|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | DOUBLE POST ELIMINATED INTO NOTHINGNESS |
You are funny guy DMR. |
You seen Contact?
_________________
KOBE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | DOUBLE POST ELIMINATED INTO NOTHINGNESS |
You are funny guy DMR. |
You seen Contact? |
I lived it! The beach isn't as nice as it looked in the movie.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: |
Where did God come from? What was God doing before it existed? |
Hmm. Where did God come from? I dunno. I don't think I can understand omnipotence. |
If the universe can't derive its power out of nothingness, how can a God do so? How long was God just hanging out before he said, "Hey, this nothingness I am existing in is boring. Let me (bleep) around with Creation for trillions of years before I make man in my image!"?
Point being, if you believe God is responsible for everything, and nothing can arise from nothingness, Where did God come from? |
I believe our understanding of something from nothing is a bootleg version of me dropping a dead roach in an ant farm.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Do you think people who are theists require a level of explanation to the origins of the universe that athiests don't? |
I don't think anyone requires that, but theists are obviously dead set on that requirement.
| Quote: | | Do theists need to explain the logistics of an omnipotent omnipresent being moreso than an atheist needs to explain the origins of the universe without one? |
When it comes to anything, those that assert the existence of something bear the burden of proving it. And there is no such burden when it comes to proving something doesn't exist, because that is impossible burden to meet on most cases—especially when it comes to concepts we are just beginning to have the ability to contemplate. |
So yes. They do. |
Of course. That's always the standard requirement when it comes to any assertion. It's one thing to personally believe that there is a ghost living in your house. It's another to insist that there are ghosts living in all of our houses whether we see them or not. The former is a belief that is yours to have if you insist. The latter bears the burden of proving the claim. |
How do you square asking a person to explain God. Isn't that like asking an ant living in your ant farm in your kitchen to explain you ... or your kitchen? |
No, because if we could find a way to communicate with ants, they could describe the kitchen or us, because we are tangibly there. It would be more like trying to get an ant to explain the big invisible all knowing queen ant that created us all.
That’s the huge difference here: science isn’t perfect or infallible, but to its credit as a method it requires constant proposing and testing of hypotheses, and retesting as we get new abilities to observe and test. So it is always moving its knowledge base toward a more knowledgeable situation, discarding old theories as new and more complete theories replace them. It has no indisputable ending fact, and a young intern can overthrow the work of an eminent scientist. It starts small and moves forward and outward over time. That’s why our technology and ability dwarfs that of a time only a few generations ago.
Conversely, theism is still trying to reverse engineer a “fact” posited millenia ago when we barely understood how to make fire but not in fact what it was. That there is some deity who made all this. We’ve long since passed the point where this is the most rational explanation, or even the point where this is a helpful one, but tradition and the need to matter beyond what we are (and maybe not actually die) continue he’s to perpetuate it despite the fact that unlike scientific explanations, the theistic one continues to take evidentiary loss after loss. At some point you have to ask why are we continuing to try and produce evidence for a concept so primitive and unnecessary? Because it feels good? |
So if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying humans can understand and explain away omniscience better than an ant can understand and explain away the world experienced by humans.
I have to admit. I'm struggling to understand how you answered my question. So I probably summarized your point wrong.
I'll just circle back to, what caused the single, unimaginably hot and dense point before the big bang (universal singularity)?
Does cause and effect stop right before then. Does Newton's laws start after then? |
I was merely pointing out that you gave an apples and oranges analogy. If they could communicate with us, ants would be much more able to describe a tangible thing in front of them than us describing an invisible conjecture.
The rest was merely a meditation on how theism is essentially reverse engineering an idea that predates almost any knowledge of how anything works, and that it constantly has to adjust as our knowledge points less and less toward god.
