual evidence" that God is a myth.

Furyus George, patient

Does "patient" mean shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears?

Dionysus and Jesus don't have similar stories. They have the same stories. When Dionysus attends a wedding feast and blesses the marriage by turning water into wine and then hundreds of years later the story is changed to have Jesus do it, it clearly shows that your "historic" Jesus is a joke.

Angrillori

August 7, 2004, 12:37 PM

Supported by what? The fact that one has insufficient evidence or reason to postulate that God exists? The only fact you can support is that you have no evidence for God's existence. You are perfectly free to make assumptions and draw conclusions from your lack of evidence,

You type this, and then, next line, type:

but you cannot prove that God doesn't exist or that God is a myth.

You might want to space them out. It makes the cognative dissonance go down more easily.

Ok. You admit there is no evidence to support god's existance. Then how do you support his existance. In the lack of support for his existance, the conclusion is, that he doesn't exist. It really isn't hard to follow that particular bouncing ball.

So. God is a myth=god doesn't exist=!(god does exist)

Until you support "God does exist" then god is a myth, is supported.

(Guess what comes next folks!)

Or, do you beleieve in the IPU too? Leprechauns? Gribblefritzes? Looks like you have to support your position that these don't exist. Go for it.

The only fact you can support is that you have no evidence for God's (the IPU's) existence. (Sound familiar?) but you cannot prove that God (the IPU) doesn't exist or that God (the IPU) is a myth.

(I can't believe I got to be the first to bring the IPU into a thread!)

Biff asserts God is a myth - that God does not exist. When pressed for "actual evidence" to back up his assertion, he fails to produce anything except to say other Gods don't exist - which proves squat, and is itself an unsupported assertion.

Except for the support you mention above: no reason to believe a god exists. See, I (we?) believe in the radical notion that if I do not have a single reason to believe in a thing, I should not believe in it.

BTW, is Odin a myth? Zeus? Hmm?

Gawen

August 7, 2004, 03:44 PM

When My Dad told me stories, I knew even at five which ones were true and which ones were not true. The truth continues down through the lineage of some people but by no means all. Just because you were told that something was a fable does not mean that you are absolutely correct.Well here you've made a couple interesting points. Most children will not know the difference of stories being true or not unless the parents tell them so. Nursery ryhmes eventually become known as fables, or fiction. But most children, when read to from the Bible are not told the stories within are fables or fiction. Hence what you say is true: "The truth continues down through the lineage of some people but by no means all." Fables are exactly what they are. There may be a smidgen of some obscure truth within, but it should not be enough to believe for lack of some sort of concrete evidence.

I wager if you tell your children that fairies are out back in the garden and reinforce that in a belief, they will most certainly believe it until they come to an age to use their critical thinking skills. If your extended family did the same thing....and then the neighbourhood...well, you see where I'm going here. Somewhat like Santa. But people draw the line over Santa and Paul Bunyan and Dionysus. Strange that they cannot over Jesus or God/s
You lose me when you conclude that the stories are mythical.If you believe one word of Paul Bunyan, I can see why one would become lost, considering the last two paragraphs of my last post. The bible falls under the same intense conditons and scrutiny. But if you believe, I can see where you'll be lost from what I said. Do me a favour and re-read those two paras. If you're still confused, I'll try to explain myself better. Or others may wish to lend a hand as well.

Thugpreacha

August 7, 2004, 03:52 PM

OK...all of us are here together in a virtual room. If we were in an actual room, we would size each other up and get to know each other,perhaps...right? Now...if you were to tell me that your Father was a legend and that he had done numerous things, I would weigh the merits of the probable truth of what you told me about him. I would have little reason to question your integrity unless I either had preconceived notions about you...(he is one of those people!) or your recollections were hard to believe.(My Dad was 15 feet tall!)
From the standpoint of proving an argument, you who are non-believers have quite clearly won. From the standpoint of establishing the sanity of the believers and the validity of their claim,(that God is alive, real, and although invisable, very much a true character) it is also true that the proof rests on us as believers. I have friends who know me and trust me and who know that I am a sane individual, yet they may or may not believe in God as I see him. They DO believe in me, however. This is the test of a Christian. To appear as a credible individual to others. Sadly, many if not a majority of Christians fail this test. To us, failure to live up to a standard is human, and God has carried the standard for us by His atonement and victory over death and spiritual seperation. Again, to prove this as more than a fable is possible, but it will be a time consuming lifetime process as we relate to you. I hope that at least some of the people whom you know that are Christians are not without that spark of hope that you sense in them...that maybe, just maybe there is more to them than a stereotype.

