Questions to the atheists

[DeepThinker]

No intention to 'agrivate' (sic), just having fun.

Do carry on if it amuses you, I'll even try speling bader iff ya lioke.

 

[Telephone]

2. Yes you can sin, but you wouldnt, if you did you might loose out on being in heaven, and no one who got there would want that.

The same can said of life here on earth, to sin on earth would mean you might lose out on being in heaven.

It does not stop people here from 'sinning', why would it work in heaven.

This would make sence because when satan (in the fallen angel sence) was in heaven and he sinned by trying to overthrow God, so he was expelled from heaven. It would be harder to sin in heaven though as sinning would be much more clear, you would have the whole set of rules set into you, so it would not be like on earth where sinning is less clear cut and sometimes we forget, remember we would be at a higher state of consiousness so forgetting would not be an issue.

Why does god not give us this 'higher state of consiousness' and have 'the whole set of rules set into you' here on earth ?

 

[Telephone]

Do carry on if it amuses you, I'll even try speling bader iff ya lioke.

No need, you are doing just fine.

 

[DeepThinker]

No need, you are doing just fine.

hehe

 

[Eudaimonist]

Silly question realy, if God created science there was no need for him to fit inside their constraints before he did so, he did not have to be created by anything

To my knowledge, there is no constraint that the universe has to be created.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DeepThinker]

To my knowledge, there is no constraint that the universe has to be created.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Only a scientific one (something cannot come from nothing), but i agree that science is flawed and can never be used as an absolute proof.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Only a scientific one (something cannot come from nothing), but i agree that science is flawed and can never be used as an absolute proof.

I'm not so certain that is a scientific principle, but even if it were, if the universe has always existed, i.e. did not "come from nothing", it wouldn't violate the principle.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DeepThinker]

I'm not so certain that is a scientific principle, but even if it were, if the universe has always existed, i.e. did not "come from nothing", it wouldn't violate the principle.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Totally for these are the 3 veiws on creation. Either created from nothing, always have been there or be created by God. (I hope I have not missed out a possibility) This is one of the first things that made me begin to realise as an atheist that God was not as insane an idea as I had previously thought, as the other options seem just as inplausable, yet one must be true.

 

[michabo]

Totally for these are the 3 veiws on creation. Either created from nothing, always have been there or be created by God. (I hope I have not missed out a possibility)

I don't get why you think "God" is an option. You capitalize it, implying you are talking about a specific god. If so, then you have left the realm of the general and started with specifics, so we should list all of the myriad specific theories out there.

To be fair, I think you should call that option "god(s)", or more accurately "magic". Perhaps an even better answer would be "we don't know."


Hmm... I think I reconsider that option. Since with any god/magic "theory", then we still have the problem of where the god/magic came from, and so this reduces to the "always have been there" option.

If you were being totally accurate and honest, you should list:

1. Always been here
2. Appeared from nothing
3. Don't know/combination of the above.

 

[DeepThinker]

I don't get why you think "God" is an option. You capitalize it, implying you are talking about a specific god. If so, then you have left the realm of the general and started with specifics, so we should list all of the myriad specific theories out there.

To be fair, I think you should call that option "god(s)", or more accurately "magic". Perhaps an even better answer would be "we don't know."


Hmm... I think I reconsider that option. Since with any god/magic "theory", then we still have the problem of where the god/magic came from, and so this reduces to the "always have been there" option.

If you were being totally accurate and honest, you should list:

1. Always been here
2. Appeared from nothing
3. Don't know/combination of the above.

Your arogance again does not alow you to see things without your scientific constrait, I had this conversation with you before but your mind is too closed, When I talk about a God What I should have said is that something created it, you seem to have a problem with this as it does not fit with your scientific reasoning, but remeber that science has no more validity than religion when you think about it openly, which of course you cannot do. dont know would not be in the same category as god either that would be a fourth option

 

[michabo]

When I talk about a God What I should have said is that something created it

Same problem. If something created our universe, then we still want to know what created that, leaving us with the same choices. You can't beg off the question - either something is eternal, or something came from nothing.

but remeber that science has no more validity than religion when you think about it openly, which of course you cannot do.

Oh? I know how to validate a scientific claim. How do you validate a religious claim?

Religion has no validity, as there is no way to support or falsify any metaphysical claim.

 

[DeepThinker]

Same problem. If something created our universe, then we still want to know what created that, leaving us with the same choices. You can't beg off the question - either something is eternal, or something came from nothing.


Oh? I know how to validate a scientific claim. How do you validate a religious claim?

Religion has no validity, as there is no way to support or falsify any metaphysical claim.

Right first point before the Universe existed there was no universe, so a "God" would not have to hold by the same constraints as that universe ie he would not of had to come from anything, I have tried to explain this to you already but you dont seem to understand.

How do you validate a scientific claim? Using science
How do you validate a religious claim? Using religion
With out science, science cannot validate itself at all, you validate it from within its own means, thats no better than a christian who says the Bible is right because the Bible procliams that it is right.
With science you can see things with your own eyes and apply reason, but what if you were for example a figment of some higher beings imagination? or are you SO aragent in your mental capacity that you cannot fathom that there could be something so powerfull out there that you are mearly a thought to them, or a charactor they made up. There is no reason to belive that we are after all but charactors in a book.

 

[michabo]

Right first point before the Universe existed there was no universe, so a "God" would not have to hold by the same constraints as that universe ie he would not of had to come from anything

Well, did God come from anything or not? I'm not asking if he had to, only if it did.

How do you validate a scientific claim? Using science
How do you validate a religious claim? Using religion

You would validate a scientific theory using the scientific method.

What would this religious method be? Can you give me an example of how one would go about supporting or falsifying a religious claim?

 

[DeepThinker]

Well, did God come from anything or not? I'm not asking if he had to, only if it did.


You would validate a scientific theory using the scientific method.

What would this religious method be? Can you give me an example of how one would go about supporting or falsifying a religious claim?

First answer if there was a God wether or not he came from anything is irelevant, as we are talking about how the universe started and if God is real it started with him creating it.

Secondly, depends on the religion and the claim, if you claimed that the Christian God was a duck you need only to look in the Bible and see that he based man on his immage so no God cannot of been a duck.

 

[michabo]

First answer if there was a God wether or not he came from anything is irelevant, as we are talking about how the universe started and if God is real it started with him creating it.

Then your "God" option is the same as "came from something".

Secondly, depends on the religion and the claim, if you claimed that the Christian God was a duck you need only to look in the Bible and see that he based man on his immage so no God cannot of been a duck.

That doesn't seem to prove anything. At best, it would show that someone wrote that God wasn't a duck, but I don't see how it would disprove that God was a duck.

What if we want to learn about what God really is, instead of what some book says about God (or more like, what we interpret some book to say about God)? That's really what we're talking about. Your example seems to be textual criticism and not theology.

 

[DeepThinker]

Then your "God" option is the same as "came from something".


That doesn't seem to prove anything. At best, it would show that someone wrote that God wasn't a duck, but I don't see how it would disprove that God was a duck.

What if we want to learn about what God really is, instead of what some book says about God (or more like, what we interpret some book to say about God)? That's really what we're talking about. Your example seems to be textual criticism and not theology.

yes but created from something was not one of the options you used it was one of mine.
yours were, came from nothing
always been there
dont know

Yes it does not prove anything in the eyes of science. (are we understanding yet?) if you want to prove religion by its own means you must remeber that you dont then have to apply it to science.
What the Bible does say is that it is the word of God, therefore all you need to prove Cristianity using a Christian method is the Bible.

Of course I am sure that eventually science will prove the existance of God, I belive that the mechanics of science are God created and so will eventually lead to his dicovery, unfortunatly due to our limited knowlege, this will never happen in our life times, nor probobly in the existance of our species, one way or the other we can only speculate to which is right or wrong, but it can no more be disproven than proven at present.

One thing we can do is use philosophy to asses if there is the possibility, which of course there are many.

 

[michabo]

yes but created from something was not one of the options you used it was one of mine.
yours were, came from nothing
always been there
dont know

I was giving answers for where everything came from, not specificially where this universe came from. Pardon for the miscommunication, I may have misread.

What the Bible does say is that it is the word of God, therefore all you need to prove Cristianity using a Christian method is the Bible.

It's easy to come up with religious texts. I could write one in a few hours. Would that prove that God was a duck?

How do you handle different interpretations?

When I read that passage about us being created in God's image, I don't think it is being created in his physical image, do you? So we still have no way of resolving the question of whether or not God is a duck. Even within the increasingly narrow confines of biblical analysis (no longer talking about religious methods in general).


Now, you had said that you can verify religious claims, just as you can verify scientific claims. I've heard you say that you would use a bible, but this can't tell us anything about God or anything metaphysical, it can only tell us what others have written about God. Many others have written totally different things about God. How can we settle these disputes? Do you really believe that every religious text is correct, or is this religious method comparable to asking what colour Harry Potter's eyes are - textual analysis, nothing more?

 

[Asimov]

at least thats what you think

With good reason too, considering you have no way of showing that I am wrong.

 

[DeepThinker]

I was giving answers for where everything came from, not specificially where this universe came from. Pardon for the miscommunication, I may have misread.


It's easy to come up with religious texts. I could write one in a few hours. Would that prove that God was a duck?

How do you handle different interpretations?

When I read that passage about us being created in God's image, I don't think it is being created in his physical image, do you? So we still have no way of resolving the question of whether or not God is a duck. Even within the increasingly narrow confines of biblical analysis (no longer talking about religious methods in general).


Now, you had said that you can verify religious claims, just as you can verify scientific claims. I've heard you say that you would use a bible, but this can't tell us anything about God or anything metaphysical, it can only tell us what others have written about God. Many others have written totally different things about God. How can we settle these disputes? Do you really believe that every religious text is correct, or is this religious method comparable to asking what colour Harry Potter's eyes are - textual analysis, nothing more?

Firstly I do like talking to you, you are obviously have more upstairs than I do and you make my head hurt.

In giving answers to where everything comes from there are a billion answers and none can be more proven than another, I get a bit lost at this point as nce you leave the realm of our Universe, (which im sure you will agree is pretty big anyway) things get a whole lot bigger. Im not going to pretend that I can even fathom this, but it seems to me that when considering everything inside or out of our universe you can boil down all those ideas to come to those 3 conclusions that you listed.
However as our thinking is only limited to this universe it would be impossible to tell if there are anyother possibilities we have not thought of, but then I've just realised thats what the third option is for right?

For you to write a religious accepted book you would first have to create a religion which simple as it may sound legally requires 10,000 people to get one started (at least in england, thats why we have a religion called Jedi! ) but in answering the question about either every religious text being able to dispute over each other this is not what I meant.
What I meant was you can prove a particular religion using its own rules so Christianity proving Christianity Hinduism proving Hinduism etc etc. In the eyes of Philosophy all are possible, and I would hazard a guess and say you could not work out how probable each one method is (including science).

I'll explian why I belive in a God. I belive in a God because through Philosophy I can see that the possibility or multiple possibilities that one exists and came to the conclusion that a God could be real was infact not even unlikely, in my mind it was likely ( I know you dissagree). After I had this thought I opened my mind and my heart to it, and after a few weeks began feeling a presence I had not felt ever before (I was an atheist to this point). From there I felt this pressence directing me towards Christianity and so here I am, but I'm not a christian that belives wholeheartedly in the Bible (though I find its messages usefull if viewed properly), I still listen to that pressence that I felt, and follow my heart. (Its actually turned my life around from just caring about me to just caring about those around me)

Sorry for that but I thought it important for you to have the background on me before I say that I dont belive that Christianity is the only way to view God, I belive more in the Hindu story of the Blind men and the elephant. Which says that God is like an elephant and the blind men, religions, it then desribes that each blind man has a different part of the elephant, so one has the trunk, one has the ears, another the tail, they are told this is an elephant and so each drasws his own conclusions, though none are completely wrong, none are completely right either. Thats my belife anyway, so in a way yes I do belive every text is right, just not completely.

 

[DeepThinker]

With good reason too, considering you have no way of showing that I am wrong.

Or right ooops, see next post