- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 18 2009,06:19) Quote (t8 @ April 18 2009,00:29) Quote (Stu @ April 16 2009,23:59) I don’t believe in any of these options. I have already explained this to you on at least two occasions. You are ready to judge me against strawmen of what I believe. What does that say about you, t8?
OK. Thanks for being forthcoming, I must have missed your previous revealing of this.So Stu, you don't believe in the cause of all things being:
a) God (Living creator)
b) Previous something (Dead)
c) Nothing (Dead)So what is the fourth option?
You have got me interested.
The simple confounds the wise.Stu says that it is foolish to believe that Jesus rose from the dead , yet he believes that everything including life came from nothing and death.
Of course it is foolish to believe people walk again after they have been judicially executed. How else do you describe such a lunatic view?You are another willing to bear false witness. To your credit you have not claimed that I wrote 'nothing created everything', but you are claiming I think 'life came from…death'. Please show me where I posted that.
I do make an attempt to consider what you actually believe, I try not to make strawmen of your views. How would you feel if I went on and on at you about believing in transubstantiation?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 18 2009,09:00) Stu lets not beat around the bush. What is the fourth option?
I will list the first 3 again but this time without using the word “cause” so you have nothing to hide behind.
Where did everything originate:
a) God
b) Nothing
c) Something (dead)In this context, please add the fourth option.
We all wait with bated breath…..
From p.97 of Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays by Stephen Hawking:THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least ten-to-the-eightieth particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.
Stuart
Stu, if I have a debit of $5 and then pay back $5 making zero balance, then that leaves a zero balance at that point. But if I turn around and say that the money system was always there or that it too came from nothing, then I am handing my mind over to fantasies.
I do not accept magic, i.e., the money/financial system (that allowed the eventual zero balance) come from nothing or was always there. It was implemented to allow such eventualities.
Likewise what ever system the universe is running on was the part that was directly created allowing ebbs and flows, and replication of units etc. But such logic doesn't pop out of nowhere. It is not magic.
There are many laws, not just moral ones. God is the lawgiver.
Quote (Stu @ April 18 2009,11:58) Of course it is foolish to believe people walk again after they have been judicially executed. How else do you describe such a lunatic view?
Of course colour could also be lunacy if you were blind.Perhaps that is another explanation worthy of looking in to?
You actually might be blind and therefore that explains beautifully why you deny such things because you have no experience of such things? If that is the case, then blindness doesn't make reality go away Stu.
Of course I fully expect you to reply with something like, “believing in a creator is ludicrous, preposterous, absolute lunacy, and could never happen”. However, such rants are no better than a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to listen to something he doesn't want to hear. No difference at all. In order to disprove something, you need to produce a better argument than that.
Anyway, I am sure that we will not see the proof that a creator doesn't exist any time soon. So again, you are not challenging belief in God one iota are you?
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.Again, you have proved scripture to be true.
PLUCK YOUR EYE OUT..IF IT KEEPS SINNING…WHAT SORTA GOD WANTS A PAYMENTS LIKE THAT?
DO YOU WISH TO STAY WORSHIPING A GOD THAT WANTS YOU TO PLUCK YOUR EYE OUT WITHHOLDING ANY FORM OF GRACE FOR HIS OWN DESIGN HE FOULED UP IN?
THAT'S GOTTA DO WITH LOOKING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND PUNISHING THE DESIGN IN HOPE OF PERFECTION….THAT'S NOT A ALL POWERFUL god WORTH TRUSTING IN!
ONE WOULD BE BETTER OFF TRUSTING IN THE FIRST LOOK UN TO SAVE HIS OTHER EYE.
CHARITYI can see that quite a few here are very bitter at God. Even more so as the time of the end approaches.
The light will get brighter until the morning star arises in our hearts. And the darkness will get darker. And the sons of God will shine like the stars forever.
So Stu is this writing by Hawking the fourth option? Sounds to me like the nothing option which I think was b).
Do you choose b) or do you not have a clue?
I await your answer.
b) or no clue yet?
t8
Quote Stu, if I have a debit of $5 and then pay back $5 making zero balance, then that leaves a zero balance at that point. But if I turn around and say that the money system was always there or that it too came from nothing, then I am handing my mind over to fantasies.