Gawen

August 7, 2004, 04:27 PM

OK...all of us are here together in a virtual room. If we were in an actual room, we would size each other up and get to know each other,perhaps...right? Well, we do it here anyway with the words we read and write. It's an "On your honour" basis.

Now...if you were to tell me that your Father was a legend and that he had done numerous things, I would weigh the merits of the probable truth of what you told me about him. Within reason, I might add. But we are talking about real people in real situations, that can be verified, depending on the legendary status.

I would have little reason to question your integrity unless I either had preconceived notions about you...(he is one of those people!) or your recollections were hard to believe.(My Dad was 15 feet tall!) You may feel free to question my integrity even if I told you my father ran a 2 minute mile, even moreso if I told you he ran it when he was 56 years old, and even moreso if he did it in the 1957 Olympics. Kinda hard to believe isn't it? I don't think you'd call me a liar.
However...

From the standpoint of proving an argument, you who are non-believers have quite clearly won. We have won nothing. For me at least....perhaps all I've won is the ability to think for myself. From the standpoint of establishing the sanity of the believers and the validity of their claim,(that God is alive, real, and although invisable, very much a true character) it is also true that the proof rests on us as believers. The sanity issue is not really an issue for most theists. It's not like they are insane and need to be institutionalised. However some theists should be, and I think you'd agree with me.

I have friends who know me and trust me and who know that I am a sane individual, yet they may or may not believe in God as I see him. They DO believe in me, however. Hey, I believe you. On this 'on your honour' system I believe every word you've said so far about YOUR belief. I believe the old man I work with when he said: "At my fathers death bed, he said he saw Jesus and I believe he saw Him". Belief and faith can have that way with people.

I have to run...hopefully later tonight I'll get back with the rest of this. Sorry.

inquisitive01

August 7, 2004, 06:14 PM

[/b]
I'm not qualified to comment on the likelihood of a self-moving universe.

If that means the "something other than the universe" is moving as well, you're just sticking the problem of "unmoved mover" on something else. You haven't really explained anything.

Perhaps this is something that just can't be explained, or explained fully, like many other things in the universe.

Gawen

August 8, 2004, 07:37 AM

Sorry for the wait.

This is the test of a Christian. Do you find it somewhat ironic that Christians are always undergoing tests? It's a lifelong test of a quest for immortality. The sad part is that you don't know if you pass or fail in THIS life.

To appear as a credible individual to others. As a human being, endowed with all the attributes as the rest of us, creditability lies in words and deeds.

Sadly, many if not a majority of Christians fail this test. To us, failure to live up to a standard is human, Well? Is that not what you are? Atheists subject themselves to humanistic standards. Basically, do no harm. Be a good citizen, forthright and upstanding in a world chock full of other human beings that have quite varying ideas on what they think it is to live 'right'. We pass or fail our tests throughout our lives, taking the blame for our words and deeds, suffering the consequences if there are any. But we don't have the de-humanising controling effect of the Christian God. We control ourselves because it's the only thing we have...ever had...will ever have. Humans are quite capable of policing themselves without a god or a manual or the threat of eternal banishment or the reward of singing praises with the saints for eternity.

and God has carried the standard for us by His atonement and victory over death and spiritual seperation. Again, to prove this as more than a fable is possible, but it will be a time consuming lifetime process as we relate to you. I'm thinking that if you refer to Jesus in this, it was a humanthat atoned for humans. As for fables, I ask you to peruse the BC&H forum for some time. If you go in with an open mind, you may suddenly find yourself with a mind that will open even further. But I warn you, if you subscribe to your biblical separartion of spirit and death, yet go in with an open mind, you are in danger of failing your test.

