Wow. Just wow.

Definitely parody. Christians have been threatening to shut this guy down for years. Check this page:

http://www.truechristian.com/shutusup.html

I was pretty fucking scared until I saw the second comment

I don’t remember the exact quote but it went something like”: “You can tell that fundamentalism is inherently ridiculous when you realize how hard it is to distinguish between serious fundamentalism and parody”

I think the entire website might be a dig at Christianity. I mean read this page for instance…

http://www.truechristian.com/earthflat.html

Whoever this guy is he is pretty damn funny. Thanks for the tip.

Hard to tell the difference?

OK, remember that I am a theist, a follower of Christ. But I will now give up to you a creature that you folks often confuse with all Christians. At first I thought it was satire as well. Sadly it is not. How did I find him? He visited my site and challenged me to something akin to a redneck duel (I think).

http://www.officialstreetpreachers.com/2007%20Modifications/menu.htm

http://www.soapasn.com/

You guys have more in common with Larry the Cable guy and Oprah Winfrey than with Biblical Christianity…try reading some of Jonathan Edwards sermons for a change (greatest American preacher…ever) Start with “The Wrath of God Almighty” by Jonathan E.

Oops! Sorry, I must’ve left the door open.

…Start with “The Wrath of God Almighty” by Jonathan E.

“The Wrath of God Almighty”?? There is no god, baby-brains.
Why are you so frightened of homosexuality anyhow? In my country, you and your vile sect would be prosecuted for hate-crimes. Of course in my country, your vile sect wouldn’t exist, and you would be out of the closet.

I have to comment on the part about Onan spilling his seed.

Jewish law stated that, if a man was married and died before he bore a son, his brother would sleep with his widow and the first son produced would be the dead brothers son.

Now let’s look at Onan’s problem in context:

Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

God made the laws for Israel. God was not killing Onan for spilling his seed on the ground. God killed Onan for disobeying the law. And Onan, being a Jew, would have been thoroughly familiar with the law and punishment for those who broke it.

Now let’s look at Onan’s problem in context:

In context? You mean let’s invent a planet where some invisible character “god” makes laws and kills people and writes books and the undead whisper in old men’s ears and superman walks across the lake. And then let’s bore everyone into a coma by going on and on and on about this rubbish as if it meant anything at all other than thousands of years of insulting patriarchal life-hating bullshit.
It’s so great that christianity is dying out so quickly, but why did we have to wait so long?

The religous nut cases have been going on like this aparently for centuries. Keep the flock in awe of the priest and collect those tithes!!!!!

Everybody must go to the site that “Jad” suggested
Which is www.truechristian.com
This site will clairfy that if anyone was a bit confused on how ignorant fundamentalists really are, this site will more than demonstrate their profound ignorance.
Go on it and get a few laughs, they of course will want you to burn in hell, vindictive beings that they are.
I must however warn you that I found this website very frightning, I found it very scary that people could be so stupid, but as far as stupidity goes, they do have a donation option on their menu I guess the religios crazies never leave out the money issue do they, and that is just about the only thing that they are consistant on, is anybody surprized?

Ah it’s not a Christian website (truechristian.com) . It is just a website taking the mickey out of fundamentalist Christianity.

where is this so called evidence quoted. I see no citation from studies. Any real journalist backs up their claims. This is simple hatemongering.

I’d find this parody funny if it didn’t seem so real. The outrage around the mutilation operation was frighteningly real.

This whole web page is a joke, just read this KIDS PAGE on GIRLS:

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzgurlz.html

It’s INSANE. It’s even in valley speak.

Thank You: Jad, Peter Kahn and Dave ID.

With so many of these religious nut sites around it makes you wonder.
Maybe if the website was www.truechristian.nut
I would have caught on a bit quicker.
Thanks.

To Dave ID: yes it was insane but hilarious.

The worst or best - depending on how you look at it - is the latest on, http://www.marryourdaughter.com/ which seems to be down now. This web site was Christian parents selling off their daughters for tens of thousands of dollars. The site was incredibly well done until you tried to purchase a girl. They were selling them according to some retarded Christian Dowry and had biblical reasoning behind.

I have just seen http://www.truechristian.com i almost had started punching the walls. How can that be possible, now even in my weirdest dreams i thought someone like this could exist. People like this make me feel really angry. A glass of water would be a better discussion partner than him.

As we have seen, christian fundamentalism is indistinguishable from satire.
Has anyone tried to set up a satirical atheist site? It’s hard to imagine, isn’t it?
I think that the reason for this is that religion is essentially ridiculous, and needs little exaggeration to make that ridiculousness obvious, whereas atheism exaggerated is just atheism.
Is there any humour in not believing nonsense?

I don´t see how mocking someone or making fun of someone for their belief system is going to make that person reconsider or change their world view. I think if you are of an opposite or different world view the best way to share with someone your own belief system would be through kindness and respect.

A world view that is ridiculous to you is only ridiculous to you because of your ridiculous presupposition of it.

In context? You mean let’s invent a planet where some invisible character “god” makes laws and kills people and writes books and the undead whisper in old men’s ears and superman walks across the lake. And then let’s bore everyone into a coma by going on and on and on about this rubbish as if it meant anything at all other than thousands of years of insulting patriarchal life-hating bullshit.
It’s so great that christianity is dying out so quickly, but why did we have to wait so long?

Actually, I was just showing that the biblical passage that was taken to prove God hates people who waste their seed doesn’t actually say that. Your rant however is completely pointless.

I can see though that you are quite an intelligent person. You certainly don’t let your emotions get in the way of your thought process at all. And you seem to thoroughly examine belief systems before you decide to hate them and spew bigotry at those who espouse them. If only the world were full of people like you, then we wouldn’t be bogged down by the hateful Christians who help the poor and needy.

I’m pretty sure you just need something to hate, and since the whole world is hating Christianity right now this gives you a way to express that hate and get clapped on the back rather than charged with hate speech. You’re a hypocrite. you do the very things you think you hate Christians for. Seems to be the atheist way though.

But that’s fine because neither I nor any other Christian needs your approval. You can just put yourself up on the highest horse you can find. It’ll just hurt more when you fall off.

Daryle and Jad,

I realize that people here have said harsh things in harsh ways about Christian beliefs, even if they don’t exactly express what you believe.

I’m going to tell you a bit about myself before I go on. First off, I’m an atheist who blogs for a Christian ministry. Get your brain around that one for a second, and maybe visit my blog.

Jad said this, and I wholly agree:

I think if you are of an opposite or different world view the best way to share with someone your own belief system would be through kindness and respect.”

Daryle, taking the opposite approach, responds with both barrels:

I’m pretty sure you just need something to hate, and since the whole world is hating Christianity right now this gives you a way to express that hate and get clapped on the back rather than charged with hate speech. You’re a hypocrite. you do the very things you think you hate Christians for. Seems to be the atheist way though.

Aaaahhh….. okay. Took it a bit too far with that last sentence. You found the one angriest atheist posting here and tarred us all with his attitude and views. He said that in his country, anti-homosexual rantings such as the John Edwards piece that he was responding to, would be prosecuted as hate-speech. Tom Donald lives in the UK, and may be speaking entirely factually that in his country such statements are prosecuted.

Notice that the fire-and-brimstone evangelist was offered up by Ruben Israel as an example of “Biblical Christianity”. Here’s a taste, of Edwards, though you may already know the general flavor:

Unbeliever’s prudence and care taken to preserve their own lives, or the caring concern of others to preserve them, does not give them a moment’s security.

…

God has put Himself under no obligation, has made no promise, to keep any unbelieving man out of hell for one second.

…

So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men’s earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.

Therefore natural men are held in the hand of God over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, His anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of His wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment: the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and are eager to grab hold of them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged patience, of an incensed God.

So I don’t think that our friend Ruben Israel is pushing a friendly, “help the poor and needy” type of belief here. I think he’s calling down the wrath of an angry God threatening to smite us all for the grievous sin of remaining unconvinced by the pulpit-pounders of the world.

But that’s fine because neither I nor any other Christian needs your approval. You can just put yourself up on the highest horse you can find. It’ll just hurt more when you fall off.

That rebuke probably felt good. But really, is it honest? Is it going in the right direction? Is likely to change anyone’s mind, or improve the attitude or tone of anyone here? If you nor any other Christian needs our approval, WHY are you posting here? I notice that we aren’t the ones going to a Christian forum and posting at them, you’re the one who came here. Why? To promote understanding, or merely to bark at us and leave self-gratified?

You wrote:

You certainly don’t let your emotions get in the way of your thought process at all.

You ironically wrote this in the middle of a rant where emotions clearly got ahold of you as well. These are emotional issues, to be sure, and I don’t hold it against you that you got riled up by them. Can you see us as human beings, just as fallible as you, and look at those emotions and honor and respect them as honest expressions of human feelings?

I see you as an honorable, thoughtful and passionate person worthy of respect. I hope that you could say the same about atheists.

Thanks Siamang, well said.

Now I’m just sucking up lol

I don´t see how mocking someone or making fun of someone for their belief system is going to make that person reconsider or change their world view.

I don’t think that’s the point. Mocking christianity has other benefits, particularly counteracting the inappropriate level of respect given to this absurd cult in primitive societies.
I repeat my point about that-which-is-mockable. How come christianity is SO mockable and atheism isn’t? Isn’t it because christianity is absurd whereas atheism is mundane?

I think if you are of an opposite or different world view the best way to share with someone your own belief system would be through kindness and respect.

Kindness and respect are the currency of ordinary life, not debate. Aren’t we EVER allowed to have fun?

A world view that is ridiculous to you is only ridiculous to you because of your ridiculous presupposition of it.

By that logic there can be no such thing as an [i]actually[/i] ridiculous world view accurately appraised. I would suggest to you that given the synthetic (ie brain-made), socially mediated nature of “world view”, it is likely that ALL world views are fundamentally ridiculous. to you too.

You certainly don’t let your emotions get in the way of your thought process at all. And you seem to thoroughly examine belief systems before you decide to hate them and spew bigotry at those who espouse them.[\quote]
It’s interesting this thing about emotion and thought being somehow mutually exclusive. It does crop up with these american christians sometimes. I think it may be at sexist at root, in a society where emotion is considered characteristically female, and rationality characteristically male. What was that bit up the page? “thousands of years of insulting patriarchal life-hating bullshit” Ah yes.

If only the world were full of people like you, then we wouldn’t be bogged down by the hateful Christians who help the poor and needy.

The world is full of people like me.
It’s great!

Mocking christianity has other benefits, particularly counteracting the inappropriate level of respect given to this absurd cult in primitive societies.
I repeat my point about that-which-is-mockable. How come christianity is SO mockable and atheism isn’t? Isn’t it because christianity is absurd whereas atheism is mundane?

To some atheism may very well be mockable, we just don’t need to go there; again out of respect to the atheist and his/her belief system.

Kindness and respect are the currency of ordinary life, not debate. Aren’t we EVER allowed to have fun?

Kindness and Respect are very welcome in any debate. If you think mocking is fun then there is no way you can show our belief is any better than the system you are mocking.

“A world view that is ridiculous to you is only ridiculous to you because of your ridiculous presupposition of it. ”
By that logic there can be no such thing as an [i]actually[/i] ridiculous world view accurately appraised. I would suggest to you that given the synthetic (ie brain-made), socially mediated nature of “world view”, it is likely that ALL world views are fundamentally ridiculous. to you too.

All world views except yours of course.

Just to reiterate that this is all a windup…

http://www.truechristian.com/kidzlot2.html

Hmm… Just remember that someone took the time to *draw* those pics towards the bottom!

If you think mocking is fun then there is no way you can show our belief is any better than the system you are mocking.

“our belief”? For whom are you speaking? Of course “mocking is fun”. Have you ever seen a satirical magazine or TV program? Or website? The fun is founded on the power and prestige of the thing mocked, or it’s pomposity, or innate stupidity. These all apply to christianity, in very generous portions. That’s why it is such a good target, as we can see from the very large number of websites satirising it.

…I would suggest to you that given the synthetic (ie brain-made), socially mediated nature of “world view”, it is likely that ALL world views are fundamentally ridiculous…

All world views except yours of course.

That was not implied, quite the opposite actually.

If you think mocking is fun then there is no way you can show our belief is any better than the system you are mocking.

“our belief”? For whom are you speaking? Of course “mocking is fun”. Have you ever seen a satirical magazine or TV program? Or website? The fun is founded on the power and prestige of the thing mocked, or it’s pomposity, or innate stupidity. These all apply to christianity, in very generous portions. That’s why it is such a good target, as we can see from the very large number of websites satirising it.

Yeh I don’t mind a good laugh on satirical things about myself or my Christianity either but that is not what mocking is. To mock is to attack or treat with ridicule. I don’t mind laughing with someone about something but to laugh at someone in ridicule is a different story.

The world is full of people like me.
It’s great!

If that’s the case then I don’t see much support coming from your fellow atheists regarding the support for atheism. Siamang had a few things to say as well and he’s an atheist. I know Micheal who runs this website and I’m sure he doesn’t mock me like this either.

If your idea of Christianity comes only from fundamentalist websites then I invite you to join in a friendly conversation with me right here regarding what it is really all about. I know you think it is absurd but I think atheism is absurd. The difference is I want to hear the honest reasons why you think that it isn’t. I’m not going to get an honest answer out of you if you don’t even have the door open to a meaningful, respectful and honest conversation. Does that sound reasonable to you?

If your idea of Christianity comes only from fundamentalist websites then I invite you to join in a friendly conversation with me right here regarding what it is really all about.

My idea of christianity comes from a “christian” upbringing, church every sunday, sunday school too, prayers hymns and bible readings every morning at school, traditional christian hypocrisy at home, my father was a minister of the church of scotland actually. I studied philosophy and psychology at university, and then trained as a psychiatric nurse, although I’ve been in computers for the past twenty years.
I do know a bit about christianity. Otherwise, why would I care?
But I don’t just think christianity is absurd, I think it is insulting, harmful, stupid, and UNTRUE.

I know you think it is absurd but I think atheism is absurd. The difference is I want to hear the honest reasons why you think that it isn’t.

Er.. You want me to tell you why atheism isn’t absurd? I think that can only be done by manoeuvring around a sequence of negatives. Atheism isn’t absurd because; it doesn’t depend on big invisible telepathic “god” aliens, or undead men, or sexual perverts in positions of power, or fooling some of the people all of the time, or LIES about death, or the myopic vision of an utterly humancentric universe. Also it is compatible with common sense, scientific discovery, and LIFE.

I’m not going to get an honest answer out of you if you don’t even have the door open to a meaningful, respectful and honest conversation. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Not really. It sounds priggish to the point of paralysis. Part of the christian bag, though.
That is an alternative explanation for “why are there no sites satirising atheism”? Christians can’t afford to have a sense of humour, start laughing at absurdity, and where do you stop?

My idea of christianity comes from a “christian” upbringing, church every sunday, sunday school too, prayers hymns and bible readings every morning at school, traditional christian hypocrisy at home, my father was a minister of the church of scotland actually. I studied philosophy and psychology at university, and then trained as a psychiatric nurse, although I’ve been in computers for the past twenty years.
I do know a bit about christianity. Otherwise, why would I care?
But I don’t just think christianity is absurd, I think it is insulting, harmful, stupid, and UNTRUE.

Ok lets start with what you find untrue. What is is that proves to you that there is no God? Is it just that you can’t see Him or is it more detailed than that?

Er.. You want me to tell you why atheism isn’t absurd? I think that can only be done by manoeuvring around a sequence of negatives. Atheism isn’t absurd because; it doesn’t depend on big invisible telepathic “god” aliens, or undead men, or sexual perverts in positions of power, or fooling some of the people all of the time, or LIES about death, or the myopic vision of an utterly humancentric universe. Also it is compatible with common sense, scientific discovery, and LIFE.

Hmm a couple of things here. You can’t imply sexual perverts in positions of power to theists alone; or lies about death, or a human centered universe. These are all human traits capable by all humans, not just theists.
Also how is atheism compatible with common sense specifically? And how is it compatible with scientific discovery? And lastly being compatible to life is subjective; anyone can say that regarding their own life, unless they can prove it objectively to all walks of life.

I’m not going to get an honest answer out of you if you don’t even have the door open to a meaningful, respectful and honest conversation. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Not really. It sounds priggish to the point of paralysis. Part of the christian bag, though.
That is an alternative explanation for “why are there no sites satirising atheism”? Christians can’t afford to have a sense of humour, start laughing at absurdity, and where do you stop?

There actually are websites mocking atheism, I just don’t support them and therefore I will not share them with you. And again it’s not satirizing, they do not attack to get a laugh or just for fun.

Ok lets start with what you find untrue. What is is that proves to you that there is no God? Is it just that you can’t see Him or is it more detailed than that?

Er… Let’s start with the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for this “god” thing. I think that’s significant. The god concept has been part of our history for thousands of years, but there is a complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for the actual existence of “god”.

It’s really not an effort not to believe in something which cannot be experienced in the world except as the interpretation of the devotee.
OR to put it less negatively, believing in something like “god” is an activity. That’s why you christians have to spend so much time talking about it, sometimes to each other, sometimes to yourselves (aka “god”), and sometimes to people outside the activity, in the hope that they’ll join in.

You can’t imply sexual perverts in positions of power to theists alone; or lies about death, or a human centered universe. These are all human traits capable by all humans, not just theists.

It’s only the church which has made these the central defining policies of its power.

There actually are websites mocking atheism, I just don’t support them and therefore I will not share them with you. And again it’s not satirizing, they do not attack to get a laugh or just for fun.

So you are claiming that there are websites mocking atheism, but you won’t say where they are? Don’t you think us unpleasant god-deniers deserve to experience the tough-love of the godly mockers?
Come on, Jad!

Er… Let’s start with the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for this “god” thing. I think that’s significant. The god concept has been part of our history for thousands of years, but there is a complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for the actual existence of “god”.

The ‘God’ thing yes has been around a long time but I don’t think you can then pass it off as something we used to believe in but now because of atheism we are coming to realize that we really need a ‘God’ belief system anymore. I mean it’s not as if atheism is now here and it’s come to save us all from that idiotic thought of a ‘God’ of some sort. Atheism has been around for thousands of years as well and is nothing new.
So the ‘God’ thing must have something to it then if it’s stuck around for so long even if you cannot see it yourself.

I think we should start with the basic arguments for the existence of God to answer your skepticism on the actuality of there being some kind of god. For example what are your thoughts on the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god or and uncaused cause? Have you heard it and if so what are your arguments against it?

It’s really not an effort not to believe in something which cannot be experienced in the world except as the interpretation of the devotee.
OR to put it less negatively, believing in something like “god” is an activity. That’s why you christians have to spend so much time talking about it, sometimes to each other, sometimes to yourselves (aka “god”), and sometimes to people outside the activity, in the hope that they’ll join in.

I would say it’s even less of an effort to believe in no God like yourself. But ironically as a devotee of this no god system it is quite an activity for you! You spend some good effort mocking Christians with either the intent to convert them to atheism or just to simply have a good laugh at them; and then call it satire.

“You can’t imply sexual perverts in positions of power to theists alone; or lies about death, or a human centered universe. These are all human traits capable by all humans, not just theists.”

It’s only the church which has made these the central defining policies of its power.

There is no church that has a policy of sexual perverts in positions of power. The church in general is Christ centered for the most part and humans are the very reason He created this universe. Adding sexual perverts in there as well is really your own interpretation an a false accusation. I will presume you are simply mocking again yes?

So you are claiming that there are websites mocking atheism, but you won’t say where they are? Don’t you think us unpleasant god-deniers deserve to experience the tough-love of the godly mockers?
Come on, Jad!

Haha no way. It would make you even more unpleasant.

…the ‘God’ thing must have something to it then if it’s stuck around for so long even if you cannot see it yourself.

It has ancient history, like astrology and goblins and other primitive beliefs.

…what are your thoughts on the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god or and uncaused cause? Have you heard it and if so what are your arguments against it?

This is that dreary stuff about everything has a cause, and that means there must be a god, or something. It is incredible and incredibly weak. In essence, it says something must have happened to bring the universe about, and because the person arguing doesn’t know what that was, it must be some big invisible man. Clearly nonsense! Why shouldn’t it have been a giant toad? Or a mighty robot? Or nothing? Or radioactive custard? No, it’s a big invisible man! Case proved! (not). It’s frightfully dreary, hunt out something you don’t know, and project your “god” fantasy into it.

There is no church that has a policy of sexual perverts in positions of power.

Obviously untrue. The catholic church completely insists on it. Enforced abstinence is a cruel and dangerous perversion, which seriously damages the individual’s ability to function in human society. Perhaps you’ve noticed the amazingly high levels of rape carried out by catholic priests: this is part of the cost of the perversion of human sexuality. But there is a silver lining on this rotten cloud: celibacy stops young men becoming priests.
Another example of institutional sexual perversion is the denial of the homosexuality of priests in sects that allow marital sex. Imagine the pain this causes, the mundane domestic misery. But this is an institutional requirement of these cults. It is ironic that the most noise about this at the moment is coming from the episcopalian church, which is without doubt one of the most gay institutions in the history of the world.

The church in general is Christ centered for the most part and humans are the very reason He created this universe.

Do you really feel comfortable with such speciesist arrogance? The entire universe exists so that you can chat with “god”, in who’s image you happen to be made yourself? Lucky you! What a limited vision humancentrism gives. One of the very worst things about the theist cults is that they so devalue life in it’s richness variety and power. Us humans are not above it, we’re part of it.

I will presume you are simply mocking again yes?

No.

I thought the radioactive custard was the latest viable contestant in science’s dreary search for cause. The source of all that multi-bubble universe generating foam. Perhaps it was a cosmic pudding, or jello, I can’t keep up with the metaphor du jour. Of course,I don’t think anyone has used the ‘invisible giant man’ metaphor for quite some time now. I remember last seeing it on Star Trek (or maybe it was Dr. Who?) - a big hand that grabbed the Enterprise (that’s right, it was Star Trek). It was a good episode - I think it was written by Harlan Ellison - No- it was Sir Francis Crick!

Good old Christian “meat-man” Beyer has a shot at satirising atheism, but I think he’s actually able only to satirise my own infantilistic smartarse stylee: Nice one, CB!
But seriously, Christian, do you get my sexual perversion groove? It’s more on a humanist than an atheist tag, but hey! atheism is more about pointing at a vacuum than about “How People Are”.
What do you call people who think that “Life” is the really interesting thing?

People who have never tried Scrapple. I’m not a big fan of ‘healthy’ cereals, myself. Have you had your Weetabix?

It’s interesting that you are taking this argument deeper into the world of food analogies. Although perhaps custards and puddings will not work, you may have hit upon something here with breakfast foods. Who hasn’t sat transfixed, gazing intently into the staring eyes of two sunny-side-up eggs? If that doesn’t set you onto the quest for the answer to the universal question, not much else will.

Wait, as a vegan, you must be deprived of this experience. I suggest you sit close to someone else at breakfast next time. Suggest that they order sunny side up eggs, two of them, and then ask if you could borrow their plate for a moment or two. Hopefully you will find enlightenment before they eggs become too cold to remain palatable. Good luck, jolly good, all that!

Atheist Perspective Backup

“…the ‘God’ thing must have something to it then if it’s stuck around for so long even if you cannot see it yourself.”

It has ancient history, like astrology and goblins and other primitive beliefs.

… and atheism, all of which have never even come close to the impact on which Christianity has had on this world.

“…what are your thoughts on the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god or and uncaused cause? Have you heard it and if so what are your arguments against it?”

This is that dreary stuff about everything has a cause, and that means there must be a god, or something. It is incredible and incredibly weak. In essence, it says something must have happened to bring the universe about, and because the person arguing doesn’t know what that was, it must be some big invisible man. Clearly nonsense! Why shouldn’t it have been a giant toad? Or a mighty robot? Or nothing? Or radioactive custard? No, it’s a big invisible man! Case proved! (not). It’s frightfully dreary, hunt out something you don’t know, and project your “god” fantasy into it.

I used to agree with you on that argument against the cosmological argument but I think if you go a little deeper and think a little harder you will find there is really only one possible solution. All the examples you’ve given are logical explanations of what thisuncaused cause might be; the trouble is while something is logically conceivable in the mind, it does not mean it is actually true or based in reason. Logic doesn’t tell us what is actually true, but only tells us what is valid. For example…

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails

The above statement is completely logical but it’s not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality. In the case of logic on it’s own, people with pink tails cannot be proven, giant toads, a mighty robot, radioactive custard, a big invisible man and neither can God Himself. I think we need to make the distinction between logic on it’s own and logic with reason. If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality.

Would you agree?

“There is no church that has a policy of sexual perverts in positions of power.”

Obviously untrue. The catholic church completely insists on it. Enforced abstinence is a cruel and dangerous perversion, which seriously damages theindividual’s ability to function in human society. Perhaps you’ve noticed the amazingly high levels of rape carried out by catholic priests: this is part of the cost of the perversion of human sexuality. But there is a silver lining on this rotten cloud: celibacy stops young men becoming priests.
Another example of institutional sexual perversion is the denial of the homosexuality of priests in sects that allow marital sex. Imagine the pain this causes, the mundane domestic misery. But this is an institutional requirement of these cults. It is ironic that the most noise about this at the moment is coming from the episcopalian church, which is without doubt one of the most gay institutions in the history of the world.

You imply sexual abstinence is ALWAYS a cruel and dangerous perversion when it is not. Not having sexual abstinence is 10x a more cruel and dangerous perversion. Would you like to do a head count of sexually perverted priests as opposed to sexually perverted people outside the Catholic church? If you follow tabloids only I can see how you would come to this conclusion. Again sexual perversion is not a policy in any church, it is simply available to all human beings, Christian or atheist, abstinent or not.

“The church in general is Christ centered for the most part and humans are the very reason He created this universe.”

Do you really feel comfortable with such speciesist arrogance? The entire universe exists so that you can chat with “god”, in who’s image you happen to be made yourself? Lucky you! What a limited visionhumancentrism gives. One of the very worst things about the theist cults is that they so devalue life in it’s richness variety and power. Us humans are not above it, we’re part of it.

Humans are far and away the most intellectually advanced species on this planet and the known universe. It has nothing to do with arrogance at all; it is a simple fact. The entire universe exists so that you an I may have a personal relationship with a personal God, not just idle chit chat. I’m curious though how is this supposed human centered universe limiting? How does it devalue life in richness, variety and power?

…I think if you go a little deeper and think a little harder you will find there is really only one possible solution.

Oh right. And that would be “god”, eh?

…I think we need to make the distinction between logic on it’s own and logic with reason. If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality.
Would you agree?

This elaborate justification for introducing “super-reality” when reality on its own does not include fantasy figures like your “god” is nonsense. You seem to suggest that although god is illogical, it is not unreasonable. So no, I wouldn’t agree.

You imply sexual abstinence is ALWAYS a cruel and dangerous perversion when it is not. Not having sexual abstinence is 10x a more cruel and dangerous perversion.

This is very odd. It seems that you are very very anti-sex! This is a very well established aspect of christianity of course, surely among it’s most perverse damaging and miserable strands of belief. Why do you have this attitude towards sex?

Humans are far and away the most intellectually advanced species on this planet and the known universe. It has nothing to do with arrogance at all; it is a simple fact.

It’s simple all right, but so what? We have our specialities, and we are exploiting a (currently) bountiful ecological niche. But we flourish only if our ecology flourishes, this “superiority” illusion of yours directly encourages emotional separation from the interdependent nature of nature, you people behave as if you own the earth.

The entire universe exists so that you an I may have a personal relationship with a personal God

It’s a funny thing, perspective. From my perspective, that is insane. Insane!
Insane, as in an existential position that makes an individual unable to experience the world directly.
You see a tree through godfog; it’s all human-level stories, all experience passed through upper-brain interpretation, all me me me, but let me tell you, you are more of a mammal than a man, and your relationship with trees is built into the structure of your arms, and the separation of your eyes and ears, and your ability to jump.
Spend less time operating in your big swollen human cortex, and more time directly experiencing a tree!
Sense and sensuality! It’s life before death.

I mean

“The entire universe exists so that you an I may have a personal relationship with a personal God”

: THAT UNIVERSE IS SO SMALL YOU COULD PUT IT IN A FUCKING COCONUT.
Cheers!
Tom

I never commit crimes after I masturbate. I usually just fall asleep!

“I think if you go a little deeper and think a little harder you will find there is really only one possible solution.”

“I think we need to make the distinction between logic on it’s own and logic with reason. If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality.
Would you agree?”

This elaborate justification for introducing “super-reality” when reality on its own does not include fantasy figures like your “god” is nonsense. You seem to suggest that although god is illogical, it is not unreasonable. So no, I wouldn’t agree.

No I’m saying the existence of God IS a logical suggestion and it CAN be backed up with reason, actual truth about reality. Can you say the same for atheism?

My real question was asking if you agreed with my statement about logic and reason. I think we need to start at a point that we can both agree on. The First Principles of Reason is I believe where we can and should start from. The principles being…

1. The Law of Non Contradiction (A cannot be Non-A, Being cannot be non Being)

2. The Law of Identity (A is A, A thing must be identical to itself)

3. The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or Non A, Theres nothing between Being and Non Being)

4. The Law of Causality (Non A cant cause A, Nothing cannot cause Something)

5. The Law of Analogy (A is similar to the A it produces, A thing must bear resemblance to the thing it produces).

Is this a good place to start? As in do you agree with these principles?

__

“You imply sexual abstinence is ALWAYS a cruel and dangerous perversion when it is not. Not having sexual abstinence is 10x a more cruel and dangerous perversion.”

This is very odd. It seems that you are very very anti-sex! This is a very well established aspect of christianity of course, surely among it’s most perverse damaging and miserable strands of belief. Why do you have this attitude towards sex?

I love sex. Sex is great and I’m glad I practiced sexual abstinence before I got married. If you take alcohol away from an alcoholic it is a good thing yes? If you take drugs away from a drug addict it is a good thing. Sex, drugs and alcohol on their own are not necessarily bad, it’s what people do with them that is the problem. Like the saying goes ‘You cannot blame the spoon for making Rosie O’Donnell overweight.’
Not everyone is a sexual pervert or prone to alcoholism but it is still a far greater idea to abstain from partaking in them than it is to simply allow it as history repeatedly shows. For example like giving a minor as much beer and spirits as he wants and see how he fairs out.
I like sex, I think its pretty awesome. I believe it is one of the pleasures of life given to us by God. I choose to abide by His rules though when it comes to sex rather than the world’s view of sex and I think if everyone did the same we would all be better off for it.

__

“Humans are far and away the most intellectually advanced species on this planet and the known universe. It has nothing to do with arrogance at all; it is a simple fact.”

It’s simple all right, but so what? We have our specialities, and we are exploiting a (currently) bountiful ecological niche. But we flourish only if our ecology flourishes, this “superiority” illusion of yours directly encourages emotional separation from the interdependent nature of nature, you people behave as if you own the earth.

I consider the human mind superior in intellect to any other brain in the known universe but there are other species on this planet that are stronger than me, faster than me and more efficient than me. I also do not believe that I own the earth as such. I believe it was made for us human beings and everything else in it for our pleasure (birds, plants, nature etc.) but it is not ‘mine to own’ so to speak. It’s like someone offering me a holiday at some resort at no charge to do what I want at my own free will. I do not then own the resort as suggested, I am merely there visiting. It is temporary.