And again, you’re hung up on an arbitrary moment in space time. It could be that nothing existed before that (especially when you get your head around the fact that the net energy of the known universe is zero, so effectively matter and anti matter, for example, add up to precisely nothing), or this could be the eleventh trillionth time it’s happened. But the question is, why is a greater complexity like a pre-existing deity (which would need to have an origin, begging the question what happened before that, or else you need an even more wildly improbable and complex “has always been there” theory, and god magic as the only explanation for how that happened) more logical than the Big Bang or imaging without one? We are really debating reason and evidence vs magic. |
You're driving me back to the same question I keep hammering DMR with. How did nothingness become something at its earliest point if there is no God. |
I’m not a cosmologist, so you’d need to read far more knowledgeable people on that (and it’s readily available to you if you really want and can digest the technical detail, which is a bit beyond my math and physics education). But as I keep asking, why is an even more improbable and complex answer the alternative? Especially when we’ve traced everything back to that point pretty logically? At what point do you just need to anthropomorphize it? Have we beat it all the way back to the beginning of time? How about one more step?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Do you think people who are theists require a level of explanation to the origins of the universe that athiests don't? |
I don't think anyone requires that, but theists are obviously dead set on that requirement.
| Quote: | | Do theists need to explain the logistics of an omnipotent omnipresent being moreso than an atheist needs to explain the origins of the universe without one? |
When it comes to anything, those that assert the existence of something bear the burden of proving it. And there is no such burden when it comes to proving something doesn't exist, because that is impossible burden to meet on most cases—especially when it comes to concepts we are just beginning to have the ability to contemplate. |
So yes. They do. |
Of course. That's always the standard requirement when it comes to any assertion. It's one thing to personally believe that there is a ghost living in your house. It's another to insist that there are ghosts living in all of our houses whether we see them or not. The former is a belief that is yours to have if you insist. The latter bears the burden of proving the claim. |
How do you square asking a person to explain God. Isn't that like asking an ant living in your ant farm in your kitchen to explain you ... or your kitchen? |
No, because if we could find a way to communicate with ants, they could describe the kitchen or us, because we are tangibly there. It would be more like trying to get an ant to explain the big invisible all knowing queen ant that created us all.
That’s the huge difference here: science isn’t perfect or infallible, but to its credit as a method it requires constant proposing and testing of hypotheses, and retesting as we get new abilities to observe and test. So it is always moving its knowledge base toward a more knowledgeable situation, discarding old theories as new and more complete theories replace them. It has no indisputable ending fact, and a young intern can overthrow the work of an eminent scientist. It starts small and moves forward and outward over time. That’s why our technology and ability dwarfs that of a time only a few generations ago.
Conversely, theism is still trying to reverse engineer a “fact” posited millenia ago when we barely understood how to make fire but not in fact what it was. That there is some deity who made all this. We’ve long since passed the point where this is the most rational explanation, or even the point where this is a helpful one, but tradition and the need to matter beyond what we are (and maybe not actually die) continue he’s to perpetuate it despite the fact that unlike scientific explanations, the theistic one continues to take evidentiary loss after loss. At some point you have to ask why are we continuing to try and produce evidence for a concept so primitive and unnecessary? Because it feels good? |
So if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying humans can understand and explain away omniscience better than an ant can understand and explain away the world experienced by humans.
I have to admit. I'm struggling to understand how you answered my question. So I probably summarized your point wrong.
I'll just circle back to, what caused the single, unimaginably hot and dense point before the big bang (universal singularity)?
Does cause and effect stop right before then. Does Newton's laws start after then? |
I was merely pointing out that you gave an apples and oranges analogy. If they could communicate with us, ants would be much more able to describe a tangible thing in front of them than us describing an invisible conjecture.
The rest was merely a meditation on how theism is essentially reverse engineering an idea that predates almost any knowledge of how anything works, and that it constantly has to adjust as our knowledge points less and less toward god.
And again, you’re hung up on an arbitrary moment in space time. It could be that nothing existed before that (especially when you get your head around the fact that the net energy of the known universe is zero, so effectively matter and anti matter, for example, add up to precisely nothing), or this could be the eleventh trillionth time it’s happened. But the question is, why is a greater complexity like a pre-existing deity (which would need to have an origin, begging the question what happened before that, or else you need an even more wildly improbable and complex “has always been there” theory, and god magic as the only explanation for how that happened) more logical than the Big Bang or imaging without one? We are really debating reason and evidence vs magic. |
You're driving me back to the same question I keep hammering DMR with. How did nothingness become something at its earliest point if there is no God. |
I’m not a cosmologist, so you’d need to read far more knowledgeable people on that (and it’s readily available to you if you really want and can digest the technical detail, which is a bit beyond my math and physics education). But as I keep asking, why is an even more improbable and complex answer the alternative? Especially when we’ve traced everything back to that point pretty logically? At what point do you just need to anthropomorphize it? Have we beat it all the way back to the beginning of time? How about one more step? |
I think you're saying you don't know. I've read cosmologists and more importantly theoretical physicists too. They don't either. Most they have is impossible to provable theories. not too dissimilar to wormhole theorists.
