Man vs. God

[JerryLove]

But in all your arguments, you have not been able to explain how this elemental practical came into being in the first place.

I don't know that there was an "elemental particle", nor that it came into being or did not. I have no knowledge prior to just after the big bang because nothing from that point has left any accessible evidence.

And I don’t buy into the idea that it existed all along. It’s the difference between what can be quantifiably measured & detected and not – my faith & belief leads be to believe in divinity, not as a cop out, but as the only reasonable explanation. I still don’t think God had as active a role in how the universe turned out as many other people, but that is my belief.

Please establish "God" as "the only reasonable explanation" possible. While you are at it, you might explain why you buy that God "existed all along".

 

[JerryLove]

Testing cables seems easier than testing God's existence. From a physical standpoint. Of course from a spiritual point their is no doubt in my mind. That's why it's so confusing. How do others not know?

"I just feel it" isn't compelling even for all cases of people who actually feel it. Even less so for those who do not.

But Cables can make a difference if a person believes they do. It's the crazy effect. I know people try to equate God to this, but I don't see how the two honestly compare.

Actually, I think you tied them together well. People will believe, with no doubt in their mind, that they heard a difference that didn't exist.

 

[JerryLove]

Yes I've never experienced the presence of underpants gnomes, there isn't a tradition of believing in underpants gnomes, and I don't see them mentioned in scripture.

They feel just like God, there's a tradition going back a long time (just cause you don't know of it seems irrellevent), and while they are not named in the Bible, there are other scriptures that do assert them.

Do you believe in them now?

 

[lsiberian]

Digress into some humorous conjecture(not serious)

The big bang was started by a bad teleport.

They accidently reformed inside the atom and bam!

I suppose it's natural for me to evolve into a Christian though. Just like it's natural for JL to evolve into his belief.

So it's natural for us to all be audio fanatics.

Maybe God made the universe a puzzle that only the most evolved could figure out. Thereby through natural selection those who couldn't figure it out would be destroyed. Then he would be left with the smart ones.

 

[rnatalli]

I think people often forget that Science answers "how" and not "why."

 

[CraigV]

I don't know that there was an "elemental particle", nor that it came into being or did not. I have no knowledge prior to just after the big bang because nothing from that point has left any accessible evidence.

The particle of hydrogen & helium that most astronomers believe came into existence, and because it was so highly compacted and energized, it erupted into what they term as “The Big Bang” My ascertain is they have yet to explain where this particle came from.

Please establish "God" as "the only reasonable explanation" possible. While you are at it, you might explain why you buy that God "existed all along".

Because science can’t explain what came before, a belief in knowing the feelings I have which let me know I have a soul as well as a conscience, which connects me to the being responsible for it being a part of me. I’m sorry you haven’t made this discovery yet for yourself, or that you dismiss it because you don’t understand it.

 

[JerryLove]

The particle of hydrogen & helium that most astronomers believe came into existence, and because it was so highly compacted and energized, it erupted into what they term as “The Big Bang” My ascertain is they have yet to explain where this particle came from.

That doesn't sound like any big-bang theory I am familiar with. If you find someone with those beliefs, perhaps you can discuss it with them.

I can only discuss my beliefs and yours as those are the only two with representatives.

Because science can’t explain what came before, a belief in knowing the feelings I have which let me know I have a soul as well as a conscience, which connects me to the being responsible for it being a part of me. I’m sorry you haven’t made this discovery yet for yourself, or that you dismiss it because you don’t understand it.

There's some irony that you dismiss a non-theistic solution because you don't understand it while simultaniously being critical of non-theists under the logic that "they don't understand it".

Actually, I suspect I understand your theism. Mind you, it's going to be a collection of various causes, and I have not enough information to quantify which combination applies specifically to you; but I do indeed understand it.

I also understand the various theistic arguments. I suspect better than you yourself understand them. I also understand the scientific arguments... not well compared to an astrophysicist, but very well for a layman (and based on your posts signifigantly bettter than you).

All that said: in the end you have a positive claim. You have a reason you believe it, but you don't have support for it. That's fine. What's odd is that you seem to believe you have support for it.

 

[CraigV]

All that said: in the end you have a positive claim. You have a reason you believe it, but you don't have support for it. That's fine. What's odd is that you seem to believe you have support for it.

That makes two of us

 

[lsiberian]

I also understand the various theistic arguments. I suspect better than you yourself understand them. I also understand the scientific arguments... not well compared to an astrophysicist, but very well for a layman (and based on your posts signifigantly bettter than you).

CraigV is a pretty sharp guy. Don't sell him too short.

 

[lsiberian]

That doesn't sound like any big-bang theory I am familiar with. If you find someone with those beliefs, perhaps you can discuss it with them.

I can only discuss my beliefs and yours as those are the only two with representatives.

There's some irony that you dismiss a non-theistic solution because you don't understand it while simultaniously being critical of non-theists under the logic that "they don't understand it".

Actually, I suspect I understand your theism. Mind you, it's going to be a collection of various causes, and I have not enough information to quantify which combination applies specifically to you; but I do indeed understand it.

I also understand the various theistic arguments. I suspect better than you yourself understand them. I also understand the scientific arguments... not well compared to an astrophysicist, but very well for a layman (and based on your posts signifigantly bettter than you).

All that said: in the end you have a positive claim. You have a reason you believe it, but you don't have support for it. That's fine. What's odd is that you seem to believe you have support for it.

Historically there are 3 main arguments for the existence of God.