__

“The entire universe exists so that you an I may have a personal relationship with a personal God”

It’s a funny thing, perspective. From my perspective, that is insane. Insane!
Insane, as in an existential position that makes an individual unable to experience the world directly.
You see a tree through godfog; it’s all human-level stories, all experience passed through upper-brain interpretation, all me me me, but let me tell you, you are more of a mammal than a man, and your relationship with trees is built into the structure of your arms, and the separation of your eyes and ears, and your ability to jump.
Spend less time operating in your big swollen human cortex, and more time directly experiencing a tree!
Sense and sensuality! It’s life before death.

But I do experience the world directly, And I do it in the most ultimate way; the way the creator intended it to be experienced, not by what I alone personally think is the best way to experience the world like you do. And it’s not about me me me at all. The whole Christian walk here in earth is Christ-centered not man-centered or self-centered like yours is.
I presume you are talking about Darwinian Evolution when you speak of my relationship with trees being built into the structure of my arms, eyes and ears, and my ability to jump. DE is not a fact, it isn’t even a good theory anymore. Unless you have some empirical evidence I have not seen yet, or anyone else has seen for that matter.

__

THAT UNIVERSE IS SO SMALL YOU COULD PUT IT IN A FUCKING COCONUT.
Cheers!
Tom

And I believe the atheist’s universe is the smallest. Actually I don’t think it exists at all. I believe it is just a man made upper-brain interpretation that contradicts logic and reason. That is why I think we should start with the above principles I gave, if you are willing of course.

Cheers
Jad

Okay, the Cosmological argument, I just want to point this out, has a hole in it big enough to walk an elephant through. Basically, it says, “Nothing can exist that is not caused by something else. Thus, the universe must be caused by something that wasn’t caused by anything else, which gets to be an exception to the first premise because I say so.”
The conclusion is a contradiction of the first premise, which is itself an assumption. If anything can exist without being caused by something else, it’s more likely to be the universe itself, which we know for a fact exists, rather than God, which is a purely hypothetical construct.

“Nothing can exist that is not caused by something else. Thus, the universe must be caused by something that wasn’t caused by anything else, which gets to be an exception to the first premise because I say so.”

Hi Des,

There are many different versions of the Cosmological Argument. Your rendition of it does seem a bit contradictory but what you’ve written is not the correct wording of the cosmological argument. Firstly the premise is “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” This is only talking about everything that has a BEGINNING which is basically everything inside time and space, including time and space itself. This is not just a hypothetical but a scientific fact. It is completely true then that everything that is exists is caused by another.
Another scientific fact is that there is no such thing as an infinite regress. So you cannot say that everything existing was caused by another backwards for infinity. It simply is not true. So the conclusion is that there had to be an ‘uncaused cause’ to start everything. That is to say everything that has a beginning must have been started by a cause that has always been there. A cause that is eternal and has no beginning.

Now this argument doesn’t conclude what this uncaused cause is. It could be the God of the Bible, Allah or Zeus for all we know. It basically stops at an eternal cause, or an uncaused cause.
How we get to the God of the Bible after this argument is a whole other subject. If you agree with what I have said so far and would like me to continue with the argument for the God of the Bible being the ‘uncaused cause’ then I would be more than happy to share that with you.
If you still have a problem with the cosmological argument then we can continue discussing that.

Cheers
Jad

I think we need to start at a point that we can both agree on.

this may be more difficult than you hope…

The First Principles of Reason is I believe where we can and should start from. The principles being…

1. The Law of Non Contradiction (A cannot be Non-A, Being cannot be non Being)

A cannot be Non-A? Where A is Anything? So you are suggesting that humans are so good at labelling things that if there is a label for something, it absolutely delineates boundaries in reality? I don’t think so!

2. The Law of Identity (A is A, A thing must be identical to itself)

I’m not going to argue with that one…

3. The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or Non A, Theres nothing between Being and Non Being)

what about Fat and Non-Fat rabbits, or enlightened and non-enlightened buddhists, or alive and non-alive material, or perhaps you define “A” here as Anything Binary.

4. The Law of Causality (Non A cant cause A, Nothing cannot cause Something)

This one doesn’t make any sense to me, I don’t see why it should be true or untrue, isn’t this the realm of quantum physics?

5. The Law of Analogy (A is similar to the A it produces, A thing must bear resemblance to the thing it produces).

What possible reason would one have to believe that? Surely that’s obvious rubbish. Plutonium produces heat, in what way does heat resemble plutonium?

Is this a good place to start? As in do you agree with these principles?

No. Imagine starting off by making laws! The right place to start is by observing reality…

I love sex. Sex is great and I’m glad I practiced sexual abstinence before I got married. If you take alcohol away from an alcoholic it is a good thing yes? If you take drugs away from a drug addict it is a good thing. Sex, drugs and alcohol on their own are not necessarily bad, it’s what people do with them that is the problem.

Wow, what a liberal! So you reckon that sex is like drink’n'drugs? ‘cept we’re all born addicts! So sex is fundamentally dangerous, eh? Something that has to be controlled, socially and personally, or there will be terrible consequences. Oh dear. In “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Orgone Institute Press, New York, 1946) Wilhelm Reich relates the repression of adolescent sexuality to the development of political authoritarianism.

“Fascism is only the organized political expression of the structure of the average man’s character. It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine civilization and its mechanistic-mystical conception of life.”

re the subject of the post (above), here’s another wee gem from “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Although published in English in 1946, it was written in german in ‘32.)

Infants do not believe in God. The belief in God never takes root in them until the time when they have to learn
to suppress their sexual excitation which makes them want to masturbate. Thus they acquire a fear of sexual pleasure. Then they begin not only to believe in God and to fear him as a supernatural being which knows everything and sees everything; they also begin to invoke his protection against their own sexual excitation. All this serves the function of avoiding masturbation.

Any thoughts?

Wow, what a liberal! So you reckon that sex is like drink’n'drugs? ‘cept we’re all born addicts!

You’ve quoted me out of context here. If you read it again you’ll notice I continued in the next paragraph which you failed to add in your quote…

“Not everyone is a sexual pervert or prone to alcoholism but it is still a far greater idea to abstain from partaking in them than it is to simply allow it as history repeatedly shows.”

So sex is fundamentally dangerous, eh?

Again you’ve quoted me out of context, or you missed my point…

“Sex, drugs and alcohol on their own are not necessarily bad, it’s what people do with them that is the problem. Like the saying goes ‘You cannot blame the spoon for making Rosie O’Donnell overweight.’”

Sex is not FUNDAMENTALLY dangerous at all. Danger is not the foundation or basis of sex. Again it is what people do with it that can make it dangerous.

Something that has to be controlled, socially and personally, or there will be terrible consequences.

I think we have to be very careful socially and personally when it comes to sex. Some people have to be more careful that others but in general yes we all need to have some sort of control of our sexuality. I think that’s a given with most things in our lives; control.

Oh dear. In “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Orgone Institute Press, New York, 1946) Wilhelm Reich relates the repression of adolescent sexuality to the development of political authoritarianism. “Fascism is only the organized political expression of the structure of the average man’s character. It is the basic emotional attitude of the suppressed man of our authoritarian machine civilization and its mechanistic-mystical conception of life.”

I think you are exaggeratting when you call my abstinence from sex Fascism. The dictionary meaning of Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. I don’t see how my world view of sexuality is forcibly suppressing to any opposition other than myself, of which I suppress my sexuality out of my own free will. My God may have absolute power but not to the point where that interferes with my free will. If He did then that would defeat the purpose of free will. Again I submit to Him of my own free will, it is not forced. And lastly I don’t see how abstaining from sexual activity relates to racism.

here’s another wee gem from “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Although published in English in 1946, it was written in german in ‘32.) “Infants do not believe in God. The belief in God never takes root in them until the time when they have to learn to suppress their sexual excitation which makes them want to masturbate. Thus they acquire a fear of sexual pleasure. Then they begin not only to believe in God and to fear him as a supernatural being which knows everything and sees everything; they also begin to invoke his protection against their own sexual excitation. All this serves the function of avoiding masturbation.”
Any thoughts?

Infants do not believe in atheism either. The rest of this ‘wee gem’ sounds more like the authors personal encounter with his sexuality and his/her experience with masturbation while growing up. I’ve never had a fear of sexual pleasure as a Christian, I’ve always craved it lol. And I still do even though I am now married.

I’ll answer your other comments on the first principles of reason later as they require a bit more detail in response.

William Sheldon, psychological researcher at Columbia University, now deceased, said looking back on his career that;

“continued observation in the clinical practice leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that deeper and more fundamental than sexuality, deeper than the craving for social power, deeper even than the desire for possessions, there is a still more generalized and universal craving in the human makeup. It is craving for the knowledge of the right direction - for orientation.”

“Nothing can exist that is not caused by something else. Thus, the universe must be caused by something that wasn’t caused by anything else, which gets to be an exception to the first premise because I say so.”

Hi Des,

There are many different versions of the Cosmological Argument. Your rendition of it does seem a bit contradictory but what you’ve written is not the correct wording of the cosmological argument. Firstly the premise is “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” This is only talking about everything that has a BEGINNING which is basically everything inside time and space, including time and space itself. This is not just a hypothetical but a scientific fact. It is completely true then that everything that is exists is caused by another.
Another scientific fact is that there is no such thing as an infinite regress. So you cannot say that everything existing was caused by another backwards for infinity. It simply is not true. So the conclusion is that there had to be an ‘uncaused cause’ to start everything. That is to say everything that has a beginning must have been started by a cause that has always been there. A cause that is eternal and has no beginning.

Now this argument doesn’t conclude what this uncaused cause is. It could be the God of the Bible, Allah or Zeus for all we know. It basically stops at an eternal cause, or an uncaused cause.
How we get to the God of the Bible after this argument is a whole other subject. If you agree with what I have said so far and would like me to continue with the argument for the God of the Bible being the ‘uncaused cause’ then I would be more than happy to share that with you.
If you still have a problem with the cosmological argument then we can continue discussing that.

Cheers
Jad

Actually, it is not considered to be a scientific fact that everything that has a beginning has an end. I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but there are many models that suggest that the universe may go on forever, with no endpoint in time. They’re not the only models we have, but they’re not dismissed on the grounds that “It’s impossible for something that has a beginning to go on forever.” Additionally, an infinite regress actually is possible in physics. For example, any specimen of a Jinn particle (any particle, object, or even assemblage of information that has a closed-loop worldline) has experienced every cause/effect throughout its history an infinite number of times.
Even if the universe does have an uncaused cause, which I do not deny is possible (because I don’t agree with the original premise)then it is still less parsimonious to declare that the cause is a complex thinking entity than, say, a simple set of underlying rules.
The very idea that the necessity of an uncaused cause for the universe in any way equals the necessity of a deity of any sort can only be borne out of deeply seated preconception.

I think you are exaggeratting when you call my abstinence from sex Fascism.

It’s not about YOU being a fascist, I’m sure you’re not, it’s about the social cost of “sex is dangerous”. Reich’s view was that the nazi state came about through the consent of the people, and that this consent was a manifestation of up-tight miserable (particularly mystical/religious) sexual repression. He was a humanist psychoanalyst writing in the ’30s. I think that the contemporary parallel would be with the militarist states and cults, like the UK, US, Al-Qaeda, Israel etc. The sexual torture of teens has a social cost.
Of course we’re not all oppressed. It could be that I’m an atheistic humanist existentialist vegetarian pacifist BECAUSE I’m such a wanker!
Cheers!
Tom

Actually, it is not considered to be a scientific fact that everything that has a beginning has an end. I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but there are many models that suggest that the universe may go on forever, with no endpoint in time.

Show me a well known scientific website that denies causality in biology, causality in physics or any other field of science for that matter. Everything we know in science today, and what becomes more evident every day is that everything has a beginning, including the universe. And everything begins to exist only through something already existing. This is science, this is evolution. Even to deny the universe as finite would require you to prove wrong the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.

They’re not the only models we have, but they’re not dismissed on the grounds that “It’s impossible for something that has a beginning to go on forever.” Additionally, an infinite regress actually is possible in physics. For example, any specimen of a Jinn particle (any particle, object, or even assemblage of information that has a closed-loopworldline) has experienced every cause/effect throughout its history an infinite number of times.

Ah this infinite regress you speak of is a scientifically unproven hypothesis from the very untouched and unproven world of quantum physics. The closed-loop worldline in quantum physics delves into time travel and your Jinn particles are species of invisible beings from the Qur’an. I don’t think these are very good arguments to be used against the cosmological argument for an uncaused cause and the well established study of the natural sciences.

Even if the universe does have an uncaused cause, which I do not deny is possible (because I don’t agree with the original premise)then it is still less parsimonious to declare that the cause is a complex thinking entity than, say, a simple set of underlying rules.
The very idea that the necessity of an uncaused cause for the universe in any way equals the necessity of a deity of any sort can only be borne out of deeply seated preconception.

Well I haven’t even gotten to that part yet. I clearly stated…

“this argument doesn’t conclude what this uncaused cause is. It could be the God of the Bible, Allah or Zeus for all we know. It basically stops at an eternal cause, or an uncaused cause.
How we get to the God of the Bible after this argument is a whole other subject. If you agree with what I have said so far and would like me to continue with the argument for the God of the Bible being the ‘uncaused cause’ then I would be more than happy to share that with you.”

Now I can see your deeply seated preconceptions.

I am using well established and very sound scientific evidence from the study of the natural sciences in the case for the cosmological argument and the necessity of an uncaused cause. These are completely plausible evidences that can be backed up by the vast majority of the scientific community. If you have to delve into unproven realms and hypotheticals of quantum physics to prove your case then I don’t think you have very good argument. Wouldn’t you agree?

I think you are exaggeratting when you call my abstinence from sex Fascism.

It’s not about YOU being a fascist, I’m sure you’re not, it’s about the social cost of “sex is dangerous”. Reich’s view was that the nazi state came about through the consent of the people, and that this consent was a manifestation of up-tight miserable (particularly mystical/religious) sexual repression. He was a humanist psychoanalyst writing in the ’30s. I think that the contemporary parallel would be with the militarist states and cults, like the UK, US, Al-Qaeda, Israel etc. The sexual torture of teens has a social cost.
Of course we’re not all oppressed. It could be that I’m an atheistic humanist existentialist vegetarian pacifist BECAUSE I’m such a wanker!
Cheers!
Tom

Oh I see. Most amusing.

I cannot speak for other religious texts but the Bible does not regard sex in itself as something dangerous at all. Also sexual repression is not enforced on anyone but is again a self made free choice.

Show me a well known scientific website that denies causality in biology, causality in physics or any other field of science for that matter. Everything we know in science today, and what becomes more evident every day is that everything has a beginning, including the universe. And everything begins to exist only through something already existing. This is science, this is evolution.

This is rubbish, this is nonsense. This is half-witted propaganda, this is weakminded religious garbage. Jad, instead of pretending to scientific knowledge, why not argue for the power of your cult by performing magic tricks? It was good enough for jesus, allegedly.

Ah this infinite regress you speak of is a scientifically unproven hypothesis from the very untouched and unproven world of quantum physics.

That would be “untouched” by you I take it. What do you know of quantum physics? I would suggest “nothing whatsoever”. The interesting thing about quantum mechanics is that it is VERY DIFFICULT to grasp. The great Richard Feynman said “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. Except you.

I don’t think these are very good arguments to be used against the cosmological argument for an uncaused cause and the well established study of the natural sciences.

Well you wouldn’t, would you.

I am using well established and very sound scientific evidence from the study of the natural sciences in the case for the cosmological argument and the necessity of an uncaused cause. These are completely plausible evidences that can be backed up by the vast majority of the scientific community.{/quote]You certainly are doing nothing of the sort. You are making ludicrous assertions to support an utterly synthetic world-view. Your fixed target is to assert the existence of your “god”, and the rightness of your authoritarian, primitive, patriarchal cult. You ruthlessly misuse scientific terms to give your assertions pseudo-validity, but it won’t wash. Your bible is incompatible with scientific knowledge, so get used to it, and come to terms with your personal choice: godly stupidity in a bubble of ignorance.

…sexual repression is not enforced on anyone but is again a self made free choice…

What planet are we discussing here? Obviously we can’t be on earth any more.

“Show me a well known scientific website that denies causality in biology, causality in physics or any other field of science for that matter. Everything we know in science today, and what becomes more evident every day is that everything has a beginning, including the universe. And everything begins to exist only through something already existing. This is science, this is evolution.”

This is rubbish, this is nonsense. This is half-witted propaganda, this is weakminded religious garbage. Jad, instead of pretending to scientific knowledge, why not argue for the power of your cult by performing magic tricks? It was good enough for jesus, allegedly.

The burden of proof is on you then Tom. If I am wrong then you are going to have to prove to me something that doesn’t exist from something already existing. I’ll make it easy for you, just give me one example.

__________

“Ah this infinite regress you speak of is a scientifically unproven hypothesis from the very untouched and unproven world of quantum physics.”

That would be “untouched” by you I take it. What do you know of quantum physics? I would suggest “nothing whatsoever”. The interesting thing about quantum mechanics is that it is VERY DIFFICULT to grasp. The great Richard Feynman said “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. Except you.

Exactly, I don’t know much of quantum physics and either do you or anyone else. You said it yourself, it is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So lets not try and use it as empirical scientific evidence to prove a point.

__________

“I am using well established and very sound scientific evidence from the study of the natural sciences in the case for the cosmological argument and the necessity of an uncaused cause. These are completely plausible evidences that can be backed up by the vast majority of the scientific community.”

You certainly are doing nothing of the sort. You are making ludicrous assertions to support an utterly synthetic world-view. Your fixed target is to assert the existence of your “god”, and the rightness of your authoritarian, primitive, patriarchal cult. You ruthlessly misuse scientific terms to give your assertions pseudo-validity, but it won’t wash. Your bible is incompatible with scientific knowledge, so get used to it, and come to terms with your personal choice: godly stupidity in a bubble of ignorance.

Again the burden of proof is on you. You accusations are backed up with no evidence whatsoever, just your opinion. Show me scientifically where I have got it wrong.
My fixed target is truth, what is yours? I haven’t even got to the existence of God yet; I am still at the discussion of the uncaused cause. Why the leap?

__________

“…sexual repression is not enforced on anyone but is again a self made free choice…”

What planet are we discussing here? Obviously we can’t be on earth any more.

This is Earth. Welcome.

I’ll answer your other comments on the first principles of reason later as they require a bit more detail in response.

When?

B.S. Nothing but bull crap here.

Actually, it is not considered to be a scientific fact that everything that has a beginning has an end. I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but there are many models that suggest that the universe may go on forever, with no endpoint in time.

Show me a well known scientific website that denies causality in biology, causality in physics or any other field of science for that matter. Everything we know in science today, and what becomes more evident every day is that everything has a beginning, including the universe. And everything begins to exist only through something already existing. This is science, this is evolution. Even to deny the universe as finite would require you to prove wrong the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.

They’re not the only models we have, but they’re not dismissed on the grounds that “It’s impossible for something that has a beginning to go on forever.” Additionally, an infinite regress actually is possible in physics. For example, any specimen of a Jinn particle (any particle, object, or even assemblage of information that has a closed-loopworldline) has experienced every cause/effect throughout its history an infinite number of times.

Ah this infinite regress you speak of is a scientifically unproven hypothesis from the very untouched and unproven world of quantum physics. The closed-loop worldline in quantum physics delves into time travel and your Jinn particles are species of invisible beings from the Qur’an. I don’t think these are very good arguments to be used against the cosmological argument for an uncaused cause and the well established study of the natural sciences.

Even if the universe does have an uncaused cause, which I do not deny is possible (because I don’t agree with the original premise)then it is still less parsimonious to declare that the cause is a complex thinking entity than, say, a simple set of underlying rules.
The very idea that the necessity of an uncaused cause for the universe in any way equals the necessity of a deity of any sort can only be borne out of deeply seated preconception.

Well I haven’t even gotten to that part yet. I clearly stated…

“this argument doesn’t conclude what this uncaused cause is. It could be the God of the Bible, Allah or Zeus for all we know. It basically stops at an eternal cause, or an uncaused cause.
How we get to the God of the Bible after this argument is a whole other subject. If you agree with what I have said so far and would like me to continue with the argument for the God of the Bible being the ‘uncaused cause’ then I would be more than happy to share that with you.”

Now I can see your deeply seated preconceptions.

I am using well established and very sound scientific evidence from the study of the natural sciences in the case for the cosmological argument and the necessity of an uncaused cause. These are completely plausible evidences that can be backed up by the vast majority of the scientific community. If you have to delve into unproven realms and hypotheticals of quantum physics to prove your case then I don’t think you have very good argument. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, you have not used well established and sound evidence from the natural sciences to support the cosmological argument, you have used assumptions that are not contradicted by the basics of the natural sciences. While the examples I used are not particularly mundane, they demonstrate adequately the point I was trying to make, namely, that explanations that do not adhere to your original set of premises are an option.
I accept the possibility that the universe was brought into being by some uncaused entity without a beginning that exists outside the universe. I also accept the possibility that the universe already existed in some very different form before the big bang occurred. The big bang, than would not be the beginning of the universe, but simply a vast state change. The universe itself, then, could be an uncaused entity without a beginning.
I think it is pretty clear then, that I have reason not to agree with what you have said so far, which is what I did in the first place.
While I can accept that some sort of uncaused entity outside the universe which brought the universe into existence is an option, I must stipulate that an intelligent being is far less parsimonious than many other explanations that could account for the universe as we know it. Additionally, the bible is far too self-contradictory, and too extensively contradicted by the archaeological record, to be trustworthy as any sort of historical account, let alone an account of the nature of the creator of the universe, and its intentions..

1. The Law of Non Contradiction (A cannot be Non-A, Being cannot be non Being)

A cannot be Non-A? Where A is Anything? So you are suggesting that humans are so good at labelling things that if there is a label for something, it absolutely delineates boundaries in reality? I don’t think so!

The Law of Non Contradiction simply states that something exists and it cannot also be the opposite of that, non existent, and there is nothing in between existing and not existing.

2. The Law of Identity (A is A, A thing must be identical to itself)

I’m not going to argue with that one…

3. The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or Non A, There is nothing between Being and Non Being)

what about Fat and Non-Fat rabbits, or enlightened and non-enlightened buddhists, or alive and non-alive material, or perhaps you define “A” here as Anything Binary.

Not sure what you mean by binary but the the law of the excluded middle is pointing out that something cannot be Being and Non Being. Either A or non-A, but not both. In the case of fat and non-fat rabbits, the non-fat rabbit cannot be fat and non-fat at the same time. And visa-versa a fat rabbit cannot be fat and non-fat. Concerning the existence of just the rabbit itself, it either exists or doesn’t exist. It can either be alive or dead, but not both at the same time. If that is what you mean by binary, either a 1 or a 0 and not both then yeah I think that works.
The Law of Excluded Middle is more defined in that if something is true then everything else opposed to it is false. For example if only one belief system can be true, then all others opposed to the one true belief system must be false. So lets say atheism is the one true belief system. If it truly is then all others belief systems opposing atheism must be false. You cannot say have both atheism and Christianity as true. It’s either or.

4. The Law of Causality (Non A cant cause A, Nothing cannot cause Something)

This one doesn’t make any sense to me, I don’t see why it should be true or untrue, isn’t this the realm of quantum physics?

This is pretty much the same argument from the previous post, that something exists only from something already existing. Something cannot exist from nothing. What is nothing? Nothing is exactly that, nothing. Therefore nothing is nothing and therefore can do nothing. To say nothing can cause or produce is to treat a non thing as if it were a thing, but that is absurd. Since nothing is nothing it has no power by which to exert upon another to cause it, because it lacks existence which is necessary to have in order to do something. So nothing cannot cause something. Only something can cause something to exist.
The Law of Causality is undeniable. It applies to everything, including everyday life in general. For example there is no way you can deny it without using it. You must cause your own thought or statement in order to claim that effects have no cause. If you don’t then you may as well ask who is saying the denial. If it is no one, then you’re saying nothing. If you ARE saying something, like producing a denial, then you are affirming the reality of the Law of Causality because I for example (the cause of the statement) am effecting your statement. So you can respond to this entire post if you like but in doing so you are actually using the law of causality to do it.

Concerning quantum physics, the only way to view the subatomic realm is to bombard it with rays, which does not allow you to see the realm in its own undisturbed natural state. You cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state. And furthermore what those who deny the law of causality are really doing is bombarding the subatomic realm, viewing their own disturbance, and reading into it irrational assumptions. They also contradict themselves in making judgments and conclusions about the realm saying the Law of Causality does not apply to the subatomic realm, YET they just USED the Law of Causality in order to say that because their conclusion is the effect and the cause is the premise; all of which is being applied to the subatomic realm. So the only way they can make conclusions that the Law of Causality does not apply to the subatomic realm is to use the Law of Causality, and affirm that the Law of Causality DOES apply to the sub atomic realm while they are making judgments and conclusions about it. If the Law of Causality REALLY didn’t apply to the sub atomic realm, then one couldn’t make judgments about it at all since inductive and deductive judgments require application of the Law of Causality.

It should also be noted that quantum physics, like any other seemingly acausal scientific finding, should be based on the principle of unpredictability NOT indeterminacy. We don’t KNOW what causes these subatomic particles to pop into existence, and we don’t know when or at what rate they will do so. So you cannot conclude based on that, that nothing is what is bringing it into being. If all of science worked on principles of indeterminacy we would not have gotten as far as we have today in knowing what we know about the world and the universe. It’s seems in our nature to continually find and work things out, even the unpredictable, rather than simply concluding that something is indeterminable. This is science.

5. The Law of Analogy (A is similar to the A it produces, A thing must bear resemblance to the thing it produces).

What possible reason would one have to believe that? Surely that’s obvious rubbish. Plutonium produces heat, in what way does heat resemble plutonium?

This is in relation to the Law of Non Contradiction and the Law of Causality but it actually relates to all previous laws. The Law of Non Contradiction is the foundation, then the law of Identity, Excluded Middle, the Law of Causality, and then the Law of Analogy. You can also work backwards to the Law of Non Contradiction as well. They all support each other and are in some sense interchangeable.

So we know from the Law of Causality is that nothing cannot cause something, because nothing is nothing, and has no existence or power to exert to cause another. Something can only cause something, nothing cannot cause something. So if you have something that exists bringing something else into being, they both share something in common, being/existence. In this way an effect resembles its cause. So in the case of Plutonium and heat the basic answer is that at the very least they both exist, but I think there would be some other attributes other than the existence of heat that they share in common as well. Another example would be a painting bearing resemblance to its painter, in the sense that the effect reflects the mind of the painter. You wouldn’t know from just looking at that the two that they bare resemblance but at the very least the resemblance is that they both exist.
Water flowing over small rolling rocks gradually wears the rock’s surface smooth and rounded. Heavy rain on dirt results in erosion, and so on. These are other examples of natural causes that don’t resemble each other to look at but are what you would call secondary causes. Their effects are produced by natural forces whose processes are an observable part of the ongoing operation of the physical universe. This then goes back to the Law of Causality.

“Is this a good place to start? As in do you agree with these principles?”

No. Imagine starting off by making laws! The right place to start is by observing reality…

You just made a law yourself by saying the right place to start is by observing reality. That is a law YOU start with and I did exactly the same thing when I posted the First Principles of Reason. Reason and the law of it is how we observe reality. We are both essentially starting with the exact same law. I’ve just gone into detail on how exactly one observes reality.

No, you have not used well established and sound evidence from the natural sciences to support the cosmological argument, you have used assumptions that are not contradicted by the basics of the natural sciences. While the examples I used are not particularly mundane, they demonstrate adequately the point I was trying to make, namely, that explanations that do not adhere to your original set of premises are an option.

If I have not used well established and sound evidence from the natural sciences to support the cosmological argument, give me an example then. You can claim that all you want but where is your evidence?

I accept the possibility that the universe was brought into being by some uncaused entity without a beginning that exists outside the universe. I also accept the possibility that the universe already existed in some very different form before the big bang occurred. The big bang, than would not be the beginning of the universe, but simply a vast state change. The universe itself, then, could be an uncaused entity without a beginning.
I think it is pretty clear then, that I have reason not to agree with what you have said so far, which is what I did in the first place.

Ok I am glad you accept the possibility of an uncaused cause. I’m having trouble with your interpretation of the big bang though. The big bang theory is a very sound theory of how the universe got started. To claim there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang is a contradiction in terms and also has no scientific backup.
The cosmological argument only uses scientific evidence, of what we know so far; not hypotheticals with no scientific data to support it, which is I think what you are trying to use to support other theories different from that of the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is put forward to show, with the support of scientific study, that an uncaused cause is completely plausible. In fact it is the most plausible explanation of how it all begin than any other theory, especially the theory where it all apparently came from nothing.

While I can accept that some sort of uncaused entity outside the universe which brought the universe into existence is an option, I must stipulate that an intelligent being is far less parsimonious than many other explanations that could account for the universe as we know it. Additionally, the bible is far too self-contradictory, and too extensively contradicted by the archaeological record, to be trustworthy as any sort of historical account, let alone an account of the nature of the creator of the universe, and its intentions..

Well if you are willing to accept the plausibility of an uncaused cause would you allow me to continue with my explanation of what this uncaused cause might be? Maybe you’ve just not heard a reasonable explanation of it before.

No, you have not used well established and sound evidence from the natural sciences to support the cosmological argument, you have used assumptions that are not contradicted by the basics of the natural sciences. While the examples I used are not particularly mundane, they demonstrate adequately the point I was trying to make, namely, that explanations that do not adhere to your original set of premises are an option.

If I have not used well established and sound evidence from the natural sciences to support the cosmological argument, give me an example then. You can claim that all you want but where is your evidence?

My evidence for what? You are the one making the assertion that you have used sound evidence from the natural sciences. Let’s look at your first premise.
“All things that have a beginning must have a cause.”
This is not evidence from scientific reasoning, this is an assumption, and as I pointed out, there are scientific models that do not comply with it. If it were a fundamental tenet of the natural sciences, that would not be the case.
Virtual particles, which pop into existence and eliminate each other constantly, are proven to exist, and according to quantum theory, are causeless.

I accept the possibility that the universe was brought into being by some uncaused entity without a beginning that exists outside the universe. I also accept the possibility that the universe already existed in some very different form before the big bang occurred. The big bang, than would not be the beginning of the universe, but simply a vast state change. The universe itself, then, could be an uncaused entity without a beginning.
I think it is pretty clear then, that I have reason not to agree with what you have said so far, which is what I did in the first place.

Ok I am glad you accept the possibility of an uncaused cause. I’m having trouble with your interpretation of the big bang though. The big bang theory is a very sound theory of how the universe got started. To claim there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang is a contradiction in terms and also has no scientific backup.

the big bang theory is a sound theory of how the universe as we know it got started. It does not demand that there be no form of existence prior to the big bang. There is no evidence to support the possibility that the universe existed in some other form before the big bang, but there is also no evidence that there was an intelligent being around before the universe existed. However, the idea that the universe existed in some other form before the big bang allows for a much simpler, more parsimonious explanation than the intelligent uncaused being. The universe might have been a simple conglomeration of unexpanded point-dimensions. Unevidenced, but much more parsimonious than the also unevidenced intelligent being.

The cosmological argument only uses scientific evidence, of what we know so far; not hypotheticals with no scientific data to support it, which is I think what you are trying to use to support other theories different from that of the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is put forward to show, with the support of scientific study, that an uncaused cause is completely plausible. In fact it is the most plausible explanation of how it all begin than any other theory, especially the theory where it all apparently came from nothing.