I hope that at least some of the people whom you know that are Christians are not without that spark of hope that you sense in them...that maybe, just maybe there is more to them than a stereotype. I know a lot of Christians. Some sing their praises to God throught their entire lives all day long and seek ways to have the entire orld do as they do. Some just a passing thought. And a whole bunch somewhere in between. But the common denominator of them all is that quest or rather to use your words, "that spark of hope" for something I don't think exists. That's as far as I go in "sterotyping" Christians. Well, with one exception, those being fundamentalists. Something like Moslems and there's extremist Moslems.

Thugpreacha

August 8, 2004, 01:47 PM

Do you find it somewhat ironic that Christians are always undergoing tests?
No. Everyone throughout History strives for excellance.
As a human being, endowed with all the attributes as the rest of us, creditability lies in words and deeds. Atheists subject themselves to humanistic standards. Basically, do no harm. Be a good citizen, forthright and upstanding in a world chock full of other human beings that have quite varying ideas on what they think it is to live 'right'. We pass or fail our tests throughout our lives, taking the blame for our words and deeds, suffering the consequences if there are any. But we don't have the de-humanising controling effect of the Christian God.
The consequences are a world that is self governing yet capable of genocide.
We control ourselves because it's the only thing we have...ever had...will ever have.
Because you want nobody or nothing to guide you. Like a kid who wants to grow up, you want to do it yourselves.
Humans are quite capable of policing themselves without a god or a manual or the threat of eternal banishment or the reward of singing praises with the saints for eternity.
I think not. Look at the History of human conflict. Weapons have increased in destructive capability, potential destruction now is possible for all of humanity, and the Nuclear weapon now lies in the hands (or very nearly so) of rogue individuals who also want no controlling influence in their lives.(Or who think that they listen to God, but in reality are blinded by fundamentalism) The Bible story basically said that humans became aware and enlightened by the infusion of self deification and threw off their "shackles".A group of them was then chosen and given a set of rules which they never lived up to. The Deity became human and gave them yet another opportunity. The Deity gave Himself up, died and rose again, and now today still gives us the option of voluntary control.
I'm thinking that if you refer to Jesus in this, it was a human that atoned for humans.
A human in Common Union with a perfect source, unlike the rest of humanity who chose to become their own source.
As for fables, I ask you to peruse the BC&H forum for some time.
Well, I'm still here!
If you go in with an open mind, you may suddenly find yourself with a mind that will open even further.
So rather than being "brainwashed" and allowing only one Spirit in, I shall fill myself with a pantheon of wannabe deities,eh?
But I warn you, if you subscribe to your biblical separation of spirit and death, yet go in with an open mind, you are in danger of failing your test.
So I need my Daddy to go with me!
I know a lot of Christians. Some sing their praises to God throught their entire lives all day long and seek ways to have the entire world do as they do.
How boring. Uniqueness is admirable.
But the common denominator of them all is that quest...
Yeah...if we are wrong, we gave our lives in the hope of finding that living water that quenches our thirst eternally. To us, however, we have already tasted it. I like discussing our different perspectives, though! If you agreed with me entirely, you would become another mindless zealot who surrendered their unique spark! ;)

Gawen

August 8, 2004, 05:03 PM

Note: All quotes Thugpreachas.

No. Everyone throughout History strives for excellance. Good point, for the most part of humanity past and present.

The consequences are a world that is self governing yet capable of genocide.We learnt well. Remembering such places and names as Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah, being most infamous. And to think Georgie has his finger near that button scares the crap outta me.
Because you want nobody or nothing to guide you. Like a kid who wants to grow up, you want to do it yourselves.No...it's more like not wanting to have to rely on anyone. Why use a crutch when you can walk all by yourself? Why constantly ask for a hand up when you can get up all by yourself when you fall? And when you really need the help, why not rely on other humans instead of a god?
The Deity gave Himself up, died and rose again, and now today still gives us the option of voluntary control.So what's the point of Him doing such a thing? All through the bible God gives chances and some don't listen. God with a wiggle of his nose seems to smite anyone he wishes. Then he has His minions do it for him in his name. The analogy of modern weapons can apply to various points in history. Stone to bronze to iron to steel to etc. Weapons and people that will follow them, will always be available for the rogue individual.
It's time this Deity just rose up and died. Let us get along with our lives as humans are meant to be.
A human in Common Union with a perfect source, unlike the rest of humanity who chose to become their own source.You do realise that that story, in my opinion was the greatest fable ever told?