I would have thought this model of the universe is the least of the fantasies you have handed your mind over to.Quote I do not accept magic, i.e., the money/financial system (that allowed the eventual zero balance) come from nothing or was always there. It was implemented to allow such eventualities.
But snakes talk. I can see you are very discriminating in the kinds of magic in which you will and won’t believe.Quote Likewise what ever system the universe is running on was the part that was directly created allowing ebbs and flows, and replication of units etc. But such logic doesn't pop out of nowhere. It is not magic.
Are you going to refute this model, or just spout New Age babble?Quote There are many laws, not just moral ones. God is the lawgiver.
Asserted with no evidence, and dismissed just as easily.Quote Of course colour could also be lunacy if you were blind.
Surely seeing itself is the lunacy in your analogy? A person who had never seen anything could at least recognise the evidence that others were capable of some sense of detecting the placement of objects without feeling. There is no equivalent for the idea of resurrection in your analogy. Colour exists in the blind too, for they usually have retinas containing the same visual chemistry as the sighted person. However there has never been an eyewitness account of any human walking again after his successful judicial execution. Which is lunacy? Colour to a blind person or resurrection to any human? Given the number of ‘seeing’ christians who do not believe in a literal resurrection I rather think it is a matter of the few deluded not seeing the lunacy.Quote Perhaps that is another explanation worthy of looking in to?
You actually might be blind and therefore that explains beautifully why you deny such things because you have no experience of such things? If that is the case, then blindness doesn't make reality go away Stu.
Of course I fully expect you to reply with something like, “believing in a creator is ludicrous, preposterous, absolute lunacy, and could never happen”. However, such rants are no better than a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to listen to something he doesn't want to hear. No difference at all. In order to disprove something, you need to produce a better argument than that.
I know that I cannot disprove your Imaginary Friend, and I wish you could have the vision I have of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your blindness will be no excuse when you are boiling in pasta sauce. You cannot know my experiences, so by what authority do you diagnose me with blindness? What evidence do you present?Quote Anyway, I am sure that we will not see the proof that a creator doesn't exist any time soon. So again, you are not challenging belief in God one iota are you?
Which are you on about? Disproving gods (impossible) or discouraging belief in silly things (essential for our security)?Quote 2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
So Paul (if he wrote Timothy) is still busy immunising the faithful against critical questioning. Following the pattern from Romans he warns that people who preach differently to him (note not differently to Jesus!) will be cursed, and that there will be mockers. Paulianity is a dictatorship and the one thing a despot cannot stand is mockery. OF COURSE there will be mockers! Christianity insists on an absurd set of doctrines, and it seems the more absurd the tenets, the more zealous the believers. In this way, christianity is a parasite on human nature.Quote Again, you have proved scripture to be true.
I have disproved so much of scripture elsewhere that the point seems irrelevant.Quote I can see that quite a few here are very bitter at God. Even more so as the time of the end approaches.
Atheists are not bitter at god. That too would be ridiculous. Christians here are only bitter at the strawman of their god you promote.Quote The light will get brighter until the morning star arises in our hearts. And the darkness will get darker. And the sons of God will shine like the stars forever.
Is that your response to Hawking? It is so hard to tell with all this New Age mumbo-jumbo you are posting now.Stuart
Poor Stu. He will stick to their being no God, even though logic and common sense dictates such. Funny thing is that he thinks God is illogical, but the alternatives are impossible, so where is the logic in that?
He would rather BELIEVE (notice the word believe) that everything came from nothing, and nothing obeyed a law/logic/rule (that just happened to be around even though there was nothing). After logic or a law/cause was applied to nothing there was something akin to a deficit of nothing and then this deficit will eventually be paid back to become 100% nothing again once the price has been paid back. Hey if you can grasp that, then you might be able to understand that sin gives us a deficit toward God and even though we couldn't pay it, God paid the price by sending his son to pay that deficit which was death. So now we can choose life.
But I think I know what your answer will be and I truly pity you regarding this. You currently have no hope after death, and you are seriously confused. You also seem quite bitter and unable to speak with people in an understanding way. Did you have a bad experience or something?
Anyway, regardless of that, you are also quite funny, and sometimes that is why I answer you. I say my bit, and you go no no and no. I know my 3 year old son says that to me sometimes when he is grumpy. No no no no to everything. At that point I could offer him to watch his favourite movie and he would say no.
t8
Quote Poor Stu. He will stick to their being no God, even though logic and common sense dictates such.