Um, no, the cosmological argument predates the scientific method, it isn’t based on scientific evidence. As I said, virtual particles are understood to have beginnings and be causeless, so the original premise is invalidated. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was caused by some outside entity without a beginning. We know that the universe as we know it began, and we have a fair idea what the conditions at the beginning were like. We don’t know why it began, and we have no more evidence that it began because it was caused by some outside entity than we have for any other explanation.
If the cosmological argument were supported by scientific data, it would have a greater following among scientists. The reason it doesn’t is that scientists as a collective have the creativity to spot other options.

While I can accept that some sort of uncaused entity outside the universe which brought the universe into existence is an option, I must stipulate that an intelligent being is far less parsimonious than many other explanations that could account for the universe as we know it. Additionally, the bible is far too self-contradictory, and too extensively contradicted by the archaeological record, to be trustworthy as any sort of historical account, let alone an account of the nature of the creator of the universe, and its intentions..

Well if you are willing to accept the plausibility of an uncaused cause would you allow me to continue with my explanation of what this uncaused cause might be? Maybe you’ve just not heard a reasonable explanation of it before.

If it’s an explanation that leads to the conclusion that the creator was the Judeo-Christian deity, I very much doubt that I simply haven’t heard a reasonable explanation before. I’ve heard literally hundreds of people try to explain it, but I have never once heard it explained persuasively.
Still, if you honestly think you can do better, go ahead. Remember that you still haven’t established the necessity of an outside creator though, so everything from this point is still hypothetical.

Sorry, there’s a bit of a muddle with what should be in quotes up there and what shouldn’t. Just read all the text and it should be clear from context.

My evidence for what? You are the one making the assertion that you have used sound evidence from the natural sciences. Let’s look at your first premise.
“All things that have a beginning must have a cause.”
This is not evidence from scientific reasoning, this is an assumption, and as I pointed out, there are scientific models that do not comply with it. If it were a fundamental tenet of the natural sciences, that would not be the case.
Virtual particles, which pop into existence and eliminate each other constantly, are proven to exist, and according to quantum theory, are causeless.

Um, no, the cosmological argument predates the scientific method, it isn’t based on scientific evidence. As I said, virtual particles are understood to have beginnings and be causeless, so the original premise is invalidated. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was caused by some outside entity without a beginning. We know that the universe as we know it began, and we have a fair idea what the conditions at the beginning were like. We don’t know why it began, and we have no more evidence that it began because it was caused by some outside entity than we have for any other explanation.
If the cosmological argument were supported by scientific data, it would have a greater following among scientists. The reason it doesn’t is that scientists as a collective have the creativity to spot other options.

I don’t know if you read my last reply to Tom Donald’s comments but I brought up this issue concerning quantum physics and the Law of Causality with him. It fits well with your above comments so I’ll post it again for you here.

“Something cannot exist from nothing. What is nothing? Nothing is exactly that, nothing. Therefore nothing is nothing and therefore can do nothing. To say nothing can cause or produce is to treat a non thing as if it were a thing, which is absurd. Since nothing is nothing it has no power by which to exert upon another to cause it, because it lacks existence which is necessary to have in order to do something. So nothing cannot cause something. Only something can cause something to exist.
The Law of Causality is undeniable. It applies to everything, including everyday life. For example there is no way you can deny it without using it. You must cause your own thought or statement in order to claim that effects have no cause. If you don’t then you may as well ask who is saying the denial. If it is no one, then you’re saying nothing. If you ARE saying something, like producing a denial, then you are affirming the reality of the Law of Causality because I for example (the cause of the statement) am effecting your statement. So you can respond to this entire post if you like but in doing so you are actually using the law of causality to do it.

Concerning quantum physics, the only way to view the subatomic realm is to bombard it with rays, which does not allow you to see the realm in its own undisturbed natural state. You cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state. And furthermore what those who deny the law of causality are really doing is bombarding the subatomic realm, viewing their own disturbance, and reading into it irrational assumptions. They also contradict themselves in making judgments and conclusions about the realm saying the Law of Causality does not apply to the subatomic realm, YET they just USED the Law of Causality in order to say that because their conclusion is the effect and the cause is the premise; all of which is being applied to the subatomic realm. So the only way they can make conclusions that the Law of Causality does not apply to the subatomic realm is to use the Law of Causality, and affirm that the Law of Causality DOES apply to the sub atomic realm while they are making judgments and conclusions about it. If the Law of Causality REALLY didn’t apply to the sub atomic realm, then one couldn’t make judgments about it at all since inductive and deductive judgments require application of the Law of Causality.

It should also be noted that quantum physics, like any other seemingly acausal scientific finding, should be based on the principle of unpredictability NOT indeterminacy. We don’t KNOW what causes these subatomic particles to pop into existence, and we don’t know when or at what rate they will do so. So you cannot conclude based on that, that nothing is what is bringing it into being. If all of science worked on principles of indeterminacy we would not have gotten as far as we have today in knowing what we know about the world and the universe. It’s seems in our nature to continually find and work things out, even the unpredictable, rather than simply concluding that something as indeterminable. This is science.”

I stated that quantum physics, like any other seemingly acausal scientific finding, like your virtual particles, should be based on the principle of unpredictability NOT indeterminacy. These virtual particles you speak of are NOT understood to have beginnings and be causeless, but rather they are based on the principle of unpredictability. This is how we do science. Some atheists (like yourself) argue that there is no need for a cause. They insist that there is nothing without logical or meaningful connection about something coming into existence from nothing. Again this is stubbornly opposed to reality as it is known and lived and to the scientific enterprise, which is forever seeking a causal explanation. It is contrary to science to believe that things just pop into and out of existence. Something that does not even exist has no power to do anything.

The cosmological argument does not predate the scientific method, it is grounded directly in it. You would have to deny the law of causality first, and the other First Principles of Reason which I posted, all of which are used in the scientific method.

___________

“Well if you are willing to accept the plausibility of an uncaused cause would you allow me to continue with my explanation of what this uncaused cause might be? Maybe you’ve just not heard a reasonable explanation of it before.”

If it’s an explanation that leads to the conclusion that the creator was the Judeo-Christian deity, I very much doubt that I simply haven’t heard a reasonable explanation before. I’ve heard literally hundreds of people try to explain it, but I have never once heard it explained persuasively.
Still, if you honestly think you can do better, go ahead. Remember that you still haven’t established the necessity of an outside creator though, so everything from this point is still hypothetical.

I think it best then to establish the necessity for an uncaused cause before going on any further.

My evidence for what? You are the one making the assertion that you have used sound evidence from the natural sciences. Let’s look at your first premise.
“All things that have a beginning must have a cause.”
This is not evidence from scientific reasoning, this is an assumption, and as I pointed out, there are scientific models that do not comply with it. If it were a fundamental tenet of the natural sciences, that would not be the case.
Virtual particles, which pop into existence and eliminate each other constantly, are proven to exist, and according to quantum theory, are causeless.

Um, no, the cosmological argument predates the scientific method, it isn’t based on scientific evidence. As I said, virtual particles are understood to have beginnings and be causeless, so the original premise is invalidated. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was caused by some outside entity without a beginning. We know that the universe as we know it began, and we have a fair idea what the conditions at the beginning were like. We don’t know why it began, and we have no more evidence that it began because it was caused by some outside entity than we have for any other explanation.
If the cosmological argument were supported by scientific data, it would have a greater following among scientists. The reason it doesn’t is that scientists as a collective have the creativity to spot other options.

I don’t know if you read my last reply to Tom Donald’s comments but I brought up this issue concerning quantum physics and the Law of Causality with him. It fits well with your above comments so I’ll post it again for you here.

“Something cannot exist from nothing. What is nothing? Nothing is exactly that, nothing. Therefore nothing is nothing and therefore can do nothing. To say nothing can cause or produce is to treat a non thing as if it were a thing, which is absurd. Since nothing is nothing it has no power by which to exert upon another to cause it, because it lacks existence which is necessary to have in order to do something. So nothing cannot cause something. Only something can cause something to exist.
The Law of Causality is undeniable. It applies to everything, including everyday life. For example there is no way you can deny it without using it. You must cause your own thought or statement in order to claim that effects have no cause. If you don’t then you may as well ask who is saying the denial. If it is no one, then you’re saying nothing. If you ARE saying something, like producing a denial, then you are affirming the reality of the Law of Causality because I for example (the cause of the statement) am effecting your statement. So you can respond to this entire post if you like but in doing so you are actually using the law of causality to do it.

Most events are clearly causal. In some cases, it is not so clear. If Quantum Mechanics are correct, virtual particles are exocausal. It’s possible that there’s some explanation that we haven’t come up with that would change that, but the simple fact remains that the Law of Causality, as you refer to it, is not actually a tenet of science. The important thing for a scientific theory is that it make testable predictions, and pass falsification attempts.
Your claims that the Cosmological Argument is grounded in the scientific method are simply untrue. It is an a priori argument, and one that contains assumptions that modern scientific advancements have rendered dubious. Scientific arguments are a posteriori by necessity.
It is certainly not a scientific principle that there cannot be such a thing as an infinite regression. If it were, Jinn particles would never have been hypothesized in the first place. Infinite regressions may assault our sensibilities, but so do the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There simply is no demonstrable reason that they cannot occur, outside our own incredulity. With infinite regression as an option, an uncaused cause without a beginning is clearly not a necessity.

Most events are clearly causal. In some cases, it is not so clear.

Most events aren’t causal, ALL events known to man are causal. The more we study anything in science the more causes we find. That is what science is, forever seeking a causal explanation.

If Quantum Mechanics are correct, virtual particles are exocausal.

Do you mean acausal?

It’s possible that there’s some explanation that we haven’t come up with that would change that, but the simple fact remains that the Law of Causality, as you refer to it, is not actually a tenet of science. The important thing for a scientific theory is that it make testable predictions, and pass falsification attempts.

Causality is the THE VERY TENET of science. Testable predictions and passing falsification attempts all use the law of causality to predict and to falsify. ‘Testable’ is any substance that, because of the reactions it CAUSES, is used in analysis and synthesis.

Your claims that the Cosmological Argument is grounded in the scientific method are simply untrue. It is an a priori argument, and one that contains assumptions that modern scientific advancements have rendered dubious. Scientific arguments are a posteriori by necessity.

Yes scientific arguments ARE a posteriori and the Cosmological Argument uses a posteriori arguments and nothing else. An a posteriori argument derives a theory from the evidence, based upon actual observation and upon experimental data. It is actually your quantum physics argument that is a priori. It is not based on prior study or examination. Like I said the only way to view the subatomic realm is to bombard it with rays, which does not allow you to see the realm in its own undisturbed natural state. You cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state.

It is certainly not a scientific principle that there cannot be such a thing as an infinite regression. If it were, Jinn particles would never have been hypothesized in the first place. Infinite regressions may assault our sensibilities, but so do the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There simply is no demonstrable reason that they cannot occur, outside our own incredulity. With infinite regression as an option, an uncaused cause without a beginning is clearly not a necessity.

Infinite regression is only plausible in the mind (abstract), like say in Mathematics but it is not possible in the realm of actual reality. For example in mathematics the line between A and B can have an infinite number of points or dimensionless intersections of two lines. Actual infinities are concrete, and it is not possible to get an infinite number of actual entities between A and B no matter how small these entities might be in the real world. For example our world works in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series could go for, it would always be possible to add one more. The problem is you cannot add one more to an infinite number. In our reality, no matter how many Dominoes you have in a line, one more can always be added. So we cannot allow infinite regression as an option because you can never reach an infinite number in actual reality, which quantum physics is very much a part of.

-

Most events are clearly causal. In some cases, it is not so clear.

Most events aren’t causal, ALL events known to man are causal. The more we study anything in science the more causes we find. That is what science is, forever seeking a causal explanation.

Then why does God get to be an exception?
We have no evidence that there are things without a beginning that have no cause. You (and others who take the Cosmological Argument at face value) simply assume there must be. You are thus making an unevidenced claim. Ergo, the Cosmological Argument is not scientific.

If Quantum Mechanics are correct, virtual particles are exocausal.

Do you mean acausal?

For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing. Acausal means “without cause” while exocausal means “outside of cause”.

It’s possible that there’s some explanation that we haven’t come up with that would change that, but the simple fact remains that the Law of Causality, as you refer to it, is not actually a tenet of science. The important thing for a scientific theory is that it make testable predictions, and pass falsification attempts.

Causality is the THE VERY TENET of science. Testable predictions and passing falsification attempts all use the law of causality to predict and to falsify. ‘Testable’ is any substance that, because of the reactions it CAUSES, is used in analysis and synthesis.

Let us assume, for the moment, that causality is a tenet of science. Why does God get to be an exception? Why can’t the Big Bang be an exception? At least if it is the Big Bang that is the exception, you’re not calling in any unevidenced entities.

Your claims that the Cosmological Argument is grounded in the scientific method are simply untrue. It is an a priori argument, and one that contains assumptions that modern scientific advancements have rendered dubious. Scientific arguments are a posteriori by necessity.

Yes scientific arguments ARE a posteriori and the Cosmological Argument uses a posteriori arguments and nothing else. An a posteriori argument derives a theory from the evidence, based upon actual observation and upon experimental data. It is actually your quantum physics argument that is a priori. It is not based on prior study or examination. Like I said the only way to view the subatomic realm is to bombard it with rays, which does not allow you to see the realm in its own undisturbed natural state. You cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state.

Quantum Mechanics is about the most experimentally validated theory we have. It’s predictions, not just about what we’ll see when we bombard an atom with rays, but how particles of low mass should behave in countless other situations. It has made extremely counterintuitive predictions which have been confirmed in every situation. In fact, the implications of quantum mechanics are often so weird that the theory would likely have been dismissed out of hand if it were not well supported. If you think you have some yet-unconsidered reason why Quantum Mechanics is not a useful theory, by all means contact a suitable scientific journal.
The Cosmological argument is not substantially based on observed data. We haven’t observed entities without beginning or cause any more than we have observed infinite regresses. We have no reason to declare one to be more impossible than the other.

It is certainly not a scientific principle that there cannot be such a thing as an infinite regression. If it were, Jinn particles would never have been hypothesized in the first place. Infinite regressions may assault our sensibilities, but so do the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There simply is no demonstrable reason that they cannot occur, outside our own incredulity. With infinite regression as an option, an uncaused cause without a beginning is clearly not a necessity.

Infinite regression is only plausible in the mind (abstract), like say in Mathematics but it is not possible in the realm of actual reality. For example in mathematics the line between A and B can have an infinite number of points or dimensionless intersections of two lines. Actual infinities are concrete, and it is not possible to get an infinite number of actual entities between A and B no matter how small these entities might be in the real world. For example our world works in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series could go for, it would always be possible to add one more. The problem is you cannot add one more to an infinite number. In our reality, no matter how many Dominoes you have in a line, one more can always be added. So we cannot allow infinite regression as an option because you can never reach an infinite number in actual reality, which quantum physics is very much a part of.

Can you demonstrate that such a thing as an infinite regression is impossible? You’ve claimed that it’s impossible, but all you have so far is an assertion. You admit that it’s possible in mathematics, which leaves out the possibility of mathematically disproving the existence of infinite regressions. It’s not considered a tenet of science that there cannot be infinite regressions, otherwise, as I said before, Jinn particles would not be hypothesized. You also have not established that entities without beginning or cause are possible. Such entities haven’t been observed any more than infinite regressions have (unless the universe itself qualifies as either an uncaused entity without a real beginning, or an infinite regression, and in either case we don’t know it)so you’re still picking one event completely outside our experience over another.

Here’s another option for how the universe could have gotten started. In General Relativity, the question of whether causes precede their effects loses a lot of meaning. The flow of causality is not necessarily confined to a single direction on the time axis. As far as we know, the universe could have been caused by an event that hasn’t even happened yet. Thus, in order to establish the validity of the Cosmological Argument, you must also prove that the universe was not caused by some event that, from our perspective, occurred after the big bang.
When you’re sufficiently creative, you can come up with plenty of ways the universe could have gotten started. Right now, they’re all outside our ordinary experience, and they’re all unevidenced. As such, all we can judge by is the relative parsimony of the explanations. I would argue that an uncaused, intelligent creator from outside the universe (which, if you take the bible literally, is man-shaped)which designed the universe deliberately and has a plan for everything in it, is one of the least parsimonious explanations that has ever been seriously proposed.

Firstly great questions Des. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my arguments.

_______________

“ALL events known to man are causal. The more we study anything in science the more causes we find. That is what science is, forever seeking a causal explanation.”

Then why does God get to be an exception?
We have no evidence that there are things without a beginning that have no cause. You (and others who take the Cosmological Argument at face value) simply assume there must be. You are thus making an unevidenced claim. Ergo, the Cosmological Argument is not scientific.

I will presume when you say God you mean an uncaused cause. The cosmological argument proceeds with principles grounded in reality, not in thought alone. They are ontologically grounded principles, not rationally inescapable ideas. It is based on metaphysical truth that ‘Nothing’ cannot cause ‘Something’ rather than the rational assertion that “Everything must have a sufficient reason”. I think it is the atheist that takes the Cosmological Argument at face value more often than not. The exception here being you of coarse. Most non-theists misunderstand the principle of causality and assume it means that every THING has a cause. They then conclude that you should never stop seeking a cause, even for God. But it is not every ‘being’ that has a cause, it is every ‘finite being’ or ‘contingent being’ that has a cause. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is the premise that preceeds scientific evidence and is fully backed up by it. Also, because there is no such thing as an infinite regress in reality and existence, there has to be a starting point, a First Cause if you will, because you cannot go backwards to infinity in causes with beginnings. A First Cause or Uncaused Cause does not contradict the principle or law of causality (that all finite beings need a cause) because the Uncaused Cause is not contingent or finite. Once you arrive at an uncaused cause there is no need to seek a further cause. It is because of the impossibility of infinite regression in this world that an uncaused cause becomes a necessity. It is logically sound and it is based on pure scientific reasoning (reality).

Let us assume, for the moment, that causality is a tenet of science. Why does God get to be an exception? Why can’t the Big Bang be an exception? At least if it is the Big Bang that is the exception, you’re not calling in any unevidenced entities.

The Big Bang had a beginning. It is finite an contingent. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy prove this therefore the Big Bang cannot be an exception.

Quantum Mechanics is about the most experimentally validated theory we have. It’s predictions, not just about what we’ll see when we bombard an atom with rays, but how particles of low mass should behave in countless other situations. It has made extremely counterintuitive predictions which have been confirmed in every situation. In fact, the implications of quantum mechanics are often so weird that the theory would likely have been dismissed out of hand if it were not well supported. If you think you have some yet-unconsidered reason why Quantum Mechanics is not a useful theory, by all means contact a suitable scientific journal.

Quantum Physics is a reality, it is not a theory. The predictions made by quantum physicians are the theories and they are most certainly not the most experimentally validated. So far we can only see these particles when we bombard a subatomic atom with rays. We cannot see these particles in a undisturbed state like we can with most other things we study in the natural sciences. There is a huge lack of scientific data that we absolutely need before we can use it to prove an argument. Again you cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state.

The Cosmological argument is not substantially based on observed data. We haven’t observed entities without beginning or cause any more than we have observed infinite regresses. We have no reason to declare one to be more impossible than the other.

As I said the cosmological argument PROCEEDS with principles grounded in reality (observed data). A necessary being like an uncaused cause, by the very definition of necessity, explains it’s own existence. It exists because it must exist. It cannot not exist. Only what can not exist (like a contingent being) needs an explanation. To ask why a necessary being exists is like asking why necessity must be necessary, or why circles must be round.

________________

“Infinite regression is only plausible in the mind (abstract), like say in Mathematics but it is not possible in the realm of actual reality. For example in mathematics the line between A and B can have an infinite number of points or dimensionless intersections of two lines. Actual infinities are concrete, and it is not possible to get an infinite number of actual entities between A and B no matter how small these entities might be in the real world. For example our world works in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series could go for, it would always be possible to add one more. The problem is you cannot add one more to an infinite number. In our reality, no matter how many Dominoes you have in a line, one more can always be added. So we cannot allow infinite regression as an option because you can never reach an infinite number in actual reality, which quantum physics is very much a part of.”

Can you demonstrate that such a thing as an infinite regression is impossible? You’ve claimed that it’s impossible, but all you have so far is an assertion. You admit that it’s possible in mathematics, which leaves out the possibility of mathematically disproving the existence of infinite regressions. It’s not considered a tenet of science that there cannot be infinite regressions, otherwise, as I said before, Jinn particles would not be hypothesized. You also have not established that entities without beginning or cause are possible. Such entities haven’t been observed any more than infinite regressions have (unless the universe itself qualifies as either an uncaused entity without a real beginning, or an infinite regression, and in either case we don’t know it)so you’re still picking one event completely outside our experience over another.

I have given very good reason as to why infinite regression is impossible in the real world (actual concrete reality), based on real world examples; that is, empirical evidence that this world works in a series of moments that succeed one another, where an infinite series of events is undeniably impossible because you cannot add one extra of anything to an infinity of something in this world. The burden of proof is actually on you to prove it’s existence in actual reality.
Jinn particles can be hypothesized and so can Flying Spaghetti Monsters. It might be LOGICAL in the mind like mathematics but to prove it in the real world you have give REASON (actual observed evidence). You need logic AND reason not just logic to prove a theory. Although hypothesis is a good thing you cannot just use a hypothesis on it’s own to prove something; you need to then proceed with a WORKING hypothesis grounded on empirical data from actual reality (reason). Like my example I give earlier with Tom…

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails

The above statement is completely logical but it’s not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality. In the case of logic on it’s own, people with pink tails cannot be proven, giant toads, a mighty robot, radioactive custard, a big invisible man or Jinn particles popping in and out of existence. We need to make the distinction between logic on it’s own and logic with reason. If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality.

_____________

Here’s another option for how the universe could have gotten started. In General Relativity, the question of whether causes precede their effects loses a lot of meaning. The flow of causality is not necessarily confined to a single direction on the time axis. As far as we know, the universe could have been caused by an event that hasn’t even happened yet. Thus, in order to establish the validity of the Cosmological Argument, you must also prove that the universe was not caused by some event that, from our perspective, occurred after the big bang.
When you’re sufficiently creative, you can come up with plenty of ways the universe could have gotten started. Right now, they’re all outside our ordinary experience, and they’re all unevidenced. As such, all we can judge by is the relative parsimony of the explanations. I would argue that an uncaused, intelligent creator from outside the universe (which, if you take the bible literally, is man-shaped)which designed the universe deliberately and has a plan for everything in it, is one of the least parsimonious explanations that has ever been seriously proposed.

Again all these hypothesis’ can proceed to be true only if they are backed up or grounded from scientific evidence found in the real world. The cosmological argument proceeds from these very evidences. My argument here is that an uncaused cause is the MOST parsimonious explanation given the interpretation of scientific data.

Firstly great questions Des. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my arguments.

_______________

“ALL events known to man are causal. The more we study anything in science the more causes we find. That is what science is, forever seeking a causal explanation.”

But God gets to be an exception from events that need a causal explanation?

Then why does God get to be an exception?
We have no evidence that there are things without a beginning that have no cause. You (and others who take the Cosmological Argument at face value) simply assume there must be. You are thus making an unevidenced claim. Ergo, the Cosmological Argument is not scientific.

I will presume when you say God you mean an uncaused cause. The cosmological argument proceeds with principles grounded in reality, not in thought alone. They are ontologically grounded principles, not rationally inescapable ideas. It is based on metaphysical truth that ‘Nothing’ cannot cause ‘Something’ rather than the rational assertion that “Everything must have a sufficient reason”. I think it is the atheist that takes the Cosmological Argument at face value more often than not. The exception here being you of coarse. Most non-theists misunderstand the principle of causality and assume it means that every THING has a cause. They then conclude that you should never stop seeking a cause, even for God. But it is not every ‘being’ that has a cause, it is every ‘finite being’ or ‘contingent being’ that has a cause. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is the premise that preceeds scientific evidence and is fully backed up by it.

Nope, we have no evidence of things without beginnings that have no causes. Therefore, the idea that there are non-contingent entities which are an exception to the requirement of causality is not backed up in the least. Additionally, we have no proof that these things that require no cause cannot have a beginning. We know virtual particles exist, and they have every appearance of being uncaused. They may have some underlying cause, and it’s certainly worth looking for one, but on the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of anything that has existed forever and has no beginning.

Also, because there is no such thing as an infinite regress in reality and existence, there has to be a starting point, a First Cause if you will, because you cannot go backwards to infinity in causes with beginnings. A First Cause or Uncaused Cause does not contradict the principle or law of causality (that all finite beings need a cause) because the Uncaused Cause is not contingent or finite. Once you arrive at an uncaused cause there is no need to seek a further cause. It is because of the impossibility of infinite regression in this world that an uncaused cause becomes a necessity. It is logically sound and it is based on pure scientific reasoning (reality).

It’s not. The existence of non-contingent entities is pure speculation, as is the nonexistence of infinite regresses. We have no more evidence of the existence of non-contingent entities than we have for the existence of infinite regresses. If it were part of your religion to believe that the universe were an infinite regress (the old “turtles all the way down” explanation) you would probably argue that the universe had to be an infinite regress because there is no such thing as a non-contingent entity.
Many laypeople may accept the Cosmological Argument at face value, but I can say from personal experience, having discussed it with many of them, that most scientists do not. That is because to be an effective scientist, one must be creative, and able to free oneself from preconceptions. There are other explanations, equally (un)supported, for how the universe could have come into being, which do not demand a non-contingent entity working from outside the universe.

Let us assume, for the moment, that causality is a tenet of science. Why does God get to be an exception? Why can’t the Big Bang be an exception? At least if it is the Big Bang that is the exception, you’re not calling in any unevidenced entities.

The Big Bang had a beginning. It is finite an contingent. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy prove this therefore the Big Bang cannot be an exception.

Quantum Mechanics is about the most experimentally validated theory we have. It’s predictions, not just about what we’ll see when we bombard an atom with rays, but how particles of low mass should behave in countless other situations. It has made extremely counterintuitive predictions which have been confirmed in every situation. In fact, the implications of quantum mechanics are often so weird that the theory would likely have been dismissed out of hand if it were not well supported. If you think you have some yet-unconsidered reason why Quantum Mechanics is not a useful theory, by all means contact a suitable scientific journal.

Quantum Physics is a reality, it is not a theory. The predictions made by quantum physicians are the theories and they are most certainly not the most experimentally validated. So far we can only see these particles when we bombard a subatomic atom with rays. We cannot see these particles in a undisturbed state like we can with most other things we study in the natural sciences. There is a huge lack of scientific data that we absolutely need before we can use it to prove an argument. Again you cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state.

The Cosmological argument is not substantially based on observed data. We haven’t observed entities without beginning or cause any more than we have observed infinite regresses. We have no reason to declare one to be more impossible than the other.

As I said the cosmological argument PROCEEDS with principles grounded in reality (observed data). A necessary being like an uncaused cause, by the very definition of necessity, explains it’s own existence. It exists because it must exist. It cannot not exist. Only what can not exist (like a contingent being) needs an explanation. To ask why a necessary being exists is like asking why necessity must be necessary, or why circles must be round.

________________

“Infinite regression is only plausible in the mind (abstract), like say in Mathematics but it is not possible in the realm of actual reality. For example in mathematics the line between A and B can have an infinite number of points or dimensionless intersections of two lines. Actual infinities are concrete, and it is not possible to get an infinite number of actual entities between A and B no matter how small these entities might be in the real world. For example our world works in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series could go for, it would always be possible to add one more. The problem is you cannot add one more to an infinite number. In our reality, no matter how many Dominoes you have in a line, one more can always be added. So we cannot allow infinite regression as an option because you can never reach an infinite number in actual reality, which quantum physics is very much a part of.”

Can you demonstrate that such a thing as an infinite regression is impossible? You’ve claimed that it’s impossible, but all you have so far is an assertion. You admit that it’s possible in mathematics, which leaves out the possibility of mathematically disproving the existence of infinite regressions. It’s not considered a tenet of science that there cannot be infinite regressions, otherwise, as I said before, Jinn particles would not be hypothesized. You also have not established that entities without beginning or cause are possible. Such entities haven’t been observed any more than infinite regressions have (unless the universe itself qualifies as either an uncaused entity without a real beginning, or an infinite regression, and in either case we don’t know it)so you’re still picking one event completely outside our experience over another.

I have given very good reason as to why infinite regression is impossible in the real world (actual concrete reality), based on real world examples; that is, empirical evidence that this world works in a series of moments that succeed one another, where an infinite series of events is undeniably impossible because you cannot add one extra of anything to an infinity of something in this world. The burden of proof is actually on you to prove it’s existence in actual reality.

An infinity is not a number at which it becomes impossible to add any more, it’s a quantity that keeps on going without end. You can add to an infinity, and it simply remains infinite. The burden of proof is likewise on you to prove the existence of actual noncontingent entities.

Jinn particles can be hypothesized and so can Flying Spaghetti Monsters. It might be LOGICAL in the mind like mathematics but to prove it in the real world you have give REASON (actual observed evidence). You need logic AND reason not just logic to prove a theory. Although hypothesis is a good thing you cannot just use a hypothesis on it’s own to prove something;

If I were trying to prove that we have observed instances of infinite regressions in the form of Jinn particles, you would be right for calling me out, because we haven’t. However, that was not what I was trying to establish. My point is that they have been hypothesized because they do not violate any known laws of physics. Despite what you claim, they are considered to be a genuine possibility.

you need to then proceed with a WORKING hypothesis grounded on empirical data from actual reality (reason). Like my example I give earlier with Tom…

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails

The above statement is completely logical but it’s not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality. In the case of logic on it’s own, people with pink tails cannot be proven, giant toads, a mighty robot, radioactive custard, a big invisible man or Jinn particles popping in and out of existence. We need to make the distinction between logic on it’s own and logic with reason. If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality.

But I have to say that the Cosmological Argument falls into the same territory as the “All Irishmen have pink tails” argument. It’s based on faulty premises, and ignores real options.
By the way, I think you’re confusing Jinn particles and virtual particles. Jinn particles, unlike virtual particles (which have been proven to exist) do not pop in and out of existence. They have a closed-loop worldline, and have thus experienced every event in their causal chains an infinite number of times. They have no beginning or end, but they do not extend infinitely along the time axis.

_____________

Here’s another option for how the universe could have gotten started. In General Relativity, the question of whether causes precede their effects loses a lot of meaning. The flow of causality is not necessarily confined to a single direction on the time axis. As far as we know, the universe could have been caused by an event that hasn’t even happened yet. Thus, in order to establish the validity of the Cosmological Argument, you must also prove that the universe was not caused by some event that, from our perspective, occurred after the big bang.
When you’re sufficiently creative, you can come up with plenty of ways the universe could have gotten started. Right now, they’re all outside our ordinary experience, and they’re all unevidenced. As such, all we can judge by is the relative parsimony of the explanations. I would argue that an uncaused, intelligent creator from outside the universe (which, if you take the bible literally, is man-shaped)which designed the universe deliberately and has a plan for everything in it, is one of the least parsimonious explanations that has ever been seriously proposed.

Again all these hypothesis’ can proceed to be true only if they are backed up or grounded from scientific evidence found in the real world. The cosmological argument proceeds from these very evidences. My argument here is that an uncaused cause is the MOST parsimonious explanation given the interpretation of scientific data.

What evidence? So far, despite multiple requests to provide evidence, you have only provided the assumption that no other possibilities exist.

The uncaused cause possibility becomes less and less parsimonious the more complex the proposed entity that acts as the cause is supposed to be. God, as an entity capable of deliberately designing and planning out the course of the universe, is a highly complex entity.
An uncaused cause that took the form of a simple set of underlying rules would be much more parsimonious.