And it's easy for me to chalk it all up to an omnipotent being as opposed to the alternative. Uncertainty.
I don't want you to think you stumping me or vice versa that we've successfully determined a truth that has been sought after since the beginning of human existence (is there a God).
Unlike most Christians engaging in US politics, This isn't a sport (your team vs mine) to me.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | At what point do you just need to anthropomorphize it? Have we beat it all the way back to the beginning of time? How about one more step? |
This is the essence of the whole discussion. Despite the vast expanse and relative timelessness of the Universe in which humans are not even a tiny blip on the radar, the very existence of the Universe must trace back to a human form ("made in his image") and its alleged "omnipotency". But the concept that this vast Universe we are an infinitesimal part could have its own set of rules we are not yet knowledgeable enough to understand is an allegedly unacceptable conclusion.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | something from nothing. |
I chose the universal singularity but you could easily go before that.
Wouldn't be surprised if a universe existed before ours.
I do wonder what the atheist perspective is to the beginning of everything is though.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Do you think people who are theists require a level of explanation to the origins of the universe that athiests don't? |
I don't think anyone requires that, but theists are obviously dead set on that requirement.
| Quote: | | Do theists need to explain the logistics of an omnipotent omnipresent being moreso than an atheist needs to explain the origins of the universe without one? |
When it comes to anything, those that assert the existence of something bear the burden of proving it. And there is no such burden when it comes to proving something doesn't exist, because that is impossible burden to meet on most cases—especially when it comes to concepts we are just beginning to have the ability to contemplate. |
So yes. They do. |
Of course. That's always the standard requirement when it comes to any assertion. It's one thing to personally believe that there is a ghost living in your house. It's another to insist that there are ghosts living in all of our houses whether we see them or not. The former is a belief that is yours to have if you insist. The latter bears the burden of proving the claim. |
How do you square asking a person to explain God. Isn't that like asking an ant living in your ant farm in your kitchen to explain you ... or your kitchen? |
No, because if we could find a way to communicate with ants, they could describe the kitchen or us, because we are tangibly there. It would be more like trying to get an ant to explain the big invisible all knowing queen ant that created us all.
That’s the huge difference here: science isn’t perfect or infallible, but to its credit as a method it requires constant proposing and testing of hypotheses, and retesting as we get new abilities to observe and test. So it is always moving its knowledge base toward a more knowledgeable situation, discarding old theories as new and more complete theories replace them. It has no indisputable ending fact, and a young intern can overthrow the work of an eminent scientist. It starts small and moves forward and outward over time. That’s why our technology and ability dwarfs that of a time only a few generations ago.
Conversely, theism is still trying to reverse engineer a “fact” posited millenia ago when we barely understood how to make fire but not in fact what it was. That there is some deity who made all this. We’ve long since passed the point where this is the most rational explanation, or even the point where this is a helpful one, but tradition and the need to matter beyond what we are (and maybe not actually die) continue he’s to perpetuate it despite the fact that unlike scientific explanations, the theistic one continues to take evidentiary loss after loss. At some point you have to ask why are we continuing to try and produce evidence for a concept so primitive and unnecessary? Because it feels good? |
So if I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying humans can understand and explain away omniscience better than an ant can understand and explain away the world experienced by humans.
I have to admit. I'm struggling to understand how you answered my question. So I probably summarized your point wrong.
I'll just circle back to, what caused the single, unimaginably hot and dense point before the big bang (universal singularity)?
Does cause and effect stop right before then. Does Newton's laws start after then? |
I was merely pointing out that you gave an apples and oranges analogy. If they could communicate with us, ants would be much more able to describe a tangible thing in front of them than us describing an invisible conjecture.
The rest was merely a meditation on how theism is essentially reverse engineering an idea that predates almost any knowledge of how anything works, and that it constantly has to adjust as our knowledge points less and less toward god.
