It’s like there’s more than one of them...Quit contradicting yourself. Just kidding, I know you can't quit.
Upvote
0
It’s like there’s more than one of them...Quit contradicting yourself. Just kidding, I know you can't quit.
I can't tell whether he's pathologically incapable of admitting error, or if he's just trying to "win" through shifty debate tactics. Either way, let people like that talk long enough and the cognitive dissonance turns into full blown dissociative personality disorder at some point.It’s like there’s more than one of them...
No, everything I have said is based on science, history and philosophy. And all three provide strong evidence for biblical Christianity.Okay. So you're admitting that all of the things you've said are based on nothing more than your own unfounded ideas, with no evidence to back them up. That's very reasonable of you.
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is more accurate to say that "we dont know for certain, but we do know what direction most of the evidence points and increases every year that it is NOT eternal." It may be divided but those that believe that it is eternal are a distinct minority. It will always be theoretical since we cannot travel to the past. So you might as well make your decision now.
cv: I again beg to differ. There does not exist a strong scientific consensus one way or another. It appears very divided. Most likely because we are still gathering evidence. Maybe at some point, we will have a sufficient amount to draw a sound conclusion, and maybe not.?.? A quick 'google' search for "did the universe begin to exist or was it eternal" pulls up links which steer towards the 'assumption' that the universe could very well have been eternal.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe
What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
We simply do not know yet, and/or may never...?
In regards to your statement "So you might as well make your decision now." No, I can remain undecided; as opposed to blankly asserting an unknown conclusion. Just like I am undecided about intelligent life on other planets, etc....
Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.Ed1wolf said: ↑
You are correct that the overwhelming majority of biologists believe that macroevolution has occurred. But just like many theories in the history of science the majority is not always correct. But the problems with macroevolution do not involve pseudo-science.
cv: Again, if you have evidence against the claimed evidence, which appears to support macroevolution, might I suggest you present as such to the powers-that-be for peer review. You could be famous, in pointing out flaws in such a claimed sound scientific consensus - (evolutionary theory)
Ed1wolf said: ↑
It would be slight problem for the Christian God because the bible seems to plainly teach that the universe had a definite beginning. But since even an eternal universe is made up of all contingent things then you still need something for upon which all these contingent things to need to exist and a Creator fits that.
cv: Again, IF the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creation' is a superfluous concept entirely. Right?
cv: IF
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.
Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.cv: Thus, as stated prior, we have yet to determine if the universe always was, or finite. Let alone moving forward with your blankly asserted notion of not only A creator, but (your) specific creator.
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is more accurate to say that "we dont know for certain, but we do know what direction most of the evidence points and increases every year that it is NOT eternal." It may be divided but those that believe that it is eternal are a distinct minority. It will always be theoretical since we cannot travel to the past. So you might as well make your decision now.
cv: I again beg to differ. There does not exist a strong scientific consensus one way or another. It appears very divided. Most likely because we are still gathering evidence. Maybe at some point, we will have a sufficient amount to draw a sound conclusion, and maybe not.?.? A quick 'google' search for "did the universe begin to exist or was it eternal" pulls up links which steer towards the 'assumption' that the universe could very well have been eternal.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe
What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
We simply do not know yet, and/or may never...?
In regards to your statement "So you might as well make your decision now." No, I can remain undecided; as opposed to blankly asserting an unknown conclusion. Just like I am undecided about intelligent life on other planets, etc....
Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.Ed1wolf said: ↑
You are correct that the overwhelming majority of biologists believe that macroevolution has occurred. But just like many theories in the history of science the majority is not always correct. But the problems with macroevolution do not involve pseudo-science.
cv: Again, if you have evidence against the claimed evidence, which appears to support macroevolution, might I suggest you present as such to the powers-that-be for peer review. You could be famous, in pointing out flaws in such a claimed sound scientific consensus - (evolutionary theory)
Ed1wolf said: ↑
It would be slight problem for the Christian God because the bible seems to plainly teach that the universe had a definite beginning. But since even an eternal universe is made up of all contingent things then you still need something for upon which all these contingent things to need to exist and a Creator fits that.
cv: Again, IF the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creation' is a superfluous concept entirely. Right?
cv: IF
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.
Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.cv: Thus, as stated prior, we have yet to determine if the universe always was, or finite. Let alone moving forward with your blankly asserted notion of not only A creator, but (your) specific creator.
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?
Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.
Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator
but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.
Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.
A mountain is a big pile of dirt and rock. Most people aren't going to look at that and say it's very complex. Consequently, it makes a confusing example. I can see why gradyll is having a hard time following what you're asking.
I have already won the battle of logic over the premise that you cannot prove a single known fact (other than mathmatically speaking), you try and try to post all the technical information you can via google and other sources and yet you still post external eye witnesses to alleged proof.A scientific consensus is good evidence that whatever they’re agreeing on is likely the best available model of reality, whether it’s metaphysically true or not.
I agree that "Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins with facts and generalizes on them". It is another way of saying that the structure of Buddhism is built upon from observable, universal principles & that the structure of Christianity is built upon supposed allegations that must be believed on faith.
when saying (via various character assassinations and ad hominem attack that my sources lose, you should probably spell "lose" correctly. It makes your argument go a little further. But those sources are scientists who have journalled many peer reviews and are very good at what they do. But your google search never said that did it? That is because you don't know that the "teach the controversy" curriculum has passed in 8 states, and is currently being taught in thousands of high schools. That is not intelligent design, in fact if you ask stephen meyer if he believes intelligent design should be taught, he says no. Because teachers are not trained to teach it. And they would do more damage than help. No doubt this was the problem of the scopes trial. People that didn't know that creationism and intelligent design were different.Oh, I'm all too 'ready for it' sir
It is no secret that people like Stephen Meyer - (head of the 'Discovery Institute'), and Michael Behe - (author of 'Darwin Devolved'), are on the forefront of their assertions. (I.E.) they assert 'intelligent design'.
The Discovery Institute is nothing more than 'pseudoscience', and wants to 'teach the controversy'. Well, the only ones which think there exists a controversy, are the ones whom wish to instead interject their own beliefs in a specific path of 'creationism'.
I trust you've seen the results of the Dover trial? If not, here you go: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial
A matter of fact, this trial stars two of the people you mentioned - (Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe).
Spoiler alert, your given proponents loose miserably.
yes, sir I have read the trial. And numerous recent trials into this. So by all means please quote what you don't agree with. In fact none of what was said, was actually said in the Dover trial, but you can equivocate us with them all you want. After all that is what they do in public school curriculum, not to mention the internet scholar's number one site, wikipedia.To recap, your assertions appear to be based upon individuals whom simply assert that complexity must come from their chosen believed God. They use fallacious reasoning to assert this. Again, simply look at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
natual and supernatural causes are not mutually exclusive. God for example can use natural laws to do miracles. Simply a being that is in a higher plane of existence can do miracles in a totally logical fashion for a being of higher dimensionality (please see Dr. quantum flat lander on you tube).You stated it's simple. That all we need is cause/effect, and painters. Well, mountains fall under cause/effect. Painters paint. So was this 'cause' for mountains natural or supernatural?
I think I adressed this above.'Complexity' seems to derived from the 'eye of the beholder.' My point being it seems we can tell if a mountain has been made/altered, verses when no human or natural process has 'intervened' - (i.e.) Mt. Rushmore, the Grand Canyon, or even a human formed pile of dirt. My question to you is.... Are all un-tampered-with mountains instead God's creation???? I would assume your answer is yes, as I would assume you assert God created the earth - which includes the formation of mountains.
Above is where fallacious reasoning is demonstrated. What you state is not only unfounded, but it would not even matter. Why? There still exists much unknown discovery.
1). We are not sure if the 'universe' is finite or eternal?
2.) Even IF everything you stated were true, you would be appealing to scientific hypothesis alone.
again I am not sure where you are going with this. God created the laws of physics, so if they are available to use, why would He not use them in creating the universe? To me, it would be wasteful to just miraculously create everything while making separate operating laws of the universe. I don't know how the mountains were created, if they were done through God provoked natural earthquakes, or God inspired upheavals of tecktonic plates. I am unsure, it would depend on where the mountain is for one.Again, I would assume you assert God created the earth. Which would mean God created the mountains? Because we surely know humans did not do it..?
I already adressed this above, so stop saying I am not adressing this.If it turns out the universe is eternal, then this again points to post #1410, in which you have yet to address of my second original question... Which is, if the universe has eternally existed, then what be the 'need for a creator?'