But God gets to be an exception from events that need a causal explanation?

we have no evidence of things without beginnings that have no causes. Therefore, the idea that there are non-contingent entities which are an exception to the requirement of causality is not backed up in the least.

Additionally, we have no proof that these things that require no cause cannot have a beginning.

I’m not sure you understand the definition of what an uncaused cause must necessarily be. An uncaused cause is exactly that, uncaused. By its very definition it cannot have a cause. You are basically asking what the cause of an uncaused cause is. It is impossible for it to have one. It it did have a cause then it is not an actual uncaused cause. You should be arguing against the very existence of an uncaused cause, not the definition of an uncaused cause. It’s like you are saying circles aren’t round therefore circles do not exist. We know circles are round and we know an uncaused cause has no cause. The question you should be asking is whether a circle can exist or if an uncaused cause can exist.

The existence of non-contingent entities is pure speculation, as is the nonexistence of infinite regresses. We have no more evidence of the existence of non-contingent entities than we have for the existence of infinite regresses. If it were part of your religion to believe that the universe were an infinite regress (the old “turtles all the way down” explanation) you would probably argue that the universe had to be an infinite regress because there is no such thing as a non-contingent entity.

If infinite regression were part of my religion I would reject my religion because it is not scientifically sound. I am after truth. If truth proves my belief system false then my belief system is false. Infinite regression in this reality is false.

Many laypeople may accept the Cosmological Argument at face value, but I can say from personal experience, having discussed it with many of them, that most scientists do not. That is because to be an effective scientist, one must be creative, and able to free oneself from preconceptions.

Many good scientists accepted that the world was flat at one stage, even though some of them were free from preconceptions. That doesn’t make them right though. Even today many good scientists still accept macro-evolution. Does the amount of scientists make it true or factual? No.

Quantum Mechanics is about the most experimentally validated theory we have. It’s predictions, not just about what we’ll see when we bombard an atom with rays, but how particles of low mass should behave in countless other situations. It has made extremelycounterintuitive predictions which have been confirmed in every situation. In fact, the implications of quantum mechanics are often so weird that the theory would likely have been dismissed out of hand if it were not well supported. If you think you have some yet-unconsidered reason why Quantum Mechanics is not a useful theory, by all means contact a suitable scientific journal.

Quantum Mechanics is an experimentally validated theory and has extremely counter-intuitive predictions which have been confirmed in every situation, based on a DISTURBED STATE. This is no way near ‘every situation’. In fact it is far from it. You are still stuck here in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; no matter how good they sound. You’re confusing that for the realm of actual concrete reality. My experimentally validated theory and counter intuitive predictions for an uncaused cause is backed up by observable scientific data in an UNDISTURBED STATE. The Law of Causality points to only one conclusion, a first cause, which is necessarily and uncaused cause. Your only weapon against this argument is infinite regression which I have repeatedly showed cannot exist in the real world but only in the abstract.

The Cosmological argument is not substantially based on observed data. We haven’t observed entities without beginning or cause any more than we have observed infinite regresses. We have no reason to declare one to be more impossible than the other.

I’ve never said we have observed entities without beginning or cause. I have only stated that the cosmological argument for an uncaused cause USES ‘preceding’ evidences we already know to be true (observed data). The uncaused cause is not observed, the evidence that supports an uncaused cause is observed, These things like causality and everything else observed in a undisturbed state. Your infinite regress argument however is still stuck in the abstract world with no observable data in an undisturbed state to back it up.

An infinity is not a number at which it becomes impossible to add any more, it’s a quantity that keeps on going without end. You can add to an infinity, and it simply remains infinite.

So what you are saying is Infinity + 1 = Infinity? If so then you have not only exited concrete reality but you have also denied the abstract world of mathematics. There is no real number that is equal to itself plus one. Zero is the identity element for addition of real numbers, not 1.

___________________

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails

“The above statement is completely logical but it’s not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality.”

But I have to say that the Cosmological Argument falls into the same territory as the “All Irishmen have pink tails” argument. It’s based on faulty premises, and ignores real options.

On the contrary, the Cosmological Argument for an uncaused cause uses the Law of Causality as it’s premise. Just to clarify a premise is a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion. The Law of Causality is a proposition that supports the conclusion of an uncaused cause. The premise for your conclusion of an infinite regress is that infinity is not a number that becomes impossible to add too, which is faulty in the real world and the abstract. This is a very faulty premise. Your premise against the Law of Causality, or that something can come from nothing, would be particles popping in and out of existence without a cause. This premise is also faulty because the evidence is based on data in a disturbed state. Next to my premise of evidences of observed data in an undisturbed state your premise is irrational. That is, it is evidence without the faculty of reason. Reason being a basis or cause, as for some fact or event.

By the way, I think you’re confusing Jinn particles and virtual particles. Jinn particles, unlike virtual particles (which have been proven to exist) do not pop in and out of existence.

Yes you are right, my apologies. It is just my bad grammar sorry. I was merely referring both Jinn particles and virtual particles as particles in the subatomic realm. My argument is not against the existence of particles however, it is about the assumptions of something coming from nothing and infinite regression.

_____________

“My argument here is that an uncaused cause is the MOST parsimonious explanation given the interpretation of scientific data.”

What evidence? So far, despite multiple requests to provide evidence, you have only provided the assumption that no other possibilities exist.
The uncaused cause possibility becomes less and less parsimonious the more complex the proposed entity that acts as the cause is supposed to be. God, as an entity capable of deliberately designing and planning out the course of the universe, is a highly complex entity.
An uncaused cause that took the form of a simple set of underlying rules would be much more parsimonious.

An uncaused cause is always in existence. It is not possible for it not to exist. It is eternal, as in it has no beginning and no end. It did not ‘take form’ of anything. Only causes with a beginning, inside space and time, can take form.

so you can only accept a religion that is “scientifically sound”? But you are willing to twist and turn to make godism compatible with science? I would recommend that you read “Father and Son” by Edmund Gosse (1907), which vividly portrays this uncomfortable position, at a time when there really were scientists who believed in religious nonsense. It is a beautiful and sad book, and it is a lot more enlightening than this “caused cause” cobblers.
If you have to work so very hard to convince yourself that your storybook god-thing exists, perhaps you are on the wrong path. Have you ever considered humanism? For a humanist, all humans are in essence directly lovable. I’d recommend it, and it would mean that you could approach science with an open mind, something not possible when outcomes are predetermined by childish stories about big daddy in the sky. Let me put it more succinctly: grow up.
Cheers!
Tom

so you can only accept a religion that is “scientifically sound”? But you are willing to twist and turn to make godism compatible with science?

I don’t have to twist and turn anything. Show me an example how I have twisted and turned anything. If you want accuse someone of something you need to provide some proof following the accusation, to back it up; otherwise all you are doing is mouthing off. I can just as easily say that you are willing to twist and turn to make humanism compatible with science, and then walk away without even bothering to back up my claim.

I would recommend that you read “Father and Son” by Edmund Gosse (1907), which vividly portrays this uncomfortable position, at a time when there really were scientists who believed in religious nonsense. It is a beautiful and sad book, and it is a lot more enlightening than this “caused cause” cobblers.

And I recommend to you “Christian Apologetics” by Norman L. Geisler. It covers rationalism, agnosticism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, combinationalism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, theism and lots more, devoting a chapter to each popular world view and the formulation of adequate tests for truth. I’ll read your book if you’ll read mine.

If you have to work so very hard to convince yourself that your storybook god-thing exists, perhaps you are on the wrong path.

I don’t have work hard to convince myself of the existence of God. I have to work hard to explain it to you because of your predetermined humanistic mindset. If you think something is worth explaining like say your humanism, then don’t you think you should share it, or at least bring it in the light to test it to see is if stacks up?

Have you ever considered humanism? For a humanist, all humans are in essence directly lovable.

I follow Christian humanism. I have a strong interest and concern for human welfare, values and dignity. I do not follow secular humanism (obviously) where man is the measure of all things. As a secular humanist do you follow the seventeen basic affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto II ?

I’d recommend it, and it would mean that you could approach science with an open mind, something not possible when outcomes are predetermined by childish stories about big daddy in the sky. Let me put it more succinctly: grow up.
Cheers!
Tom

I already approach science with an open mind. I arrive at an uncaused cause without invoking any holy book or religious predetermination. What makes you think your atheism or humanism is not a predetermined mindset but that mine is? How can you make such judgments, presupposing you are correct and every other world view next to yours is wrong? As I said to Des, I am in search of truth. If you think humanism is true then show me why you think this is so.

It is also interesting how you claim as a humanist to be directly lovable yet you continually insult other belief systems opposed to your own. Baby-brains, ridiculous, rubbish, nonsense, absurd, stupidity in very generous portions, insulting, insane, half-witted, weakminded, garbage and finally the insistence that I grow up. I don’t feel I’m getting this directly lovable essence from you Tom? So far your humanism is not very convincing. Maybe a hold on the name calling and ridicule would be a good place to start yes?

As a secular humanist do you follow the seventeen basic affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto II ?

Certainly not! Can’t you tell that I distrust authority? That’s when I don’t actively despise it…

I’m not the evangelical type, I don’t want to make you a humanist! But I fiercely resent christian hegemony, claiming ownership of love in the name of a non-existant super-being. And we are supposed to respect that! Well, as you have noticed, I don’t!

“As a secular humanist do you follow the seventeen basic affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto II ?”

Certainly not! Can’t you tell that I distrust authority? That’s when I don’t actively despise it…

I’m not the evangelical type, I don’t want to make you a humanist! But I fiercely resent christian hegemony, claiming ownership of love in the name of a non-existant super-being. And we are supposed to respect that! Well, as you have noticed, I don’t!

Ok so if you despise authority, aren’t you then just like a skeptic who is skeptical of everything except his own skepticism? I mean you claim ownership of love in the name of a non-existent super-being but you don’t even support that in the way you live. Well not in this blog anyway hehe. All that is left is your own skepticism but you don’t seem to question that at all.

If you don’t accept authority from anything, how or where did you get your own world view from? And also if you despise authority what gives you the right to resent Christianity or any other world view other than your own when you do not support or have no other authority to disclaim with other then you’re own personal subjective opinion?

I am a catholic and i was appalled at this article. I think that masturbation is immoral yet i have no hate of those who masturbate. The whole mandate of Christians is to help others and to follow Christ themselves.
All people are vulnerable to actions of impurity and we should help people to be strong and to explain why certain things are wrong.
I totally disagree with the idea to mutilate people so that they cannot commit these actions. It is wrong to damage our bodies. I consider this article completely unchristian.

I have always disliked and openly spoken against homosexuality and other such actions that deal with improper use of sex. However i have never disliked the people. We must always see the people behind the actions, the people that are precious and valuable, just as those who try to do good are. I can not hate the people who are against the church for i could be just like them, we all could, we all possess that same fallabilty.
I thought for a long time to be a catholic priest, but i have fallen in love with a girl. I feel that my faith has brought so much, it has helped me to be so happy with my girlfriend, to know how it is to truly love :). Maybe i will be a priest, though i feel now that due to my love for this girl i most be with her.

I often feel very puzzled. I know that things are wrong yet very often i do exactly what i could argue against for hours. If i was to think about it i know they do not bring fulfillment or happiness or better me in anyway. Maybe they bring a passing pleasure but it never lasts and when it is gone we are the same. I wonder why we do what we know is not going to be good for us?

I love Theology and yes i am a catholic, but this doesn’t mean i am narrow minded or that i haven’t thought abt counter arguments. I often have arguments and realise that it is almost futile to do so. It is not possible at the moment to empirically prove the existence or non-existence of God. I would love to talk about this, yet i want a friendly convo ok, i get tired of aggresive counter arguments. I enter into debates wanting to know more, we should strive to know more and only through listening (in this case reading) and assessing honestly the arguments can we do this.
I ask that if you are going to reply or invite me to another convo then lets do it amicably.

Great, best wishes to all.
Daniel

The True Christian site is an hilarious parody site. PARODY. SATIRE. HUMOR.

What’s hilarious is that 3 billion years ago there was a prebiotic ocean (organic soup) that had carbon molecules floating around. In a few million years, these molecules formed DNA and amino acids and eventually amoebaes. Then these amoebas slowly formed into fish. Later some of these amazing fish developed legs and walked and crawled on land. Later they became apes, birds, bananas, oranges, and man. This should be in Comedy 101; not Biology 101.

I think you’re right. I’ve Never seen a parody site with such grotesque web layout. Parody artists tend to take pride in their work.

Comedians are going to be unemployed…

Jad wrote: “Ok I am glad you accept the possibility of an uncaused cause. I’m having trouble with your interpretation of the big bang though. The big bang theory is a very sound theory of how the universe got started. To claim there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang is a contradiction in terms and also has no scientific backup.”

Jad excuse me, you seem not to have ascientific background, do you? statements like the above are opinion. it is simply wrong at the least to say “no scientific backup”. it outs you like someone with minimal scientific education.

simply follow the links you find on wikipedia under “cosmological argument” to learn where your reasoning is wrong. also, check the ideas of brane-theory and string- theory to learn that it is personal opinion and not as you annoyingly keep stating scientific fact or “reality” that the universe must have a “beginning” (what type of twisted definition do you have of reality I wonder- believing in “disturbed” and “undisturbed” states of obeservation and hence reality?).

generally you keep using terms that are precisely defined in physics in your own awkward way, thereby exposing your lack of understanding of the physical principles that you keep citing. Sure, you have heard about quantum physics and the law of thermodynamics (seems to be your favorite- what is your obsession with entropy stemming from? NO it does not prove that th universe has a “beginning” - the term makes not even philosophical sense, even less scientifically).

sighhhh- oh god. I dont know how to explain all this to you… it is just too much. but as I said: start with wikipedia- you are one of the people who can actually still learn from it. Read some Watzlavik, buy a book on physics (how about some Hawkins) and for god’s sake- get a book by richard dawkins to understand evolution. (by the way what was this “quantum physics is not a theory but a fact”- you REALLY know nothing about philosophy and conduct of science- do you? of course it is a theory. by the way, evolution is not a theory- it is the LAW of Evolution for people like you, so you dont get confused with the definitions…).

you are wrong by the way that you have provided any evidence. you are just stating things and claiming to have the backing up of science. as you can tell, it annoys the holy ghost out of me. revealing a lack of understanding of science.

and for heavens sake, read up on the great virtues and powers of quantum physics: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5481/893

to keep nagging about it being an unproven science makes you look rather silly.

good day

I was just wondering why the crime line was colored white on the graph while the masturbation line was red and not the other way around…

Jad wrote: “Ok I am glad you accept the possibility of an uncaused cause. I’m having trouble with your interpretation of the big bang though. The big bang theory is a very sound theory of how the universe got started. To claim there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang is a contradiction in terms and also has no scientific backup.”

Jad excuse me, you seem not to have ascientific background, do you? statements like the above are opinion. it is simply wrong at the least to say “no scientific backup”. it outs you like someone with minimal scientific education.

Which statement are you referring too? That the big bang theory is a very sound theory or the contradiction that there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang? I think the big bang theory is a very good theory of how this universe got started. The contradiction I mentioned was about a comment from someone else (Des) stating that there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang. Isn’t it the big bang that started the universe in the first place? How then can the universe exist before it’s own existence? That is my question.

simply follow the links you find on wikipedia under “cosmological argument” to learn where your reasoning is wrong.

Yes I’ve read the ‘Cosmological Argument’ section of Wikipedia several times now. If there is something there you think debunks the argument then please share it. Most of the supposed counterarguments and objections on that site I believe I have already answered right here. If I have missed something then show me.

also, check the ideas of brane-theory and string- theory to learn that it is personal opinion and not as you annoyingly keep stating scientific fact or “reality” that the universe must have a “beginning” (what type of twisted definition do you have of reality I wonder- believing in “disturbed” and “undisturbed” states of obeservation and hence reality?).

Brane Theory and String Theory are based on theoretical physics, mathematically ‘abstract’ models of physics, not ‘actual’ experimental processes in reality. Physical theories however, like the cosmological argument, model reality and are arguments from what has been observed. You are trying to use the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality. String Theory for example suggests the existence of 10 or 11 different dimensions. Apart from the three spatial and one temporal dimensions of our relativity the rest are not observable in the natural sciences and cannot prove anything like an infinite regress. For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified experimentally. It must have the ability to generate testable predictions which it cannot.

We have to separate and make a distinction between the abstract world and actual concrete reality. This is what I am trying to do when we discuss things tested in disturbed and undisturbed states; the hypothetical and the fact, the abstract and the actual. If we don’t make the distinction between the abstract and the actual then one can bring the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Eric the Unicorn into the argument as well, which is absurd. The cosmological argument is based on premises of verified evidence like the law of causality and all testable predictions known so far in the natural sciences. To argue against the cosmological argument you need to use verified and testable evidences from the natural sciences to do it, not theoretical physics like Brane and String theory which are not falsifiable and have no predictive power. They do not in any way prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything like an infinite regress in actual reality.

generally you keep using terms that are precisely defined in physics in your own awkward way, thereby exposing your lack of understanding of the physical principles that you keep citing. Sure, you have heard about quantum physics and the law of thermodynamics (seems to be your favorite- what is your obsession with entropy stemming from? NO it does not prove that th universe has a “beginning” - the term makes not even philosophical sense, even less scientifically).

Entropy is the inevitable and steady deterioration of a system. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves the inevitable and steady deterioration of the universe. It is a measure of disorder showing that it is finite, contingent, changing and therefore it had a beginning.

sighhhh- oh god. I dont know how to explain all this to you… it is just too much. but as I said: start with wikipedia- you are one of the people who can actually still learn from it. Read some Watzlavik, buy a book on physics (how about some Hawkins) and for god’s sake- get a book by richard dawkins to understand evolution. (by the way what was this “quantum physics is not a theory but a fact”- you REALLY know nothing about philosophy and conduct of science- do you? of course it is a theory. by the way, evolution is not a theory- it is the LAW of Evolution for people like you, so you dont get confused with the definitions…).

Firstly I’d be careful with Wikipedia, don’t believe everything it tells you. It’s a great website don’t get me wrong, but not everything in it is sound. Anyone with an agenda can add to it or take away from it.

I don’t have a problem with evolution in general, just Darwinian Evolution. I’ve read The God Delusion, it’s just an evangelical book for the doubting young theist or unsure agnostic. Dawkins is no longer writing scientific books. He sticks to his Darwinian Evolution because it sits well with his no god agenda…

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

My comment “quantum physics is not a theory but a fact” you have taken out of context and it is not actually what I said. I said “Quantum Physics is a reality, it is not a theory.” I was referring to it like I do the law of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Quantum being a quantity or an amount of something and Physics being the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force. It is the theories about Quantum Physics being portrayed as scientific fact that I have issue with.

you are wrong by the way that you have provided any evidence. you are just stating things and claiming to have the backing up of science. as you can tell, it annoys the holy ghost out of me. revealing a lack of understanding of science.

If you have evidence against the cosmological argument then again please share it. I cannot just take your word for it and neither can anyone else in here that is without an agenda. You need to show some evidence from actual experimental processes in reality, from what has been observed. You have stated I am wrong, now prove it. Back it up with some real scientific evidence.

and for heavens sake, read up on the great virtues and powers of quantum physics: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5481/893

to keep nagging about it being an unproven science makes you look rather silly.

good day

I couldn’t get access to that link as it seems I have to pay to read it. Can you copy and paste what you want me to read in there perhaps? In any case I love the study of quantum physics, I think it is a fascinating area of science. I just don’t get caught up in the hype. As enjoyable as it was watching ‘What the Bleep’ and the 2nd installment of it you still need to take it all with a grain of salt. It is way better than Star Trek though.

Fundamentalists annoy me. Plain and simple. Atheist and theist alike. This guy’s doing a great job to combat ONE side of the crazies and I commend him on that. But it’s ALSO a problem that some atheists think that all religion (Non-organized religion I mean, not the power structure of the organized kind.) should be abolished. Freedom of belief people.

…some atheists think that all religion … should be abolished

Oh yeah? Abolished, eh?
I’ve never heard of this proposal, it sounds interesting and utterly stupid, who are you referring to? How do they intend to perform the abolition?
Or perhaps you might be misrepresenting these people…?

I am a catholic and i was appalled at this article. I think that masturbation is immoral yet i have no hate of those who masturbate… …All people are vulnerable to actions of impurity and we should help people to be strong and to explain why certain things are wrong… …I have always disliked and openly spoken against homosexuality and other such actions that deal with improper use of sex…

Ok. So in what way do you think that masturbation is “immoral” “impure” and “wrong” and “improper”? We are not talking about masturbation as impromptu performance art here, but as personal pleasure in a peaceful space, the laboratory of love. Are you unhappy about the lascivious thoughts that flood the brain, including lecherous imaginings about bottoms and naughtiness?

Is it a coincidence that your views are entirely consistent with the pope’s?

Are these views your own, or have you taken them on as part of a bargain you have made with the church?

Do you think that compulsory institutional so-called celibacy is a perversion of human sexuality?

Do you think it is just bad luck that so many so-called celibate priests are abusing people over whom they exercise power?

I thought for a long time to be a catholic priest, but i have fallen in love with a girl… …I often feel very puzzled. I know that things are wrong yet very often i do exactly what i could argue against for hours. If i was to think about it i know they do not bring fulfillment or happiness or better me in anyway.

You have been taught a set of values and you have chosen to accept them. These values are very strongly anti-sexual, and they conflict with your experience as a youth and a man. I would suggest to you that you are mistaken to trust the church or accept its values. These old liars have been oppressing us all for hundreds of years. They claim that they are passing on a message from some “god” character! Well, if there was such an entity, why would it want to communicate through a lot of ugly old men? You CAN trust in loving a girl. It’s what we do, us humans, we love, and we make sex with our lovers, and sex bonds us to one another, whatever the genders. It’s hating sex that builds up the hatred in humans. There really is a split along the “make love not war” line. People forbidden to make the love they want and need, make war.
You can spend your life telling people what’s wrong. Or you can show them a loving human, and lucky loving humans love sexually and wholeheartedly.

Dear Tom Donald,
I totally disagree with all that you have said. I am very sorry but i am so tired, over here it is nearly 11 and i have had the last 5 months from hell.
I will procede to highlight some points that you mentioned that i do not agree with, then offer my explanation.

When questioning my stance on masturbation you say;
“Are these views your own, or have you taken them on as part of a bargain you have made with the church?”
I am always slightly annoyed when people suggest that you cannot truly believe what your religion teaches, just because it is already formulated doesn’t mean someone else cannot come to that conclusion. In his book, Chesterton recounts how he rediscovered England. It is a really funny story (found in “Orthodoxy”). It really is an analogy of how he came to believe in Catholic doctrines before actually becoming one. In his wonderfully eccentric English way he explains how he did this unknowingly.

“Do you think that compulsory institutional so-called celibacy is a perversion of human sexuality?”
In short no. The call to celibacy is to lay down one’s life, a sacrifice, in order to get others to heaven, so that you can effectively and efficiently administer the sacraments to the people, there is a deeper theological reason, but you may no apreciate it and the Church being so dear to me i will not offer her up to uncharitable nonsensical remarks.

“celibate priests are abusing people over whom they exercise power?”
This is a gross exaggeration. The Church condemns child abuse and all such things yet there have been priests who have committed such acts, due to human weakness. However there have also been others who have committed such crimes; doctors, firemen and believe it or not; atheists, oh yes they can do bad things aswell. Why do we only focus on those few priests, is there some sort of hidden agenda?

“These values are very strongly anti-sexual, and they conflict with your experience as a youth and a man.”
NO. Catholic values are pro-sexual, but in the right context. Sex is a very good thing yet it must be kept in its correct place.

“I would suggest to you that you are mistaken to trust the church or accept its values.”
Do you think that you are wiser than a 2000 year old institution which has survived persecutions, heresies and invasions? You should read up on the history of The Church, it has survived and outlasted so many dominions, always seeming on the brink of destruction but until this world ends nothing will bring it down.

“These old liars have been oppressing us all for hundreds of years.”
You should see some of the young, energetic and intelligent priests out there before making these stupid statements.
And if anything the Church has oppressed bad behaviour, yet how many catholic priests, monks and nuns have gone out into the world to help the poor and the dying, how many good works have they done, you cannot understand. Your statements try to deceive the world, people should never forget how the church has saved this world.

“we make sex with our lovers, and sex bonds us to one another, whatever the genders. It’s hating sex that builds up the hatred in humans. There really is a split along the “make love not war” line. People forbidden to make the love they want and need, make war.”

“You can spend your life telling people what’s wrong. Or you can show them a loving human, and lucky loving humans love sexually and wholeheartedly.”

I think you have a mistaken understanding of what sex is, it is more special than what you will admit, your version of love is only selishness, self satisfaction and lust, you do not understand what is love and it angers me, for when i say that i love i mean it, when you say your nonesense it cheapens it!!!.

Sorry i am so tired, hope i haven;t been harsh.

Best wishes
Daniel

Dear Tom Donald,
I totally disagree with all that you have said. … …I am always slightly annoyed when people suggest that you cannot truly believe what your religion teaches, just because it is already formulated doesn’t mean someone else cannot come to that conclusion.

So you are suggesting that it is coincidence that you and the pope are one hundred percent in agreement. You have come to the same conclusion because you are right, and so is he. So you don’t have to take responsibility for anything, if you want to know what to think, you just ask the pope. What a pathetic misuse of a human brain. No wonder you are confused about your feelings about sexuality.

…The call to celibacy is to lay down one’s life, a sacrifice, in order to get others to heaven,{/quote]stupid!

so that you can effectively and efficiently administer the sacraments to the people

funny how the people aren’t falling for your “sacraments” like they used too.

there is a deeper theological reason, but you may no apreciate it and the Church being so dear to me i will not offer her up to uncharitable nonsensical remarks.

“theological reason”? so that’s a very loose use of the word “reason”, isn’t it?

The Church condemns child abuse and all such things

eventually, weakly, and hypocritically

yet there have been priests who have committed such acts, due to human weakness.

due to perverse so-called “celibacy”

…Catholic values are pro-sexual, but in the right context. Sex is a very good thing yet it must be kept in its correct place.

And that place is in the dark, eh? If you really think “Catholic values are pro-sexual” then you really know nothing about sex. But obviously you do know nothing about sex, you have decided to adopt the thoughts of chairman ratzinger instead of thinking for yourself. And what would HE know about sex!?

“I would suggest to you that you are mistaken to trust the church or accept its values.”
Do you think that you are wiser than a 2000 year old institution which has survived persecutions, heresies and invasions? You should read up on the history of The Church, it has survived and outlasted so many dominions, always seeming on the brink of destruction but until this world ends nothing will bring it down.

My dog is wiser than a 2000 year old institution. Your church has already collapsed, you just don’t realise it. The long survival of the catholic church was a testament to the arrogance and brutality of the priesthood, murdering their way through all opposition. But the European strongholds of catholisism have long fallen, and paternalistic authoritarianism will never return. Have you got a Plan B?

people should never forget how the church has saved this world.

“Forget”?? What contemptible nonsense. Your church is founded on lies, and relies on liars for it’s continuation. The best kind of liar is someone so brainless that they actually believe the rubbish they relate.

I think you have a mistaken understanding of what sex is, it is more special than what you will admit, your version of love is only selishness, self satisfaction and lust, you do not understand what is love and it angers me, for when i say that i love i mean it, when you say your nonesense it cheapens it!!!.

You are the one reporting cognitive dissonance over love and sex. You are the one who “worships” a “virgin” and thinks masturbation is “immoral” “impure” and “wrong” and “improper”! You are the one who is afraid of homosexuality!
I know a lot about love, buster. I also know a lot about priests! If you want to develop as a human being, leave the church. It is a structure of hypocrisy founded on lies. Your pompous, ignorant and unpleasant posting shows just how much a human has to give up in order to fall in line. I wouldn’t care if you were only damaging yourself, but you will spend your life pushing this garbage onto people who cannot defend themselves. You should be ashamed.

thank you Jad. I appreciate your sincere attempt to clear the misunderstandings and differences of opinion.

I am afraid I cannot answer to all the things due to me not having enough time at the moment.
however, in order not to ignore your effort I want to pick one question that I personally have come to believe is our main disagreement.

you seem to believe that there is a “real world” a definitely experiencable reality. and opposed to that there is a realm that we cannot really know so much about.

well, we will not solve that dispute. generations of philosophers have tried to.

just to briefly let you know my take on it: mathematics as a tool can allow us to “understand” realities that are not under direct observation by us, i think. evidence for that i see in the fact that theories like quantum physics allow to predict reality as we observe it on the basis of mathematical modeling.

the other thing: the very term beginning makes no sense in the way you attempt to use, in my mind. that is the weakness of the cosmology argument you are putting forward.

entropy does not in any way indicate and “end” or finite existence of the universe. there is some misunderstanding of the term I believe. but again, you mix physical definitions of terms like “existence” and “finite” and “beginning” with laymen understanding of these terms. that makes the discussion very fuzzy. and entropy is neither an indication for a “beginning” of the universe. well, the universe “as we know” it (your “real reality”) might have a “beginning”. however, that says nothing about the possibility that the universe came from something that was there before.

interestingly you do believe that it seems. just that you invent an entity with a purposefull intention for it you call god. there is the possibility that the “existence” always existed, i am just amazed how you have no problem to belive in a “god” that always existed and even is intelligent. but you appear to struggle to accept the “universe” to have existed forever!? makes no sense if you really think about it. other than you just do not want it to be that way!

that must be why you never answered the questions by other forum participants who repeatedly asked you why you believe in an infinite god but not an infinite universe. it seems you are not even ABLE to SEE the question.

all the best

thank you Jad. I appreciate your sincere attempt to clear the misunderstandings and differences of opinion.

Thanks Snusket, that is my goal here at the moment it would seem.

in order not to ignore your effort I want to pick one question that I personally have come to believe is our main disagreement. you seem to believe that there is a “real world” a definitely experiencable reality. and opposed to that there is a realm that we cannot really know so much about. well, we will not solve that dispute. generations of philosophers have tried to.

Well let me give it a bash anyway hehe.
I believe there is a real world (actual reality) and an abstract world (eg. mathematics). It is not that we cannot really know so much about the abstract world but that we cannot use it on it’s own to prove something in actual reality. It is like using logic without reason to prove something. If something is logically conceivable in the mind, it does not mean it is actually true or based in reason. Logic doesn’t tell us what is actually true, but only tells us what is valid. If you’ve read any of my earlier posts in this thread I gave an example of this using pink tails. I’ll explain it again and add a personal touch to it to make it more enjoyable to read…

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Snusket and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Snusket and Jad have pink tails

The above statement is completely logical but it is not actually true, obviously. It is logical only because the conclusion (3) follows the first two statements logically but in reality there is no such thing as human people with pink tails. That is where reason comes in. Reason gives us actual material truth about reality. In the case of logic on it’s own, people with pink tails cannot be proven. Giant toads cannot be proven, a mighty robot, radioactive custard, a big invisible man and neither can God Himself. I think we need to make the distinction between logic (abstract) on it’s own and logic with reason (actual reality). If this isn’t made we can be stuck in the abstract realm of possibility, conception, and theory; and somehow confuse that for the realm of actual concrete reality. Join the two together, where actual reality backs up the abstract realm and we have some pretty hard testable evidence to make conclusions with. This IS Logic and Reason.

just to briefly let you know my take on it: mathematics as a tool can allow us to “understand” realities that are not under direct observation by us, i think. evidence for that i see in the fact that theories like quantum physics allow to predict reality as we observe it on the basis of mathematical modeling.

