0 x 0 = 0

[eMesreveR]

It should be logical for you to assume that there is more to physical reality than meets the eye (let "the eye" include scientific instruments). And if you make this spiritually healthy assumption, then you have to reject a pretense that there is no G-d, or that G-d isn't necessary. At the very least, A. Einstein himself believed in G-d, albeit one that was somewhat impersonal.
Once you arrive at this point, then the meaning of G-d and His value should logically come back into focus.

No. That does not make logical sense. If we cannot detect it through observation, why should it be there?

We can observe love. We can observe the wind. We can observe the universe expanding at an increasing rate.

Why should we assume that there is something supernatural behind things that we have not observed?

(i'm going to ignore that bit about A. Einstein. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein#Religious_views . Spinoza's God is not a real god.)

 

[Holy Roller]

No. That does not make logical sense. If we cannot detect it through observation, why should it be there?

We can observe love. We can observe the wind. We can observe the universe expanding at an increasing rate.

Why should we assume that there is something supernatural behind things that we have not observed?

(i'm going to ignore that bit about A. Einstein. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein#Religious_views . Spinoza's God is not a real god.)

I think your difficulty is in presuming (admit it) Spinoza's G-d is a metaphor of some kind. If Spinoza's G-d is a metaphor, can you please enlighten us as to how?

For reference, this was one of Einstein's descriptions of Spinoza's G-d:

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects

And...

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Now if you regard that which I placed in bold, it becomes clear that Spinoza's G-d according to Einstein does indeed regard some thing of supernatural character. Because of this line of reasoning, I'd think you'd agree with it.

If something is "impenetrable" to us, then it is regarded as supernatural, no?

 

[Blayz]

"I asked my wife if she experiences multiple [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] when we have sex. She was kind enough to point out to me that anything times 0 equals 0"
--some comedian I saw once.

 

[Holy Roller]

...At least I'm...
IBTL!!!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Tell you what champ, I wont think of you as pants-on-head retarded if you can find one single notable atheist who says everything came from nothing. Just one.

You can't think of me as anything other than intelligent. Otherwise you wouldn't waste vitriol and sarcasm on me.

Tell you what runner-up, or rather I'll ask you, "How" did everything get from nothing to what we can observe? Nothing urged it on?

Oh I wish you could hear my laughter.

Seeded by space aliens right? That was Dawkins wasn't it?

You're an atheist it says. I'll use you, but any replacement would do if you want to bow out.

 

[eMesreveR]

I think your difficulty is in presuming (admit it) Spinoza's G-d is a metaphor of some kind. If Spinoza's G-d is a metaphor, can you please enlighten us as to how?

For reference, this was one of Einstein's descriptions of Spinoza's G-d:

And...
Now if you regard that which I placed in bold, it becomes clear that Spinoza's G-d according to Einstein does indeed regard some thing of supernatural character. Because of this line of reasoning, I'd think you'd agree with it.

If something is "impenetrable" to us, then it is regarded as supernatural, no?

No. It means it is impenetrable.

For example, before we had telescopes, the skies were impenetrable. Once we had telescopes, the galaxy became impenetrable. Then we got the Hubble telescope. Do you see? What you are asking for is a God of the Gaps. "Because we don't know how it works, it must be supernatural."

You ASSUME that Einstein is talking about something supernatural, because the rhetoric he uses is similar to the rhetoric you have heard regarding the supernatural. *shrug* An honest mistake.

Einstein's god wasn't merely impersonal, as you claim. It wasn't a god at all. It has no feelings. It has no cares. It's like... how one would view Mother Nature. Except it's Everything. It can be seen as... a mystification at the beauty of the universe, not unlike the feelings one get from religion. Einstein is being honest, and I have to say, I get the same feelings as him when I learn the wonders of the world around us.

Spinoza's God is a metaphor for the appreciation and mystification we feel towards the wonderful world we live in.

From wiki: "In a 1930 New York Times article,[57] Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels … the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature … and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style."

Besides, what Einstein thought is rather irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he was an atheist or a theist. Leonhard Euler was a Christian and he was pretty much one of the greatest mathematicians ever. I won't deny him that, just because he was a theist.

