- This topic is empty.
- Posts
T8 wrote:
Quote Wrong topic WIT. This is about a creator.
Actually, I created this thread, so I am pretty sure that I know what the topic is.
As I wrote:
Quote Ultimately, the point of this thread is to demonstrate that if you start with a false premise, logic serves no useful purpose. Every true belief starts with solid evidence, not logic or analogies or anything else. You've demonstrated with your last few posts that you still don't understand this – or that you don't want to understand it.
You wrote:
Quote Please don't jump the gun here. This topic is base one not base 2. Actually, to reach a valid logical conclusion, you must make sure that your premises are sound. That's Logic 101.
Your first premise is that there are only three possibilities. My question is whether or not those possibilities are all valid, and if there might be others.
You don't need evidence to show that “nothing” is a valid possibility, because nothing is simply the absence of everything. And, you don't need evidence to show that “energy and matter”, (or as you put it “an infinite dead thing”), is valid because we exist.
However, you do need evidence to show that God is a valid possibility.
Take the challenge. Show it. Show us the evidence, without begging the question, that God is present with us today.
Do you disagree that it should be simple for a Christian to do so?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2011,22:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 13 2011,07:22) It is now for you to tell me why you think matter and energy could have existed forever, but God couldn't have.
The evidence that matter and energy has existed forever is exactly the same as the evidence that God has existed forever, (i.e. none).Yet you believe that something has always existed, right? Surely you don't believe there was nothing, and then out of nothing things came………do you?
I'll assume you believe the former, because the latter is just too ridiculous to fathom.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2011,22:45) What this really comes down to is the fact that you ALREADY believe in God so you assume that he created everything when, in fact, you should first figure out if there is real evidence for this God that you believe in.
And where is YOUR real evidence that something always existed, but it WASN'T God?If it was NOT God, then to me that would mean that intelligent life, made so wonderfully diverse, and having so many symbiotic relationships on earth, not only started, but continually evolved into BETTER, and MORE INTELLIGENT beings, from a non-intelligent, non-caring source. Personally, I would believe a story of fairies from another planet as our source before I considered an unintelligent fluke.
And not only that, but as t8 points out, we would have also evolved from non-intelligence into beings who most generally believe in a creator of some kind as the source of all. Why? Why do the majority of the most intelligent species you science types recognize believe in a Creator? Seems an odd mutation of evolution, doesn't it?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 12 2011,22:45) Every true belief starts with solid evidence, not logic or analogies or anything else.
I consider the Bible to BE “solid evidence”. What “evidence” do YOU have to refute the claim that God created all things?Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2011,09:19) Actually, I created this thread, so I am pretty sure that I know what the topic is.
OK, so you concur that it is not about “Who God is”.And there is no point in making that an argument anyway, as I said before, arguing over who someone is doesn't eliminate that this person exists.
Often it means the opposite because the debate about WHO assumes existence of the one you are trying to identify.e.g., Does debating who the murderer was negate that there was a murderer at all?
or
If 10 scientists argue over the magnitude of an earthquake, does that mean that the earthquake never happened?If you are going to debate something, please give at least decent evidence or clear thinking.
I don't really want to hear lame excuses like this. Once is enough. Ten times is a joke.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2011,09:19) You've demonstrated with your last few posts that you still don't understand this – or that you don't want to understand it.
I fully understand it.But having a belief in black holes to begin with doesn't negate good science or thinking as to their existence.
If it did, then you to are afflicted because you do not believe in God, so you are starting your defence from that premise in the same way.
In fact it is you who needs to be subject to this because I have given clear logical thinking about the 3 options, and you have yet to offer one for your position.
Actually you did offer one good point, but when challenged you couldn't offer anything further to back it up.That point was if God is infinite then that has the same chance as something that is not God being infinite instead.
But you are yet to demonstrate how a non living dead thing produces living and something infinite and possessing the IQ of zero which is the same IQ as a pair of socks, can produce a universe in which a whole race of intelligent beings who do possess IQ cannot even fathom. Even worse is how did these beings get intelligence when the source has no such thing.
So the ball is in your court. Your turn to hit it back.
T8,
Let me see if I can use your own analogy to explain my point.
In terms of the death of JFK, I am not asking who killed JFK. I am asking what killed JFK. The three analogous options would be:
1) A man
2) An alien from outer space
3) NothingNow before you even begin to go through the chain of logic to determine what killed JFK, you need to first establish that each option is valid.
You know men exist, because you see them everyday. You don't have to prove that nothing exists, because it's the absence of anything. But, you really would need to establish some evidence that an alien from outer space existed before considering it a viable option.
You could show a picture of an alien getting out of a spacecraft, or play a recording of some strange alien language, but you would need to do something to show that aliens exist.
In the scenario concerning the beginning of our universe, God is the alien from outer space. Before you consider God an option, you need to show that he exists.
Why do you persist in dancing around the easy solution? Just have your god produce some physical evidence. Or, point to some independently verified documentation of the physical evidence.
