The universe with no need of God

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually it answers everything.

No, it answers nothing.

But it does take someone with an open heart.

Funny how it doesn't require an "open heart" to recognise that gravity answers the question why my keys fall down and not up, when I drop them.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalms 19:1 ESV
http://bible.com/59/psa.19.1.ESV

Piling on more of such contentless assertions, will not add to their credibility or plausibility. Nore does adding such assertions increase the explanatory power either (which isn't even there to begin with).

 

[ChetSinger]

In the beginning, the TagliatelliMonster layed a cosmic egg. TagliatelliMonster's handbook to the universe 1:1.

That statement has the exact same explanatory power as yours.

Heh, cute. But it doesn't have the same explanatory power to me because I'm certain you're a just guy posting on this forum, like me.

 

[rjs330]

No, it answers nothing.



Funny how it doesn't require an "open heart" to recognise that gravity answers the question why my keys fall down and not up, when I drop them.



Piling on more of such contentless assertions, will not add to their credibility or plausibility. Nore does adding such assertions increase the explanatory power either (which isn't even there to begin with).

It takes an open heart that God created the earth and that it was he who invented gravity by the way he created the earth. Our discoveries of those things are discoveries of the wonderous works of God. Takes an open heart to see that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Heh, cute. But it doesn't have the same explanatory power to me because I'm certain you're a just guy posting on this forum, like me.

If that is the "reason" that it doesn't have the same explanatory power to you, you should look up what explanatory power is actually all about.

And I never claimed to be the great Tagliatelli Monster. I just choose it as my nickname.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It takes an open heart that God created the earth and that it was he who invented gravity by the way he created the earth.

But it doesn't take an "open heart" to accept that 2 hydrogen atoms + an oxygen atom will create a water molecule.

Why is that? What is the difference between these two claims?

 

[ChetSinger]

If that is the "reason" that it doesn't have the same explanatory power to you, you should look up what explanatory power is actually all about.

And I never claimed to be the great Tagliatelli Monster. I just choose it as my nickname.

What Genesis 1:1 explains to me is that what we see, both cosmologically and biologically, is the result of purpose and not accident.

 

[rjs330]

But it doesn't take an "open heart" to accept that 2 hydrogen atoms + an oxygen atom will create a water molecule.

Why is that? What is the difference between these two claims?

No but it takes an open heart to see God created those molecules and put them together to create water of which without life on this planet could not exist. The discoveries of all these things point to the majesty and glory and power of God. You need an open heart to see it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What Genesis 1:1 explains to me is that what we see, both cosmologically and biologically, is the result of purpose and not accident.

"Explain". You're using that word wrong.

Rather, what Genesis 1:1 does is make bare assertions. And what you are doing is just believing them.

But "explaining"? No... there is no explanation there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No but it takes an open heart to see God created those molecules and put them together to create water of which without life on this planet could not exist. The discoveries of all these things point to the majesty and glory and power of God. You need an open heart to see it.

Instead of simply repeating the claims, please just answer my questions about your claims.

 

[dcalling]

So? I don't care what you believe "by faith".
Since it makes no difference at all... That's kind of the thing with "faith". The undetectable and the non-existant look very much alike, you know.

why not? I believe God caused the start of the world, unless you have concrete evidence otherwise, you can never exclude that possibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

why not?

I just explained why not, in the very post you are replying to...

I believe God caused the start of the world, unless you have concrete evidence otherwise, you can never exclude that possibility.

There's a gazillion billion faith based unfalsifiable ideas that can't be exluded.
That's kind of the thing with faith based unfalsifiable ideas.
Which is also exactly why such ideas are utterly irrelevant. And irrational.

 

[rjs330]

Instead of simply repeating the claims, please just answer my questions about your claims.

You are only looking at a physical observation. Which means nothing other than what it means. Two molecules make up,water. So? The larger questions are how did this happen and why? We breath oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. It's great that we have knowledge of that. It shows how our world works. But it doesn't answer why it works that way or how it came to happen that way. Genesis explains that God created it that way that's how and why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Genesis explains that God created it that way that's how and why.

Anyone can make up stories. Science, at least, attempts to give answers backed up by observations.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dcalling]

I just explained why not, in the very post you are replying to...
There's a gazillion billion faith based unfalsifiable ideas that can't be exluded.
That's kind of the thing with faith based unfalsifiable ideas.
Which is also exactly why such ideas are utterly irrelevant. And irrational.

You mean rational as theory of multi-verse?

The initial reason I believed there must be something supernatural is during my ears of doing software and games, and I find it is impossible to have real intelligence. All AIs are fake and limited, they are able to do computations fast and pretend to have some intelligence, but they can't, and they can only replace humans in works that are repetitive in nature. If we, intelligence humans can't create intelligence, nature can't either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are only looking at a physical observation.

Because I have no other choice. One can not observe the non-physical.

Which means nothing other than what it means. Two molecules make up,water. So? The larger questions are how did this happen and why?

A chemist and / or physicist can tell you how.
"why"? What do you mean "why"?

We breath oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. It's great that we have knowledge of that. It shows how our world works. But it doesn't answer why it works that way or how it came to happen that way.

Actually, biology can explain to you how it came to be that way.
As for "why"? Again, what do you mean "why"?

Genesis explains that God created it that way that's how and why.

Genesis CLAIMS that.
Bare assertions aren't explanations.
Especially not if they aren't even falsifiable...

 

[rjs330]

Because I have no other choice. One can not observe the non-physical.



A chemist and / or physicist can tell you how.
"why"? What do you mean "why"?



Actually, biology can explain to you how it came to be that way.
As for "why"? Again, what do you mean "why"?



Genesis CLAIMS that.
Bare assertions aren't explanations.
Especially not if they aren't even falsifiable...

Falsifiability is only important if you want it to,be. It is irrelevant as to the existence of God and his creation. Why do two molecules make water? Why is there water in the first place. Where did those molecules come from? How did they come into being? Those are far broader questions that should lead us to God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Falsifiability is only important if you want it to,be.

It is important, if you care about being justified and rational in your beliefs.
Because unfalsifiable models are infinite in number, and indistinguishable from pure fantasy.

It is irrelevant as to the existence of God and his creation.

If you don't care about rational justification for believing it.

Why do two molecules make water? Why is there water in the first place. Where did those molecules come from? How did they come into being? Those are far broader questions that should lead us to God.

Physicists and chemists work towards answering such questions.
And they follow the evidence, not a bronze age book.

 

[anonymous person]

It is important, if you care about being justified and rational in your beliefs.
Because unfalsifiable models are infinite in number, and indistinguishable from pure fantasy.




If you don't care about rational justification for believing it.



Physicists and chemists work towards answering such questions.
And they follow the evidence, not a bronze age book.

Why does a proposition need to be falsifiable in order for it to be rational to accept as true?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why does a proposition need to be falsifiable in order for it to be rational to accept as true?

The answer is right there in the very post you are quoting.....

Because unfalsifiable ideas are infinite in number and indistinguishable from pure fantasy.

 

[miknik5]

No man can go back to the very beginning. He wasn't there All a man has to go on to draw his conclusions is the physical evidence before him. And even with these things he can only go back so far.