So rather than being "brainwashed" and allowing only one Spirit in, I shall fill myself with a pantheon of wannabe deities,eh?*grinnin*...that was unfair. Either you are funnin me, or you really think that by reading scholarly material on the historocity of the Bible and any critsism of it will make you a pantheist. Which is it?
So I need my Daddy to go with me! I was afraid of this.

If you agreed with me entirely, you would become another mindless zealot who surrendered their unique spark! But tell me how your spark is unique and separate from any other Christian?

Sven

August 9, 2004, 03:35 AM

I have friends who know me and trust me and who know that I am a sane individual, yet they may or may not believe in God as I see him. They DO believe in me, however. This is the test of a Christian. To appear as a credible individual to others.

Does this mean the Muslims do not appear as credible individuals to others? :confused:

BTW, here's a definition of "myth" from dictionary.com:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

So, please explain why the stories of the bible don't correspond to this definition.

Thugpreacha

August 9, 2004, 10:09 AM

Does this mean the Muslims do not appear as credible individuals to others? :confused:

BTW, here's a definition of "myth" from dictionary.com:

So, please explain why the stories of the bible don't correspond to this definition.
Good points! To some in Muslim countries, the arrogant and capitalist attitude of what they see as an American appears incredible and evil. To many in the United States, a young Muslim revolutionary who is trying to find an identity for his culture and attempting to make his mark in the world by attacking the bastions of capitalism is incredible and evil. Our question is thus:
Is credibility an absolute or a relative concept? As the oft quoted Rodney King said, "Can't we just all get along?" So....can we? Does the world ever see a day where everyone is happy? Or is it in our human nature to dominate and kill if it serves our relative purpose?

Sven

August 9, 2004, 10:15 AM

Good points! To some in Muslim countries, the arrogant and capitalist attitude of what they see as an American appears incredible and evil. To many in the United States, a young Muslim revolutionary who is trying to find an identity for his culture and attempting to make his mark in the world by attacking the bastions of capitalism is incredible and evil. Our question is thus:
Is credibility an absolute or a relative concept? As the oft quoted Rodney King said, "Can't we just all get along?" So....can we? Does the world ever see a day where everyone is happy? Or is it in our human nature to dominate and kill if it serves our relative purpose?
Eh, how does this answer my question? A long tangent on how credibility is/should be defined...

Remember, you wrote: "This is the test of a Christian. To appear as a credible individual to others."

And I pointed out that certainly (some) Muslims (and proponents of every other faith) also appear credible to others. Does this mean that they have passed a test for Christians or what?

You also quoted, but ignored my question why the creation story of the bible is not myth according to the definition I provided.

Thugpreacha

August 9, 2004, 01:42 PM

fact \"fakt\ n 1 : deed; esp : crime <accessory after the ~> 2 : the quality of being actual 3 : something that exists or occurs 4 : a piece of information

leg•end \"le-j€nd\ n [ME legende, fr. MF & ML; MF legende, fr. ML legenda, fr. L legere to read] 1 : a story coming down from the past; esp : one popularly accepted as historical though not verifiable 2 : an inscription on an object; also : caption 3 : an explanatory list of the symbols on a map or chart

So why are Bible stories not legends? Why are we so certain that Jesus never existed as described? Because some arrogant non believing author/historian who wishes to make a name for themself says so? I would say that the evidence for Jesus as having Risen is much more a legend than a myth.