I agree that mathematics as a tool can help us understand much about reality. It is a wonderful thing. But quantum physics and the study of particles in disturbed states is by no means any kind of proof that there is something that can exist from nothing; this was one of the original statements against the cosmological argument and is why quantum physics was even brought up. It is way too early to use anything like this as evidence for something popping into existence out of nothing. That and the fact that everything else in this universe that we have studied ever since we first began studying the natural sciences points to something being caused by another. It also doesn’t prove in any way the suggested reality of infinite regression.

the other thing: the very term beginning makes no sense in the way you attempt to use, in my mind. that is the weakness of the cosmology argument you are putting forward.

You will need to explain why it doesn’t make sense in your mind. Once you can share with me your reasons then I will be better equipped to admit the weakness of the cosmological argument for you or to defend it.

entropy does not in any way indicate and “end” or finite existence of the universe. there is some misunderstanding of the term I believe. but again, you mix physical definitions of terms like “existence” and “finite” and “beginning” with laymen understanding of these terms. that makes the discussion very fuzzy. and entropy is neither an indication for a “beginning” of the universe. well, the universe “as we know” it (your “real reality”) might have a “beginning”. however, that says nothing about the possibility that the universe came from something that was there before.

You’ve pretty well explained it for me I think. Firstly you admit the universe might have a beginning. This is in fact all we know, that it had a beginning. More and more scientific study everyday points to this conclusion. And secondly the possibility that the universe came from something finite, contingent, and changing before that is beyond the natural sciences and cannot be tested. Add to that the impossibility of infinite regression and there is no evidence. So the cosmological argument uses none of these ‘possibilities’ but only what we know in the natural sciences. That is all it uses and nothing else outside of the natural sciences to come to it’s conclusion.

interestingly you do believe that it seems. just that you invent an entity with a purposefull intention for it you call god. there is the possibility that the “existence” always existed, i am just amazed how you have no problem to belive in a “god” that always existed and even is intelligent. but you appear to struggle to accept the “universe” to have existed forever!? makes no sense if you really think about it. other than you just do not want it to be that way!

Now hold up there Snusket I haven’t even got that far yet. I’m still arguing for an uncaused cause at the moment and nothing else. You’re the one jumping to conclusions of a ‘god’ in my argument not me hehe. I think we need to take this one step at a time. All I’m saying for now is that the cosmological argument points to the necessity of an uncaused cause. That’s is all. What this uncaused cause actually might be needs no discussion right now until we can agree that at the very least an uncaused cause is plausible.

that must be why you never answered the questions by other forum participants who repeatedly asked you why you believe in an infinite god but not an infinite universe. it seems you are not even ABLE to SEE the question.

all the best

Yes I’ve answered that question several times right here on this blog. My simple answer is that there are not many scientists left, if any at all, in this world that believe the universe is infinite. The universe is most definitely finite. The big bang plays a very important part here as it is the widely accepted theory of how the universe got started. The universe had a beginning; meaning it is finite, not infinite.
The cosmological argument I am using states the premise that “Everything that has a beginning has an end.” It is only talking about everything that has a BEGINNING meaning everything inside space and time, including the universe itself. This is not just a hypothetical but a scientific fact. It is completely true then that everything that is exists is caused by another. This is the law of causality.
I think you are assuming the old cosmological argument of sufficient reason where absolutely everything must have a cause either within itself or beyond itself. This argument then includes something like god in the ‘everything must have a cause’ as well which my argument does not. It also leads to an infinite regress which is impossible. My argument states that only things with a beginning have a cause. That is to say every finite, contingent, and changing thing has a cause.

So my conclusion is that every finite, contingent, and changing thing has a cause, and because there is no such thing as an infinite regress we come the conclusion of an uncaused cause. Something that what was always there, something finite. For that is the only thing that can be uncaused. If you are now questioning my statement that there is no such thing as an infinite regress then I’ll share with you what I’ve already shared with Des on this blog already. I’ll paste it again here to save you the search. This blog is getting rather long hehe.

Infinite regression is only plausible in the mind (abstract), like say in Mathematics but it is not possible in the realm of actual reality. For example in mathematics the line between A and B can have an infinite number of points or dimensionless intersections of two lines. Actual infinities are concrete, and it is not possible to get an infinite number of actual entities between A and B no matter how small these entities might be in the real world. For example our world works in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series could go for, it would always be possible to add one more. The problem is you cannot add one more to an infinite number. In the real world, our reality, no matter how many Dominoes you have in a line, one more can always be added. So we cannot allow infinite regression as an option because you can never reach an infinite number in actual reality. Even in the abstract world of mathematics Infinity + 1 = Infinity is a false statement as there is no real number that is equal to itself plus one. Zero is the identity element for addition of real numbers, not 1.

Anyway I’ll leave it there for the moment. I realize you are busy and I’ve written more than you probably have time for. If you find the time to respond to some part or all of my comments however, please feel free to do so. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers
Jad

Jad:

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Snusket and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Snusket and Jad have pink tails

If your argument were true there were no predictive power in theories like quantumn physics. but there is tremendous predictive power. your assertion is naive and wrong. for details pick any book by paul watzlavick who deals with your assumption that there is a “real” world “out there” for us to “observe”.

simple answer is that there are not many scientists left, if any at all, in this world that believe the universe is infinite. The universe is most definitely finite.

I know this not to be true, for one I am a scientist who believes the universe is infinite. And my friends who are astronomers believe the universe is infinite. and about any textbook of astronomy is saying the same. man you are so off!

Just answer me one question. you argue in this blog that in simple terms (my words): nothing cannot just produce something. on basis of physics you say that the universe is finite- as you think is indicated by the law of entropy. therefore there must be a initial reason. as I understand you have suggested that this initial reason is some infinite entity- lets call it god for lack of better words.

ok. which entropy does “god” have?

all the best

yes, michael, there are in fact many questions one could ask. I dont even know where to start. it is hard if someone has so many assumptions (”gut feelings”) and tries to support them with a bad (simply incomplete and wrong) understanding of some science. that is what creationists try and many religious people. what they THINK supports them they cite. the rest is “fuzzy” or bad science to them. it is a real shame that these people do not see that if they knew their science better they would have to shut up altogether. because the things they use as a support actually contradicts what they believe in close to every time.

but as a friend of mine tends to say: if a fundamentalist (ideologist) argues with a scientist the scientist will always seem to loose. because the scientists world view permits error, while in the fundamentalists world there are no uncertainties or errors left.

that is why such discussions are in the end futile. ideologically thinking individuals do not want to learn, they want to preach.

but hey, let us not lose all hope. i am convinced that this planet would be a much better place without any type of ideology including religion…

peace out

When someone quotes…

Michael! You’re still alive! I thought you’d been taken out in a Southern Baptist hit!

Jad said

I believe there is a real world (actual reality) and an abstract world (eg. mathematics). It is not that we cannot really know so much about the abstract world but that we cannot use it on it’s own to prove something in actual reality.

What an interesting viewpoint. It is surely the reverse of the truth though, which is that there is a real world visible only through mathematics, and an abstract world, in which we think we live… EVERYTHING we experience is synthesised in our bodies, mathematics is a way of discovering the invisible reality which surrounds us.

Need to respond (because it was asked?:

Quote:….God and entropy? God is not involved with entropy because our Universe was created with energy and matter. Entropy involves objects that have mass and energy. God is outside the dimensions of our universe and is not governed by its laws. He created its laws.

Michael–avoid dealing with anything that has to do with thermodynamics. These laws are ignored totally by the ’scientific’evolutionist. They prefer starting with Lucy or Archaeopteryx. Just assume everything happened beforehand….this is good evolutionary science and is required for publications.

@John T:

is there one god or are there several?

explain please what you mean with your statements about evolution? beginning what with Lucy? it begins with molecular processes… please clarify.

cheers

1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Snusket and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Snusket and Jad have pink tails

If your argument were true there were no predictive power in theories like quantumn physics. but there is tremendous predictive power. your assertion is naive and wrong. for details pick any book by paul watzlavick who deals with your assumption that there is a “real” world “out there” for us to “observe”.

This is not what I am saying. I totally agree that there is predictive power in theories, but that doesn’t make them true. We can predict who is going to win a football game with very good predictive power but that doesn’t make it necessarily true. Again logic on it’s own does not tell us what is actually true, but only tells us what is valid. My analogy with the pink tails shows mathematics as well to be logical but can still be false in the real world (reason). I’ll explain… Mathematics is a tool which is used in the logical process of a premise, like my statement that ‘All Irish people have pink tails’. The premise doesn’t have to be true though, it can be either stated or assumed in the world of logic. It is only the reasoning of that logic that can determine whether the premise is true or not. This is done through arguments and proofs, forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts. For example if you were to build a porch at the front of your house you would have to measure it up in order to cut the wood to the correct size. If you start with the measurements and then using mathematics worked out exactly how much wood you needed and what size to cut it all you would seemingly get a correct result. But this all depends on whether or not you got the measurements correct in the first place. The maths is logically sound as it always is but if the measurements (the premise) are wrong you will get a wrong result.

__________

“simple answer is that there are not many scientists left, if any at all, in this world that believe the universe is infinite. The universe is most definitely finite.”

I know this not to be true, for one I am a scientist who believes the universe is infinite. And my friends who are astronomers believe the universe is infinite. and about any textbook of astronomy is saying the same. man you are so off!

on basis of physics you say that the universe is finite- as you think is indicated by the law of entropy. therefore there must be a initial reason. as I understand you have suggested that this initial reason is some infinite entity

The second law of thermodynamics IS the law of entropy. The amount of usable energy in any closed system is decreasing. This is in direct relation with the first law of thermodynamics. The law of the conservation of energy states that the amount of actual energy existing within the universe changes form, yet remains constant. As energy changes to less usable forms of energy the closed system of the universe is running down. Everything tends toward disorder. So if the overall amount of energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy, then the universe began with a finite supply of energy. This would mean that the universe could not have existed forever in the past. If the universe is getting more and more disordered, it cannot be eternal.
The third law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealised, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations. This also supports the fact that the universe is finite and that it had a beginning.

___________

is there one god or are there several?

God is a necessary being and by definition there can only be one necessary being. Suppose there are two necessary beings; the two necessary beings can either differ by something, or nothing. If the two necessary beings differed by something, then one would lack characteristics the other one would have. A necessary being by definition cannot lack, so in that scenario there could only be one necessary being and not two. Supposed they differed by nothing; to differ by nothing is no difference at all, is not to differ at all. So in that scenario as well, there can only be one necessary being and not two. The problem is that a necessary being cannot lack anything, cannot have difference, or parts, else it would be contingent, put together, composed, and not necessary. A contingent being (finite) is composed of actuality and potential for the change it undergoes. A necessary being is pure actuality with no potential, so it has no parts, or differences. There cannot be more than one All, or more than one Greatest. All means all and that is all it means. This rules out polytheism, the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

Snusket:

My response is from a biblical perspective; someone with another belief can respond in their own way.

God is one, but God exists in a triune nature–(1) God himself, (2) Jesus, and (3) the Holy Spirit. An anology to this would be the triune nature of the atom that exists primarly as three separate entities–proton, neutron, and electron.

What I mean by Lucy is that evolutionist always claim that there is full evidence to support the theory of evolution. They claim they can show that mutations has improved the genetic code and that designed entities like ‘eye-sight’has slowly evolved through processes like natural selection. The only problem is when you ask them to prove this they always show you a species like Lucy that already existed. They don’t show what was before or what was after, except through beautiful drawings. They also show bacteria and anti-biotic resistance as supportive to evolution. What I would like to know is what is the real genetic mechanism?

@John T: if you assume that you can describe god in mathematical way as you do then you assume entropy to be a valid measure for god. contradicting what you said before.

to your second argument: this is simply not true. watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

and read the blind watchmaker. if the laws of evolution were incorrect my work could not be performed: i am a molecular biologist and geneticist. and from experience I can say that i never met anyone who thought evolution was wrong who really understood its mechanisms. everyone so far doubting it had not understood its mechanisms at all.

@Jad:

We can predict who is going to win a football game with very good predictive power but that doesn’t make it necessarily true.

you cannot be serious about that comparisson? you compare (hopefully qualified) guesswork with theories that have so far NEVER failed in anything they predicted, i.e. quantum physics.

The problem is that a necessary being cannot lack anything, cannot have difference, or parts, else it would be contingent, put together, composed, and not necessary.

what is your evidence for this assumption? how would you know that this being exists? what experiment can i perform to disprove (falsify) your assumption?

how is it possible for the god you describe to being able to interact with physical reality without having physical properties? how could god have no entropy? or does it? and how would it then be infinite - since you exist entropy contradicts the possibility of infinite existence?

how is your idea of god any more falsifiable than brane theory or string theory? where is the advantage in believing in a god then? and do you think that god interacts with the physical universe or did it only initiate the universe?

if it interacts we have a problem. then god must have physical properties. then it cannot be “A necessary being is pure actuality with no potential, so it has no parts, or differences.”. it is either physical, then it can interact but cannot be finite as you believe. or it is not interacting hence not able to interact, how could it then have interacted in the “beginning” to create the universe?

Jad wrote: “Ok I am glad you accept the possibility of an uncaused cause. I’m having trouble with your interpretation of the big bang though. The big bang theory is a very sound theory of how the universe got started. To claim there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang is a contradiction in terms and also has no scientific backup.”

Jad excuse me, you seem not to have ascientific background, do you? statements like the above are opinion. it is simply wrong at the least to say “no scientific backup”. it outs you like someone with minimal scientific education.

Which statement are you referring too? That the big bang theory is a very sound theory or the contradiction that there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang? I think the big bang theory is a very good theory of how this universe got started. The contradiction I mentioned was about a comment from someone else (Des) stating that there was some sort of existence of the universe before the big bang.

I’m afraid I don’t have the time to follow this conversation constantly, but I thought that this was a point worth clearing up. I never once stated that there was some sort of existence before the big bang. I stated that it is a possibility with equal evidence to the idea that a sentient creator designed the universe, i.e. none. The evidence points to the universe as we know it being created in the event we call the Big Bang. It does not speak to the nature of existence before that event. There may or may not have been some form of existence before then (and “before” is a dodgy term here, because time as we understand it is believed to have been created with the big bang) but only a person who has particular emotional attachment to that answer would conclude that the ONLY possibility is a sentient designer from outside the universe. I could think of a dozen more parsimonious explanations on a lazy afternoon, and I’m sure you could too if you weren’t so attached to a predordained conclusion.

Snusket:

I know that most molecular biologists endorse and believe in evolution. I wish someday they could explain it!

Quote: “…if the laws of evolution were incorrect,my work could be performed…” That statement is totally untrue. Gregor Mendell performed his laws of heredity without acknowledging evolution. Plant breeders can form new plant types without beliving in evolution.

The only evolutionary process that exists and can be verified is that of natural selection and also that there is change over time.

If evolution has a mechanism, then what is it? Show me this mechanism before and genes or genetic code has ever exited. Dawkins ‘Blind Watchmaker’ is no different than other evolutionist in that they start with a code that works. They hypothesize (not prove) on how it got there.

I am not a molecular biologist, but I did take Molecular Biology 610 in college. Our textbook was Genes IV by Benjamin Lewin. He assumes evolution but never shows it. I hope most evolutionists aren’t calling their mechanism as that of the laws of gene segregation and gene expression?

What I want to know is how did the genetic code self-assemble itself in the first place (without enzymes). The Human Genome has 3 billion letters (base pairs) and we have 35 million base pair differences with the apes. So how many mutations did this take to build this massive database in just a short 3 billion years? What are our mutational rates now? Why does the genetic code put efforts at repairing mutations? etc. etc.

John T, there is more than the Lewin. that is just a general textbook of genetics, not about evolution. trust me, you know shit. watch the movie link to start with. then free your mind and get real. sorry i am tiered of this crap. evolution is not a theroy. it is called the “law of evolution” nowadays.. there is no argument anymore. the earth is not flat, and the sun does not evolve around the sun…. get real, fucking hell

….around the earth i meant… i am so extremely tiered of this….evolutions mechanism is natural selection- ignorant piece.. if you want to know how the genetic code self-assembled study genetics. it is not trivial, but it makes sense. just because you do not get it does not mean shit. asshole…

I do feel snusket has a point here. John T seems to be proud of his ignorance, and sees dishonesty as a smart debating strategy. Ultimately he lives in a universe with himself at the centre. He radiates contempt. He is not worth responding to, because all responding does is to feed his arrogance.

just because you do not get it does not mean shit. asshole…

Nicely put.

thanks tom, however, sorry for the harsh words…

Tom & Snusket:

Whatever?

Snusket:
I know that you are highly intelligent. Only atheist and evolutionists possess that gene through natural selection. Hello mighty Ape-Man.

If you really knew your science, the flat earth theory did not come from christain scientists. This was never taught as an absolute. The Catholic church mad a mistake a believing portions of this; but two great religious scientists set them straight–Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church made a mistake then and it made a mistake now by endorsing evolution. When will us Catholics ever learn?

Euclid mathematics and spherical nature was known before Christ.

If you really knew your science, the flat earth theory did not come from christain scientists. This was never taught as an absolute.

This wastrel confuses science with the history of science. I reckon that explains a lot, or at least reveals something about why he consistently posts nonsense.

john T, i know i am highly intelligent, i doubt that this is true for you. my reason to think so is that nothing you say makes any sense.

“The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures”, was the church’s position on galileos ideas. for the same reason you reject evolution. because you THINK it is against your scriptures. therefore the church has obviously changed their strategy, while you follow the ancient way of thinking. logically that indicates that who has not learned anything is you.

again, just because you do not posses the intelligence to understand something does not mean it therefore is not true.

best

Tom Donald:

You are wrong on the flat earth theory and Christianity. Just check it out. So me one ancient document if I am wrong. I’ll show you numerous others. This theory came late to mock Christians and Science, not earlier. Little do you know, the first 500+ colleges and science centers were opended by Christian churches and also of people of other faith such as the Arabs.

It is true that some considered the earth to be flat(there were evolutionists and atheists in those days too); but not all. Mathematics from Euclid to Newton was developing. They knew full and well about objects being round and spherical. The technologies of Mayan, Egyptians, and early mathematics shows that the history of the Cosmos and math was more advanced than we give them credit for.

Sorry atheists, science did not begin with Darwin.

Tom:

Quotes…”…proud of his ignorance..dishonesty…lives in a universe with him at center…not worth responding to..”

Not hardly Tom. The center of my Universe is Jesus and my Family and my friends. I am just a speck of dust. Good questions about abiogenesis is hardly dishonesty. You guys place no attempts to answer them, but only give me advice on reading books by evolutionary ’spin-doctors’, or by answering with harsh reactions. This is hardly science. It is the Third Reich all over again.

If I am not worth responding to, then quit like SI. SI is a quitter because he can’t even answer basic questions about his faith in evolution. There are real people that can respond to intelligent questions; then there are quitters. Hope things are going well. I will not respond anymore if all I am responding to is quitters.

Snusket:

Highly intelligent people don’t respond the way you do. Are you really a molecular biologist, or are you just another ‘bull-shitter’? Sorry, you have rubbed a little vocabulary on me!

Natural selection explains why lions may get faster or why flower colors may change, or moths may have different color of wings…but it explains nothing on how a worm can form into a banana in a million years. It shows nothing on proto-bacteria forming into eukaryotic organisms and so forth. Natural selction does not work if there is no genetic code to work with in the beginning. So Smart-One, how did it form all by itself?

Snusket:

Christianity and Christain scientists did not advocate that the earth was at the center of the universe. This was proposed by a few of them.

Qusetions: Is their any ‘blue-shift’ galaxies in reference to our earth’s position? and, Why is our Universe Quantized in respect to Earts Position?

Also, what did Mendel mean by 9:3:3:1 ratio? How would this relate to Darwin’s finches? (Just want to check your basic genetic)

To all Atheists:

What is wrong with a creationist asking questions about evidences for your faith? You guys/gals attack the bible and creationism and then expect no response. If we do respond, then we are defamed and ’slammed-dunked’. I am not trying to change your opinions, I just want to hear the best evidence that the genetic code arose by chance in some mythological ‘organic soup’. If science has these answers, then please tell me where to look. I am searching.

Michael:

I agree alittle bit of what you are saying. I believe in God and I believe that the Bible describes it in extreme ’summary’ form. Therefore if you don’t believe that is fine and I respect you for it. What I am tired of other evolutionists telling us there is no god and that is it. That would be fine, but it is also forced in the educational institutions of our day. Therefore, we basically are told what to believe about our origins–from 1st grade through college. It is time that I and others challenged this. If they can’t support it other than they say we and all scientist believe in evolution, then it must be treated as faith, just as mine is. I have faith that God exists; you have faith that he does not.

John T, who do you call spin doctors? the links i send to you that were the work of highly respected scientists of different fields of life science? if you are not willing to accept evidence then there is nothing anyone can do for you.

you go on asking for evidence but you just turn down any evidence i provide. that is why i quit on you. and i am sure it is this ignorance that made others quit.

anyhow, if you are sincere- which i really doubt- here you can start reading about how RNA and DNA and all other chemical components of life came into existence, see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030114051.htm

you keep quoting the bible. you should read it some time. that is where you will find all the quotes that made many in the church insist that the earth is flat and, what are you talking about?? the believe that the earth is the center of the universe is strong amongst creationists (christians!) even TODAY! in 2007!

see:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=geocentrism;siteid=center_universe

I dont care if you believe in god. but i do care if you try to claim that science has no evidence that no god is needed to explain the natural world that surrounds us- because it just shows your ignorance.

ironically you think that there is too much “evolutionists telling us there is no god and that is it” in school. well, it seems not enough, or you just lack the minimal intelligence required to comprehend the facts… the facts (that i keep sending and you keep ignoring) show that there is no god needed to explain the universe and everything within…

and therefor i disagree. there is not too much science in school, there is too little. and religion belongs baned from public place into private spheres. it is time for us atheist to stand up. and it is nice that you have noticed that we do. christianity had 2000 years time and fucked it up (inquisition? supporting all major wars? etc etc). now it is time that reasonable people get a chance to give it a shot. all we claim is the next 2000 years.

christianity tried to make science shut up (see e.g. galileo)- and many christians still do (see chreationsists in the US for instance- and people like you who want to limit certain scintific education).

now it is time that we turn this situation on its head. it is time for all defenders of bronce-age mysticism (and all its novel transformations) to shut up!

so, start reading the evidence people give you, and shut up.

Highly intelligent people don’t respond the way you do. Are you really a molecular biologist, or are you just another ‘bull-shitter’? Sorry, you have rubbed a little vocabulary on me!

how would you know? you are not intelligent- so you are not the judge of that!

obviously you are wrong, because I do use language like that on ignorant morons. so, no need to apologize!

Keep on fighting, John T!!!

“Our way is not soft grass, it’s a mountain path with lots of rocks. But it goes upward, forward, toward the Sun.”

-Ruth Westheimer, B. 1928

As usual, John T fails to read before responding. He talks about the history of science as if it is the content of science.
As for his not being at the centre of the universe, he claims to put his magic dead guy jesus there instead, along with his family and friends. Which is very sweet isn’t it, except that this fictional zombie is of course a projection of John T’s own self, just as his god is a projection of himself also. It’s a great universe for a really arrogant person, but it is also tremendously fragile. Should John T’s “faith” waiver, he will face appauling existential pain. This is the main risk of religious thinking: it builds a comprehensive interpretation of reality based on projected ego. If the cold impersonal harsh dead endless nothingness of “out there” comes seeping in, then the structure of interpretation lingers while the ego itself is damaged. That’s why John T can’t take any of these challenges on board, he can’t really even read them. He is suffering from a bad attack of human nature.
How can he escape? Well, he probably doesn’t have to. He lives in a primative culture which rewards his magicalistic thinking. Most of his community will also be smug cult members. As we see on the internet, these people expend huge energy puffing up each other’s arrogant fantasies, and within his daily life he will almost never experience cognitive dissonance between the mad world he lives in and the mad universe he carries in his head.
But he has the tools of his own liberation should he choose to use them. Firstly, he must learn humility. This is the hardest step. It would mean progressivly clearing his mind of arrogant assumptions, essentially embracing agnosticism. Secondly he must truly accept his human nature, by learning about how humans actually are, and how they live, and how they think, and feel, and die. For many of us, this is a wonderful life enhancing process, which lasts for all of our lives.
But he’s not going to do this, he wraps his smugness around his ignorance around his arrogance and talks bollocks to the pixies in his head.
Poor John T!

Keep on fighting John T!!!

Really Brendan, I for one do not feel that I am “fighting John T”. This is a debate, not a fight. Alas John T isn’t actually participating in a meaningful way, but the answer is not to “fight”…

To all Atheists:

What is wrong with a creationist asking questions about evidences for your faith? You guys/gals attack the bible and creationism and then expect no response. If we do respond, then we are defamed and ’slammed-dunked’. I am not trying to change your opinions, I just want to hear the best evidence that the genetic code arose by chance in some mythological ‘organic soup’. If science has these answers, then please tell me where to look. I am searching.

There’s nothing wrong, in principle, but you have to show that you are willing to pay attention to and comprehend the explanations. Almost every fundamentalist who has asked me to explain evolution to them (and there have been a lot) refused to listen to and comprehend what I had told them. I’m not claiming they didn’t understand it because they didn’t believe it, I mean that they were incapable of restating in their own words a correct synopsis of what I had said. Not only that, but a lot of them, (and this includes you) ask questions which are based on faulty premises, and demand answers for them. Your question about how a worm can evolve into a banana? Nonsensical. I’d like to say that I think you’re different, and that it would be worth trying to teach you, but that wouldn’t be honest of me. I certainly am not going to bother trying to teach you unless you provide some evidence that you’re actually going to make an effort to understand the material, and I can’t fault anyone else for not doing so either.

To Snusket,

“We can predict who is going to win a football game with very good predictive power but that doesn’t make it necessarily true.”

you cannot be serious about that comparisson? you compare (hopefully qualified) guesswork with theories that have so far NEVER failed in anything they predicted, i.e. quantum physics.

Sorry you are right, I didn’t explain it properly. My apologies. I’ll attempt to clarify; Lets say you had a football team that have never lost a game. Or perhaps they had only ever lost one game in several years. Mathematically this is good predictive power in statistics. It doesn’t make them true however. The next game they play could actually be a loss. These theories you speak of that have never failed you are concentrating on the mathematical abstract and defining it as true based on that alone. The mathematical process is sound yes but it is not the determination of whether something is right or wrong. Like my example with building the front porch, the premise has to be correct first. The maths is always going to be logically correct when calculated properly but it is not the premise. Again with my analogy of the pink tails, it is logically sound you cannot deny that, but it is still incorrect because the premise is that all Irish people have pink tails. We would have to determine if the premise is true or not first.
_____________

“The problem is that a necessary being cannot lack anything, cannot have difference, or parts, else it would be contingent, put together, composed, and not necessary.”

what is your evidence for this assumption? how would you know that this being exists? what experiment can i perform to disprove (falsify) your assumption?

This is what the cosmological argument points to. The evidence is that everything that has a beginning is contingent. It has the possibility to exist and not to exist. Everything with a beginning is finite. And since this is true and because it is also true that an infinite regress of contingent finite beings is impossible there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause must be necessary because it if lacked something then it would be contingent and have the ability to not exist.

how is it possible for the god you describe to being able to interact with physical reality without having physical properties? how could god have no entropy? or does it? and how would it then be infinite - since you exist entropy contradicts the possibility of infinite existence?

and do you think that god interacts with the physical universe or did it only initiate the universe?

John T already answered your question regarding God and entropy quite well. “God is not involved with entropy because our Universe was created with energy and matter. Entropy involves objects that have mass and energy. God is outside the dimensions of our universe and is not governed by its laws.” God is infinite, He does not exist in time, He created it so he transcends time, and space for that matter.
Regarding physical properties and God’s interactivity with it, that becomes a question of Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism and Theism etc. Again we are jumping ahead I think but for the sake of the question in context I’ll answer it as briefly as I can. It is my view as a theist that this God created everything, including personhood, from his all-knowing and all-being nature. This ’cause’ of personhood cannot be less than personal himself. He may be much more than an finite person (super-personal) but he cannot be less (sub-personal). He can therefore interact personally however he wants; through touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing.

how is your idea of god any more falsifiable than brane theory or string theory? where is the advantage in believing in a god then?

This goes back to the discussion we’ve already had on things like disturbed and undisturbed states in scientific study, entropy, infinite regression impossibility etc. My argument for God or an uncaused cause is so much more plausible if not undeniable compared to any brane theory or string theory because my argument uses logic and reason based on scientific fact, not hypothetical theories based on premises that are not backed up by the natural sciences and the study of them.

if it interacts we have a problem. then god must have physical properties. then it cannot be “A necessary being is pure actuality with no potential, so it has no parts, or differences.”. it is either physical, then it can interact but cannot be finite as you believe. or it is not interacting hence not able to interact, how could it then have interacted in the “beginning” to create the universe?

An unchanging God or uncaused cause does not need to change in order to engage in changing relationships. God can interact without being interdependent. This uncaused cause is the first cause which can and did start the first finite cause, from it’s own unchanging and all-knowing nature. The uncaused cause is simple and undivided, as in it cannot be composed of different parts or elements. It has to be infinite in whatever attributes it possesses. If it is knowing, then it must be all-knowing. If it is powerful, then it must be all-powerful. If it is good, then it must be all-good. It is only what has potentiality that is limited. So if this uncaused cause created the personal, the it must be all-personal.

evolution is not a theroy. it is called the “law of evolution” nowadays.

No it is more like this…

The ‘Law of Evolution’ is a Theory

You are implying evolution like we do the law of gravity, which you cannot because it is not.

______________

For Tom Donald,

John T seems to be proud of his ignorance, and sees dishonesty as a smart debating strategy. Ultimately he lives in a universe with himself at the centre. He radiates contempt. He is not worth responding to, because all responding does is to feed his arrogance.

Hmm couldn’t I say the same about you then Tom? You said yourself that you not only distrust authority but that you actively despise it. You claim to hold to no authority whatsoever so that leaves you at the centre of you’re own universe. Wouldn’t that make you arrogant as well? Doesn’t that make you proud and ignorant concerning other people’s world view? Doesn’t that force you to radiate contempt yourself?

______________

For Des,

I never once stated that there was some sort of existence before the big bang. I stated that it is a possibility with equal evidence to the idea that a sentient creator designed the universe, i.e. none. The evidence points to the universe as we know it being created in the event we call the Big Bang. It does not speak to the nature of existence before that event. There may or may not have been some form of existence before then (and “before” is a dodgy term here, because time as we understand it is believed to have been created with the big bang) but only a person who has particular emotional attachment to that answer would conclude that the ONLY possibility is a sentient designer from outside the universe. I could think of a dozen more parsimonious explanations on a lazy afternoon, and I’m sure you could too if you weren’t so attached to a predordained conclusion.

I am claiming only one possibility and I am using the natural sciences as the premise. I have used no emotional attachment to come to my conclusions concerning the uncaused cause. If you want to argue another option then please share it but you will have to back it up with sufficient scientific evidence as the premise. Otherwise we are stuck in the abstract realm where any person on any lazy arvo can come up with Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns and Giant Alien Super Tomatoes called Erik.

______________

To Michael,

Those that really understand evolutionary mechanisms wouldn’t dream of rubbishing the core principles. The very very few that have been educated in the area and follow creationist thinking (a vast minority let’s not forget) are massively influenced by their religion.

I had a similar discussion with Jad about this. It’s all about education. The moment one really understands the concept and is not swayed by religious belief they embrace evolutionary thinking.