And again, you’re hung up on an arbitrary moment in space time. It could be that nothing existed before that (especially when you get your head around the fact that the net energy of the known universe is zero, so effectively matter and anti matter, for example, add up to precisely nothing), or this could be the eleventh trillionth time it’s happened. But the question is, why is a greater complexity like a pre-existing deity (which would need to have an origin, begging the question what happened before that, or else you need an even more wildly improbable and complex “has always been there” theory, and god magic as the only explanation for how that happened) more logical than the Big Bang or imaging without one? We are really debating reason and evidence vs magic. |
You're driving me back to the same question I keep hammering DMR with. How did nothingness become something at its earliest point if there is no God. |
I’m not a cosmologist, so you’d need to read far more knowledgeable people on that (and it’s readily available to you if you really want and can digest the technical detail, which is a bit beyond my math and physics education). But as I keep asking, why is an even more improbable and complex answer the alternative? Especially when we’ve traced everything back to that point pretty logically? At what point do you just need to anthropomorphize it? Have we beat it all the way back to the beginning of time? How about one more step? |
I think you're saying you don't know. I've read cosmologists and more importantly theoretical physicists too. They don't either. Most they have is impossible to provable theories. not too dissimilar to wormhole theorists.
And it's easy for me to chalk it all up to an omnipotent being as opposed to the alternative. Uncertainty. |
Sorry, but I have to laugh at this due the comical levels of irony. Countless minds have studied the Universe and thus we have learned it is vastly more deep, complex and constantly evolving than the basic solar system we humans live in. Yet, "it's easy for me to chalk it all up to omnipotent being" whose image you are allegedly made in despite the fact that we as a species don't even amount to an atom within respect to the mass that makes this planet within our own solar system amongst billions in the galaxy we exist in.
| Quote: | | I don't want you to think you stumping me or vice versa that we've successfully determined a truth that has been sought after since the beginning of human existence (is there a God). |
You say that in the same context that you assert the explanation must be a God.
| Quote: | | Unlike most Christians engaging in US politics, This isn't a sport (your team vs mine) to me. |
Unfortunately I think this conversation has proved the opposite. You definitely have a team and you are proudly wearing it's home jersey. Nothing wrong with that. Just own it rather than pretending you are open to discussion.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | I do wonder what the atheist perspective is to the beginning of everything is though. |
Easy. The beginning of everything is just that. It had to start somehow. It's all bigger than us humans. So it's highly improbable it's due to something we constructed as humans to help us understand our existence in the vast expanse of the Universe that renders us infinitesimal.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | something from nothing. |
I chose the universal singularity but you could easily go before that.
Wouldn't be surprised if a universe existed before ours.
I do wonder what the atheist perspective is to the beginning of everything is though. |
That’s the thing, we aren’t on some continuum of speculation. There isn’t an “atheist” position on the origin of everything that counters the the theistic one. Doesn’t need to be. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god. I believe what I can prove or extrapolate (or to be fair, be taught by those who do)
from good evidence. And I don’t know is a reasonable answer to a question. I’m just not going to make something up. I need evidence. “We don’t know what predated the Big Bang” does not compute to “there must be a magic being” any more than “we don’t know what is making this child sick” did back in the day. Despite the fact that in both cases that was presented as the answer by many.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
| Quote: | | Unlike most Christians engaging in US politics, This isn't a sport (your team vs mine) to me. |
Unfortunately I think this conversation has proved the opposite. You definitely have a team and you are proudly wearing it's home jersey. Nothing wrong with that. Just own it rather than pretending you are open to discussion. |
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/018/489/nick-young-confused-face-300x256-nqlyaa.jpg
I have no delusions of grandeur. That this random Lakers off topic thread will prove or disprove God. And thus tried to approach this convo as a means of learning. I'm sorry you feel that way.
Knowing you feel that way is disheartening. Not gonna lie.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick. |
I don't think there are any facts in existence that disprove God created something from nothing.
Or prove something else, random chance, created something from nothing (that isn't God).
I do think if you disregard origin from the discussion. There is nothing to discuss. We agree.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Final question for kikanga. So let's just say you are correct. God is the omnipotent creator of all that is out there.
So which God is it? Zeus? Poseidon? Feyja? Allah? Yahweh? Odin? Countless others including ones humankind came up with prior to documented history?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | Final question for kikanga. So let's just say you are correct. God is the omnipotent creator of all that is out there.
So which God is it? Zeus? Poseidon? Feyja? Allah? Yahweh? Odin? Countless others including ones humankind came up with prior to documented history? |
I don't want you to think I'm against you. Cause I'm not.
I think Zeus is how your ant colony in your bedroom would describe you. Poseidon isn't even the most powerful god in Greek mythology so that is irrelevant.