Yahzi

August 9, 2004, 02:36 PM

The event that I witnessed was in a private home and was not staged to convince anybody of anything!
Dude... don't let those Amway people into your house. You'll be broke in no time. :D

In that case, I rest my case without further comment, only asking that it be considered with equal weight as any of your opinions and arguments should also be.
It won't be, and here is why: your evidence is not repeatable. All of the evidence I cite can be repeated: you could do the studies, or the expierement, or whatever, and experience exactly the same result that I did.

But your evidence cannot be recreated at will, or even at considerable expense and effort. It is non-reproducible. And that is why we will not give it equal weight. Because we are all about the reproducibility. Not because we don't believe you or trust you; but because we don't believe or trust anything that isn't repeatable.

Hedshaker

August 9, 2004, 03:31 PM

So why are Bible stories not legends? Why are we so certain that Jesus never existed as described? Because some arrogant non believing author/historian who wishes to make a name for themself says so? I would say that the evidence for Jesus as having Risen is much more a legend than a myth.

If that were the case there surly would be strong, tangible evidence for jesus and the alleged miracles outside of the bible. The fact that there is not should at least give you reason to question the validity of jesus as a legend and not as a myth.

Orbit

Thugpreacha

August 10, 2004, 06:37 AM

If that were the case there surely would be strong, tangible evidence for Jesus and the alleged miracles outside of the bible. The fact that there is not should at least give you reason to question the validity of Jesus as a legend and not as a myth. Orbit
Jesus lives in His followers worldwide. To personally know some of them, one would see the continuation of a legend and not the mere pathetic retelling of a myth. Unfortunately, you have probably met some of the weaker followers who do not shine like a light but, rather, whine like a stuck pig. Alas!
Not everything is ironclad. Some crime scenes have no physical evidence, but, rather, eyewitnesses. Whether you see Him as a legend or as a myth, the very idea of the survival of this story suggests that it has a basis in fact.

Hedshaker

August 10, 2004, 07:39 AM

Jesus lives in His followers worldwide.

Yes, but only in their minds, because they wish to believe in uncorroborated stories in the bible.

To personally know some of them, one would see the continuation of a legend and not the mere pathetic retelling of a myth. Unfortunately, you have probably met some of the weaker followers who do not shine like a light but, rather, whine like a stuck pig. Alas!

I think I have met pretty well every flavour of Xtian there is, from the mild mannered non-pushy ones to the raving fundy lunatics to the bright eyed shiny people ones. Out of all of them I much prefer the former but what all of them have in common is the ability to ignor reality in order to force a belief in biblical myth stories, IMHO.

I was a Xtian myself until reason urged me to examine it more closely. I found it to be superstitious fakery and the more I examined the more phony it looks. That goes for all supernatural, paranormal, occult, mytical beliefs. BS all of it. You cannot see this because you are too gone to it at the moment but I can assure you, freedom from it is a wonderous thing.

Not everything is ironclad. Some crime scenes have no physical evidence, but, rather, eyewitnesses. Whether you see Him as a legend or as a myth, the very idea of the survival of this story suggests that it has a basis in fact.

You could say the same thing about any mythical stories that were once considered religion. I'm afraid you have nothing but blind faith.

Orbit

Sven

August 10, 2004, 07:58 AM

We were talking about "myths", not "legends". Why did you dodge the question again?

leg•end [...] 1 : a story coming down from the past; esp : one popularly accepted as historical though not verifiable
[snipped definition 2 and 3]
So why are Bible stories not legends?

OK, according to this, the stories of the bible are clearly legends. Why do you think anyone thinks that they are not?

Why are we so certain that Jesus never existed as described?

What's the relevance of this to the above? :eek: :confused:

Because some arrogant non believing author/historian who wishes to make a name for themself says so?

No. Because there's no (good) evidence for his existance. Quite simple.

I would say that the evidence for Jesus as having Risen is much more a legend than a myth.
[and from the next post]
Whether you see Him as a legend or as a myth [...]

I've no idea why do you think that a legend describes something which really happened. Please read the definition you provided again. It's essentially the same as the one I provided for myth.

Not everything is ironclad. Some crime scenes have no physical evidence, but, rather, eyewitnesses.

