Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#368 Apr 9, 2013
Normal Flora wrote:
In "A Universe from Nothing," author Lawrence Krauss proves in complex mathematical terms that because of the existence of dark matter and dark energy in our universe, not only was its spontaneous creation possible, it was INEVITABLE.
-------

Flora, would you please explain to me what is dark matter and dark energy? If you do not know, you could be wrapping a gift to me about another evidence for the existence of God. So, think of something to say that makes sense or you will be promoting Theism.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#369 Apr 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Prove this "primal cause" exists.
2) prove it >>has<< to exist
3) prove it was uncaused (as soon as you prove it's real)
4) prove the universe had to be caused
You have failed at each of these 4 points so far.
Care to try again?
------

Sometimes I get a little impatient but I always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. First of all, let's not use the word
"proof" because it has become too childish. Evidence is a better choice.

1) Since the universe could not have caused itself into existence that's a prime evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause. I have the word of king David to confirm my assertion in Psalm 19:1. I am sorry, I know you guys don't like Biblical quotations. It just came out of my mind almost involuntarily.

2) That It has to exist is irrelevant. To have to anything is akin to being subject to something. That's not of the Primal Mover.

3) Since the Primal Cause is not matter, It could not have been caused into existence. Even if It had been matter it would be illogical for something to cause itself into existence because it did not exist to act upon itself. Jesus himself said that God is a
Spirit which can be perceived only in a spiritual manner and not demonstrated mathematically.(John 4:24) Gosh! Again, sorry!

4) The universe is made out of matter; since matter cannot cause itself into existence, obviously the universe was caused.

As you can see, rather you have failed to understand every time I have logically explained these evidences to you. But that's okay, some people understand fast; others take a little longer.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#370 Apr 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
"something outside the universe" is meaningless.
If it is outside? By definition it is not INSIDE, is it?
If it's not inside? It cannot have any impact on the universe.
Nice try-- but flawed nonetheless.
-------

Is the watchmaker inside or outside the watch? Outside. If he was inside he could not have created the watch. Outside the universe with reference to the Creator is just a symbol to mean that the universe has been caused by a "Force" not part of the universe. Your assertion that the Divine Creator could not have any impact on the universe if He was not inside is based on your anthropomorphistic idea of the Creator Who is rather a Spirit.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#371 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Sometimes I get a little impatient but I always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. First of all, let's not use the word
"proof" because it has become too childish. Evidence is a better choice.
1) Since the universe could not have caused itself into existence that's a prime evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause. I have the word of king David to confirm my assertion in Psalm 19:1. I am sorry, I know you guys don't like Biblical quotations. It just came out of my mind almost involuntarily.
That the universe cannot cause itself shows one of two possibilities: either the universe is uncaused OR it is caused by something (or somethings) other than the universe. You have not shown the first is impossible. Also, even in the case of the second, you have not shown the cause of the universe is, itself, uncaused. So you have not shown the existence of a 'Primal Cause'.
2) That It has to exist is irrelevant. To have to anything is akin to being subject to something. That's not of the Primal Mover.
Which you have not shown exists.
3) Since the Primal Cause is not matter, It could not have been caused into existence.
Why does this follow? Only matter is caused? What about energy? time?
Even if It had been matter it would be illogical for something to cause itself into existence because it did not exist to act upon itself.
Once again, I completely agree that a thing cannot cause itself. That means any thing is either uncaused or is caused by something else.
Jesus himself said that God is a
Spirit which can be perceived only in a spiritual manner and not demonstrated mathematically.(John 4:24) Gosh! Again, sorry!
So you do not have a proof.
4) The universe is made out of matter; since matter cannot cause itself into existence, obviously the universe was caused.
That does not follow. It only shows that everything *in* the universe is either uncaused or is caused by something else. In fact, all causes we know about are in the universe, so it is illogical to deduce a cause outside of the universe.
As you can see, rather you have failed to understand every time I have logically explained these evidences to you. But that's okay, some people understand fast; others take a little longer.
There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. We understand your argument quite well. But we also know that the argument doesn't manage to prove what it sets out to prove. In fact, it fails at every stage.