Allah is a prophet so that doesn't apply either.
I guess the answer to your question is that humans did their best to interpret intelligent design at different points in time.
And although I'll argue for the existence of God. You won't catch me arguing for man made religion.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick. |
I don't think there are any facts in existence that disprove God created something from nothing.
Or prove something else, random chance, created something from nothing (that isn't God).
I do think if you disregard origin from the discussion. There is nothing to discuss. We agree. |
This feels a bit like you’re misrepresenting what I said to try and prosecute a straw man. We agree we don’t know what predates the Big Bang. My point is we used to have this discussion about what is lightning, why is there a flood, what made that child sick, etc. and each time the answer was originally unknowable and each time the theistic argument was it was god/gods/demons/insert supernatural phenomena of your choice here. Each time with no compelling evidence except belief. And each time once people figured out how to find out what it was it was something else. And each time it did not change the rote answer to the next unknowable. Because the rote answer didn’t come from any compelling evidence, it came from a preconceived idea that came from a primitive mindset of ignorance. Or more to the point the exploitation of ignorance and the desire to know for power.
But there are facts in evidence that explain how this universe came about, what it is doing, and what it will do. Much like we know how our sun works and that it will one day destroy our solar system. We know there is a lot of compounding random events that happen within a stable set of rules about how those if/then occurrences work. We know that you are a product of generations of mutations, that all life is, and that some mutations survive and others don’t. We know that nature is cruel and impersonal. That everything that is created is destroyed. I get that it is comforting to believe whatever current permutation of god is real and cares about me one may choose of many, but the evidence doesn’t point there, any more than it points to an intelligent creator along any step of the way from the bang until now. Or any of those other previous unknowables that theists insisted must be the work of the divine before we knew they weren’t.
The unknowns beyond our current reach aren’t more likely to be explained by a fantasy of primitive origin than the others were. So we are arguing between we don’t know and we don’t know but here’s a baseless guess which has as good a chance being right as it doesn’t. Except it doesn’t. But none of that is going to make a dent, because another fact in evidence is how human psychology works. And beliefs held without or even in spite of evidence are both common and remarkably resistant to evidence.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick. |
I don't think there are any facts in existence that disprove God created something from nothing.
Or prove something else, random chance, created something from nothing (that isn't God).
I do think if you disregard origin from the discussion. There is nothing to discuss. We agree. |
This feels a bit like you’re misrepresenting what I said to try and prosecute a straw man. We agree we don’t know what predates the Big Bang. My point is we used to have this discussion about what is lightning, why is there a flood, what made that child sick, etc. and each time the answer was originally unknowable and each time the theistic argument was it was god/gods/demons/insert supernatural phenomena of your choice here. Each time with no compelling evidence except belief. And each time once people figured out how to find out what it was it was something else. And each time it did not change the rote answer to the next unknowable. Because the rote answer didn’t come from any compelling evidence, it came from a preconceived idea that came from a primitive mindset of ignorance. Or more to the point the exploitation of ignorance and the desire to know for power.
But there are facts in evidence that explain how this universe came about, what it is doing, and what it will do. Much like we know how our sun works and that it will one day destroy our solar system. We know there is a lot of compounding random events that happen within a stable set of rules about how those if/then occurrences work. We know that you are a product of generations of mutations, that all life is, and that some mutations survive and others don’t. We know that nature is cruel and impersonal. That everything that is created is destroyed. I get that it is comforting to believe whatever current permutation of god is real and cares about me one may choose of many, but the evidence doesn’t point there, any more than it points to an intelligent creator along any step of the way from the bang until now. Or any of those other previous unknowables that theists insisted must be the work of the divine before we knew they weren’t.
The unknowns beyond our current reach aren’t more likely to be explained by a fantasy of primitive origin than the others were. So we are arguing between we don’t know and we don’t know but here’s a baseless guess which has as good a chance being right as it doesn’t. Except it doesn’t. But none of that is going to make a dent, because another fact in evidence is how human psychology works. And beliefs held without or even in spite of evidence are both common and remarkably resistant to evidence. |
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
And I can't blame you for your feelings towards theists. I guess your words are condescending and have some potent animosity behind them. But it pales in comparison to the damage "believers" have done to humanity through written history.
And besides if there is a God, they'd forgive you for it  .