Hereś the thing though, I´m not using any religious belief system to prove an uncaused cause. I´m using the natural sciences and nothing else.

The point I am making is this; religion should not come into it. If a theory is strong enough, it matters not whether you are Catholic, black, white, female, young or old, a theory is a theory and stands on it’s own two feet.

I totally and absolutely agree.

Even AIG has said something along the lines of “without our belief system our theories hold no water” What does that mean? It means that one’s thinking is influenced by a belief system completely alien to the process of discovery.

Take away the Bible and you can forget about creationist theory, Ken ham has said as much. What kind of ’scientific’ theory works like that?

If that is actually what AiG have stated then I cannot agree with it either. My bible says God can be seen from His creation alone. If this is true then I do not need a Bible or any other kind of man-made religion as my premise to prove the existence of God, all I need is the natural sciences. And that is all I believe I am using.

I’m still waiting for a decent answer to this from anyone that wants to take a stab: http://www.atheistperspective.com/evolution-is-a-lie/

I still think it’s a null statement. Evolution is only a process of contingent, changeable things and deals with nothing like the origins of these finite things. This is where I believe things like the cosmological argument deal with origination; and then after that we can work on what process is being used in this supposedly obvious creation or some form of apparent chance. The trouble, as John T pointed out, is that evolutionists just assume everything happened beforehand and think nothing else of it. If pushed on this issue further they then assume infinite regression which is impossible as I have already shown here in this blog. Not all evolutionists are this way but with most atheistic evolutionists I have found this to be the case.

Why can’t we just say, ‘we don’t know, none of us know how it all began?” Because that would be any sensible person’s position. You can go back and back, how did this happen, what caused this, what caused that, what caused the big bang. Ultimately you want to get to a point where you can say “AHA, see, God must have done it.” Then us ‘atheists’ come back and say, “okay, what created God?”. Your answer will be, ‘he’s eternal, he is and always will be”. to which I respond:

“SO IS MY BLOODY SUPER TOMATO:”

Ok I will presume then that you agree infinite regression of contingent beings is impossible? I can also presume then that you agree in an uncaused cause because you believe your Super Tomato is eternal yes?
If this is the case then we can move on from the cosmological argument and an uncaused cause because you totally agree with it. Can we now attempt to determine what this uncaused cause actually is? I’ll defend my uncaused cause as God and you can defend your uncaused cause as a Super Tomato.

I don’t particularly care if you believe in something as nonsensical as the tomato. I’d probably prefer it because rather than cause anguish and violence throughout the ages, Erik simply wants you to eat vegetables and be healthy. He certainly isn’t interested in 1st century nonsense like symbolically drinking a man’s blood whilst eating his flesh.

Trust me even if Eric the Super Tomato were true, man will destroy Eric also, turning him into so called ‘works’ based religions and total distortion of his wonderful Word of eating vegetables and being healthy.

Just admit it. You simply do not know what started it all.

Just admit it. You don’t want to know what started it all.

________________

This is for anyone who cares to read it…

If it is true that the creationist uses his own religion or some God-like presupposition to base his scientific reasoning on then the atheist must also concede his own ideology of a no-god world view as his own presupposition. Now not every creationist is like this and not every atheist uses his no-god presuppositions either but there is a good majority in both camps. I am well aware of it in my own creationist community but I am also aware of the rather large no-god bias that tags along with evolutionism. My attempt here is to use strict scientific laws and philosophies of these laws alone to determine a truth. This is my test for truth of a world view, including my own. I am more than willing to lay my world view out on the table for all to see and to test. If it is true then it will speak for itself. It should not need my bias as a helping hand. Can any of you here say the same for your own world view?
Are you only atheistic because you don’t want there to be a god-like being having some sort of authority over you? Or are you open to testing your world view for truth?

Brendan Burnett:

Thanks for the promising comments. Glad to hear that there is grey matter that can observe the other side. Keep going! Praise Jesus!

PS. I don’t think Tom is fighting me either. He just totally diasgrees and if you don’t agree with him he thinks you are an idiot and don’t read his responses. I do read his responses. Some times I answer directly, sometimes indirectly, and sometimes with total sarcasm. I think he only understands sarcasm.

Dear Jad; I am going to have to pass. for the following reasons:

1) you do not really know quantum physics. your example would have to be more like: you observe a football team that always wins their matches and based on that you predict a solar eclipse in uganda during a local football match, and you also predict the names of the teams playing as well as the result of the match at the time of the solar eclipse and the names of the scorers.

2) your “logic” builds on observation you say. I urge you to read Watzlavick. I do not recommend these things for a joke. If you intend to understand where you are wrong about things you must give my arguments a chance. my arguments will always involve literature, because other people have dealt with things we discuss in a manor as i could not explain it better. Watzlavick e.g. will explain to you that it is nonsense of you to assume that you observe a world “out there”, and that the observation in a particle accelerator (and the theories based on that are somehow “less observational”. your senses and your brain do function in a very rudimentary way that can easily deceived after all. but that is not the point, read watzlavick).

and you do give this silly example of logic:
1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails
that does not start with an observation does it? you do not understand the first thing of quantum physics. it seems to me that anything that you cannot observe with your eyes you do not believe in - except “god”. you make no sense.

3) you never answer how i can falsify your ideas. then it is not worth to continue talking. because i dont care about fantasies.

4)”God can interact without being interdependent.” nonsense. the god you describe (and JohnT) would have to have entropy. that makes your argument impossible- in this point at least.

5)

My argument for God or an uncaused cause is so much more plausible if not undeniable compared to any brane theory or string theory because my argument uses logic and reason based on scientific fact, not hypothetical theories based on premises that are not backed up by the natural sciences and the study of them.

no it is not. because you have no observation that backs it up. you assume- because you just look as far as your nose- that the physical universe is something that you can understand by just opening your eyes. then you are wrong and for me not worth discussing further.

6) the theory of gravity by newton incorporates laws. the same is true for the theory of evolution, it incorporates laws. how do we know a theory to be true? by checking if the laws describe the natural world. i show that to be true for evolution every day in my lab. AND- you do not understand that “theory” is of higher order in science than “facts”. of higher order! facts are observed, a theory is formed and falsified by checking if other facts can be explained based on the theory. in doing so the base for the theory becomes more and more stable. for ignorant and medieval minded people like yourself i suggest to all thinking people we call it the “LAW of evolution”. just to give you people a chance to grasp how certain it is that evolution happend. but first you would have to understand it of course. you guys always fight what YOU THINK evoltion say.

like John T who is dumb enough to say i shall show how a worm develops into a banana.well i never claimed such thing and will not prove it therefore. read a book johnt and jad.

7) i know your position and know that it is most probably useless to talk to you guys. the difference: i have the advantage of having been raised as a christian. i probably know the bible better than you guys. and i know that you guys will just feel confirmed if people like me try to fight your ignorance. that is how cult works. the reasonable doubts are turned into actual confirmations of ones believe.

have a good life

Des:

Maybe an atheist out there can think. Your response has been one of the better ones.

My analogy of a banana from a worm is ridiculous, but it is what the full scale of evolution teaches us. Aren’t we here because of random molecules of nucleotides and amino acids some how formed life in an organic soup (abiogenesis)? Didn’t comets bombard the earth with organic molecules in this ocean? Didn’t molecules bind and escape thermodymanic laws because they were near thermal vents in the ocean and form? Didn’t all life originate from the organism(s) in this preassumed ocean? Didn’t later fish formed and finally one developed legs and walked on land? Didn’t we all evolve from this great progression? Isn’t it natural selection and mutations that formed all of us from this point?

If so, then tell me how a worm forms into a banana?

Tell me about this mechanism of how the genetic code first formed before there was a code? Please don’t show me natural selection after the code is here. Natural selection only works when the code is here, not before. Natural selection tells why finches may have different forms of beaks, but it does not explain species jumping from chromosomes to chromosomes ie 48 for apes and 48 for potatoes and 46 for humans.

Thanks for your comments.

Snusket:

First of all, what the heck is a snusket?

Secondly, you can’t and won’t answer any of the questions Jad and I asked is because you are not a scientist. Just because you washed a test-tube in third grade does not make you a scientist.

You have a good life–hopefully now and later.

Tom, Snusket, Michael, and Des:

What part of Jad’s response do you not understand?

The Big Bang theory and General Relativity ‘confirms’ that the entire Universe was at one time contained in a sphere no larger than a basketball (I’m glad modern-day scientists say this and not a creationist!). Every star, planet, galaxy, etc., was all contained in a basketball sized area and smaller. And you say we have blind faith.

All of the observable Universe was at one time just energy. We have no idea how this energy got there and why it sat there until the so-called Big Bang explosion. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. So how did it get there?

As far as I am concerned…”In the Beginning, God created….” This makes more sense than a ball of energy just sitting there.

You claim to hold to no authority whatsoever so that leaves you at the centre of you’re own universe.

No it doesn’t. At the centre of my universe is cold and implacable death.

Doesn’t that make you proud and ignorant concerning other people’s world view? Doesn’t that force you to radiate contempt yourself?

Not in the least! Questioning authority does not imply opposing the output of any particular authority, it means disregarding it, until there is some secondary reason to agree. I do have contempt for evangelical christianity, because I have thought about this for more than forty years, and come to the firm opinion that it is abusive and contemptible rubbish. Is it a big surprise that all this “uncaused cause” stuff fails to change my mind? The big difference between me and you boys is that I know I don’t know very much, I recognise the limitations of human intelligence, and… I’ve got a sense of humour.

Just because you washed a test-tube in third grade does not make you a scientist.

Seems like something’s starting to get to John T! Perhaps he does read my posts after all!

Tom Donald:

Quotes..”..religious thinking…dead Zombie in Jesus….take on any challenges…poor John T..”

No Tom–John T says “Praise the Lord!” Because of the Lord’s truthfulness, I can take on and tackle the questions and challenges about our origins and if God exists or not. I say he does; you say he does not.

Now those are good questions–Does God exist or does he not? Did we evolve from and organic soup mixed with lifes molecules or not?

I challenge the National Science Foundation to start allocating a small portion of ‘their’(our taxpayers) monies to anti-evolutionary research. Some of these questions may surprise us if creationists were not censored!

I am opened minded. I have read some of the blogs. But Dawkins “God Delusion?” Are you serious. Where is the science in this book? It is all philosophy. He is just another ‘bull-shitter’ (Snusket keeps rubbing off on me).

What Dawkins says about Einstein isn’t consistent with the biographies written about Einstein in the 1950s. No John T is not arrogant; just a truth seeker. Take care.

What part of Jad’s response do you not understand?

He keeps mentioning this “god” thing. What is that? Some kind of invisible telepathic alien? Sorry, I don’t understand why he should keep going on about it. It’s not as if there is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR “GOD” OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON OF ANY SORT.
I hope that helps.

Tom:

I’ll respond alittle later so I can read your entire post. I am late for church. I’ll respond (assuming no Rapture between now and then). Beam me up Scotty!!!Take Care.

thanks Tom Donald, nice to have you around.

John T, what a snusket is? hmmm, let me guess, you are not british (as i for some reason assumed) but US american, right? just curiosity…

actually i washed a lot of test tubes- amazing how much time for thinking you have while you are doing it… you must try it some time John T- thinking i mean…

pray for me when in church- just to be on the safe side

thanks Tom Donald, nice to have you around.

John T, what a snusket is? hmmm, let me guess, you are not british (as i for some reason assumed) but US american, right? just curiosity…

actually i washed a lot of test tubes- amazing how much time for thinking you have while you are doing it… you must try it some time John T- thinking i mean…

pray for me when in church- just to be on the safe side: that is what this is about for you is it not?

Snusket:

Yes I am US American. I live in the West. The UK is great. Loved your music–Beatles, Rolling Stones, the Who, Hermans Hermits, etc. You have a great running record too such as Bannister, Coe, Ovett…Great science as well.

Just wish you didn’t get rid of your creationism!
Be back. I am very late now.

John t, why dont you freaking watch the video by miller that i send you? afraid to lose your faith?

you see, where you are wrong is that we have faith. we need not have faith we have evidence instead.

what evidence is there for creation? you just go on mumbling about some theory that you call evolution that i have never heard of (i know evolution but that is not what you obviously talk about).

present your evidence to us. i have send you a link that provides the answers you had (about where the molecules come from and what they did to form life), but you obviously never checked it out. so you are a liar because you claim to read our stuff.

“If so, then tell me how a worm forms into a banana?”??? is your fantasy that lame? after all you make up imaginary super-friends- how hard can it be to picture an imaginary environment in which a worm evolves into a plant like creature which eventually form a banana like fruit for procreation?

In fact; molecular biology has provided us with more evidence for worms evolving to bananas than theism has provided us with for god.

long life the banana-worm!

no clue what music you talk about. i am not british… who are the beatles? some christian curch of england band?

guys, too long no argument. i am bored…
i promise not to use swearwords on anyone anymore who tells me first what it is! i swear!

arrrghh. sorry…my bad: who tells me what a “snusket” is!!!

To Snusket,

For Des,

I never once stated that there was some sort of existence before the big bang. I stated that it is a possibility with equal evidence to the idea that a sentient creator designed the universe, i.e. none. The evidence points to the universe as we know it being created in the event we call the Big Bang. It does not speak to the nature of existence before that event. There may or may not have been some form of existence before then (and “before” is a dodgy term here, because time as we understand it is believed to have been created with the big bang) but only a person who has particular emotional attachment to that answer would conclude that the ONLY possibility is a sentient designer from outside the universe. I could think of a dozen more parsimonious explanations on a lazy afternoon, and I’m sure you could too if you weren’t so attached to a predordained conclusion.

I am claiming only one possibility and I am using the natural sciences as the premise. I have used no emotional attachment to come to my conclusions concerning the uncaused cause. If you want to argue another option then please share it but you will have to back it up with sufficient scientific evidence as the premise. Otherwise we are stuck in the abstract realm where any person on any lazy arvo can come up with Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns and Giant Alien Super Tomatoes called Erik.

You keep saying you’ve provided evidence for the uncaused creator, but you have not. Evidence is that which is observed. You claim that there is no such thing as an infinite regression, but when asked why, you simply repeat the assertion that it’s not possible in reality. I could just as easily assert that gods cannot exist in reality. Since you have not actually established the impossibility of an infinite regression, that leaves open a number of possibilities.
1. Oscillating universe. The universe will eventually stop expanding, collapse under its own gravity, and become an infinitely small point again. Then it will explode again to form a new universe. The same process goes back in time infinitely, and will go forward in time infintely as well.
I am willing to concede that this possibility has less evidence than an intelligent creator, if you count the fact that according to our current data, the universe will probably never contract. Still, it’s not nearly as thoroughly refuted as the bible itself, so we can put this somewhere below deism but above Christianity on the plausibility scale.
2.Time Loop. Within General Relativity, time is not a strict linear progression. In some circumstances, whether one event happened “before” or “after” another can become meaningless, which leads to events which can, from the right perspective, be caused by things that happened after them. Given this, it’s within the realm of possibility that the beginning of the universe was caused by something that we would consider to have happened after the event. Possibly something that hasn’t even happened yet. Absurd, but not impossible. I’d rate it as a bit less absurd than an intelligent being which exists outside space and time and deliberately designed the universe.
Let’s move on from the regression possibilities for now.
3. Underlying Set of Rules. Instead of an intelligent creator which deliberately designed the universe, the universe we observe would make just as much sense in light of a simple set of underlying rules that necessitated the existence of the universe. It squares very well with the fact that the universe that we observe seems to be entirely rule based, without any supernatural tampering. No claims of miracles have ever been substantiated. Additionally, it’s far more parsimonious than an intelligent creator which exists outside space and time. Additionally, there is considerable negative evidence for intelligent design on our world (for more on this, see Neil Tyson’s video on Stupid Design, available on Youtube.) I’d rank this one well above an intelligent creator in plausibility.
4. Multiverse. The universe as we can observe it appears to have had a beginning, but it is, of course, possible that it came from a source that did not. There could, for instance, be some non-contingent source that churns out an infinity of universes, all with different fundamental constants. This would explain why the universe we live in has fundamental constants appropriate for the existence of life. Since the entire spectrum of possibilities would have to be covered, some universes (possibly an infinite number) would have to have life. In fact, some scientists have claimed that the behavior of light indicates the existence of other universes. I will not attempt to explain this, because I personally do not understand it, but hey, I’m still learning, so maybe I will someday. So anyway, we have tentative evidence for multiple universes (and none for an intelligent creator,)which squares well with a theory that would explain not only where our universe came from, but why it’s suitable for us to live in, and on top of that, is less logically absurd than an intelligent being that exists outside of space and time.

Want to try and add a few yourself?

This is for anyone who cares to read it…

If it is true that the creationist uses his own religion or some God-like presupposition to base his scientific reasoning on then the atheist must also concede his own ideology of a no-god world view as his own presupposition. Now not every creationist is like this and not every atheist uses his no-god presuppositions either but there is a good majority in both camps. I am well aware of it in my own creationist community but I am also aware of the rather large no-god bias that tags along with evolutionism. My attempt here is to use strict scientific laws and philosophies of these laws alone to determine a truth. This is my test for truth of a world view, including my own. I am more than willing to lay my world view out on the table for all to see and to test. If it is true then it will speak for itself. It should not need my bias as a helping hand. Can any of you here say the same for your own world view?
Are you only atheistic because you don’t want there to be a god-like being having some sort of authority over you? Or are you open to testing your world view for truth?

Actually, your claim is false. Most atheists come to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe in a god without any bias in that direction, because the majority of atheists are former theists.
I am certainly open to testing my world view for truth. I only came to the conclusion that there almost certainly was no god after many years of testing and searching, and I continue to be open to new evidence to this day, despite the fact that I haven’t heard a new argument or piece of purported evidence in years. That’s an important scientific principle, always being open to the possibility of new evidence, but I think I can be forgiven if, having heard the same flawed arguments and flawed evidence for year after year, I do not particularly expect to find it.

Tom, Snusket, Michael, and Des:

What part of Jad’s response do you not understand?

The Big Bang theory and General Relativity ‘confirms’ that the entire Universe was at one time contained in a sphere no larger than a basketball (I’m glad modern-day scientists say this and not a creationist!). Every star, planet, galaxy, etc., was all contained in a basketball sized area and smaller. And you say we have blind faith.

All of the observable Universe was at one time just energy. We have no idea how this energy got there and why it sat there until the so-called Big Bang explosion. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. So how did it get there?

As far as I am concerned…”In the Beginning, God created….” This makes more sense than a ball of energy just sitting there.

This is not an accurate synopsis of what is postulated by the big bang theory, but let us pretend, for the sake of an argument, that it is.
We know the energy that created the universe exists, because we can observe it. We know that it was once all focused in one point.

Why CAN’T it just have been sitting there going back eternally? Sounds a bit weid, right? But so does the idea of an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, human shaped creator which exists outside of time, and was around forever before the universe began. There is a crucial difference between these two explanations. One postulates only the existence of the energy from which the current universe was made (which, true to natural law, was never created, it always existed) and the other postulates not only that mass of energy, but also an intelligent being that exists outside of time. Rather than being simpler, this provides the same explanatory power by postulating an additional entity, completely unevidenced, which is highly complex. It is a testament to your indoctrination that you actually think that this is a more compelling explanation.

Behold the power of natural selection. We can clearly see that humans are capable of believing anything, and that those beliefs can be based on utter absurdities, provided they perform a vital function for the individual, that is provide existential meaning, and for the group, that is provide ideological identity, and a mechanism for cultural continuity. Humans constantly generate beliefs, and these are subject to the same process of natural selection that the properties of any other living system goes through. If it doesn’t do the job, it disappears. So christianity as expressed by these posters is a highly evolved and powerful system of belief. It does its jobs, is entrenched in their primitive culture, and for the individual to dump it involves a very severe existential challenge. Most people as deeply into the cult as our posters here would find even discussing this stuff too frightening to bear, this is a self-selected group who’s beliefs are so rigid that they do not experience the possibility that the whole thing is nonsense. Except for that proto-priest a hundred posts ago, Daniel, who is certainly experiencing that fear. No wonder he ran away!

Des:

Maybe an atheist out there can think. Your response has been one of the better ones.

My analogy of a banana from a worm is ridiculous, but it is what the full scale of evolution teaches us. Aren’t we here because of random molecules of nucleotides and amino acids some how formed life in an organic soup (abiogenesis)? Didn’t comets bombard the earth with organic molecules in this ocean? Didn’t molecules bind and escape thermodymanic laws because they were near thermal vents in the ocean and form? Didn’t all life originate from the organism(s) in this preassumed ocean? Didn’t later fish formed and finally one developed legs and walked on land? Didn’t we all evolve from this great progression? Isn’t it natural selection and mutations that formed all of us from this point?

If so, then tell me how a worm forms into a banana?

Tell me about this mechanism of how the genetic code first formed before there was a code? Please don’t show me natural selection after the code is here. Natural selection only works when the code is here, not before. Natural selection tells why finches may have different forms of beaks, but it does not explain species jumping from chromosomes to chromosomes ie 48 for apes and 48 for potatoes and 46 for humans.

Thanks for your comments.

The idea of genes as a “code” is somewhat flawed, and has led to quite a lot of misunderstandings. Inasmuch as there is a “code” it’s a function of the chemical properties of the elements that are interacting with each other. The behavior of the nucleotides and amino acids, etc. can all be reduced to fundamental physics. In fact, we actually have computers that do exactly that, and model the behavior of the inside of a cell based on physical laws. They don’t need to input any deciphering key for what gene sequences lead to what amino acids, it’s all determined by chemical properties.
Asking where the code came from is a lot like scratching a furrow in the ground from a puddle to a lower place, and asking how the water understands the instructions to flow in that direction.

Your question about the worm coming from a banana is, of course, still ridiculous. It’s like asking how a hobo equipped only with a coonskin cap, a ball of twine, and bucket, could have singlehandedly conquered the British Empire. It never happened, and it’s scarcely within the realm of physical possibility, and the actual history is far more plausible. We have a fossil record which, while incomplete, if everything get fossilized it would show we had a major misunderstanding of how fossils form, shows us a pretty clear lineage from the earliest organisms to those alive today. Not only can we observe the principles (speciation and change in chromosome number have been observed) we have access to quite a lot of the history as well.

Des:

Please give me a break. Don’t redefine what a code is. Yeah, you have computers that can do this. Have you ever heard of the binary code? So you turn on a computer and how it just works! Natural physics explains this. The computer has no codes, no programmers, no engineers. You turn it on and it works. DNA works too. Just turn it on and natural physical laws explain it. Nucleotides just always bind to nucleotides. They do it all by themselves. No direction, no enzymes, no designer.

What are the natural laws of physics that explains nucleotides binding to nucleotides in coded format? Why 20 amino acids that recognize their triplet format? If you have phosphorus in a test tube and add a X amount of a nucleotide to it, will phosphorus always bind itself as a back-bone for this DNA develoment?

Des:

Yes my analogy of a worm turning into a banana is ridiculous. But look at the evolutionary tree that you-all (southern accent) believe in. Bananas have DNA and so do worms. Look at the tree branch. We all go back to some protista or archae-bacterium. This is our roots (no pun intended). So what are the natural physical laws that turn a worm into a banana?

The laws in question are the laws of electrodynamics, which determine the behavior of the particles. The “coded format” isn’t really a code per se. Have you ever seen one of those toy sets, I forget what they’re called, but you build a set of slides, wheels, pulleys, etc. all for the purpose of getting a metal ball from one place to another in a rather amusing fashion. DNA is a “code” only in the sense that this device is a “code” to tell the ball where to travel.

I’m not redefining what a code is, I’m telling you that it’s a misconception to think of DNA as having one. When scientists call DNA a code, or set of instructions, it’s really for lack of a better word.

Tom Donald:

I agree many religions come and go. The bible, judaism, and christianity has not because they have been built on the Word himself.

I’ll have to read some of Daniels posts and figure why he ran away. Maybe we can bring him back. SI ran away after suffering from ‘checkmate’.

PS. On another note. I rarely use my computer for audio. Snusket provided a link that requires audio. I have a speaker (not connected) and can’t find the cable that connects a speaker to my computer. I have a Dell 4550. What does the cable look like. I have tons of cables downstairs. My dad always told me to go MAC.

John T. It seems like you’re deliberately using the “worm to banana” example to make the concept of evolution seem ridiculous, but that’s like using the “hobo conquers the British Empire” scenario I mentioned to make the concept of history seem ridiculous. We have a fossil record that shows organisms changing, diverging, adapting, with links all the way from early, very simple organisms, to modern ones. In order to argue against our evolutionary history, you must be able to refute the evidence of the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA testing. Can you do that? I suppose I must accept that it’s theoretically possible that you can, but keep in mind that people have been trying to knock down evolutionary theory since its inception, and yet it gathers more evidence all the time.

well said and explained Des. John T is embarrassing himself and insulting our intelligence with his stubborn idiocy.

I have provided him with a great link that even he might understand and if he was sincerely interested could follow up from there. but he does ignore the proves provided.

Des, your explanation of the DNA code is great. I am afraid he will no get it though. one needs to understand some physics and chemistry especially.

I have a similar problem with Jad. he uses physical terms as we use everyday terms. some guys out there dont get that terms like “code”, “space”, “beginning”, “energy” etc have a strictly defined meaning in their respective science that does not match Jad’s and JohnT’s laymen understanding of the words.

that is why they produce such nonsense when they use these term in the way they do, proving their god to us…

I’m not a geneticist, (over to you Snusket) (Swedish for “unclean”??). But I am a computer person, and “binary code” is meaningless. Binary is a number system with precisely the same meaningfulness as the decimal system. One is not an encoding of the other, each is as complete and direct as the other, as is base 443 for example.
Is this what you referred to as “sarcasm”? When there are so many varieties of nonsense being put forward here, it is impossible to tell which are intended satirically, and which not. Perhaps you could indicate in some way. In the meantime, let me assure you that if you are serious in your stuff about computing, you are talking what we Scots call “shite”.
Hope this helps.

Tom:
No…Snusket is probably Swedish for Holy One.

The binary code is not meaningless!!! Random ones and zeros are meaningless, just like random nucleotides are meaningless. The binary code is the driving force behind computers and softwares. I hardly think it performs a meaningless task. It shows engineering and design. I wonder what else in life shows engineering and design???

PS. I don’t know what a shite is either?
My sarcasm is mostly in stuff like worm v banana. But I am looking at the evolutionary tree that you guys embrace. Look at it. The tree branch that led to worms is not far from the tree branch that led to a banana. So what is wrong when I ask how a worm forms into a banana? It is interesting that evolutionists use the tree for the Tree of Life. Wonder where they got that idea?

But branches don’t merge. The odds of one already existing species evolving into another already existing species are infinitesimal.
I don’t think I’ve heard the evolutionary tree called the tree of life before, but if they call it that, it’s most likely after its shape when charted, the way it breaks into successive branches, rather than after the Judeo-Christian myth.

John T, if you think life on earth really does show engineering and design, perhaps you should check out Neil Tyson’s presentation on Stupid Design. It’s available for free on youtube, and points out some glaring flaws in biological species that make perfect sense in light of evolution, but could easily have been corrected by any competent engineer.

Des:

I don’t know why Snusket thought your explanation on DNA was great? You didn’t explain anything.

As you know, mitochondrial DNA is mainly inherited through our maternal lines (Mums in Scottish). As you know, there is great and insurmountable evidence that all of our mDNA may have been derived from one female. Since we don’t know her name, lets just call her ‘Eve’.

I know in the past there was a proposed theory that the mitochondrion was a bacterium that somehow formed a symbiosis with its species including us. However, this has yet to be proved given that all of the mDNA is actually encoded in our chromosomal DNA. So when you use the mitochondrion as evidence, are you talking about Eve, or the bacterium theory?

As you know, the fossil record is highly mixed. Most geologists refer to this as a contamination or a mixing of geological processes. So whenever the fossil record supports evolution, they tout it. And when it doesn’t, it is called mixing or contamination due to geological processes.

I bought two fossils at a museum in Wyoming USA. They claimed they were both found in the same quarry. One fossil was a trilobite and the other looked like a ‘maple leaf’ no different than the one in my back yard. I have taken a picture of this. I asked the fossil salesman if he was sure that the leaf was in the same quarry. He got mad at me for questioning him; he thought I was accusing him of forging the leaf fossil. Anyway, they were both dated millions of years.

At the fossil butte national monument, there are marine fish and freshwater fish, mixed. There are also bats. Maybe the bats were diving for perch (Tom, I am being sarcastic). Or possibly, a shark.

Tom Donald:

Quotes..”..religious thinking…dead Zombie in Jesus….take on any challenges…poor John T..”

No Tom–John T says “Praise the Lord!” Because of the Lord’s truthfulness, I can take on and tackle the questions and challenges about our origins and if God exists or not. I say he does; you say he does not.

Now those are good questions–Does God exist or does he not? Did we evolve from and organic soup mixed with lifes molecules or not?

I challenge the National Science Foundation to start allocating a small portion of ‘their’(our taxpayers) monies to anti-evolutionary research. Some of these questions may surprise us if creationists were not censored!

This betrays a serious misunderstanding of how scientific studies are conducted. There has been a glut of “anti-evolutionary research” in that every test the Theory of Evolution has ever been subjected to has been an attempt to disprove it. That’s how science works; you test hypotheses by designing experiments that could falsify the them, and conducting those experiments. If the hypothesis passes every test that scientists can think of, it becomes a theory. The Theory of Evolution has been tested ad nauseam, meaning that there has already been a huge number of tests attempting to disprove it, conducted by people who understand the relevant principles. There is no reason to supply extra funding so that people with an overt agenda and a well established reputation for failing to grasp scientific principles can conduct the same tests all over again.

Des,

I’ll check out the stupid design you are talking about on YouTube..Need to get my audio working on my desktop first. But I will view it as with the others.

This stupid design argument is an old one though. What people don’t realize is that most of the defects they are talking about has come through mutations. I thought mutations were supposed to make us better over time, not worse?

John T: what propaganda anti-evolution book have you read?

before you have not watched this movie we should not even go on with your nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

I thought mutations were supposed to make us better over time, not worse?

that is ignorant bullshit. I cannot imagine you having any scientific education (not even school level) for saying something so plain stupid. you must have been sarcastic again? or are you just trying to excuse your infinite stupidity, ignorance and close-mindedness by calling it sarcasm?

let us turn this silly game around for a second. present me with ONE evidence for creationism. and ONE distinguished evidence falsifying evolution!

hmmm, that will be funny… (BTW asking dumb-ass 16-year old questions does not count as evidence) so bone head- any good stuff for us?

tom D: spot on about the snusket. i guess JohnT missed a chance here

I have a speaker (not connected) and can’t find the cable that connects a speaker to my computer… …What does the cable look like.

I would expect that to have a jack plug at each end, if you look at the sockets, you will get a good idea of the plugs that fit ‘em… Don’t get too stressed.

The Mitochondrial Eve experiment is one of the ones whose results are most often misstated by creationists. The results actually suggest a starting population of about 10000, and much longer ago than the bible implies that the world has existed.
Mutation itself is neutral. It can be either good or bad. When filtered through the process of natural selection, the negative mutations are weeded out of the population, but there is nothing preventing them from occurring in individuals. If there were a benevolent entity that perfectly designed all organisms, there would be no point in them mutating at all, they could only get worse. If there were an intelligent benevolent being “guiding” evolution, we would expect the negative mutations not to occur.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
Here is a site which lists a number of non-optimal (and sometimes very stupid) traits in organisms, which make sense in light of evolution, but not intelligent design, and are not the result of birth defects.