The Ontological - a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Essentially if you think of the most perfect being than he must exist because existence is part of perfection.

The Cosmological - something can't come from nothing. But the physical decays so this something couldn't have been physical. Since Everything physical decays according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics(the universe is cooling like a stove)

The Teleological(considered the strongest) - If a watch has a watchmaker doesn't it make since the universe appears to be designed it has an architect.

These are the strongest arguments for the existence of God and our the ones theologians and philosophers have debated for generations.

FYI the sources and norms for theology are derived largely from John Wesley. They can be adjusted for more philosophical use by simply changing the scripture to an Outside Source. Wesley argued all beliefs are built on those 4 pillars working together.

 

[JerryLove]

That makes two of us

Which claim do I have?

 

[JerryLove]

Historically there are 3 main arguments for the existence of God.

The Ontological - a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Essentially if you think of the most perfect being than he must exist because existence is part of perfection.

The Cosmological - something can't come from nothing. But the physical decays so this something couldn't have been physical. Since Everything physical decays according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics(the universe is cooling like a stove)

The Teleological(considered the strongest) - If a watch has a watchmaker doesn't it make since the universe appears to be designed it has an architect.

These are the strongest arguments for the existence of God and our the ones theologians and philosophers have debated for generations.

Philosophers are good at that.

Ontological fails because it falsely asserts that a non-real concept can have any bearing on the real universe.

Cosmological, in addition to terribly misapplying thermodynamics, is self-contrary (it asserts nothing is eternal so there must be something eternal to make it). Ignoring that, it assumes any number of not-neccessairily-true things about existance and then relies on those assumptions to make its case.

The watchmaker analogy is just that: an unprovable (and often clearly misapplied) analogy that lacks any proof of validity.

FYI the sources and norms for theology are derived largely from John Wesley. They can be adjusted for more philosophical use by simply changing the scripture to an Outside Source. Wesley argued all beliefs are built on those 4 pillars working together.

And I think that's easy to disprove.

Tradition: then no new beliefs occur.
Scripture: Then no new beliefs are written down.
Think they've experienced: Now that I believe is one of the reasons for religious belief.
Want it to be true: should have been added.

 

[CraigV]

Which claim do I have?

Which ever makes you sleep better at night

"The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing."

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Some of the theories I have heard about involve several atoms of hydrogen & helium as making up the singularity.

 

[NicolasKL]

Yes I've never experienced the presence of underpants gnomes

How do you know that which you've experienced wasn't the underpants gnomes, masquerading as your god? Or maybe it wasn't the gnomes, maybe it was Satan, or Zeus, or government mind control, or aliens, or simple chemical/hormonal brain activity, or a delusion, or wishful thinking?

there isn't a tradition of believing in underpants gnomes

That's a very, very poor reason for believing in anything. There's a tradition in believing the earth is flat, do you believe that?

and I don't see them mentioned in scripture.

That's not really a reason to believe in anything either, for pretty obvious reasons. It's only only justification if you ALREADY believe in it, so it's not really justification at all. Ie, I believe the bible because God "wrote" it, I believe in God because the bible tells me he exists. Completely circular.

 

[JerryLove]

Which ever makes you sleep better at night

Sarcasam seems a pretty thin way to avoid supporting a accusation.

Some of the theories I have heard about involve several atoms of hydrogen & helium as making up the singularity.

No sane person not entirely ignorant of (insert any number of physical sceicnes here) would hold such the opsition that there were atoms in a singularity.

*edit* I should say "sane person not ignorant of (any number of physical sciences) who had considered it".

 

[Davemcc]

My ascertain is they have yet to explain where this particle came from.

It's an awfully big leap to go from "science can't explain" to "a supernatural being must be responsible".

 

[Davemcc]

Historically there are 3 main arguments for the existence of God.

The Ontological - a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Essentially if you think of the most perfect being than he must exist because existence is part of perfection.

The Cosmological - something can't come from nothing. But the physical decays so this something couldn't have been physical. Since Everything physical decays according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics(the universe is cooling like a stove)

The Teleological(considered the strongest) - If a watch has a watchmaker doesn't it make since the universe appears to be designed it has an architect.

These are the strongest arguments for the existence of God and our the ones theologians and philosophers have debated for generations.

FYI the sources and norms for theology are derived largely from John Wesley. They can be adjusted for more philosophical use by simply changing the scripture to an Outside Source. Wesley argued all beliefs are built on those 4 pillars working together.

So you're saying that the three strongest arguments in favor of religion are all based on false assumptions.

 

[JerryLove]

It's an awfully big leap to go from "science can't explain" to "a supernatural being must be responsible".

I don't think it's fair to even say that science is the problem. The issue is "there's no evidence to explain it".

But yes, science fails to help without evidence.

So you're saying that the three strongest arguments in favor of religion are all based on false assumptions.

In the order presented: false assumption, unproven assumptions, analogy.

I could devote pages to the far more detailed analysis, but that would need to start with a far more strictly defined claim for whichever argument was being used. They exist in many superficially minor variants (rather like big-bang theory).

 

[Alex2507]

So you're saying that the three strongest arguments in favor of religion are all based on false assumptions.

He said existence of God, not religion and you said they were false assumptions, not him. The kid already has ADD for Pete's sake. What are you trying to do, make him schizophrenic on top of everything else?

Dave, I'm starting to get the idea that you're not a believer.

 

[Davemcc]

Dave, I'm starting to get the idea that you're not a believer.

Just give me one good reason.