And if my something from nothing question is answered scientifically one day I"ll be the first to reanimate you out of cryofreeze. And tell you, "you were right".
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick. |
I don't think there are any facts in existence that disprove God created something from nothing.
Or prove something else, random chance, created something from nothing (that isn't God).
I do think if you disregard origin from the discussion. There is nothing to discuss. We agree. |
This feels a bit like you’re misrepresenting what I said to try and prosecute a straw man. We agree we don’t know what predates the Big Bang. My point is we used to have this discussion about what is lightning, why is there a flood, what made that child sick, etc. and each time the answer was originally unknowable and each time the theistic argument was it was god/gods/demons/insert supernatural phenomena of your choice here. Each time with no compelling evidence except belief. And each time once people figured out how to find out what it was it was something else. And each time it did not change the rote answer to the next unknowable. Because the rote answer didn’t come from any compelling evidence, it came from a preconceived idea that came from a primitive mindset of ignorance. Or more to the point the exploitation of ignorance and the desire to know for power.
But there are facts in evidence that explain how this universe came about, what it is doing, and what it will do. Much like we know how our sun works and that it will one day destroy our solar system. We know there is a lot of compounding random events that happen within a stable set of rules about how those if/then occurrences work. We know that you are a product of generations of mutations, that all life is, and that some mutations survive and others don’t. We know that nature is cruel and impersonal. That everything that is created is destroyed. I get that it is comforting to believe whatever current permutation of god is real and cares about me one may choose of many, but the evidence doesn’t point there, any more than it points to an intelligent creator along any step of the way from the bang until now. Or any of those other previous unknowables that theists insisted must be the work of the divine before we knew they weren’t.
The unknowns beyond our current reach aren’t more likely to be explained by a fantasy of primitive origin than the others were. So we are arguing between we don’t know and we don’t know but here’s a baseless guess which has as good a chance being right as it doesn’t. Except it doesn’t. But none of that is going to make a dent, because another fact in evidence is how human psychology works. And beliefs held without or even in spite of evidence are both common and remarkably resistant to evidence. |
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
And I can't blame you for your feelings towards theists. I guess your words are condescending and have some potent animosity behind them. But it pales in comparison to the damage "believers" have done to humanity through written history.
And besides if there is a God, they'd forgive you for it .
And if my something from nothing question is answered scientifically one day I"ll be the first to reanimate you out of cryofreeze. And tell you, "you were right". |
Lol.
I’m fine if we never get the answer to what pre-dated the Big Bang, because it is a lot less relevant than understanding what happens from there and how, which in the grand scheme probably isn’t all that important either since it all leads to our rapidly expanding universe eventually imploding. I’m just smart enough to realize there are a lot more possibilities than I can think up for pre Big Bang mechanics. It would be like trying to guess the next lottery number. I can just pull out a number I like, but I’m not as likely to be right as a person who says it’s very improbable that this is the number. And that’s kind of like the god question. I know that there’s a possibility that god exists, but while it is a yes and no question it isnt a fifty fifty proposition. It isn’t just as likely that god exists and that god doesn’t. So I go with the more likely until I get compelling evidence that changes the calculation. And every bit of evidence I see either does not move the needle toward higher likelihood of god, or actually the other way. The condescension is merely toward the argument, which isn’t novel. You I respect and like.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I think a big part of the problem in these discussions is the ability of one point of view to conjure facts not in evidence to explain the unknowable and put the onus on others to dispute those facts with evidence, and despite the fact that multitudes of those unknowns are now knowns and as it turns out aren’t in fact caused by invisible divinity, no credit is ever given to the people who discovered the actual facts nor any skepticism imputed from being incorrect yet again. Rather, just find a new goalpost of unknowable and take the same position. Lending truth to the old adage that you cannot use logic and evidence to successfully dispute an argument made without the benefit of either. So you’ll get to the same impasse over what happened before the Big Bang as we used to over what caused people to get sick. |
I don't think there are any facts in existence that disprove God created something from nothing.
Or prove something else, random chance, created something from nothing (that isn't God).