The truth is, either our universe has a supernatural God or it doesn't. What Einstein thought is irrelevant.

And Polycarp and friends (isambard too =P), why are you guys meaninglessly flaming each other? Can't we all just... get along? For two seconds? Please?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

No. It means it is impenetrable.

For example, before we had telescopes, the skies were impenetrable. Once we had telescopes, the galaxy became impenetrable. Then we got the Hubble telescope. Do you see? What you are asking for is a God of the Gaps. "Because we don't know how it works, it must be supernatural."

You ASSUME that Einstein is talking about something supernatural, because the rhetoric he uses is similar to the rhetoric you have heard regarding the supernatural. *shrug* An honest mistake.

Einstein's god wasn't merely impersonal, as you claim. It wasn't a god at all. It has no feelings. It has no cares. It's like... how one would view Mother Nature. Except it's Everything. It can be seen as... a mystification at the beauty of the universe, not unlike the feelings one get from religion. Einstein is being honest, and I have to say, I get the same feelings as him when I learn the wonders of the world around us.

Spinoza's God is a metaphor for the appreciation and mystification we feel towards the wonderful world we live in.

From wiki: "In a 1930 New York Times article,[57] Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels … the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature … and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style."

Besides, what Einstein thought is rather irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he was an atheist or a theist. Leonhard Euler was a Christian and he was pretty much one of the greatest mathematicians ever. I won't deny him that, just because he was a theist.

The truth is, either our universe has a supernatural God or it doesn't. What Einstein thought is irrelevant.

And Polycarp and friends (isambard too =P), why are you guys meaninglessly flaming each other? Can't we all just... get along? For two seconds? Please? [/quote]

I'm not doing anything other than responding to questions, insults and accusations.

I've stated my position.

It is sound logic and I need no further explanation of it.

 

[eMesreveR]

Tell you what runner-up, or rather I'll ask you, "How" did everything get from nothing to what we can observe? Nothing urged it on?

Polycarp, let us first assume we have no answer. (we have one, it's not perfect, but it is one.)

So you (assuming God did it) have an answer, and we (followers of scientific consensus, which doesn't mean we're right) have no answer. Does that mean your answer is necessarily better than ours? No, not at all. If your answer doesn't match the data, which, in this case, is WHY we don't have an answer, then your answer is meaningless.

Answer is not always better than no answer.

Where did myths come from? Why did the Egyptians think there is a sun god? Because they wanted to know. They wanted an answer, so they got one. Are they right? No. The sun is a mass of incandescent gas (THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS!).

So in other words, Ra is farther from the truth than no answer. Just because you have an answer and we don't doesn't mean you're right. We don't pretend to know if we don't. We're honest.

So how do you know your answer is right?

 

[cantata]

Polycarp_fan, I'm still confused by your theistic equation. Can you fill in the blank in the following:

God x ____ = the universe

 

[Psudopod]

You can't think of me as anything other than intelligent. Otherwise you wouldn't waste vitriol and sarcasm on me.

In my opinion it’s the other way around. Vitriol and sarcasm get used on people who refuse to listen to intelligent argument, and insist on repeating the same thing even if it is unsubstantiated or false.

Tell you what runner-up, or rather I'll ask you, "How" did everything get from nothing to what we can observe? Nothing urged it on?

If you are genuinely interested in the early history of the universe, then I’m sure I can dig out some good sources. But first you have to stop making mistakes like anthromorphosising the universe. Of course nothing urged it on. It is the product of physical processes. Humanity has been driving out the habit of sticking gods in our understanding for thousands of years. Every process that has been attributed to a god or gods has been found to have a natural explanation. Why we assume this is not the case for things, just because we don’t understand them yet. It’s very sloppy thinking.

Oh I wish you could hear my laughter.

Seeded by space aliens right? That was Dawkins wasn't it?

Panspermia was not originally proposed by Dawkins. I think you are referring to a comment from the Expelled movie where he said it could be possible. As far as I know Dawkins holds that live developed on earth. Panspermia doesn’t necessarily mean seeded by aliens, just that abiogenesis occurred off-world.

 

[selfinflikted]

Polycarp, technically what you posted was the Humanist manifesto, not the Atheist manifesto. Atheism is simply defined as the lack of belief in any god, if that's considered a dogma.

Which is precisely why I didn't respond to that particular part of his post. It has nothing to do whatsoever with atheism.

Further, Poly keeps repeating things like, "Atheism says..." or "Atheists believe..." ..while none of it is true. He's been corrected by atheists numerous times that the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). There is no dogma, no manifesto, no concensus on how the universe was formed, nothing. Now, I can either only conclude that he is LD, or insists on lying knowingly about atheists. Personally, I think it's the latter.

Every Atheist I have ever known has excessive body odor. Why is that?

I've never had a BO problem, and I'm proudly atheist. In fact, I smell like Armani this morning. Aqua di Gio to be precise. One of the best smelling colognes, imo.

 

[IzzyPop]

Yup. That is how I see atheism. That is how atheism says evereything happened. Nothing did it. And the whole by chance assertion is laughable. I play craps when in Vegas, and the idea that the universe is a throw of dice with hundreds of trillions of numbers on them is rather a pathetic guess at creation or origins. Educated or not.



Me? I am just agreeing with the Bible and math.



God was before everything. Nothing zero about that at all. I'm betting that is why Einstein was more of a pantheist than an atheist. Everything on this planet was made from the substance of this planet. The planet is part of the universe. Now, keep walking backwards in "time" and you run out of time and you run into God. Or, whatever you want to call the creator of all things. But nothing is not a good concept for a name for the originator. Excuse me, Originator.




Miracles are not all that important to me. Jews and Christians have long held that God is One. My calculator agrees with that. Many Apostles saw miracles and then saw nothing at all at the time of their deaths except the miracle of giving their lives without harming anyone trying to kill them. And as I am an American, believe me, that may be a verifiable miracle.

As you can probably guess, I'm working on the lashing out at tormentors and adversaries.

I am a fan of Polycarp's, I am not his equal.

Though one day I hope to be there, with the exception of a grisly death. I hope to be an old man that's just a nice guy.

I still have plenty of time for that goal.

Long post to avoid a question.

I am fully aware of how you think atheism works. I don't care about 0*0=0 and random chance. That was not what I asked.

You stated that theism is 1*1. I get that God is 'one'. I want to know where the other 'one' came from.

 

[selfinflikted]

There's that flushing noise again. Funny that.

 

[IzzyPop]

So we still don't know where the other 'one' came from, right?

 

[stan1980]

So we still don't know where the other 'one' came from, right?

No, we certainly don't!

Still waiting PCF!

 

[IzzyPop]

No, we certainly don't!

Still waiting PCF!

Not anymore. It is obvious that there is not an answer forthcoming. However, when he raises that little canard again, we can just link to this thread.

This does mean I won, right?

 

[selfinflikted]

This does mean I won, right?

Yep

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Not anymore. It is obvious that there is not an answer forthcoming. However, when he raises that little canard again, we can just link to this thread.

This does mean I won, right?

And once again I am proven right. The goal of the atheist in interacting with Christians is to defeat them, but by always using the atheist gameboard.

It's hard to be as humble as I am. But I'll keep it up.

You can get something from 1.

You cannot get something from nothing.

0 x 0 = atheism, but cannot be the answer for the atheist existing.

Obviously facts makes me the victor once again.

When do I get my Championship trophy?

Just post it on line. I have no desire for you guys to know where I live.

Reality is important to me.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

<staff edit>

And you believe you are standing here by nothing causing it.

Excuse me if I have a laugh at who really believes in "nonsense."

You need better rote.

 

[selfinflikted]

And you believe you are standing here by nothing causing it.

Excuse me if I have a laugh at who really believes in "nonsense."

You need better rote.

No, you need a better comeback. I mean, change the record, man. I've told you numerous times that I do not think everything came from nothing. You continue to flat out LIE about me, and I certainly don't appreciate that. Reality, indeed.