Author Topic: A logical theist [#226]  (Read 439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DL

A logical theist [#226]
« on: August 14, 2008, 06:12:53 PM »
 
Hello GII Video, I wanted to share with you a conversation that I had with a fellow youtuber that was sparked by your Optical illusion video. I wanted to share this with you because you seem to want to contend that any God is an illusion, and any logical person must agree. I figured some of the points I made in this conversation might interest you, and since you seem to be a bit smarter than the person I am corresponding to, you might have some real insights and counterpoints to what I am saying. Just a thought. I do respect what you are doing, and know that you are trying to get people to challenge thier rudementary and blind faith, however I think the claim that an individual who believes in God as delusional is a broad sweeping statment that is fundamentally flawed, and just as closed minded as a Christian telling you that you are going to hell for not believing what they do. Hit me back if you like.

So once again, I contest that you bring an educated argument to the table.

"You can't argue with the fact you can't get something from nothing".

That's exactly what the big bang suggests. You seem to be on the side of athiesm, which would hold our scientific observations to be the only truth and the only way to explain the Universe, yet every single scientist, cosmologist, and evolutionist agree that the big bang is almost certain to have happened. That is the epitimy of something coming from nothing. There was nothing, just infinite empty space, and suddenly pure energy (light, and super heated subatomic particles, which appear to be light slowed to a speed where it's particles developed a gravitational attraction to other particles, thus allowing hydrogen to form, resulting in fusion, and stars and galaxies bursting into existance. We can't scientifically explain why it happened, we don't know what the universe was like before it happened, but we know it happened. There is overwelming proof that the big bang did occur, and there was a beginning to the Universe. So what caused it? And after it happened, why did all the physical laws that sprung forth just after the big bang work out so perfectly and so fined tuned that it allowed our current reality to form. (keep in mind the inflationary period just after the big bang defies all of our current physics and mathamatics, it's a miracle of sorts, yet it is agreed by all major scientist that it must have happened. Some how our universe expanded faster than the speed of light just enough to keep it from collapsing back upon itself. Something science, once again, cannot explain.) You are contradicting yourself. If you dont' believe that something can't come from nothing, then you are denying a very fundamental hypothesis that scientist today hold to be true.
Secondly, time is not a man made concept. The measurement of time, as second, minute, hour, day, year, and so on are a man made measurment of our Earth rotating around the Sun. However time is very real, and can be experienced by man liniarly. As Eistien suggested, it is the fourth spacial dimension, and is directly effected by velocity and mass. The faster you go, the slower time becomes, and as you approach the speed of light, time its self stands still. It can be charted mathmatically, tested, and observed. So to say it is an illusion is a rudamentary, and wrong assumption. Now with saying that, an infinite being is very likely, and very possible. Just due to the fact that the Universe turned out just right to be able to harbor life suggest some sort of intelligent mind setting our current phyicals laws just so life can be possible. Scientist can only explain time after the big bang, but that does not mean time didn't exist before hand, and if a being can live in the forth dimension, and directly effect the three dimensional world that we know, it is very possible that this being is made up of pure energy, and can control this energy as easily as you controlling your hand, and all the material you say sprung forth from it's finger tips, is in actuality, this being sacraficing it's energy, what might be considered part of itself, inorder for creation to be possible. These are all just what if's and suggestions, but to assume that an inifinite being is impossible means you must ignore all of our current scientific observations. Time is infinite, mathamatics can define infinity, therfore a being that lives in the dimension of time is infinite to our understanding. These are not trivial points trying to justify a God I want to exist. I was an athiest for years because of a religion that was forced upon me. However the more I learned about the physical laws of the universe, the more I began to understand about the universe around me, the more it appeared that something has had a hand in allowing this Universe to exist. Now if you want to get into the nature of good and evil, that's a whole other topic. Wether or not this being is all loving, all forgiving, and all powerful is totally another story, and I have many thoughts on that as well. I would agree that something in this Universe is completely perverse, sadistic, and loves death and destruction, however with all of the dualities in nature and life that counteract and balance eachother, I cannot say what we know as "God" to be the root of it, or some other force.

P.S. I obviously am smart enough to catch metephores, let alone blunt and elementary ones. And being a skeptic is about keeping your mind open, and examining the evidence that science provides. Maybe you should learn about what your assertaining before you start weilding it as your viewpoint. Obviously you can question other people's beliefs, maybe try examining your own.