I do think if you disregard origin from the discussion. There is nothing to discuss. We agree. |
This feels a bit like you’re misrepresenting what I said to try and prosecute a straw man. We agree we don’t know what predates the Big Bang. My point is we used to have this discussion about what is lightning, why is there a flood, what made that child sick, etc. and each time the answer was originally unknowable and each time the theistic argument was it was god/gods/demons/insert supernatural phenomena of your choice here. Each time with no compelling evidence except belief. And each time once people figured out how to find out what it was it was something else. And each time it did not change the rote answer to the next unknowable. Because the rote answer didn’t come from any compelling evidence, it came from a preconceived idea that came from a primitive mindset of ignorance. Or more to the point the exploitation of ignorance and the desire to know for power.
But there are facts in evidence that explain how this universe came about, what it is doing, and what it will do. Much like we know how our sun works and that it will one day destroy our solar system. We know there is a lot of compounding random events that happen within a stable set of rules about how those if/then occurrences work. We know that you are a product of generations of mutations, that all life is, and that some mutations survive and others don’t. We know that nature is cruel and impersonal. That everything that is created is destroyed. I get that it is comforting to believe whatever current permutation of god is real and cares about me one may choose of many, but the evidence doesn’t point there, any more than it points to an intelligent creator along any step of the way from the bang until now. Or any of those other previous unknowables that theists insisted must be the work of the divine before we knew they weren’t.
The unknowns beyond our current reach aren’t more likely to be explained by a fantasy of primitive origin than the others were. So we are arguing between we don’t know and we don’t know but here’s a baseless guess which has as good a chance being right as it doesn’t. Except it doesn’t. But none of that is going to make a dent, because another fact in evidence is how human psychology works. And beliefs held without or even in spite of evidence are both common and remarkably resistant to evidence. |
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
And I can't blame you for your feelings towards theists. I guess your words are condescending and have some potent animosity behind them. But it pales in comparison to the damage "believers" have done to humanity through written history.
And besides if there is a God, they'd forgive you for it .
And if my something from nothing question is answered scientifically one day I"ll be the first to reanimate you out of cryofreeze. And tell you, "you were right". |
Lol.
I’m fine if we never get the answer to what pre-dated the Big Bang, because it is a lot less relevant than understanding what happens from there and how, which in the grand scheme probably isn’t all that important either since it all leads to our rapidly expanding universe eventually imploding. I’m just smart enough to realize there are a lot more possibilities than I can think up for pre Big Bang mechanics. It would be like trying to guess the next lottery number. I can just pull out a number I like, but I’m not as likely to be right as a person who says it’s very improbable that this is the number. And that’s kind of like the god question. I know that there’s a possibility that god exists, but while it is a yes and no question it isnt a fifty fifty proposition. It isn’t just as likely that god exists and that god doesn’t. So I go with the more likely until I get compelling evidence that changes the calculation. And every bit of evidence I see either does not move the needle toward higher likelihood of god, or actually the other way. The condescension is merely toward the argument, which isn’t novel. You I respect and like. |
Well said.
I disagree with the bolded. Answering the question of, "how did something form from nothing" is personally a big factor in why I believe in intelligent design.
But everything else, I'm 100% on board for.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a quick note that no animals were harmed in this discussion. The ants are fine and now enjoying the living room. And ironically, I can’t get them to believe in the existence of kikanga.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Just a quick note that no animals were harmed in this discussion. The ants are fine and now enjoying the living room. And ironically, I can’t get them to believe in the existence of kikanga. |
Also, the radical lelt wing socialist mods somehow allowed me to debate with 2 regulars in the political thread. And my 1st amendment right hasn't been taken away via cancel culture or censorship (although moderation of a forum can't do that anyways).
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | As I read what LC said (though not to speak for him ), the point is that there's no reason to believe that anything needed to exist before the Big Bang. And to me, while the concept that there was literally nothing seems to run contrary to the way we think of the physical world and universe, it is not as inconceivable that was the case as it seems. |
Of course -- our brains evolved within the physical world and universe, and it's hard to wrap them around any other state of existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | So nothing? |
What do you mean by "nothing?"
(And that's not evasive -- it's actually a nuanced topic that's central to the discussion.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | How do you square asking a person to explain God. Isn't that like asking an ant living in your ant farm in your kitchen to explain you ... or your kitchen? |
No, that's one of those analogies that turn out to be really bad once you dive into it a little. I'll dig deeper into it later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | When did he do that?
I feel like I would've remembered when LC explained something coming from nothingness. |
I touched on it. Happens all the time. For one example, see Kasimir Effect. Particles literally pop out of nothingness.
And I recommended an entire book that covers the universe topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