Simple as that. Then we can move on to your chain of logic.
Mike wrote:
Quote I consider the Bible to BE “solid evidence”. Do you consider the Quran to be evidence? If not, how is the bible different from the Quran?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2011,23:20) Mike wrote: Quote I consider the Bible to BE “solid evidence”. Do you consider the Quran to be evidence? If not, how is the bible different from the Quran?
WitI would never compare the Koran to the bible,
This can be seen by any one that's truly looks for God message,
No message in the Koran exept to conquer the world,by any means
pierre
WIT, please feel free to add to the current list.
A creator
Something not living
NothingBecause you cannot add anything else here, I have then covered all bases.
So then the process of deduction begins.But if my process is flawed, then you should be able to add point 4 to unflaw it.
The fact that you cannot or haven't so far simply means that my process covers all options and that is about as fair as you can get whether you like it or not.
Now I have given you my take on why it is point 1, now please put in the same effort I have and argue for point 2.
No point in trying to undermine my position.
We all have equal opportunity to use this model that covers all bases.Let's see what you come up with.
If you cannot, then I suppose that you only have put downs or negative comments about the model left, to try and somehow make out the model is flawed.What is it going to be WIT.
Dazzle us with brilliance on proofs or logic regarding point 2 or baffle us with bull by making out that a model that covers all bases is flawed.
T8 wrote:
Quote Dazzle us with brilliance on proofs or logic regarding point 2 or baffle us with bull by making out that a model that covers all bases is flawed. You are putting on quite a tap dancing show. I already pointed out that your scenario leaves out other potential options.
I wrote:
Quote What you've done in your last post, (like you do in many posts on this topic), is start with a logical construct limited by your own understanding and imagination. For example, we can add a third option to your list of infinite possibilities: 3) Energy, matter, and a seed of consciousness.
This seed of consciousness could have grown and developed into the intelligence that we see in the life around us.
I doubt that you would describe God as a “seed of consciousness”, and consciousness can not be described as a “dead thing”. So, without even giving it much thought, I've come up with another possibility, and, as a bonus, we already have lots of evidence that consciousness exists.
For kicks, here's another possibility: an 10-dimensional universe that contains all the possibilities for existence. (See here for reference.)
Shall I go on?
Now, I ask you for the THIRD time: why won't you simply provide some physical evidence for your god, so that we can properly consider it in your logical construct?
Why do you keep running away from what should be a very trivial task for someone who claims to experience God regularly?
Do I need to start another thread for you to answer it, or will you simply put the question to bed now?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2011,03:32) T8, This should be the easiest question for a Christian to answer, because, according to your bible, God has done such things as rain down fire from heaven to prove that he is the one true god, (1 Kings 18:36-39). In other words, your god is supposedly not shy about intervening in our physical world to make his presence known. Why not just point to some documented physical evidence?
Hi WIT,I have documented the “Proof of God”.
And I have presented the evidence here.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgWIT, your other options still fit within the framework of:
Someone
Something
NothingThey seem like they fit in the Something category, although the seed of conscience is the Someone category.
The reason for the latter is because conscience means with knowledge (con=with + science=knowledge).
To have knowledge is to have a mind and to possess the ability to think.So feel free to talk about a 10 dimensional universe within the second point.
Although it sounds very much to me like Heaven because there are different heavens the first, second, third…
And then ask yourself if it is possible that someone exists in the highest heaven (dimension).
Or do you have proof that only humans exist in the first heaven and no other life forms exist in the other heavens/dimensions.Remember the heavens means the universe and if your eyes are open then it declares the glory of the creator.
T8,
And for the FOURTH (and final) time, I ask:
Why won't you simply provide some physical evidence for [a] god, so that we can properly consider it in your logical construct?
Why do you keep running away from what should be a very trivial task for someone who claims to experience God regularly?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2011,08:37) T8 wrote: Quote Dazzle us with brilliance on proofs or logic regarding point 2 or baffle us with bull by making out that a model that covers all bases is flawed. You are putting on quite a tap dancing show. I already pointed out that your scenario leaves out other potential options.
I wrote:
Quote What you've done in your last post, (like you do in many posts on this topic), is start with a logical construct limited by your own understanding and imagination. For example, we can add a third option to your list of infinite possibilities: 3) Energy, matter, and a seed of consciousness.
This seed of consciousness could have grown and developed into the intelligence that we see in the life around us.
I doubt that you would describe God as a “seed of consciousness”, and consciousness can not be described as a “dead thing”. So, without even giving it much thought, I've come up with another possibility, and, as a bonus, we already have lots of evidence that consciousness exists.
For kicks, here's another possibility: an 10-dimensional universe that contains all the possibilities for existence. (See here for reference.)
Shall I go on?
Now, I ask you for the THIRD time: why won't you simply provide some physical evidence for your god, so that we can properly consider it in your logical construct?