Des: great link hillarious! and great explanation how natural selection trough mutation works!

it is mind-boggling how you keep your cool in that face of such dumb questions… to me someone even doubting evolution only indicates that they have never understood it. i told john t before, i never met anyone (interestingly) who understood evolution, knew the evidence well and doubted that it was the closest to a complete explanation to th beginning of life human kind ever had to pleasure to in possession of…

a shame that some treat this fantastic scientific discovery with so much ignorance. to me no more different than doubting the law of gravitation. hence my suggestion to call it the law-of-evolution. in order to indicate to ignorant people how sure science is about evolution.

and JOHN T, you said somewhere how the 20 aminoacids (aa) could interact without enzyme. first of, there are 21 aa, and secondly, freaking read the link i have send you!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030114051.htm

For Snusket,

you do not really know quantum physics. your example would have to be more like: you observe a football team that always wins their matches and based on that you predict a solar eclipse in uganda during a local football match, and you also predict the names of the teams playing as well as the result of the match at the time of the solar eclipse and the names of the scorers.

Actually that’s not really what I meant in the analogy. I was just trying to show another way to clarify that although mathematics is sound it is not the premise of a theory. It is simply a calculation based on a premise that can either be true or false. I think my example with the front porch and the pink tails are still better analogies though. Which part of that do you not understand?

your “logic” builds on observation you say. I urge you to read Watzlavick. I do not recommend these things for a joke. If you intend to understand where you are wrong about things you must give my arguments a chance. my arguments will always involve literature, because other people have dealt with things we discuss in a manor as i could not explain it better.

How about you at least try and explain it to all of us here? If you understand and agree with it, surely you can share it with us using your own interpretation.

Oh and by Watzlavick do you mean Watzlawick, the theoretician in Communication Theory and Radical Constructivism?

Watzlavick e.g. will explain to you that it is nonsense of you to assume that you observe a world “out there”, and that the observation in a particle accelerator (and the theories based on that are somehow “less observational”. your senses and your brain do function in a very rudimentary way that can easily deceived after all. but that is not the point, read watzlavick).

It is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state. All I am saying is yes there are some great theories based on sub-atomic particles in disturbed states but they would be far more factual and grounded in reason if we could study these sub-atomic particles in undisturbed states. This is the scientific way. The cosmological argument I have explained here uses much more evidences grounded in reason based on my way more study in the natural sciences in undisturbed states. Mere possibilities in the study of sub-atomic particles in disturbed states cannot be used to refute the probabilities within the knowable world. But essentially this is what you and others here are trying to do to argue against the cosmological argument and an uncaused cause. It is as if you would rather believe in a possible hypothetical rather than something we already know as true in the study of the natural sciences so that you can still hold to your world view.

and you do give this silly example of logic:
1) All Irish people have pink tails
2) Tom and Jad are Irish, therefore
3) Tom and Jad have pink tails
that does not start with an observation does it?

Yes that is exactly right! It does not start with an observation. This is exactly what the example of logic and pink tails is about. Steps 2 and 3 are perfectly logical according to the premise that all Irish people have pink tails. But as logical as that may be the premise has not been observed in any way and cannot be proven to be true. Just like the measurements for building the front porch in the other example I gave. The mathematics in working out how much wood is needed for this porch presumes the initial measurements are true. They can be observed as true or false but the mathematics still remains perfectly and logically sound. Just because the mathematics is logically sound does not mean the measurements for the front porch are correct.

it seems to me that anything that you cannot observe with your eyes you do not believe in - except “god”. you make no sense.

No not at all. You seem to be defining observation as what can only been seen with the eyes. There are four other senses we use for observation that are just as important to the study of the natural sciences. And you are one bringing up god all the time not me. I’m still arguing for an uncaused cause at the moment.

you never answer how i can falsify your ideas. then it is not worth to continue talking. because i dont care about fantasies.

Which ideas of mine have you falsified? And of those falsifications which ones have I not already responded too? If I have missed some of your post then I apologize.

____________

“God can interact without being interdependent”

nonsense. the god you describe (and JohnT) would have to have entropy. that makes your argument impossible- in this point at least.

Yes God can interact without being interdependent. You are claiming here that among other things derived from entropy, like contingent, changing and non-eternal things, that an infinite eternal being cannot meaningfully interact with a finite temporal being. I’ll quote Thomas Aquinas here as his explanation is short and easily understood.

“God condescends to relate to humans as if he shared time with them. He can create a temporal relation that in no way changes him. Eternity can move in time, though time cannot move in eternity. To have a relationship with the temporal world, God does not have to be temporal. It makes no more sense to say God has to be temporal in order to relate to a temporal world than to say he has to be a creature in order to create. God is really related to creatures as their Creator. But creatures are really related to God only because he is their Creator. They are dependent on that Creator-creature bond; he is not. Therefore, the relation of God to creatures is real and not merely ideal. However, it is a real relationship of dependence on the part of the creatures but not a relation of dependence on the part of God.”

Again these kinds of questions you ask are presuming the argument for an uncaused cause is correct. It is more on the subject of what this uncaused cause might be. But you still do not agree on the argument for an uncaused cause yes?

“My argument for God or an uncaused cause is so much more plausible if not undeniable compared to any brane theory or string theory because my argument uses logic and reason based on scientific fact, not hypothetical theories based on premises that are not backed up by the natural sciences and the study of them.”

no it is not. because you have no observation that backs it up. you assume- because you just look as far as your nose- that the physical universe is something that you can understand by just opening your eyes. then you are wrong and for me not worth discussing further.

Again you are assuming that what I mean by observation has only to do with my eyes. Observational science does not use sight alone. Observations can be made with the unaided eye or with the aid of sensitive instruments, but observation of some sort is crucial for operational science. Forensic science, or origin science like the law of causality is based on what we already know and continually affirm in the natural sciences.

the theory of gravity by newton incorporates laws. the same is true for the theory of evolution, it incorporates laws. how do we know a theory to be true? by checking if the laws describe the natural world. i show that to be true for evolution every day in my lab.

This all depends on your definition of evolution. I have no problem with micro-evolution because these laws describe the natural world quite well. But macro-evolution does not describe the natural world in any way whatsoever.

AND- you do not understand that “theory” is of higher order in science than “facts”. of higher order! facts are observed, a theory is formed and falsified by checking if other facts can be explained based on the theory. in doing so the base for the theory becomes more and more stable.

I checked out that Ken Miller YouTube link gave and really liked it. I am pretty much in agreement with most of what he says. Being a theist like myself he explains the theory of Intelligent Design rather well; not as a biased atheist or agnostic but as a believer that sees the flaws in the evidences being used for the ID movement. There are few things though which I did not agree with. For example one of his evidences for evolution he gave was the alleged merger of two ape chromosomes during evolution to form human chromosome 2. He deceptively failed to mention though that chromosome 2 contains unique information not on ape chromosomes. No evolutionist has ever shown how such information can originate by chance. This is macro-evolution which again has nothing to do the natural sciences.
The other thing I have a problem with is his idea that “theory” is of higher order in science than “facts” which you also mentioned yourself. Correct me if I am wrong but without some kind of fact you have no theory to begin with do you? A theory becomes more and more stable, based on the facts (actual reality) not on the theory of other facts. These “Facts” are still the higher order then; they are in fact (no pun) the first order in which one derives a theory from. We base a theory (well a sound theory) on some form of fact that we already know to be true. The way I see it is a theory is formed and falsified on facts so they must be the first and highest order.

for ignorant and medieval minded people like yourself i suggest to all thinking people we call it the “LAW of evolution”. just to give you people a chance to grasp how certain it is that evolution happend. but first you would have to understand it of course. you guys always fight what YOU THINK evoltion say.

Again I don’t have a problem that micro-evolution happened and is happening.

____________

For Tom,

Questioning authority does not imply opposing the output of any particular authority, it means disregarding it, until there is some secondary reason to agree.

Now don’t tone it down for us Tom. ‘Questioning Authority’ is not what you said. You said you don’t just distrust authority but that you actively despise it. So on a good day you have no trust for authority. Any other day and you actively despise it. This is blatantly opposing the output of any particular authority, not simply disregarding it.

You’re not by any chance a “no absolute truths” kind of guy are you?

____________

“What part of Jad’s response do you not understand?”

He keeps mentioning this “god” thing. What is that? Some kind of invisible telepathic alien? Sorry, I don’t understand why he should keep going on about it. It’s not as if there is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR “GOD” OR ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON OF ANY SORT.
I hope that helps.

No it doesn’t help at all because I’m not the one bringing up the “god thing” all the time, it is you atheists lol. I’m still talking about an uncaused cause.

____________

For Des,

You keep saying you’ve provided evidence for the uncaused creator, but you have not. Evidence is that which is observed. You claim that there is no such thing as an infinite regression, but when asked why, you simply repeat the assertion that it’s not possible in reality. I could just as easily assert that gods cannot exist in reality. Since you have not actually established the impossibility of an infinite regression, that leaves open a number of possibilities.

I have provided plenty of evidence for an uncaused cause. I have used empirical science that deals with present regularities and I’ve used origin science (forensic science) like the law of causality which the cosmological argument is based on which together show the necessity for an uncaused cause. I have also given plenty of data concerning the impossibility of infinite regression. Here is some more…

“What is infinity minus infinity? Mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. If you subtract all the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . from all the natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , how many numbers do you have left? An infinite number. So infinity minus infinity is infinity. But suppose instead you subtract all the numbers greater than 2 - how many are left? Three. So infinity minus infinity is 3! It needs to be understood that in both of these cases we have subtracted identical quantities from identical quantities and come up with self-contradictory answers. In fact, you can get any answer you want from zero to infinity! This shows that infinity is just an idea in one’s mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” - William Lane Craig

Instead of an intelligent creator which deliberately designed the universe, the universe we observe would make just as much sense in light of a simple set of underlying rules that necessitated the existence of the universe. It squares very well with the fact that the universe that we observe seems to be entirely rule based, without any supernatural tampering. No claims of miracles have ever been substantiated. Additionally, it’s far more parsimonious than an intelligent creator which exists outside space and time. Additionally, there is considerable negative evidence for intelligent design on our world (for more on this, see Neil Tyson’s video on Stupid Design, available on Youtube.) I’d rank this one well above an intelligent creator in plausibility.

I actually don’t hold to theory of ID either. I mentioned the same thing to Snusket above if you hadn’t already read that. I believe the word design is subjective, not objective. I also agree that at least what we observe seems to be entirely rule based. But my end result is different to yours…

“During the last thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife’s edge. It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe such as ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions that must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). There are around fifty such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers” - William Lane Craig

I don’t hold to an intelligent designer as such because as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) said concerning design implying a designer, “Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung.” What I do hold too though is some form of intelligence rather than random chance. I think it is something way more probable than any other concept like chance, 10 fold.

Multiverse. The universe as we can observe it appears to have had a beginning, but it is, of course, possible that it came from a source that did not. There could, for instance, be some non-contingent source that churns out an infinity of universes, all with different fundamental constants. This would explain why the universe we live in has fundamental constants appropriate for the existence of life. Since the entire spectrum of possibilities would have to be covered, some universes (possibly an infinite number) would have to have life. In fact, some scientists have claimed that the behavior of light indicates the existence of other universes. I will not attempt to explain this, because I personally do not understand it, but hey, I’m still learning, so maybe I will someday. So anyway, we have tentative evidence for multiple universes (and none for an intelligent creator,)which squares well with a theory that would explain not only where our universe came from, but why it’s suitable for us to live in, and on top of that, is less logically absurd than an intelligent being that exists outside of space and time.

This sounds to me like you would first have to agree that the cosmological argument is correct in order to fathom a multiverse. As above, to get to your Multiverse you have first concluded that the universe had a beginning and that there is a non-contingent source of this universe. Yes?

Most atheists come to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe in a god without any bias in that direction, because the majority of atheists are former theists.
I am certainly open to testing my world view for truth. I only came to the conclusion that there almost certainly was no god after many years of testing and searching, and I continue to be open to new evidence to this day, despite the fact that I haven’t heard a new argument or piece of purported evidence in years. That’s an important scientific principle, always being open to the possibility of new evidence, but I think I can be forgiven if, having heard the same flawed arguments and flawed evidence for year after year, I do not particularly expect to find it.

To you me you would rather believe in an infinite regression first before you even considered theism or some kind of god. This shows a bias toward atheism or agnosticism, not open mindedness. You also come up with multi universes and stay well clear of anything that might point to a god. It seems you are open minded to anything but theism to me. Freethinker perhaps?

“We base a theory (well a sound theory) on some form of fact that we already know to be true. The way I see it is a theory is formed and falsified on facts so they must be the first and highest order.”

there are ABSOLUTELY NO theories we know to be “true”. you seem a positivist? believing in a world that really exists and that we can understand with our senses? in philosophy of science the first thing you learn is that the term “true” is useless. you can falsify ideas though.

what is your obsession with an uncaused cause? if the brane theory was right, would a brane be such an uncaused cause in your mind?

what the hell is this thing you keep talking about of “undisturbed” observation? on one hand you say it is alwright to use instruments. but you do not accept the results of particle accelerators which are instruments, on the basis that there is something “disturbed”? what do you mean?

I acknowledge that an intelligent creator that existed outside the universe is, in theory, a possibility, but I think that it’s one that can be dismissed due to Occam’s Razor, because it’s much less parsimonious than so many other possibilities.
If it’s any consolation to you, I think it’s more likely that we were created by an intelligent being from outside the universe than that our entire reality exists in the four-dimensional surface tension of the snot bubble in the nose of an infinite and non-contingent being.

For Des,

You keep saying you’ve provided evidence for the uncaused creator, but you have not. Evidence is that which is observed. You claim that there is no such thing as an infinite regression, but when asked why, you simply repeat the assertion that it’s not possible in reality. I could just as easily assert that gods cannot exist in reality. Since you have not actually established the impossibility of an infinite regression, that leaves open a number of possibilities.

I have provided plenty of evidence for an uncaused cause. I have used empirical science that deals with present regularities and I’ve used origin science (forensic science) like the law of causality which the cosmological argument is based on which together show the necessity for an uncaused cause. I have also given plenty of data concerning the impossibility of infinite regression. Here is some more…

The “law of causality” does not explicitly include the existence of non-contingent entities. No such entity, in fact, has ever been observed, unless our universe itself is one. You are assuming an exception to causality from the beginning. The Cosmological Argument is not based on the law of causality, it takes exception to it.

“What is infinity minus infinity? Mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. If you subtract all the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . from all the natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , how many numbers do you have left? An infinite number. So infinity minus infinity is infinity. But suppose instead you subtract all the numbers greater than 2 - how many are left? Three. So infinity minus infinity is 3! It needs to be understood that in both of these cases we have subtracted identical quantities from identical quantities and come up with self-contradictory answers. In fact, you can get any answer you want from zero to infinity! This shows that infinity is just an idea in one’s mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” - William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig died before the discovery of the first black hole, an object with a vast mass concentrated in a singularity of infinite density.

Instead of an intelligent creator which deliberately designed the universe, the universe we observe would make just as much sense in light of a simple set of underlying rules that necessitated the existence of the universe. It squares very well with the fact that the universe that we observe seems to be entirely rule based, without any supernatural tampering. No claims of miracles have ever been substantiated. Additionally, it’s far more parsimonious than an intelligent creator which exists outside space and time. Additionally, there is considerable negative evidence for intelligent design on our world (for more on this, see Neil Tyson’s video on Stupid Design, available on Youtube.) I’d rank this one well above an intelligent creator in plausibility.

I actually don’t hold to theory of ID either. I mentioned the same thing to Snusket above if you hadn’t already read that. I believe the word design is subjective, not objective. I also agree that at least what we observe seems to be entirely rule based. But my end result is different to yours…

“During the last thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends on a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife’s edge. It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe such as ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions that must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). There are around fifty such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers” - William Lane Craig

If you took the time to consider the multiverse explanation, you would see that a seemingly fine tuned universe makes perfect sense in light of it, because the full spectrum of possible constants would be covered. As such, it is inevitable that universes suited to life would exist. Is our universe designed to accommodate life? Well, it could certainly be worse, but it could also be much much better. So far, we have a number of possible candidates outside our planet that could contain life, but none have been substantiated yet. By all accounts, life bearing planets are in the vast minority. Any being that went out of its way to design a universe for the sake of housing life could have done much much better. If the universe was created solely for us, then why devote only about .00000000000000000000007% of the mass of the universe to our solar system? The universe is obviously suitable for life, otherwise we could not be here discussing it, but it is clearly not ideal for life, nor does the universe appear to have been created for our sake.

I don’t hold to an intelligent designer as such because as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) said concerning design implying a designer, “Watches imply watchmakers only because we know by previous experience that watches are things made by watchmakers. In like manner one would not know that dung was something left by an animal unless he had previously observed animals deposit dung.” What I do hold too though is some form of intelligence rather than random chance. I think it is something way more probable than any other concept like chance, 10 fold.

But random chance is not the sole alternative to an intelligent creator. In fact, with the multiverse theory, the odds of a universe like ours existing are equal to, say, flipping a coin and getting a hundred heads in a row… in an infinite series of coin flips. In other words, an absolute certainty.

Des:
I agree with some of the things you have said. I viewed the freewebs link. The “very stupid traits” as quoted by you are from a human perspective. They are stupid to us, but we don’t know all of their functions and purposes yet.

In my day, the tonsils and the appendix were considered stupid traits and showed a dumb designer and therefore evolution is true. Recently, I read in a medical magazine that their traits were very important in the early development of the embryo. They may be useless and stupid after we are born; but they did have important functions.

The inheritance of mDNA may have had 10,000 ancestors; but I highly doubt that. This is more from computer similations and ‘what if’ scenarios than actual science from discoveries. The inheritance discoveries from mDNA show that our genetic traits could have came from a few women, or maybe just one.

The “very stupid traits” as quoted by you are from a human perspective. They are stupid to us, but we don’t know all of their functions and purposes yet.

you are saying that human ignorance may prevent us from seeing the importance of the traits? i believe it is human ignorance that prevents some people from seeing that we need no god invention in order to explain the natural world.

how come you allow yourself to be the judge of “good design” that proves there is a god, but if it does not fit because it is “bad design” and contradicts your believe you reject it?

you know you have to decide. do you want scientific argument or not? if yes, you cannot just neglect evidence that you dont like on the basis of: “who knows, maybe we havent found the reason I would like yet?”.

John T you are a simpleton! your attitude hurts every scientific principle I have learned to value so much.

with an attitude like yours being more predominant we would still be burning witches on the basis of someone saying: “she seems to be no witch, but i think she is deceiving us with her magic, and that is why no one has found evidence for her being a witch yet- if we would keep searching we would eventually find her to be a witch! so let her burn now!”

John T…….

Des:
I agree with some of the things you have said. I viewed the freewebs link. The “very stupid traits” as quoted by you are from a human perspective. They are stupid to us, but we don’t know all of their functions and purposes yet.

In my day, the tonsils and the appendix were considered stupid traits and showed a dumb designer and therefore evolution is true. Recently, I read in a medical magazine that their traits were very important in the early development of the embryo. They may be useless and stupid after we are born; but they did have important functions.

If you look elsewhere on the site, you’ll find your argument is addressed. If we cannot trust ourselves to judge if a trait is suboptimal, we also cannot reasonably trust ourselves to judge if a thing is well designed. The idea that things are designed intelligently reduces to pure assumption.
Being able to recognize good design requires us to be able to recognize bad design as well. If we cannot recognize bad design when we see it, then how can we judge organisms to be designed intelligently?
Your argument about the appendix and tonsils, of course, makes perfect sense in light of evolutionary theory, but is quite pointless in light of an intelligent designer.

Des:

You make good points. But it is still from a human perspective. God may or may not exist. This is not good evidence. For instance, lets say I designed a bridge. Lets say it falls. Ok, everyone agrees I am a lousy engineer at designing bridges; but this is not evidence that I don’t exist and that I am not a designer. Thanks for your good viewpoints and links.

It’s true that it doesn’t exactly rule out a designer, but some of the “designs” are so absurd in light of the idea that they were created deliberately that such a designer would have to be extremely obtuse, and probably would not have intelligence of a sort that would make any sense to a human.
The idea of trying to understand the will of, and please such an entity, is fairly ridiculous.

Snusket:

Quotes from you….”terrible traits…you judge of good traits..neglect evidence…JohnT you are a simpleton….my attitude hurts science..don’t use evidences and scientific arguments….burning witches with my attitude…etc..etc”

Wow! And Snusket you didn’t even cuss! I’m proud. First of all Snusket, my idiologies have no value on you whether you practice good science or not. If you are good, then you are good. If not, then not. I hope you are a good scientist. As said before, I wish no ill-will on any of you atheists, evolutionists, or both. Your beliefs have nothing to do with my science and occupation. I am doing very well. My six-digit income allows for alot of taxes to be sent to the NSF for boring evolutionary research by educated morons!

What I am defending is your proof that we evolved by chance and that there is no God. I read the link you provided (thanks). It had other interesting articles.

But lets examine the article that you had me read. So they [scientists] think they have discovered how adenine arose by chance in early earth’s conditions? First, they had ammonia and hydrogen cyanide and they froze it for 25 years? Wow and then came adenine! Now of course, this probably did not happen so we must rely on the old-reliable asteroid or comet that brought them in. Whatever! And you say I have faith.

Questions: When scientist show us abiogenesis, why do they exclude oxygen? Why is it always hydrogen cyanide and ammonia? Are the earth’s earliest primordial rocks loaded with ammonia and hydrogen cyanide? What is their evidence that allows them to assume this experiment? Finally, if I added hydrogen and water in a test tube, would you be estactic if water formed? If I added flower and yeast would you be surprised if bread formed?

Des:

Not totally. I trust the eyes and ears that God designed more than I would trust anyone elses. You may not believe this, but in the bible it is admitted that the creation is decaying. In Isaiah, it mentions blindness and diseases as being a decay in God’s creation. God is perfect; but he never said creation was perfect. He only said it was ‘very good’ on some and that it was ‘good’ on others. It never said perfect or without ’supposed’ mistakes. God promises that perfection begins after this Universe and creation is done. The bible admits that this creation is not perfect; but the next creation is.

But lets examine the article that you had me read. So they [scientists] think they have discovered how adenine arose by chance in early earth’s conditions? First, they had ammonia and hydrogen cyanide and they froze it for 25 years? Wow and then came adenine! Now of course, this probably did not happen so we must rely on the old-reliable asteroid or comet that brought them in. Whatever! And you say I have faith.

Questions: When scientist show us abiogenesis, why do they exclude oxygen? Why is it always hydrogen cyanide and ammonia? Are the earth’s earliest primordial rocks loaded with ammonia and hydrogen cyanide? What is their evidence that allows them to assume this experiment? Finally, if I added hydrogen and water in a test tube, would you be estactic if water formed? If I added flower and yeast would you be surprised if bread formed?

They exclude oxygen because our models of the earth back then show that there wasn’t any uncombined atmosphere. O2 didn’t exist in any abundance in the atmosphere until cyanobacteria had been producing it for a long time. Ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, on the other hand, were very abundant. The line of reasoning was not, “we can make adenine from ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, so that’s probably what was in the atmosphere back then.” it was “There was lots of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide around back then. Let’s subject it to the circumstances likely to have existed back then, and see what we get.”

Des:

Not totally. I trust the eyes and ears that God designed more than I would trust anyone elses. You may not believe this, but in the bible it is admitted that the creation is decaying. In Isaiah, it mentions blindness and diseases as being a decay in God’s creation. God is perfect; but he never said creation was perfect. He only said it was ‘very good’ on some and that it was ‘good’ on others. It never said perfect or without ’supposed’ mistakes. God promises that perfection begins after this Universe and creation is done. The bible admits that this creation is not perfect; but the next creation is.

But in many cases, organisms have such traits that an intelligent designer would have to have gone out of its way to design it worse than in the intuitive fashion. This is observable going back further than the bible implies the universe has existed. If God deems these things to be “good” he would have to have very low standards.
The bible itself is full of falsified claims. The bible’s say-so isn’t helpful as evidence without independent confirmation.

Snusket:

I did read the freakin link you provided on science daily. It was no different that Sagans article in Discovery magazine sometime around 1982. They claimed hydrogen cyanide and ammonia were in earths early reducing atmosphere in high abundance. Are you telling me there is scientific proof that the early earths atmosphere was mostly ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, and methane, and with no oxygen?

The 21st amino acid? Some argue 21 and some argue 23. What is your 21st aa? Protein synthesis uses 20 of the main amino acids. I am not sure which protein has the 21st, so please explain? Are you refering to glutamic acid and glutamine (glx v glu)? What is the codon that signals this one?

Maybe it is late. Check your telescope! Maybe the asteroid that was supposed to bring it in went of course and it is late. Or maybe the earth didn’t freeze for 25 years, or a volcano forgot to explode!

Snusket…If God exists, why would this make your science bad?

Des:

You are asking good questions. Let me think about these. Also I need to observe more of the links and references that I have received on this blog. Questions are origins are good. I believe in God and this is why. You don’t and this is why. This leads to good science!

Des:

Quotes….”uncombusted oxygen…cyanobacteria..
….ammonium and hydrogen cyanide very abundant….”

Des, How do you know that ammonium(a) and HCN was very abundant in the early atmosphere? All of earths early primordial rocks show mostly silicon and oxygen. Where is this embedded HCN and NH3 in the early rocks? Now I can understand if someone says that ammonia has been transformed in the N cycle. But what about CN? Articles show that 5 molecules of CN plus other factors are needed for just one molecule of adenine. There should be alot of left over CN somewhere?

The only reason scientists use methane, hyrogen cyanide, and ammonia (and oxygen-less atmosphere) is because this is what they need to form nucleotides. It is not because of scientific evidence.

One last thing. When they do this, how do claim they formed an amino acid or nucleotide when there is oxygen in the molecule or equation? Also, why don’t they add phosphorus?

Des:

Sorry. But one more item. They are wrong about no oxygen in the atmosphere. Look at DNA itself. It is loaded with oxygen. It is in the ribose sugars and it is loaded in the phosphorus backbone. How do you show abiogenesis without oxygen?

it is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state.

common sense? That’s what you call “common sense”?

You’re not by any chance a “no absolute truths” kind of guy are you?

I suppose I am really. People who believe in absolute truths tend to “believe” rather than “know”. I like to maintain awareness of the limitations of the human brain.
The “infinity minus infinity” rubbish is a good example of this. You seem to suggest that because you can posit a question, that question must make sense, and therefore the answer must have meaning. This is untrue. We can easily invent questions that do not make sense, like “what happened before the big bang”, or “what is the meaning of life”, appealing, but inherently meaning-free questions, the kind of thing your cult, and all other cults, use to manipulate people.
As for the extreme unlikeliness of the universe being able to support life, well, look around, it does, at least it does here, so likeliness or otherwise is a bit meaningless, isn’t it. Isn’t this an element of the “anthropic principle” (the sound of a bag of worms being wrestled open is heard).
John T is denying the oxygenation of the earth’s atmosphere by cyanobacteria. Presumably he thinks “god” did it…

There was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. I said there wasn’t any uncombined oxygen, because that is what I meant. The atmosphere back then was full of gases released by the high levels of vulcanism. Plenty of oxygen atoms, but no O2 molecules.

The HCN and NH3 isn’t embedded in the rocks because they were used by the organisms that developed from them. Neither compound has any tendency to get sucked into rocks.

Des:

Ok. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. And me too! Those gases (NH3 and HCN) may not have an affinity to rocks; but you would expect at least 1% of the unused compounds to be embedded in the rocks as leftovers and unused compounds. We should see some of this evidence. As for oxygen. I have not heard of O by itself as an atmospheric gas; but only O2 and O3 as in oxygen and ozone. I’ll keep thinking of what you said. Thanks for the good questions and assumptions.

fantastic Michael! LOL
des, you nail it as always.
tom D., so right, not to be “SO DAMN SURE” of everything is a blessing, not a problem.
John T- the elements you mentioned do react and form minerals. basic chemistry really. the 21st aa is selenocystein, in humans and mammals- without codon- so much for you guy’s “DNA is a strict code” idea. it is chemistry, as des explained (but you keep refusing to listen).

you say “Snusket…If God exists, why would this make your science bad?”. it does not, my science shows that there is no god needed to explain anything that surounds us. that is all i am am saying. so why invent one?

John T, why do you not answer my question?

let us turn this silly game around for a second. present me with ONE evidence for creationism. and ONE distinguished evidence falsifying evolution!

have you noticed that all you do is keep asking questions? you never discuss the info we provide. instead of saying “for reason X and Y the earth atmosphere looked different than you desrcibe…”. instead you go: “yeah, so where is the oxigen in this? blablabla…”. admit it, you have read an anti-evolution book or two? that is how non-scientific arguments work.

scientific arguments present some facts. you never do that John T. which does not make you a winner as you seem to think… rather the opposite.

Des:

Ok. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. And me too! Those gases (NH3 and HCN) may not have an affinity to rocks; but you would expect at least 1% of the unused compounds to be embedded in the rocks as leftovers and unused compounds. We should see some of this evidence. As for oxygen. I have not heard of O by itself as an atmospheric gas; but only O2 and O3 as in oxygen and ozone. I’ll keep thinking of what you said. Thanks for the good questions and assumptions.

Sorry, I might not have made myself perfectly clear, the oxygen was not in the form of single free O atoms, it was combined in the form of H2O, CO2, SO2, and CO, which are the oxygen containing compounds released by volcaninc eruption.

Des:

Yes those are some of the gases released through volcanic eruption. There is also alot of minerals such as potash and iron through magma. So why aren’t all the elements included in abiogenesis? Only the few necessary for the recipe they are looking for.

Snusket:

I’ll answer later. It is 7:30 am here and I must leave to collect over 150 soil samples. We use GPS and collect and analyze the data using ArcView software. No random data here!

Maybe I’ll find the missing link. Maybe I’ll strike oil and discover that it is the remnant of the infamous organic soup? Who knows what you’ll find with an auger and digging all day. Take care and get some sleep!

john T… asking questions again? come up with evidence against it. why would iron or potassium need to react with aminoacids? they are not found to react with these elements today, are they?

do you even see where your questions are idiotic? you ask “how do aa come into existence”. des offers an answer. and you say: “ok, but why did not any other element react with aa?”. what kind of silly argumentation is that?

are you here just to fuck around, or to leas a serious discussion. if so answer my questions, else it is not worth going on with this mockery of a discussion. and you wonder why people keep quitting on you?

do you really think it is because they have no arguments against your bs. or could it be that they see that you are far too limited in your mental capacity to digest anything they tell you? i’d definetely go for the latter, mate!

Dear Michael
Dare you reproach the Lord Your GOD?
Ye lower than the WILLIE on the WORM! For it is written “and they shall bleat like goats upon the knife for verily they know not the Mystery of His Mighty Movements”.
Ye are my plaything, and the stain upon my street, and yet ye dare talk of your appendix and the placing of your parts? Know ye that the workings of the mind of GOD are as the swirl and gust of air around a tree, ye know the leaves are moved, ye cannot see the moving force.
So on your BELLY boy before me, I did not make your brain for THINKING but to keep your ears apart that ye might hear the rumble of my ANGER and the thunder of my WRATH.
Hope this finds you as it leaves me.
Love
God

thank’s GOD!!!

For Snusket,

there are ABSOLUTELY NO theories we know to be “true”.

On their own no. This is exactly what I have been trying to explain with logic and reason, the abstract and the actual.

you seem a positivist? believing in a world that really exists and that we can understand with our senses? in philosophy of science the first thing you learn is that the term “true” is useless. you can falsify ideas though.