I will stick to the conclusion that the evidence says there are no gods, until someone can convince me otherwise with further evidence. That is not a ‘poor’ state but one open to everyone’s points of view, but setting a high bar for credulity which is what we all should aim for. God belief is only logical if you start with the premise of a god. Without empirical observation of that god, there is no possibility of extending that logic to the real world: it is at best lucid and consistent fantasy conjecture. You need to have uncommon sense to understand quantum gravity. Genesis makes no sense in any way, except as a codification of the creation myths of ancient goat herders, which indeed is what it is.Quote Funny thing is that he thinks God is illogical, but the alternatives are impossible, so where is the logic in that?
No, with the ASSUMPTION of a god, what follows is entirely logical. That logic means nothing in the real world though.Quote He would rather BELIEVE (notice the word believe) that everything came from nothing,
Hooray, Should I say Hallelujah! The strawman is dead.My belief is backed by evidence.
Quote and nothing obeyed a law/logic/rule (that just happened to be around even though there was nothing).
Now you are out of your depth t8. How is the request to god to tell us about matter / antimatter separation? Have you asked in his name yet? That is the only way to get an answer, I understand. Fill out that celestial paperwork in full now, and we will await your transcriptions of ‘his’ reply with keen interest.Quote After logic or a law/cause was applied to nothing there was something akin to a deficit of nothing and then this deficit will eventually be paid back to become 100% nothing again once the price has been paid back. Hey if you can grasp that, then you might be able to understand that sin gives us a deficit toward God and even though we couldn't pay it, God paid the price by sending his son to pay that deficit which was death. So now we can choose life.
You do write some bollocks, don’t you. I suppose I do too, but I was quoting real theoretical physics, which you are not even up to wittily lampooning.Quote But I think I know what your answer will be and I truly pity you regarding this. You currently have no hope after death,
I do have a very earnest hope, that if you are right I shall not go to heaven. 24/7 sycophantic praise forever for a god that at one point claims to have killed almost the entire population of the earth (even though science exonerates ‘him’ as having done no such thing) is my idea of hell. I have denied Jesus (poor fellow) and I hope that will secure my place on the down escalator. Of course I don’t expect any such thing to really happen…but if we do happen to go at the same time, I shall try not to snigger when it turns out that we are both answering to one of the deities of the Hindi, and only one of us had a mind open to the possibility.Quote You also seem quite bitter and unable to speak with people in an understanding way. Did you have a bad experience or something?
On the subject of christian dogma and the way it affects the world I thing bitterness is the natural response. It is a far more compassionate response than the converse response of Saul of Tarsus towards non-believers. There went a truly bitter man, who not only attacked ideology but people as well. I do not feel the need to attack my fellow humans, they have had enough of that already from their alleged ‘creator’. Love the christian, hate the delusion with which they have been infected. Thank you for asking, but none of my personal experiences with christianity have been particularly bitter. On the personal level I know it is the bible talking, and they know not what they do.Quote Anyway, regardless of that, you are also quite funny, and sometimes that is why I answer you. I say my bit, and you go no no and no. I know my 3 year old son says that to me sometimes when he is grumpy. No no no no to everything. At that point I could offer him to watch his favourite movie and he would say no.
Hmmm. What do you say to Hawking?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 22 2009,08:29) Quote Anyway, regardless of that, you are also quite funny, and sometimes that is why I answer you. I say my bit, and you go no no and no. I know my 3 year old son says that to me sometimes when he is grumpy. No no no no to everything. At that point I could offer him to watch his favourite movie and he would say no.
Hmmm. What do you say to Hawking?Stuart
What do I say about prophet Hawking?Well if he had never experienced the colour green, and I told him it existed, then no amount of brains is going to convince him if he has only my word to go on and some logic that appears to work.
Hawking sits in a seat at Cambridge that Sir Isaac Newton sat. And Newton had plenty to say about God and actually dedicated many years to the study of scripture.
Newton's stature among scientists remains at the very top rank, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of scientists in Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Newton was deemed the more influential.
Newton was also highly religious (though unorthodox), producing more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_NewtonSo here we have 2 geniuses. One had faith and the other appears to not have faith.