You have made many assumptions about causality here: that matter requires a cause, that non-matter does not require a cause, that not being self-caused means there is a cause, etc. the problem is that your whole argument fails because causality requires *time* and time is part of our universe. So causality of the universe is non-nonsensical.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#372 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Is the watchmaker inside or outside the watch? Outside. If he was inside he could not have created the watch. Outside the universe with reference to the Creator is just a symbol to mean that the universe has been caused by a "Force" not part of the universe. Your assertion that the Divine Creator could not have any impact on the universe if He was not inside is based on your anthropomorphistic idea of the Creator Who is rather a Spirit.
Once again, you have no shown that the universe has a cause. You have made many claims, but seem to be confused about the difference between no cause and self-caused. You also seem to be confused about the difference between everything *inside* the universe being caused and the universe itself being caused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#373 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Here's again for the 35th time: If the Primal Mover was matter He would have to be created or caused to exist. Since He is no matter
He was not created or caused to exist. I am very patient with atheists. If you still need another 35 times let me know.
You have not shown that a Primary Mover even exists. You have not shown that matter requires a cause. Is your Primary Mover self-caused? Why or why not?

We are attempting to point out the flaws in your argument, yet you seem to persistently refuse to look at those flaws.

Let's start at the beginning: what does it mean to say that 'A causes B'. Give a precise definition. Not simply a few examples, but a precise definition. After this, we can step through your argument.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#374 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Here's again for the 35th time: If the Primal Mover was matter He would have to be created or caused to exist. Since He is no matter
He was not created or caused to exist. I am very patient with atheists. If you still need another 35 times let me know.
If "He" is no matter then he does not matter. He is not intelligent for intelligence requires matter. There are no exceptions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#375 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Is the watchmaker inside or outside the watch? Outside. If he was inside he could not have created the watch. Outside the universe with reference to the Creator is just a symbol to mean that the universe has been caused by a "Force" not part of the universe. Your assertion that the Divine Creator could not have any impact on the universe if He was not inside is based on your anthropomorphistic idea of the Creator Who is rather a Spirit.
By spirit you mean vodka, yes?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#376 Apr 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
You have made many assumptions about causality here: that matter requires a cause, that non-matter does not require a cause, that not being self-caused means there is a cause, etc. the problem is that your whole argument fails because causality requires *time* and time is part of our universe. So causality of the universe is non-nonsensical.
So quick question - is eternity simply just a "really really long time" as the fundies think it is?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#377 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Sometimes I get a little impatient but I always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. First of all, let's not use the word
"proof" because it has become too childish. Evidence is a better choice.
1) Since the universe could not have caused itself into existence
1) your claim here? Is without merit.

It has been shown-- repeatedly--- that this claim here is unsupported.

Furthermore? You ASSume that there can be only TWO possibilities, after your claim:

That the universe MUST BE CAUSED by ONLY YOUR GOD--and nothing else.

So your entire rant falls like a house of cards.

Fail.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#378 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's okay, some people understand fast; others take a little longer.
Indeed-- your brain, or what's left of it, seems stuck on "super-idiot"

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#379 Apr 9, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Is the watchmaker inside or outside the watch? Outside. If he was inside he could not have created the watch. Outside the universe with reference to the Creator is just a symbol to mean that the universe has been caused by a "Force" not part of the universe. Your assertion that the Divine Creator could not have any impact on the universe if He was not inside is based on your anthropomorphistic idea of the Creator Who is rather a Spirit.
A watch is a thing.

The universe is, by definition, ALL things.

Thus your stupid and idiotic bullsh7t above is, again, utterly and totally without merit.

Again-- you failed to address my point-- you didn't even try.

"something outside the universe" is meaningless.

If it is outside? By definition it is not INSIDE, is it?

If it's not inside? It cannot have any impact on the universe.

Nice try-- but flawed nonetheless.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#380 Apr 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So quick question - is eternity simply just a "really really long time" as the fundies think it is?
Exactly!