Sure. Your point? Fact is, no judge would convict someone based on alleged eyewitness accounts, which were written at least 30 years after the fact and contradict each other in the descriptions of the most important scenes (birth, death, resurrection, etc.).

the very idea of the survival of this story suggests that it has a basis in fact.

Ridiculous. The persistence of astrology suggest that it has a basis in fact?

Thugpreacha

August 11, 2004, 03:44 PM

(1)I was a Xtian myself until reason urged me to examine it more closely.
(2)You could say the same thing about any mythical stories that were once considered religion. I'm afraid you have nothing but blind faith.
Orbit(1)That is like me saying that I was a child of my Dad and we had some great times until I was told that I was adopted! :rolleyes:

(2)Blind Faith???You must be referring to this story:John 12:40

40 "He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn-and I would heal them."
You know the story...those who claim to see are blind and those who admit that they are blind will actually see? Many modern intellectuals see no evidence, no proof, and feel nothing. They claim to see the obvious truth. They would say that I am blind, but I may suggest that they are blind!
I mean no disrespect towards you, Orbit. What do you see? What DID you see when you were a Christian? Did you ever see Jesus?

Hedshaker

August 11, 2004, 05:00 PM

I'm enjoying our exchange thugpreacha :wave:

(1)That is like me saying that I was a child of my Dad and we had some great times until I was told that I was adopted! :rolleyes:

Reality can be stark, but one should never fear it. Facing it it and accepting it is not a weakness.

(2)Blind Faith???You must be referring to this story:John 12:40

40 "He has blinded their eyes
and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn-and I would heal them."
You know the story...those who claim to see are blind and those who admit that they are blind will actually see? Many modern intellectuals see no evidence, no proof, and feel nothing. They claim to see the obvious truth. They would say that I am blind, but I may suggest that they are blind!
I mean no disrespect towards you, Orbit. What do you see? What DID you see when you were a Christian? Did you ever see Jesus?

Yes. Really. I remember being deeply moved by those words "forgive them lord, for they know not what they do. and to this day those words still move me. But, those same sentiments move me in any work of fiction and they always will. It's a STORY, a very human story but outside the bible a mythical story.

Face it dude and get on with your life.

Orbit

sourdough

August 11, 2004, 09:46 PM

God wants homage from lesser beings.
fascinating,how do YOU know what god wants? :confused:
and who youre calling lesser being,dont you know that when man ate from tree of knowledge he became like god! :cool:
anyhow, unless god looks like Pamela Anderson it aint geting none from me :D

The jump from "paying homage" to other humans profitting is nothing more than commentary based on your assumptions that a) all money donated to Christian charity ends up in the pocket of a thief, and b) homage can only be "paid" by using cash. Neither is absolutely true.

of course not, credit cards and gifts are accepted also! ;)

the church and its leaders are believed to be spokespersons/midlemen for God,and by giving money to them the believers hope they will be blessed/helped by god and eventualy end up in heaven,
why else would they give homage? ;)

www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html

Sven

August 16, 2004, 04:39 AM

*bump*
Thugpreacha, I think some people are waiting for some answers here...

BlessNot

August 17, 2004, 02:33 PM

breathilizer

August 17, 2004, 02:46 PM

That's just it. We know the universe is moving, but we don't know that "something other than the universe is moving," and that's why an unmoved mover, a God, would solve this problem.
It doesn't solve the problem. It fills the gap with yet unother problem to solve. What is God? Why doesn't he have to be created? What attributes does he possess? What is he made of? How does he work? I'm sure you'll admit that at least one of the preceding questions is going to be "The answer is unknown to man," right? Well the answer to "What moves the universe" is also unknown to man, so why throw in a mysterious sky-daddy, which is a problem in himself, to fix another problem?

That said...

I gather that your premises leads to the alternative conclusion that, if God does not exist, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics dictates that the universe should slow down to a complete or near stop, right? This law only applies to closed systems, which the universe may not be (especially if we include all 10+ dimensions).

Crumple, crush, shoot, score.