What does that tell you?Perhaps belief in God is experiential as much or even more than it is actually understood?
So the supposed most influential scientist according to Britain's Royal Society is a staunch believer in God and the scriptures.
What do you say about Sir Isaac Newton. (I bet I know what your response is). Do you want to ask me and see if I am right?
Stu, I wouldn't blindly follow prophet Hawking. You need to question blind loyalty and realise that many smart people do not believe in God and many smart people do. Searching for the truth is not about taking a smart person at his word.
t8 As long as Stu has someone to discuss his theory with, He will stay around. I stopped posting to him, because I want him to go away.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Cindy @ April 23 2009,02:09) t8 As long as Stu has someone to discuss his theory with, He will stay around. I stopped posting to him, because I want him to go away.
Peace and Love Irene
Hi Cindy / IreneHow are you?
Stuart
t8 (take 2)
Quote What do I say about prophet Hawking?
Well if he had never experienced the colour green, and I told him it existed, then no amount of brains is going to convince him if he has only my word to go on and some logic that appears to work.
Your use of the word ‘if’ tells it all. You cannot think of any real objection so you have to make up an obscure analogy to explain what we all know anyway. Science makes only provisional conclusions that are contingent on no contradictory evidence appearing in the future. So do you have a contradictory argument, with evidence?Quote Hawking sits in a seat at Cambridge that Sir Isaac Newton sat. And Newton had plenty to say about God and actually dedicated many years to the study of scripture.
And he was right about physics and almost certainly wrong about god.Quote Newton's stature among scientists remains at the very top rank, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of scientists in Britain's Royal Society asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein. Newton was deemed the more influential.
Newton was also highly religious (though unorthodox), producing more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.
So what? The appeal to authority is a bastion of the scoundrel, as you yourself point out below.Quote So here we have 2 geniuses. One had faith and the other appears to not have faith.
What does that tell you?
That faith is optional and unnecessary to living a fulfilling and influential life?Quote Perhaps belief in God is experiential as much or even more than it is actually understood?
Delusional is the word.Quote So the supposed most influential scientist according to Britain's Royal Society is a staunch believer in God and the scriptures.
Yeah. Most of his contemporaries were creationists. Now we know better.Quote What do you say about Sir Isaac Newton. (I bet I know what your response is). Do you want to ask me and see if I am right?
Why, would it be even vaguely interesting?Quote I wouldn't blindly follow prophet Hawking. You need to question blind loyalty and realise that many smart people do not believe in God and many smart people do. Searching for the truth is not about taking a smart person at his word.
I don’t follow Hawking blindly. He could be wrong. Could Isaiah be wrong?Stuart
Thanks Stu.
Your reply:
Quote And he was right about physics and almost certainly wrong about god.
My reply: So the most influential man in physics was wrong?My quote
Quote Perhaps belief in God is experiential as much or even more than it is actually understood?
Your reply: Delusional is the word.CONCLUSION: You are saying that the most influential man in physics was delusional. This leads to a question that you should ask yourself. If the most influential man in physics is supposedly delusional, then is it actually possible that Hawking who is less influential is really the delusional one when/if he says that there is no God?
Either way, either Hawking or Newton is delusional according to your view, so how do you know which one is the delusional one? If you think it is Newton, then objectively speaking you could also be delusional for choosing his view as the right one.
Of course I actually don't think that you have enough sense to act upon what I am saying and if history proves true, you will reply with your usual rants about how God is preposterous and ignore any reason or good argument made to you.
At least there is an entertainment factor to you. But maybe instead of making people laugh, you might want to consider the state of your soul? But by all means, take the stage court jester. You have an audience, albeit a small one.
You might think of the other scientists whom the Royal Society has deemed to be in the realm of brilliance of Isaac Newton. They include one Charles Darwin. You discriminate on the grounds of religious belief by choosing the one example of a devoutly religious man. The Royal Society chooses such people for recognition on the grounds of their contributions to science, not on the nature of their religious delusions or lack thereof. It would seem again that faith is entirely optional to high achievement in science. It is disingenuous of you to conflate Newton's science with his faith. In physics he was one of the most profound geniuses of all time. He was also god-deluded. So what?
Stuart
This bozo is saying “on any particular issue, my lack of explanation is fine, the atheist's lack of explanation is unacceptable.”
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