Why do you keep running away from what should be a very trivial task for someone who claims to experience God regularly?
Do I need to start another thread for you to answer it, or will you simply put the question to bed now?
witQuote I wrote:
Quote
What you've done in your last post, (like you do in many posts on this topic), is start with a logical construct limited by your own understanding and imagination. For example, we can add a third option to your list of infinite possibilities:3) Energy, matter, and a seed of consciousness.
This seed of consciousness could have grown and developed into the intelligence that we see in the life around us.
3) Energy, matter, and
a seed of consciousness
what is this that it can come out of the most brutal explossion in the univers and known to men ??
please explain
Pierre
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 13 2011,23:20) Mike wrote: Quote I consider the Bible to BE “solid evidence”. Do you consider the Quran to be evidence? If not, how is the bible different from the Quran?
I don't believe the Quran to be inspired of God. I do believe the Bible to be so.Basically for you and I, it comes down to this (I think):
We both believe that something(s) existed from eternity. It's just that I think that “thing” was an intelligent being, and you think it was just “stuff” that somehow interacted and eventually caused mankind to exist.
From my point of view, it's easy to imagine a creator older and wiser than mankind.
What is your reason for disbelieving in a creator?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 14 2011,15:20) Why won't you simply provide some physical evidence for [a] god, so that we can properly consider it in your logical construct?
I wonder what PHYSICAL evidence Einstein showed for his theory of space-time. Perhaps he whipped out some photos of space-time bending?Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 15 2011,08:20) Why won't you simply provide some physical evidence for [a] god, so that we can properly consider it in your logical construct?
You want finite physical evidence for a infinite spirit God?No wonder you are not getting it.
The only proof you get physically speaking is the design in the universe itself and the fact that life exists. That is evidence of an intelligent designer.
You could only be a fool first to not believe that there is an intelligent designer and second, to think that you could produce God in a test tube.
Reason and deduction support the belief in God and to know for sure is to know God personally of which I am a witness.
The latter is not proof to you, but you could find out for yourself if you were willing to seek.
Otherwise you will find this all out once you pass on from this world.
Now let's see your proof that the incredible universe needs no designer.
And just saying so is not good enough.Of course I accept deduction and will even accept Mathematics in your support.
But so far you have failed the Someone, Something, Nothing model.Failing that means that you will fail anything within that and that model caters for all things.
How about you create a post headed “Something Dead”
and then post the evidence.I have done the equivalent for my view many times now.
WIT are you asking me for personal testimony or examples of my experiences with God?
Cause I can provide that too.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 15 2011,09:03) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 13 2011,23:20) Mike wrote: Quote I consider the Bible to BE “solid evidence”. Do you consider the Quran to be evidence? If not, how is the bible different from the Quran?
I don't believe the Quran to be inspired of God. I do believe the Bible to be so.Basically for you and I, it comes down to this (I think):
We both believe that something(s) existed from eternity. It's just that I think that “thing” was an intelligent being, and you think it was just “stuff” that somehow interacted and eventually caused mankind to exist.
From my point of view, it's easy to imagine a creator older and wiser than mankind.
What is your reason for disbelieving in a creator?
Quote I don't believe the Quran to be inspired of God. I do believe the Bible to be so. If you believe that the Bible is Solid evidence and the Quran is not, you're fighting against your own theory and logic. The only way you could sustain the argument of the bible being solid evidence would be to say that the Quran is solid evidence to those who believe its contents and experience them as true.
By the way it doesn't matter if something can come from nothing or not because something can only be considered something when it is observed or something else is aware of it existing. A person who believes in God doesn't believe in God because God exists they believe in God because they themself exist. Reason would dictate that living in an observer based universe is evidence of something(GOD) causing awareness for the Universe to be observed because without observers the universe is insignifigant
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 15 2011,04:07) I wonder what PHYSICAL evidence Einstein showed for his theory of space-time. Perhaps he whipped out some photos of space-time bending?
Einstien's theory is all about physical evidence. It's about characterizing the observations of how matter and energy behave in a consistent set of laws. To the extent that Einstein's theory does not conform with the physical evidence, it remains unproven.In fact, there were some recent experiments that challenge the credibility of Einstein's theory. (See here.) If it turns out that the this bit of physical evidence is true, then Einstein's theory will be discredited.
It doesn't matter if it “makes sense” to you, or if you have a lot of fancy math to back up your theory. In the end, it only matters if you have actual evidence to back up what you believe.
Remember, there was a time when people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. (That includes the bible authors by the way. See Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5.) It “made sense” to them because that's how it appeared to be. They would have laughed at anyone who said that the earth revolved around the sun, because it was “obvious” that the earth was still and the sun was moving.
You may think that it's “obvious” that God created everything, but you are committing the same mistake as your geocentric ancestors. With something so complicated and incomprehensible as how our universe came to be, it is silly to think that it can be distilled down to “what makes sense” to you or simple logical proofs. To truly understand it, what's needed is actual physical evidence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