To a fundie, "eternity" is very similar to "a visit from Aunt Flo", only say... twice as long.

Another fundie concept of "eternity" is the phrase, "40 days and 40 nights" -- the two are equivalent in fundie-speak.

And yet another fundie concept of "eternity" is when they are sitting in church, and it is Pot Luck Sunday, and the clock is approaching High Noon, but the pastor is only on point 4 of a 9 point rant-sermon ... to a fundie, THAT is eternity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#381 Apr 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So quick question - is eternity simply just a "really really long time" as the fundies think it is?
I tend not to use the word because of its ambiguities. There are three obvious interpretations:

1. For an infinite amount of time.

2. For all time.

3. Time without beginning or end.

The problem is that these are potentially quite different. For example, if time is finite into the past, but infinite into the future, 1 and 3 are different. If time is finite both into the past and future, 1 and 2 are different.

Also, mystics tend to use the word 'eternity' to denote something *outside* of time, which is yet another interpretation. And all of these are different than the colloquial 'for a long time'.

Once again, the word is too ambiguous to use except in poetry or as a metaphor. Past that and I would choose to use another word or phrase to make my meaning clear.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#382 Apr 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend not to use the word because of its ambiguities. There are three obvious interpretations:
1. For an infinite amount of time.
2. For all time.
3. Time without beginning or end.
The problem is that these are potentially quite different. For example, if time is finite into the past, but infinite into the future, 1 and 3 are different. If time is finite both into the past and future, 1 and 2 are different.
Also, mystics tend to use the word 'eternity' to denote something *outside* of time, which is yet another interpretation. And all of these are different than the colloquial 'for a long time'.
Once again, the word is too ambiguous to use except in poetry or as a metaphor. Past that and I would choose to use another word or phrase to make my meaning clear.
And so basically we won't even know ourselves until we are able to see past the singularity, correct?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#383 Apr 9, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
To a fundie, "eternity" is very similar to "a visit from Aunt Flo", only say... twice as long.
Another fundie concept of "eternity" is the phrase, "40 days and 40 nights" -- the two are equivalent in fundie-speak.
And yet another fundie concept of "eternity" is when they are sitting in church, and it is Pot Luck Sunday, and the clock is approaching High Noon, but the pastor is only on point 4 of a 9 point rant-sermon ... to a fundie, THAT is eternity.
I thought that was an eternity to non-fundies. It certainly is whenever I visit church!
Lincoln

United States

#384 Apr 9, 2013
odd, the United Kingdom

Hundreds of ex-miners are to hold a 'funeral party' to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.

Durham Miners' Association are planning to book bands and comedians to rejoice at "the end of an era".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret...
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#385 Apr 9, 2013
Say what you want about Thatcher, unlike priests, she knew which miners (sic) she could f**k without ending up on a register.
Lincoln wrote:
odd, the United Kingdom
Hundreds of ex-miners are to hold a 'funeral party' to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.
Durham Miners' Association are planning to book bands and comedians to rejoice at "the end of an era".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#386 Apr 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that was an eternity to non-fundies. It certainly is whenever I visit church!
To a non-fundie? 5 minutes of sermon-ranting feels like eternal punishment.

:D

Could you imagine an infinite time in their "heaven", listening to the blow-hard fundie preachers 24/7? I mean-- no sleep in heaven-- the buybull says so.

... ugg.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#387 Apr 9, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Say what you want about Thatcher, unlike priests, she knew which miners (sic) she could f**k without ending up on a register.
<quoted text>
I saw an amusing joke about that.

The poster was complaining of the approximately 3 million pounds spent on her funeral (I apologize if I got the amount wrong).

He noted that with that much cash, they could have purchased a shovel for everyone in Scotland, and dug a hole so deep that they could've handed off Thatcher to Satan, directly.

I was briefly amused.:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 23 min Aura Mytha 232,891
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 44 min woodtick57 2,263
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 59 min Richardfs 147
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 5 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 6 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 6 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 22 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web