You can deny that the world really exists if you like but you certainly do not live that way. You and I live with what we no exists and can understand with our senses. Even if this world was all an illusion, it is a pretty consistent illusion. So much so that we are all experiencing the exact same illusion. So even if this really was all just an illusion, because we all experience the same illusion, it is fact our reality. You cannot even deny your own existence without admitting your very own existence in the denial. ‘True’ by definition is something conforming to reality or fact. You rely on these true facts in your scientific study all the time. There is nothing useless about at true fact at all.

what is your obsession with an uncaused cause? if the brane theory was right, would a brane be such an uncaused cause in your mind?

If it was verified in the natural sciences as a non-contingent being then yes. But it is far from that. It is merely a hypothetical. A good one don’t get me wrong, but completely unverified in the real world of natural science. Unlike my uncaused cause which is based entirely on what we already know and can verify in the natural sciences.

what the hell is this thing you keep talking about of “undisturbed” observation? on one hand you say it is alwright to use instruments. but you do not accept the results of particle accelerators which are instruments, on the basis that there is something “disturbed”? what do you mean?

No in the case of sub-atomic particles we would need instruments that let us see (not just sight) these particles in an undisturbed state. At the moment we can only gain information on these particles by bombarding them with rays which does not allow you to see the realm in its own undisturbed natural state. You cannot make solid judgments of high certainty about something you are not viewing in an undisturbed state. You cannot bombard the subatomic realm and then view your own disturbance. All you are doing is reading into it irrational assumptions. This is a far cry from the evidences used to support an uncaused cause in the cosmological argument where the study of things we already know to be true in undisturbed states is being used. The law of Causality, the impossibility of infinite regression in reality and the observed natural sciences etc.

___________

For Des,

I acknowledge that an intelligent creator that existed outside the universe is, in theory, a possibility, but I think that it’s one that can be dismissed due to Occam’s Razor, because it’s much less parsimonious than so many other possibilities.
If it’s any consolation to you, I think it’s more likely that we were created by an intelligent being from outside the universe than that our entire reality exists in the four-dimensional surface tension of the snot bubble in the nose of an infinite and non-contingent being.

See I find an intelligent agent outside the universe the most plausible explanation and if you go with Occam’s Razor it would be the least parsimonious of all other possibilities. I mean even your idea of an intelligent being from outside the universe that is contingent and finite just puts your intelligent being back in the pool of causes that need a cause. You would have summon an infinite regress outside of our universe for all contingent and finite beings. This has then gone outside of science and comes back to the abstract world of hypothetical theories.

The “law of causality” does not explicitly include the existence of non-contingent entities. No such entity, in fact, has ever been observed, unless our universe itself is one. You are assuming an exception to causality from the beginning. The Cosmological Argument is not based on the law of causality, it takes exception to it.

A non-contingent entity is something that is not caused by something else. It is either something that caused itself or it is an uncaused cause. It cannot be something that causes itself because it would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist which is absurd. So all you are left with is is an uncaused cause which is outside our law of causality.
The Cosmological Argument is most definitely based on the law of causality because it relies on this law and the impossibility of an infinite regression of contingent beings to come to it’s conclusion of an uncaused cause.

William Lane Craig died before the discovery of the first black hole, an object with a vast mass concentrated in a singularity of infinite density.

William Lane Craig was born in 1949 and last I checked he is still alive today.

___________

For Tom,

“it is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state.”

common sense? That’s what you call “common sense”?

Hehe whoops, typo. It should read, as I am sure you are well aware already, “It is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in an undisturbed state.”

“You’re not by any chance a “no absolute truths” kind of guy are you?”

I suppose I am really. People who believe in absolute truths tend to “believe” rather than “know”. I like to maintain awareness of the limitations of the human brain.
The “infinity minus infinity” rubbish is a good example of this. You seem to suggest that because you can posit a question, that question must make sense, and therefore the answer must have meaning. This is untrue. We can easily invent questions that do not make sense, like “what happened before the big bang”, or “what is the meaning of life”, appealing, but inherently meaning-free questions, the kind of thing your cult, and all other cults, use to manipulate people.
As for the extreme unlikeliness of the universe being able to support life, well, look around, it does, at least it does here, so likeliness or otherwise is a bit meaningless, isn’t it. Isn’t this an element of the “anthropic principle” (the sound of a bag of worms being wrestled open is heard).

It is a self-defeating statement though, saying that there are no absolute truths. Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? If you answer yes then you have just claimed an absolute truth. Whatever is unaffirmably self-defeating is false and whatever is undeniable is true. You cannot deny that there are absolute truths so they must be true.

“It is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in an undisturbed state.”

Honestly, I don’t think this is any closer to common sense than it was before. Common sense is unreliable possibly, but comprehensible certainly.

Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? If you answer yes then you have just claimed an absolute truth. Whatever is unaffirmably self-defeating is false and whatever is undeniable is true. You cannot deny that there are absolute truths so they must be true.

er… did you spot what I was actually saying though?

For Des,

I acknowledge that an intelligent creator that existed outside the universe is, in theory, a possibility, but I think that it’s one that can be dismissed due to Occam’s Razor, because it’s much less parsimonious than so many other possibilities.
If it’s any consolation to you, I think it’s more likely that we were created by an intelligent being from outside the universe than that our entire reality exists in the four-dimensional surface tension of the snot bubble in the nose of an infinite and non-contingent being.

See I find an intelligent agent outside the universe the most plausible explanation and if you go with Occam’s Razor it would be the least parsimonious of all other possibilities. I mean even your idea of an intelligent being from outside the universe that is contingent and finite just puts your intelligent being back in the pool of causes that need a cause. You would have summon an infinite regress outside of our universe for all contingent and finite beings. This has then gone outside of science and comes back to the abstract world of hypothetical theories.

But you haven’t demonstrated that infinite regressions do not exist, and by extension, that non-contingent entities do. Your argument so far rests upon assumption. Every time you try to explain why infinite regressions don’t exist, you essentially fall back on “They just can’t.” You have provided no explanations beyond some specious mathematics, and a quote from a prominent mathematician who was later proven to be incorrect.

The “law of causality” does not explicitly include the existence of non-contingent entities. No such entity, in fact, has ever been observed, unless our universe itself is one. You are assuming an exception to causality from the beginning. The Cosmological Argument is not based on the law of causality, it takes exception to it.

A non-contingent entity is something that is not caused by something else. It is either something that caused itself or it is an uncaused cause. It cannot be something that causes itself because it would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist which is absurd. So all you are left with is is an uncaused cause which is outside our law of causality.

Yes, I get that, but you still haven’t demonstrated that they actually exist.

The Cosmological Argument is most definitely based on the law of causality because it relies on this law and the impossibility of an infinite regression of contingent beings to come to it’s conclusion of an uncaused cause.

The law of causality demands that all things have causes, unless there exist noncontingent entities, which has not been established, nor has the impossibility of an infinite regression.

William Lane Craig died before the discovery of the first black hole, an object with a vast mass concentrated in a singularity of infinite density.

William Lane Craig was born in 1949 and last I checked he is still alive today.

You know, that’s really odd. I did a search for him, and I could have sworn I got the name right, and I got results for a prominent mathematician who died before the discovery of the black hole. However, when I performed a more recent search, I got results for a theologian and Christian apologist born in 1949. It makes no mention whatsoever of him being a mathematician.
I have read plenty of works of theology and apologetics, and frankly, I do not see that they merit being called academic subjects. Regardless, his claim is equally false whether or not he lived to see it disproven.

Snusket:

No potassium does not react as a product with anything as far as I know in biochemistry. But in a solution in some ocean, it can bind to a biomolecule and render it useless. Iron is highly reactive in an open system.

What’s wrong with questions? Des’s replys are fine. Your replys, I won’t comment.

Your rebuttals and abuses to science are exactly what I would like to see changed. As of now, any publication that deals in anti-evolution or evidences that goes against the fossil record is immediately censored. That is why scientist nowadays don’t even try. Robert V Gentry published over 13 articles in highly respected journals; that is until they finally figure out what his results were showing. They showed a much younger earth. He was immediately censored.

Lets quit censorship and open this up! If a creationist says the earth is 6000 years old, then let them try to publish and defend it. If another says it is 80 billion years old, let them show their evidence and try to publish it. This will get us much closer to the truth of our origins than censorship.

This is why I donate to the new creation museum in the States. It is about time we have had rebuttals to some of our current and ridiculous theories on origins. So far abiotic evolution is a belief system.

see. john T, there is no censorship here, just give me your evidence? please! i have never seen any.

and by the way, i know how peer reviewed science works. i am part of it, and i promise (well you wont take my word for it but anywho) there is no censorship! anybody in science is always excited about really new findings.

that is what seperates me from you. i am excited about being contradicted and falsified, that is how science works. you on the other hand are only happy if your worldview is correct.

i would embrace a prove for miracles, paranormals stuff or god. but i have been disappointed again and again. it is just no prove there. so sad. the world would be wildly more interesting with fairies and ghosts and god. but no proof! so sad. all we have left is the truth. but that can be quite interesting nonetheless, if we look at the marvels of science.

i have been a christian like you once, John T. but I had to accept that this christian thing is all fantasy. i m not happy about it! not at all. it was a peacefull, perfect world i lived in. one that seemed to make sense. but it was fake. because when i looked further than the scriptures there was nothing but hot air supporting it. nothing supported it. not history, not biology, not physics, not history - did i say that?

nothing supports it. sad but true John T. i have a lot of understanding of your situation. but the reason why it drives me mad and angry is that i know where you stand. and i know it is so dead wrong. because all you do is not open you mind. you only accept what supports you. and if someone opposes you, you think: well, that is like in the scripture: the real christians are gonna be opposed, jesus said.

a catch 22. there is nothing i can give you. and the more i try to, the more you will feel confirmed in your close-minded world view.

tell me honestly- is that not how it is?

well, actually jesus never said such a thing (the guy that never lived but anyhow) that christians would be oppposed, but in the revelations you will find stuff like that anyhow…

Snusket said: quote ..well, actually jesus never said such a thing (the guy that never lived but anyhow)

It is hard to convince a person of anything or show any evidence that you request when one of the most proved figures in history is doubted. O’ Smart-One, it is 2007. Do you know why?

John T uses the dating system as proof of the existence of the founder of his cult. How little he understands of the human world! Does he also believe that because we have Thursdays, the god THOR also is proved to exist?

Snusket Quotes… [john T, there is no censorship here, just give me your evidence? please!…i know how peer reviewed science works. i am part of it…there is no censorship! anybody in science is always excited about really new findings….i am excited about being contradicted and falsified….]

Snusket I am not trying to convince you in being a Creationist or Christian, that is up to you. I am posting because I believe that the evidence for abiogenesis and the resulting evolution is a joke. I believe that creation museums have the right to exist (under private funding) and present their case just as evolutionary museums do. What is wrong with a little competition?

Snusket, I hate saying this but I believe that you are the king of censorship. The way you write shows total blindness and one-sidedness. From now on you are King Snusket!

Snusket Quoted…[i have been a christian like you once, John T. but I had to accept that this christian thing is all fantasy.]

Snusket. Maybe you were. But I doubt it. You don’t write like a Christian or a Scientist. You write like a person with a lot of anger. You seem to have more hatred than personality or science; but I could be wrong. I hope I am. I really do hope things are going well for you.

Snusket also said…Scriptures there was nothing but hot air supporting it. nothing supported it. not history, not biology, not physics, not history - did i say that? nothing supports it. sad but true John T. i have a lot of understanding of your situation….only accept what supports you. and if someone opposes you, you think: well, that is like in the scripture: the real christians are gonna be opposed, jesus said.

Snusket, this is not totally true. There is a lot of science and history that backs up the bible. You can visit thousands of biblical sites today if you wanted too. The are all over Rome, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Israel, and many more. So we have no evidence?

Jesus said that Christains would be opposed because of their belief in him.

Snusket said..tell me honestly- is that not how it is?

No Snusket, not at all. I am only defending the Creation by the Creator. I honestly hope that you are a good scientist and really love what you do. I do not want to take that away from you at all. But there is a rapidly and growing trend of some scientists wanting to take the Creator, Creation, and the Bible from Christians. I am tired of this. I am standing for what is believe is true and that there is evidence to support it. Why are you so insistant that I and others do not believe in God?

Your rebuttals and abuses to science are exactly what I would like to see changed. As of now, any publication that deals in anti-evolution or evidences that goes against the fossil record is immediately censored.

How very typically human of John T to think this. Listen John T, have you come across the psycho-jargon “cognitive dissonance”?
This is the phenomenon of conflict within a person’s mind. We find it uncomfortable to experience contradictory simultaneous beliefs. For example, when one discovers that one’s “beloved” spouse has been fucking the milkman, one experiences a severe contradiction between what one thought was true, and what one sees is true. This conflict is resolved through the synthesis of a new belief, an uncomfortable experience at best. You experience cognitive dissonance because you believe that science has meaning, and simultaneously you believe in supernaturalism. You achieve a fragile resolution by creating a worldview which allows both things to be true, so you choose to believe that science does confirm creationism, but that bad people are censoring that confirmation.
Well, I think that this is a dangerous compromise. Your emotional investment in religious thinking puts your well being at risk should this set of beliefs be challenged by your experience of reality. Eventually, something’s gotta give…

Tom Donald said…John T uses the dating system as proof of the existence of the founder of his cult. How little he understands of the human world! Does he also believe that because we have Thursdays, the god THOR also is proved to exist?

My response….Tom you are right about the days of weeks and ancient gods. I use 2007 mainly to dispute people who say Jesus never existed; not as a support of my religion. Not only is time kept after him; but he is embedded in history. If not, then go ahead and say the Roman empire didn’t exist either.

John T, you are cute.

but that does not change the fact, that yes, I do have a problem with people who think creationism is science, that there is a lot of proof that jesus existed and that there is something fishy about the law of evolution. i really do. because people like you are trying to push religion into public spaces where it simply does not belong (creationism alongside biology, prayers in school, religion influencing world politics…).

but nice to see that I get to you slowly

yes, i was a christian. and no, there is no evidence that the fictional storybook character jesus existed. there are no biblical sites, there a historical sides, and they tend to proof the bible wrong. but dont take my word for it. check this out:

Movie that Jesus did not live:
http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00806/atheist/the-god-who-wasn-t-there-movie/

the pagan origin of christianity:
http://www.entheology.org/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

20 reasons not to be a christian:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/20_Reasons_to_abandon_Christianity

the story of henk: a modern-time jesus:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

great movie on who really wrote the bible (from a christian director!):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

this is spot on and hillarious (movie):
http://www.irreligion.org/2007/09/26/the-atheist-response/

how atheist are discriminated against (funny):
http://www.laterralane.com/siems/antichristianbias.htm

and John T, please feel free to provide me with SCIENTIFIC evidence for your theories. i asked you and you never provide any.

give me one piece of real evidence (by that I mean peer reviewed scientific) that evolution can not be true and ONE - ONLY- that creationism must be (or at least could be) right!

so far: the sound of silence from over there on the other side of the big pond…. pssssssssssss…… a sandstorm is coming John T, hehe

John T, and about Gentry: Lorence G. Collins, J. Richard Wakefield and others have repeatedly and soundly rebutted the radiohalo evidence for a young earth in peer-reviewed publications.

check them out, and you might (not) like this webpage:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

to assume cencorship is the only way you can continue to defend your hypothesis? wow, pretty paranoid stuff, he!? but hey sure; conspiracy theory and religion have a lot in common.

i cite a webpage about cults:
“FOCUS ON AN IMAGINED ENEMY: The enemy is seen to be … conspirators… [and] are considered the enemy. The focus shifts from inside and instead of God’s truth and purpose, keeps the adherents busy towards something outside, It also stops them from looking in and really thinking things through.”

sounds like they talk about you, he, John T?

Snusket:

You must have gotten a goods night rest. You sound calmer. I’ll view most of your post. The Jesus theory of non-existence is very ridiculous; but I’ll look at it.

Me cute! No way. I have scientific proof of this. Everytime I try to hug my wife–she runs away.

Creationists are not abusing science. The only area of real contradiction is in origins and the timeline. Also, on who did it. Chance or God?
Myself, I don’t fully believe that the Earth and Universe is @10,000 years old. My opinion is that it is nearer to 75,000 years (earth) and Universe could be less than one billion. Now that I said this, I need to promote the evidence. You have every right to ask, just as I do on abiogenesis.

I hope the links on Gentry aren’t the same rebuttals saying the halos were from radon and not polonium? If so, Gentry touched on this along time ago, but he was censored. He had to publish it on his own. I’ll look though. Take care.

For Tom,

“It is simply common sense that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in an undisturbed state.”

Honestly, I don’t think this is any closer to common sense than it was before. Common sense is unreliable possibly, but comprehensible certainly.

Ok I shall rephrase this statement just for you…

It is undeniable that a sub-atomic particle in a disturbed state is less observational than a sub-atomic particle in an undisturbed state.

“Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? If you answer yes then you have just claimed an absolute truth. Whatever is unaffirmably self-defeating is false and whatever is undeniable is true. You cannot deny that there are absolute truths so they must be true.”

er… did you spot what I was actually saying though?

Yes I did spot what you were saying. Moreso than you think. You first agreed that you do not believe there are any absolute truths. Then you proceeded to explain why you believed this statement by telling me some absolute truths. For example…

“You seem to suggest that because you can posit a question, that question must make sense, and therefore the answer must have meaning. This is untrue.” - Is this statement you made true?

“We can easily invent questions that do not make sense, like “what happened before the big bang”, or “what is the meaning of life”, appealing, but inherently meaning-free questions, the kind of thing your cult, and all other cults, use to manipulate people.” - Is this statement true?

“As for the extreme unlikeliness of the universe being able to support life, well, look around, it does” - Is this statement also true?

“likeliness or otherwise is a bit meaningless” - I this true as well?

____________

For Des,

you haven’t demonstrated that infinite regressions do not exist, and by extension, that non-contingent entities do. Your argument so far rests upon assumption. Every time you try to explain why infinite regressions don’t exist, you essentially fall back on “They just can’t.” You have provided no explanations beyond some specious mathematics

I have given plenty of evidence for the impossibility of infinite regression. I have never fallen back on “They just can’t” statements on this subject whatsoever. I have backed my claim up every time with undeniable evidence. Again I ask, does Infinity + 1 = Infinity in? Or does Infinity + Infinity = Infinity? There is no real number that is equal to itself plus one. You cannot deny this. Zero is the identity element for addition of real numbers, not 1. In the real world what does infinity dominoes + 1 domino equal?
We live in series of moments that succeed one another. No matter how long the series is it would always be possible to add one more. But one more cannot be added to an infinite number so you can never reach an infinite number. You can only indefinitely add one more. Infinity can never be achieved. Also, an infinite number of moments can never be traversed. But the number of moments before today has been traversed, otherwise today would never have come. Therefore, there was not an infinite number of moments before today. Time began. This fact is used to prove the existence of a First Cause in the cosmological argument.
An infinite mathematical series can go forward or backward. A series of causes reaching backward to infinity is not possible because there needs to be a cause to get the series of causality going. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

Infinity isn’t really a number. It is a mathematical concept, but you won’t get anywhere treating it as if it’s something that belongs on a number line. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
A black hole has a very large amount of mass, but the mass is located in a point with no volume. They do not all have the same mass by any means, some are orders of magnitude more massive than others, but they all have their mass concentrated into a point, so they all have infinite density.
This is a real existing example of infinities existing. They can be added to, black holes have no problem sucking in more mass, but the fact that their density is infinite does not change.

Jad you are avoiding my points in a rather witless obfuscation, first asking that I declare whether I believe in “absolute truths”, and when I suggest that I have a problem with that idea, claiming that therefore I am no longer entitled to claim that ANYTHING can be true at all. This means that you do not have to answer any of the points I raise. Nothing new there. Let me say that I stand by the statements that you rather boringly regurgitate. Would you care to address them now?

An infinite number of moments can never be traversed. But the number of moments before today has been traversed, otherwise today would never have come. Therefore, there was not an infinite number of moments before today. Time began. This fact is used to prove the existence of a First Cause in the cosmological argument.

So this represents the quality of argument* that christian cult members use to convince each other that their fairytale beliefs have intellectual validity.
OK. WTF is a “moment”?? Does your “moment” contain an infinite number of infinitely small moments? If not, why not? Would the argument make sense if you substituted the word “hours”? The whole thing rests on the statement “An infinite number of moments can never be traversed”. Do you really think that statement has any meaning? We ARE here, where ever we might think that is. Our brains are evolved to conceptualise bananas and bricks, not the infinite endlessness of time and space. For those, we need the tools of science.

*it does at least have the benefit of brevity, unlike most of the other senseless rubbish so far put forward as the “cosmological argument”

Tom Donald:

Toms Quotes..”Listen John T, have you come across the psycho-jargon “cognitive dissonance”?
.. This conflict is resolved through the synthesis of a new belief, an uncomfortable experience at best. You experience cognitive dissonance because you believe that science has meaning, and simultaneously you believe in supernaturalism…creating a worldview which allows both things to be true, so you choose to believe that science does confirm creationism..”
Well, I think that this is a dangerous compromise….Your emotional investment in religious thinking..beliefs challenged by… Eventually, something’s gotta give…

Thanks. Just when I started to trust milkmen; now I must stay home again…

Tom I disagree with your analysis. The same could be true of you. You could say that you have blocked out all potentials of Gods existence and replaced them with your version of the reality of science. You believe science gives atheism respect and your comfort is in evolution. If this is question, then your reality check starts.

I am a firm believer in science because it is a beautiful way to analyze the world around us and our universe. I just believe that the design of the universe and Us shows creative qualities that abiogenesis and chance cannot explain.

Snusket:

I read the link on the explanation of Gentrys halos. It was one of the better ones. I still believe Gentry has a better case; but the authors provided a good explanation against Gentry. In the end though, they never refuted Gentrys theories, just that it went against other dating methods in geology.

I know Gentry has tried to refute his critics, but for whatever reason they don’t get published. This stuff is technical so I would like to see what Gentry had to say. This is what I mean by censorship. Gentry has tried to challenge his critics. He had to publish his response on his own, so I will see if I can find a response to this. If not, I may try to email him and let him view this link. Thanks.

To follow up the point about whether infinities can really exist, consider this.
Zero is not a number. After all, if you divide it by itself, you don’t get one, but DNE (does not exist). What kind of number can’t be divided by itself. Zero has use in mathematics, but it clearly has no existence in reality.

Does this seem reasonable to you? And if you’re going to argue that zeros really don’t exist in reality, because when there is zero of something, there is nothing, consider that positives and negatives can cancel out to null value in real life, such as in the case of neutrons, which are composed of charged particles.

To follow up the point about whether infinities can really exist, consider this.
Zero is not a number. After all, if you divide it by itself, you don’t get one, but DNE (does not exist). What kind of number can’t be divided by itself? Zero has use in mathematics, but it clearly has no existence in reality.

Does this seem reasonable to you? And if you’re going to argue that zeros really don’t exist in reality, because when there is zero of something, there is nothing, consider that positives and negatives can cancel out to null value in real life, such as in the case of neutrons, which are composed of charged particles.

I’m having trouble finding the quote, but I believe either Jad or John T claimed that I was stuck on the idea that God was something that required explanation, and that as a non-contingent entity, he requires none.
However, the same can be claimed of any number of entities. I could argue that the Invisible Pink Unicorn, being a non-contingent entity, does not require explanation. That does not mean we can’t judge how likely it is for such a thing to actually exist. An intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient being is not the only non-contingent entity that could be postulated.
So far, I’ve left out all discussion of the logical difficulties with any entity purported to be omnipotent and omniscient (let alone the troubles that arise when you throw omnibenevolent into the mix) but I would have to say that such an entity loses considerable credibility as an explanation when its proposed attributes lead to logical contradictions.

Infinity is a reality; we just don’t know what it is yet. It is a number system with no end. When at the end, all you need to do is add another one to it. Infinity is impractical for our observations because it has no end; therefore no conclusion. A zero is on the real number system. A zero is considered both by an integer and as a whole number.

I know Tom is waiting patiently for me to put God into this, so I will.

A zero and infinity are biblical concepts. We are told the after-life is eternal, a number with no end. Therefore, there is no time and no decay. A zero is biblical because this is where God started with the Universe. He created it ex nihilio in latin. He created it from nothing. This sounds alittle like today’s quantum physics.

Des:

It didn’t come from me. It sounds like Jad. I am not sure what he is refering to when he says disturbed and undisturbed states?

Des:

…..proposed attributes leads to logical contridiction….

What do you mean by this?

Okay, there are quite a few when you throw in omnibenevolence, but we can start one of the more basic ones.
If God is omniscient, he must know what he’s going to do in the future, but that contradicts his omnipotence. If he does not have the power to change his mind, he is far from omnipotent, and if he does not have the power to predict his own actions, then he is far from omniscient.

John T. Your point about the fact that our calendar is based on his supposed birth being evidence for Jesus’ existence is invalid because that calendar wasn’t adopted until centuries later, when his existence was reduced to mere hearsay.
I used to assume that, divine or not, there was probably some historical basis for the character of Jesus, but as I’ve learned more about the relevant history, I’ve become less sure.

Des:

The above statements comes from pretty tough philosophical assumptions about God from human reasoning. God can be ominscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he had the powers to create the entire Cosmos plus you and I; then we can say he is all powerful from our perspective. If he allows us free-will and the freedom to choose, he could still be all-knowing and still allow us to choose.

Jesus is embedded in history. The christain movement in the 1st century was known during the Roman empire. Christain symbols have been found in Pompeii @62AD. Nero and other Caesars tried to eradicate it. Numerous bible references of scriptures and Jesus are quoted in other writings in the first 200 years after his death. Titus Caesar bragged about conquering Jerusalem in 70 AD. To this day in Rome, you can visit Titus’s wall (arch) where he calls himself Lord and Saviour. Biblical sites are all over. Jesus is the most referenced person before the printing press in ancient writings.

We could also say that Nero never existed, Abraham Lincolns real name was George Brown, and that World War II was a minor conflict. Some people say man never walked on the moon in 1969. They say it was fabricated in Hollywood.

John T the reason that I don’t suffer from cognitive dissonance between my atheism and my belief in the meaningfulness of science is that these are entirely compatible. But belief in supernatural phenomena for which there is no evidence, and in science which is 100% about evidence, is undoubtedly dissonant.

The more directly dangerous dissonance that you may experience during your life is between your belief that the universe is essentially just and meaningful, and your direct life experience. Generally people come to terms with this common discomfort by either losing their belief in god, or believing that they are being punished by god for being bad. The latter is the root of that commonly observed phenomenon, the severe depression of the middle-aged christian.

By the way, you cannot move away from this obsession with the origin of life on earth. Do you realise why this is? I think we all recognise that science does not yet have a complete picture of this phenomenon, so your cult goes on and on about it. But your “god” fantasy is supposed to “exist” in the present day, so constantly going on about what happened on the earth four thousand million years ago seems a bit pathetic. Let’s hear about something a little more contemporary, shall we?
Shall we?

… Jesus is embedded in history. …

So what? God isn’t.
There have been an “infinite” number of cults in human history, all subject to natural selection. The persistence of the christian cult demonstrates it’s extraordinary flexibility, people have used it to consolidate state power and to fight it, to justify imperialism and to justify liberation from imperialism, to repress sexuality, burn witches, murder children, and (overwhelmingly) to frighten the ignorant into compliance with entrenched power. How has this been possible? It is because it is founded on almost nothing. If your “messiah” had actually written his own story, he would have been completely forgotten within one generation. But conveniently he didn’t, allowing other people’s agendas to be expressed in his name. Anti-sexual, misogynistic sadists have of course been at the forefront all the way through, and still are. No wonder the cult is so close to extinction in europe!

Des:

The above statements comes from pretty tough philosophical assumptions about God from human reasoning. God can be ominscient and omnipotent at the same time. If he had the powers to create the entire Cosmos plus you and I; then we can say he is all powerful from our perspective. If he allows us free-will and the freedom to choose, he could still be all-knowing and still allow us to choose.

If God does not know the choices we will make, in what way is he omniscient?
Anyway, the bible is ambiguous on the count of whether free will exists. Sometimes God seems not to know how matters are going to turn out (and can have his mind changed, as he does in much of Exodus)while sometimes, he is portrayed as utterly
omniscient, to the point of knowing the minutiae of every person’s future before they are born. The actual phrase “free will” is not mentioned at any point.

John T, it is not true that Jesus is mentioned everywhere. In fact only one roman historian mentioned him once and this is to believed to be a forgery. None of the other historians mentions him whatsoever! besides the accounts of his life are full of contradictions- and that is in the bible.

anywho, who cares, I agree with Tom D that we should talk more contemporary. i got bored with the science stuff. it is hard to argue science when the oponent does not follow scientific principles of debate (peer reviewed evidence, falsification via experimentation etc). after the paranoid censorship claim by John T I had to drop out… boring…

there is good evidence for the findings of physics and biology. however, science works with uncertainties. you try to exploit the normal scientific debate and the admittance of uncertainty (which for a scientist are a positive sign- for a believer a negative). it reminds me what happened in court cases like OJ simpson: “so you care not 100% certain?”, “no but 99.9%- a error margin excists in every test”, “aha- so it might not have been him”, and oops, we have a pathetic court case.

you do the same thing.

so let us talk about the consequences of your religious thinking for us today!!!

why not talk about the christian sentiment? when I was in church, my father was a priest by the way, I was a role model for the other christians. In fact, when I left most could not at all understand it. here I was a bright example (do you even say that in english- anyway) for the other young christians. involved in all church activities. organizing common activities, spreading the word of the lord, as the bible requires…

i remember well, the times when i tried to explain to my friends that the LAW OF EVOLUTION (it was still called the theory of evolution back then) was wrong. well, I know now, after 12 years of studying biology and chemistry and genetics that i had not even understood evolution. i was attacking something that no scientist claimed anyway!!! I have by the way apologized to my friends. I am deeply embarrassed about my arguments back then. from talking to guys like JOHN T i understand what a pain in the ass I must have been!!!

anyhow, why did I change my mind? i started talking to many people from other religious groups; mormons, catholics, these guys who talk in tongues (advent something, something?), buddhists, hinduists…well, you get the picture…

what shocked me was, that some of them had arguments as strong as my own, and they had just the same evidence as me. none. they had some scripture and what you simply had to do was, to believe that the scripture came from god. then you strictly speaking had to follow all the other arguments they made!

it was shockingly eyes opening to me!

sure, i was still sure that i had the “right” religion. after all it was us, who followed the right traditions, who had jesus, who were harassed for our faith as jesus predicted, and we saw all the signs of the revelations come true….

right. well, friends who knew their history better than i did could show me quite easily- shockingly- that Jesus probably never lived. and if he did then not the as the guy the bible talks about. so in either case he- the bible character- is fictional.

however, what about the signs? well, let us face it, there are many prophecies. and if you really look into the evidence you find none. even though we live in a crazy world, the point is, the world always has been crazy.

anyways, that is my story for you John T. no one will ever make you understand where your thinking is wrong. TOM D is right. ultimately you will believe that it is satan who came up with these arguments to deceive people- dont you!!??? i did back then…

well, this is how cults work. they have a funny way of producing circular arguments. in that case even clear evidence against my believe becomes a confirmation. opposition strengthens my believe and anyway: they all conspire because…. yes because OF WHAT actually? because the devil, satan, tells them to? why john t?

Snusket:

There is no adverse consequence of m