Offline CosmicScherzo

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • What would Jesus brew?
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2008, 06:17:18 PM »
"You can't argue with the fact you can't get something from nothing".

Why not?  That's where God came from, right?

Nobody says that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
"What claim has your piety on my deference?"

Offline switch

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2008, 07:04:51 PM »
"Something from Nothing" is not a necessary atheistic belief. Some think that something always existed.

However, I do think that "something" sprang from "nothing", and I have arguments for that scenario:

http://www.godriddance.com

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2008, 07:11:44 PM »
P.S. I obviously am smart enough to catch metephores, let alone blunt and elementary ones. And being a skeptic is about keeping your mind open, and examining the evidence that science provides. Maybe you should learn about what your assertaining before you start weilding it as your viewpoint. Obviously you can question other people's beliefs, maybe try examining your own.


Perhaps you are smart enough to catch metaphors , but when you say "blunt and elementary ones", what is "ones". And did you mean ascertain?

Overall, i found this post lacking intellect.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 07:13:43 PM by Vynn »

Offline fourthdimension

Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2008, 09:05:59 PM »
Any cosmologist will agree that we will never be able to explain what existed before the big bang because it is not an observable or even testable scenario.  Science can only explain what it can observe, and never will be able to prove or disprove any sort of God that exists out side of our three dimensional, observeable Universe.  So in reality this argument is just a big circle jerk that no one can ever definitively answer.  All I am suggesting is that hypothetically, if a being could exist in a four dimensional realm, it would be able to control anything in three dimensional space, and a three dimensional viewer would have no way of observing it, or explaining it.  Our mathematics and physics support a four dimensional realm and beyond. We just have no way of proving it, just as a two dimensional object that moves side to side, and forward and back would have no concept of up or down.  Furthermore to say that science will eventually solve the problem of the big bang, and all the preceded it is just as big of an assumption as a creative entity being responsible for the sudden flash of existence that occurred.  In my own view I see it more logical to discern that a creative entity set forth the foundations for life than coincidence being the culprit.  It seems far more illogical that all this is a natural random chance, than a being outside of a dimension we understand having a hand in the appearance, order, and complexity of our Universe. 

Offline CosmicScherzo

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • What would Jesus brew?
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2008, 10:38:30 PM »
It seems far more illogical that all this is a natural random chance, than a being outside of a dimension we understand having a hand in the appearance, order, and complexity of our Universe. 

It's anything but random.  The universe behaves according to natural laws.

Why is the idea of an eternal, causeless universe so obviously mistaken, yet you have no quarrel with the idea of an eternal, causeless god?  If God made everything, wouldn't he necessarily need to be even more complex then his creation and less readily explained away by "just because"?  That's like saying that infinity is too big a number, but infinity + (infinity + 1) fits just right.

The argument from incredulity holds up ignorance as a substitute for observation.  Just because you don't understand where something came from, that doesn't mean it appeared by magic.
"What claim has your piety on my deference?"

Offline Vynn

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • 1st an infidel, then a heretic, now an atheist!
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2008, 06:46:19 AM »
Any cosmologist will agree that we will never be able to explain what existed before the big bang because it is not an observable or even testable scenario.  Science can only explain what it can observe, and never will be able to prove or disprove any sort of God that exists out side of our three dimensional, observeable Universe.  So in reality this argument is just a big circle jerk that no one can ever definitively answer.  All I am suggesting is that hypothetically, if a being could exist in a four dimensional realm, it would be able to control anything in three dimensional space, and a three dimensional viewer would have no way of observing it, or explaining it.  Our mathematics and physics support a four dimensional realm and beyond. We just have no way of proving it, just as a two dimensional object that moves side to side, and forward and back would have no concept of up or down.  Furthermore to say that science will eventually solve the problem of the big bang, and all the preceded it is just as big of an assumption as a creative entity being responsible for the sudden flash of existence that occurred.  In my own view I see it more logical to discern that a creative entity set forth the foundations for life than coincidence being the culprit.  It seems far more illogical that all this is a natural random chance, than a being outside of a dimension we understand having a hand in the appearance, order, and complexity of our Universe. 


Inane question begging.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: A logical theist [#226]
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2008, 07:01:02 AM »
So once again, I contest that you bring an educated argument to the table.

"You can't argue with the fact you can't get something from nothing".

That's exactly what the big bang suggests.

False.   Read your first sentence: "bring an educated argument to the table." and try again.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me