God who is massless, does not need to take up space. Mass takes up space.And even IF everything you stated were true, you would still need to account for what 'space/area/etc' God dwelled upon prior to 'creating anything at all? Otherwise, at some point in the 'past', God was the only 'thing' in existence. God would have needed to create a realm to 'move around.' Unless you now want to modify your assertion in that God encompasses some sort of eternal space for God to move around.?.?.?
You haven’t addressed a single thing I said, so as far as I’m concerned this conversation about your bizarre hangups about proof in science is over but if you really do want a lesson in logic you can just ask me.I have already won the battle of logic over the premise that you cannot prove a single known fact (other than mathmatically speaking), you try and try to post all the technical information you can via google and other sources and yet you still post external eye witnesses to alleged proof.
now you admit this, and then confess that I don't know "why?" or that this is incoherent?
Is that really the issue I raised? Why?
Or is the issue I raised simply the premise that your alleged proof of mirages was wrong?
But really I wish to reopen the above statement you made, that "a scientific consensus is good evidence."
so basically this is saying, because someone who is smarter than I believes something, I should believe it.
So as a Los Angeles Angels fan, and Mike Trout tells you as a fan, how to throw a baseball. That means the right off the bat, that that method is the best and most valuable method? Well what if he is left handed? Is that the same exact method a right handed person uses? What if a 5 year old does not have the motor skills to throw a ball like a full grown man, does that mean that that method is the best method for kids? Even if every major league baseball player had a consensus on how to throw a ball, that does not mean it's right. For all the above reasons. So again this is why this type of reasoning is faulty. Just because someone should know something, or they are a professional, does not mean that they have complete knowledge or have done the proper tests for every possible scenario of whatever they are testing. So yes, this is still a bandwagon fallacy. Now at this point you typically say it's not because of the fact that you believe in other evidences that corroborate the consensus, but I never actually seen any of those evidences, in fact I am 99% sure you never posted them, in the next 20-30 posts after you said the above statement. Because if you did post them, they could be examined for flaws, and you didn't want that. So yes, as it sits, you did actually commit a fallacy, in fact dozens upon dozens of times. Because even if you had corroboration of the consensus, you still are required to post that information.
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.
Hey @gaara4158 check out this quote, LOLmost of the scientists I know realize the universe is expanding and that there was an explosion of some sort in the past (big bang), and that this was the cause of the universe. Again, so when you say "we are not sure the universe is finite or eternal." you are meaning you, and if that is the case. I would try to google search evidence for the big bang. Because most of science is geered on the fact the universe was created.
His different arguments for God’s existence literally contradict one anotherHey @gaara4158 check out this quote, LOL
Early Buddhism is built upon these observable, foundational principles, none of which I need to take on faith:never heard before that buddhism was observable, but yet christianity was based on faith. You have any examples at all of observable data that buddhism believes? I doubt it. What I find is universal faith. Everyone has faith, nothing is proven. You can't even prove for example basic laws of science without having faith that scientists did everything correctly in their science. So yes, sorry to break it to you, you live in faith, when you became a buddhist.
So you’re encouraging this?Ok. We're almost to 80 pages, folks. 100 is only 20 more away ... If anyone can do it, you all can!
It is a fairly huge statement, to say that you have been wrong about virtually everything in this thread. But not particularly difficult to verify. All you have to do is read the seventy-plus pages of this thread, and see your arguments being refuted, again and again.thats a huge statement, an unverified one. So I guess you are correct, I don't care about things that are unverified.
Uh-huh. Who told you that's what we believe?IF I did care about things that are unverified, I might, like you guys believe the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing, or that an electrocuted mud puddle spawned first life, or that we evolved in other ways from floating rock debris in space. All of that is very very unverified. So if I was in the habit of believing unverified claims, I would start there.
Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.Pick an apologetic thread (or evolution thread) of your choosing, one that I am not involved, and I can scan the last ten pages, and find probably a dozen cases of mocking of christianity, or making fun of faith, or belittling christianity, done by atheists and agnostics. I challenge you.
This will come as news to scientists, historians and philosophers. In point of fact, Ed, you're quite incorrect. Not even most Christians would agree with you, even on the claim about philosophy.No, everything I have said is based on science, history and philosophy. And all three provide strong evidence for biblical Christianity.
No need. I gave him a thread to look at and he couldn't find what he claimed would be there. I'm trying to get him to understand that even though folk are mean to him, since they ain't mean to other Christians, that Christianity isn't the problem, he is.Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.
How about this thread? There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM