Supremacy challenge part 2

[Larniavc]

Not very convincing. Your asking the person to decide whether the universe came into existence through some unknown process or by the action of some unknown being. Without further evidence there is nothing to choose between them.

In the latter case you have two immeasurably incredibly happenings (a divinity and the emergence of a universe). In the former you have but one immeasurably incredible happening.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Matter/ energy is not eternal.

How do you know? Also, didn't you just make a big deal out if matter/energy not being able to be created or destroyed? I said that that seems to be the case in this universe and that we don't know about this also being the case beyond the universe. But when you said it, you said it in context of "eternity", as in "beyond the universe". So how could it be anything BUT eternal, if that is what you believe?

For future reference: it is not what I believe. I don't "believe" anything about things that are (currently?) unknowable.

Thus it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it did not exist.

Another assumption that you can not demonstrate, but I'll go ahead and agree with it for the purpose the rest of your 'argument'.

Before the existence of matter/energy, nothing would exist. The absence of anything = absolute zero.

Back up now.... when the "the universe" become "all that is"? We weren't talking about "anything", we were talking about "the universe". The universe is not "anything". We only know about this universe. We do not know about beyond the universe.

Secondly, if you are going to go ahead and assume that there is "nothing but" the universe, then that also contradicts your very own beliefs.

Since the God you believe in created the universe, it follows that this God is not part of the universe, correct? But this God DOES exist according to what you believe, right?

So, obviously, this God exists in some place. Obviously not a "physical place" as in "within the space time continuum", but in some "universe"/"dimension"/"realm"/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it.

Assuming you also believe in heaven and hell... these also must be "plains of existence" that do exist in some similar "place", right?

So clearly, your stance can not be that if you remove the universe from existence (as in "all that exists, which includes, but is not limited to, the universe") that "absolute nothingness" is what remains...

And this becomes extra clear in your next sentence:

At absolute zero nothing happens, including the shifting of matter and anti-matter to create something out of nothing.

...and obviously also including any actions by any deities? If not, then clearly the generalized statement of "nothing can happen" is a false statement.


It seems like you need to think this through a bit more....

Correct. The physical laws of this universe apply to the nature of the composition of this universe. We do not, however, have reason to assume that there is any other universe.

Correct. And for the exact same reason, we have no reason to assume some other plain of existence where a god resides who does things.

More then that... we do not have any reason to assume anything at all about that which is completely UNKNOWN to us at this time.

Of course what we see is the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles too small to have gravitational influence. When they bond we see them, when they unbond we do not. The existence of the particles has nothing to do with out ability to detect them.

I'm not at home in quantum physics and am basically just repeating (perhaps incorrectly) what I read about it. So I won't be driving this point home. But I do think you make an interesting statement at the end, which I will reword a bit: "the existence of things are not dependend on our ability to detect them".

But...... our ability to actually detect them is essential in being rationally justified in accepting that those things actually exist. And that is a nice summary for why I am an atheist.

We both know that it did. The problem is, we have no idea what the world looked like before. Was it one continent? Were there mountains or just high hills. What kind of change happened that blasted volcanoes from the sea and sent continents adrift? It would be incredible to know the before and the after condition.

Why are you suddenly talking as if we both simply assume that this flood happened?
I just gave you several reasons for why I consider it to be completely refuted that this happened.

Scrapping all data, even just the genetic bottleneck thingy is more then enough to consider the thing to be simply false. It's done. Game over. Refuted. Debunked. A historical footnote. It never happened.

Did you not understand the point that was made, concerning the loss of genetic variation due to heavily reduced population sizes?

Such bottlenecks are already identifiable if population sizes drop to a couple thousand... and here we have a story which has populations reduces to freaking 4 to 14!! And don't even get me started on the fact that such a population size is pretty much biologically doomed to extinction over here in the real world...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The choice for "origins" ultimately becomes one of personal preference. There is nothing to say one is by definition better than the other. Both have great unknowns. So both are equally problematic from a purely a priori stand point.

Not really, they are quite different types of claim. To say the origin in unknown is an admission of lack of knowledge, the other a claim of specific knowledge. The significant difference is that one is a justified default position, the other an unjustified assumption.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am merely pointing out how the usual "First Uncaused Cause" argument tends to break down.

It's a matter of definition. Natural law does not apply to the supernatural.
Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness. The supernatural nature of God has no such preclusion.
Natural law holds that all physical things are finite. God exists outside of the physical world and is infinite.
All physical things need a point of origination. God, being separate from the physical world, has no such requirement.
God creating the universe makes sense. The universe creating itself makes no sense.
All Christians have, at some times, felt the presence of God. We know that God is real. We don't need subjective arguments to convince us of what we know to be true.
Christians need to know that the word of God is true. Jesus taught from the Scriptures as a historical text. Jesus, who was witness from the beginning of the world, confirmed that the Scriptures were part of every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. We should not worry about the claims of the godless who live in a world of make-believe where there is no consequence to sin.

 

[fargonic]

It's a matter of definition. Natural law does not apply to the supernatural.

Which is a form of "special pleading". But more importantly "how do you know this?"

God creating the universe makes sense. The universe creating itself makes no sense.

You have created a concept called "God" that is defined as not following any known rules and contains all unanswered questions. I am uncertain how this provides any additional information over simply saying "We don't know how it all started".

All Christians have, at some times, felt the presence of God. We know that God is real. We don't need subjective arguments to convince us of what we know to be true.

If the entire world were Christians this point would be moot.

We should not worry about the claims of the godless who live in a world of make-believe where there is no consequence to sin.

Even to an atheist there is consequence to one's actions and even atheists can know "good" from "bad".

 

[TaylorSexton]

They all assert as a foundation that they are correct.

That's not the assertion I was referring to.

From that it follows that whenever you find facts that seem to contradict what the bible says... you just "re-interprate" the relevant bible passages and assume that it really means the correct thing.

Indeed, just like I said: "Yeah, the bible seems to say Y, but it actually really means X"

Can you demonstrate where this causes me to misinterpret Scripture?

You start with the dogmatic belief that the bible MUST be correct and whenever reality obviously contradicts biblical passages - you just go back to the bible and retro-actively say that the bible must be meaning the correct thing instead of what it seems to be saying.

Tell me something: When the weather man talks about "sunrise," do you take the language by what it literalistically means (which is what you seem to mean when you say "seems to be saying"), or what science tells you it must mean? I hope it is the latter.

As per your own admission (eventhough you seem to not be willing to come out and say it directly), you are incapable of saying that the bible is wrong about something, when it clearly is.

No, I said that all truth is God's truth, and that includes demonstrable facts of science. That was my admission, and I gladly admit it, giving thanks to God. Is that a problem for you? It seems so.

...hidden meaning...

Tell me, where have I inserted "hidden meaning" into any passage? I need a concrete example.

Newsflash: the genesis flood is scientifically impossible. It can't happen, has never happened and will never happen.

That's your belief. Mine just happens to be different.

 

[Larniavc]

That's not the assertion I was referring to.

My point is that you are criticising a position for asserting a foundation when you do so yourself.

 

[Larniavc]

Can you demonstrate where this causes me to misinterpret Scripture?

When you need to reinterpret the Bible to fit reality you where formally misinterpreting it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a matter of definition

The nature of reality is never a matter of mere "definition".

Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness.

You assume this. You don't know this.
You can't even demonstrate that the state of "nothingness" even makes any rational sense. You never had access to such "nothingness" for study. Nobody has. So how can you make any assessment about what it can and can't do?

This is just you and your intuition masquerading as "facts". But they aren't facts. Facts are demonstrable. Your gut feelings are kind of irrelevant.

If the universe has taught us anything, it sure is that it doesn't really care about our "gut feelings". Just about every major discovery of the last 2-3 centuries, especially in physics, has turned our "gut feelings" upside down.

The supernatural nature of God has no such preclusion.

Only because you defined this to be so.

Natural law holds that all physical things are finite. God exists outside of the physical world and is infinite.

Again, only because you defined this to be so.

All physical things need a point of origination. God, being separate from the physical world, has no such requirement.

Once more, only because you defined it to be so.

God creating the universe makes sense.

Positing undetectable deities who do undetectable things, is never sensible.

The universe creating itself makes no sense.

Playing with words is not a good way to argue either.
What does "creating itself" mean here?

Does a snowflake "create itself", since there is no agent consciously fabricating every individual snowflake? See? Your statement is just nonsensical and a play on words.

I'ld say that a snowflake simply "forms" quite spontanously due to the environmental circumstances. Why couldn't that be the case for a space-time continuum?

All Christians have, at some times, felt the presence of God.

So have all muslims, all hindu's, all vikings,... etc.
Unsurprisingly, alien abductees have also felt, witnessed and experienced the presence of aliens.

You can't all be correct. But you CAN all be wrong.

We know that God is real

No. You believe god is real. Knowledge is demonstrable. You can't demonstrate god.

We don't need subjective arguments to convince us of what we know to be true.

Then why does your entire post rest upon a foundation of arbitrary definitions, using nothing but mere words, of your god?

We should not worry about the claims of the godless who live in a world of make-believe where there is no consequence to sin.

Ow goodie.... a personal attack in an attempt to dissmiss arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not the assertion I was referring to.

Can you demonstrate where this causes me to misinterpret Scripture?

Tell me something: When the weather man talks about "sunrise," do you take the language by what it literalistically means (which is what you seem to mean when you say "seems to be saying"), or what science tells you it must mean? I hope it is the latter.

No, I said that all truth is God's truth, and that includes demonstrable facts of science. That was my admission, and I gladly admit it, giving thanks to God. Is that a problem for you? It seems so.

Tell me, where have I inserted "hidden meaning" into any passage? I need a concrete example.

Good job completely missing the point...
That point being, that you start from a dogmatic position that whatever the bible says - it can't be incorrect. And when science finds out things that contradict what the bible says, then from that it follows that the bible must be meaning something else then what it is saying - because "obviously" the bible can't be wrong.

That's your belief. Mine just happens to be different.

No, that's not a belief. That's a fact. A demonstrable fact.

A flood as described in the bible, demonstrably never happened.

 

[TaylorSexton]

My point is that you are criticising a position for asserting a foundation when you do so yourself.

No, because what you said the assertion was is not what I was talking about. We are talking about two different things.

When you need to reinterpret the Bible to fit reality you where formally misinterpreting it.

Wow, that's begging the question if I've ever seen it. Can you cite me some hermeneutical literature that would prove your point?

That point being, that you start from a dogmatic position that whatever the bible says - it can't be incorrect. And when science finds out things that contradict what the bible says, then from that it follows that the bible must be meaning something else then what it is saying - because "obviously" the bible can't be wrong.

Can you give me an example where this leads me to plainly contradict the biblical text?

No, that's not a belief. That's a fact. A demonstrable fact.

A flood as described in the bible, demonstrably never happened.

Asserting something over and over doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you give me an example where this leads me to plainly contradict the biblical text?

The point is that this question is unanswerable. Precisely because this retro-active re-interpreting coupled with the dogmatic position that the bible can't ever be wrong about anything, results in a sitation where it becomes literally impossible to state that the bible is wrong about anything.

Then it goes like this:
"The bible says X"
"Science demonstrates Y"
"Ow but the bible actually means Y, eventhough it says X".

And round and round it goes.

Asserting something over and over doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.

I didn't just assert it. I explained it. Multiple times.

To summarize once more on a single point:
- the flood story predicts a genetic bottleneck in all species
- DNA analysis reveals that no such universal bottleneck exists
- therefor, the story is false.

And that's just one way it can be shown to be false. There still is all the data from geology, climatology, the fossil record, etc... All of which contradicts this flood story and none of which even only remotely confirms it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Me: Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness.

You assume this. You don't know this.

Actually, we do. It's called the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Only because you defined this to be so.

God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Your statement is 100% false. I did not define God as being supernatural. That is the definition of God which predates my arrival.

Again, only because you defined this to be so.

Again, blatantly false. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy. It's wearing out and dying like we see stars die from time to time. Nothing which wears out or dies is eternal. Our bodies wear out and die. Our souls do not.

Once more, only because you defined it to be so.

If matter is not eternal it had to have a point of origination. While I admire that you believe I wrote the laws of nature, I have to admit that I did not. I have a hard time believing that you don't know these things. I think you are arguing just to be contrary.

I'ld say that a snowflake simply "forms" quite spontanously due to the environmental circumstances.

Personally, I would say that water vapor condenses and crystalizes in the cold air. Snow doesn't form spontaneously. It's part of the hydrology system. Just like rain, its formation is part of a cycle.

Why couldn't that be the case for a space-time continuum?

Because this isn't Star Trek.

No. You believe god is real. Knowledge is demonstrable. You can't demonstrate god.

No, we KNOW God is real, just like we know that you capitalize proper nouns whether you consider that entity a deity or not. We can't demonstrate or prove God to unbelievers because faith is the belief in things unproven and the only path to Heaven. If we could prove conclusively that God exists and Jesus was His son, then you couldn't have faith. The door to Heaven would be closed to you.

Ow goodie.... a personal attack in an attempt to dissmiss arguments.

Godless: having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. Would you like to renounce atheism and embrace God? He exists either way, whether you acknowledge Him or not.

 

[Larniavc]

No, because what you said the assertion was is not what I was talking about. We are talking about two different things.

The point is that you criticised a poster for asserting a foundation. But you also asserted a foundation. So for you to criticise a poster for the the same thing that you are doing is inappropriate.

Wow, that's begging the question if I've ever seen it. Can you cite me some hermeneutical literature that would prove your point?

It's not begging the question. It's pointing out the error in your statement.

Can you give me an example where this leads me to plainly contradict the biblical text?

Only if you can show me where the Bible was reinterpreted as a result of modern science. Otherwise it would be impossible.

Asserting something over and over doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.

And yet here we are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Me: Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness.

Actually, we do. It's called the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Third law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

The third law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about "absolute nothingness".

God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Your statement is 100% false. I did not define God as being supernatural. That is the definition of God which predates my arrival.

Ow for crying out loud...

Owkay, if you wish to play that silly game, then I'll rephrase to "only because it is defined to be so".

The same problem remains. This is just a definition, with no grounding whatsoever in actual observable reality.

Again, blatantly false. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy. It's wearing out and dying like we see stars die from time to time. Nothing which wears out or dies is eternal. Our bodies wear out and die.

Matter doesn't "die out". Entropy is not about "disappearing" matter.
And for future reference, again... all this is dealing with physics as it applies IN the universe.

Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed (in this universe), remember?

Our souls do not.

"souls" - another one of those things that are just "defined" into existence.

If matter is not eternal it had to have a point of origination. While I admire that you believe I wrote the laws of nature, I have to admit that I did not. I have a hard time believing that you don't know these things. I think you are arguing just to be contrary.

I was talking about your statement that "god" is this special case to which none of these rules apply. Again: only because it is defined to be so, without any grounding in observable reality. Just religious, faith-based definitions pulled out of thin air.

Personally, I would say that water vapor condenses and crystalizes in the cold air. Snow doesn't form spontaneously. It's part of the hydrology system. Just like rain, its formation is part of a cycle.

Right, that's the "spontaneous formation due to environmental circumstances" I was talking about.

There's no assembly line producing snowflakes. There's no "intelligent agent" putting them together either. There's just environmental factors producing snowflakes as an inevitable result.

Because this isn't Star Trek.

I don't see how that is an answer to the question.
Instead, it seems like a rather sensless dodge.

No, we KNOW God is real, just like we know that you capitalize proper nouns whether you consider that entity a deity or not.

Again: knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate this entity, then all you have is a belief, not knowledge.

We can't demonstrate or prove God to unbelievers because faith is the belief in things unproven

Exactly. So you have "faith" (= a belief), not knowledge.

and the only path to Heaven.

Must...resist...rant...about...how immoral.... such a system is.....

If we could prove conclusively that God exists and Jesus was His son, then you couldn't have faith.

Yes, indeed. And then we would actually be rationally justified in accepting it as true.
We would also be able to differentiate it from "false" beliefs. Until then, your religion is just like any other.

The door to Heaven would be closed to you.

Apparantly, your God hates rational thinking.

Godless: having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic.

yeah... I was refering to the last words in your statement... about the "no consequences" thingy, in which you imply that we atheists are like a bunch of baby eating monsters.

Would you like to renounce atheism and embrace God?

Not until you give me a rational reason to do so.
Also, just to be clear: there is nothing in atheism to "renounce". Atheism isn't a thing. You don't need to believe or do something to qualify as an "atheist". Rather, it is what you automatically are when you remain unconvinced by the claims of theism.

It's THEISM that requires you to do / believe things.

To put it in sales terms...
An atheist isn't trying to sell you anything.
Theists are trying to sell things.
Atheists are just those people who aren't buying.

He exists either way, whether you acknowledge Him or not

I could say the same to you about any of the thousands of other Gods that you don't believe in.

 

[KWCrazy]

The third law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about "absolute nothingness".

The absolute absence of energy is absolute zero.

The same problem remains. This is just a definition, with no grounding whatsoever in actual observable reality.

The civil war began in 1860, but it is not observable. It was observable then, but no longer. God used to communicate with man directly but no longer. If you reject that which was recorded in the past because you can't personally observe it, then you obviously deny that anything in history actually happened.

Matter doesn't "die out".

That which it comprises does.
No planet, no star and no moon in thie universe will prevail. All will eventually be destroyed.

Again: knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate this entity, then all you have is a belief, not knowledge.

Did you have a DNA test run to see if your kids are your own? If not, all you have is belief. Can you prove your mother loved you? If not, all you have is belief. Can you prove to me right now what brand computer you're using? If not, all you have is belief. Anyone can be a skeptic. Christians demonstrate God's love by the way they live. Unfortunately, many make a poor representation.

Apparantly, your God hates rational thinking.

No, God requires people to acknowledge that they have sinned and that they need a Savior for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus Christ is that savior. The offer of salvation is there but you have to accept it. Closing your eyes to the existence of God is not rational thinking. It's more like rebellion. The knowledge of good and evil is intrinsic. It dates back to Adam.

yeah... I was refering to the last words in your statement... about the "no consequences" thingy, in which you imply that we atheists are like a bunch of baby eating monsters.

Baby eating monsters and atheists are both lost in their own sin, so how is one superior to the other. We could get into the baby KILLING monsters who support the abortion industry, but we won't.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The point is that this question is unanswerable. Precisely because this retro-active re-interpreting coupled with the dogmatic position that the bible can't ever be wrong about anything, results in a sitation where it becomes literally impossible to state that the bible is wrong about anything.

Then it goes like this:
"The bible says X"
"Science demonstrates Y"
"Ow but the bible actually means Y, eventhough it says X".

And round and round it goes.



I didn't just assert it. I explained it. Multiple times.

To summarize once more on a single point:
- the flood story predicts a genetic bottleneck in all species
- DNA analysis reveals that no such universal bottleneck exists
- therefor, the story is false.

And that's just one way it can be shown to be false. There still is all the data from geology, climatology, the fossil record, etc... All of which contradicts this flood story and none of which even only remotely confirms it.

The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that Scripture MUST mean X and ONLY X. Can you demonstrate that with any examples?

The point is that you criticised a poster for asserting a foundation. But you also asserted a foundation. So for you to criticise a poster for the the same thing that you are doing is inappropriate.

No, I complained about the nature of the foundation, not its mere presence.

It's not begging the question. It's pointing out the error in your statement.

Which was begging that question that Scripture, in your view, MUST mean a certain thing, which is doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing.

Only if you can show me where the Bible was reinterpreted as a result of modern science. Otherwise it would be impossible.

So, in other words, you cannot provide any examples? You get to make accusations without providing researched evidence? That's not very fair, friend.

 

[Larniavc]

Which was begging that question that Scripture, in your view, MUST mean a certain thing, which is doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing.

Of course it MUST mean a thing. Otherwise it's just a disparate collection of oral records of myths handed down and eventually codified by consensus into a semi coherent narrative.

It's meaning can't change for it to recount a true history.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Of course it MUST mean a thing. Otherwise it's just a disparate collection of oral records of myths handed down and eventually codified by consensus into a semi coherent narrative.

It's meaning can't change for it to recount a true history.

Yes, it does mean something, and it does present a true history. However, to not realize that it is a collection of very, VERY ancient writings (in regards to the Hebrew) and ancient writings (in regards to the Greek), and thus not to recognize that these writers did not account for history and science in the same way we do in modernity is to be very unfair to the biblical witness. Therefore, in many places we are constantly trying to arrive at a better understand both of what the text says and what it does not say. To treat Scripture to be something it is not nor has ever claimed itself to be (e.g., a scientific treatise or a 21st Century historical textbook) is to be hermeneutically unsound and unfair. We should, on both sides of this debate, desire fairness in these matters, no?

 

[Larniavc]

thus not to recognize that these writers did not account for history and science in the same way we do in modernity is to be very unfair to the biblical witness.

No no, please don't misunderstand me. I do appreciate that the writers of the text that were later codified into the bible did not get things the way we would.

They got things wrong.