Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#1675 May 24, 2013
Why?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he is right.
You are assuming, not he.
You are assuming that causal order is temporal order for the universe, and nothing is possible absent that order.
Your claim is that temporal order caused itself.
That is impossible.
You are claiming temporal order caused temporal order, but also claiming no causality is possible without temporal order, which would mean temporal order could not cause temporal order.
Your claim can be summarized as A caused A, and no A is possible until A.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1676 May 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Shibolet thinks that if we don't have scientific explanations to absolutely everything today then the only thing to do is to go worship a sky pixie.
And tell prawns to f**k off.
<quoted text>
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He/she is obviously scared of not knowing. That's something a lot of religious people are; just scared because they don't know.
They don't know how anything came to be, along with many other things.
They replace that lack of knowledge with a being that can do all that and more. It makes them feel safe.
Though people who are not irrationally scared of saying "I don't know" once in awhile, like ourselves, don't need their fairy tales. We instead choose to accept that we don't know and move on with our lives.
Hate, and fear-- the two weapons of the Spanish Inquisition!

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1677 May 24, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
You are totally wrong. That's not what I think. But hey, that's what atheists are good at: To add their owns words and charge another of being the author of them. I have decided to adopt the atheistic cliché of "I don't know." Therefore, I still don't know how to describe God. I am still studying about Him, Her or It. Now, independently of the idea of God, my question remains: If the BB explains the origin of the universe, it is evident that the universe had a beginning. How did it cause itself to exist?
The above? Is not proof of your do-nothing godling.

Sorry.

But your fear is still evident...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1678 May 24, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Now, you are behaving according to your username. I said that if matter cannot cause itself to exist the Primal Cause is implied. That's quite different than the statement that "We come out of nothingness." I did not come out of nothingness but if the first cause didn't how did it cause itself to exist? As simple as that; no need to add God into the equation. If you don't know, why don't you admit you have failed?
The above? Is not proof of your do-nothing godling.

Sorry.

But your fear is still evident...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1679 May 24, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
All other books of History are nothing else but books written by men. The Bible is also a book written by men. The books of Josephus
are also books of History and they witness about the Exodus from Egypt. What is this paranoia about the book called Bible, is it because it teaches about God? Would you accept its testimony if all
pages about God were torn from the book? The whole book of Esther in the Bible does not mention the name God even once. Would it be adopted by atheists if it was not included in the Bible? And last but not least, ironic it might be, no book has ever matched the Bible as the most famous bestseller on earth. "Long live the king!"
The above? Is not proof of your do-nothing godling.

Sorry.

But your fear is still evident...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1680 May 24, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Do I have to teach you English too? I did not ask you in Hebrew.
The universe is composed of matter. The BB has been adopted by all cosmologists save exceptions as the closest-to-the-truth step to explain the origin of the universe. Therefore, how did the universe
cause itself to exist if the Primal Cause is not to be implied?
STILL not proof of your do-nothing godling.

And your fear is STILL showing...

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1681 May 24, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Lacez wrote, "<quoted text>
He/she is obviously scared of not knowing. That's something a lot of religious people are; just scared because they don't know.
They don't know how anything came to be, along with many other things.
They replace that lack of knowledge with a being that can do all that and more. It makes them feel safe.
Though people who are not irrationally scared of saying "I don't know" once in awhile, like ourselves, don't need their fairy tales. We instead choose to accept that we don't know and move on with our lives."

Hate, and fear-- the two weapons of the Spanish Inquisition!

;)
Wasn't that WW2 as well?

I mean, Hitler was just as religious.
Imhotep

Sweetwater, TN

#1682 May 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I learned long ago that Tacitus' account was likely correct.
Sorry you didn't.
Maybe you should start with something simpler.
Can you tie your shoes?
Wherever you heard that ButtCrack,(No offense) ;) you had your ears clogged!

Here's a little something you might take the time to discredit!

Here's the way I see it...

Tacitus

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'HEARSAY' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

And on a lighter note how you doing with your Dutch?

That last translation sucked big wampum!
Heel erg als je zuigen thuis!

LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1683 May 24, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't that WW2 as well?
I mean, Hitler was just as religious.
Indeed.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#1684 May 25, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Now, you are behaving according to your username. I said that if matter cannot cause itself to exist the Primal Cause is implied. That's quite different than the statement that "We come out of nothingness." I did not come out of nothingness but if the first cause didn't how did it cause itself to exist? As simple as that; no need to add God into the equation. If you don't know, why don't you admit you have failed?
Is what you are trying to accomplish that only a being can cause something (the universe) into existence? As far as we know there have always been forms of matter in the empty space that the universe is expanding in. We do not and cannot know what is in what we call empty space.

If you are fishing for a cause to back up your cause then will you concede that there is no god if someone can prove to you that some form of substance came from empty space?

I have never really cared were we came from. We are here and some day we will not be here.

My comment is aimed at the fact that you believe a god created everything if so then that belief can only mean that you believe that we came from nothingness or as you put it caused into existence by a unknown, unseen , empty void called god.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#1685 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The above? Is not proof of your do-nothing godling.
Sorry.
But your fear is still evident...
I cannot even grasp the notion of empty space. As far as we know there are millions upon millions of universes expanding in empty space. If so will Shibolet and all the other religious of the world except that there are millions upon millions of gods out there.

Or will they just stick to their idea that we came from out of nothingness.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1686 May 25, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He/she is obviously scared of not knowing. That's something a lot of religious people are; just scared because they don't know.
They don't know how anything came to be, along with many other things.
They replace that lack of knowledge with a being that can do all that and more. It makes them feel safe.
Though people who are not irrationally scared of saying "I don't know" once in awhile, like ourselves, don't need their fairy tales. We instead choose to accept that we don't know and move on with our lives.
Good comment. It is obvious in the case of religious myths. It is also applicable to some types of scientific assertion when people claim to know things that they really don't know. The whole point of science should be to inquire and explore and conduct relatively non-dangerous and relatively moral experiments, and even to use math as a helpful tool - but not to claim to be a sure path to Truth, with little True Facts along the way that are supposed to be unchallenge-able.
We need to understand enough in a provisional way to try to live the best lives we can, with least pain and inflicting of pain on others, and most prevention of terrible events in the future - either by our doing as irresponsible humans, or by our not taking preventive action as irresponsible humans. things like avoiding nuclear war, nuclear winter, global warming over the tipping point, creating human sadists and sociopaths with whatever combination of nature and nuture - very practical things need to get done. finding out The Truth about the big bang and the moments after is a playing thing for brilliant minds to strive for, but not a necessity for human survival. not compared to falling bridges and horrid weather, caused by humans one way or another, which we ought to be taking care of.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1687 May 25, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot even grasp the notion of empty space. As far as we know there are millions upon millions of universes expanding in empty space. If so will Shibolet and all the other religious of the world except that there are millions upon millions of gods out there.
Or will they just stick to their idea that we came from out of nothingness.
you meant accept not except I think. and it is their idea that we came from out of nothingness? or out of some notion in some mind of some God? I think what they want most is to think they know without having to consider science - it was easier to be superstitious when there was less scientific investigation.

But science should not claim to have found an Alternate Absolute Truth either. or even that it is definately possible to find one.
people need to become comfortable with not knowing about many things they are curious about.

It is knowing what to try to learn, and how to apply it to better our lives and lives (not just human) in the future, that both science and religion should be aiming for. If religion would teach a kindness ethic, instead of a hate policy, that would help.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1688 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Good comment. It is obvious in the case of religious myths. It is also applicable to some types of scientific assertion when people claim to know things that they really don't know. The whole point of science should be to inquire and explore and conduct relatively non-dangerous and relatively moral experiments, and even to use math as a helpful tool - but not to claim to be a sure path to Truth, with little True Facts along the way that are supposed to be unchallenge-able.
We need to understand enough in a provisional way to try to live the best lives we can, with least pain and inflicting of pain on others, and most prevention of terrible events in the future - either by our doing as irresponsible humans, or by our not taking preventive action as irresponsible humans. things like avoiding nuclear war, nuclear winter, global warming over the tipping point, creating human sadists and sociopaths with whatever combination of nature and nuture - very practical things need to get done. finding out The Truth about the big bang and the moments after is a playing thing for brilliant minds to strive for, but not a necessity for human survival. not compared to falling bridges and horrid weather, caused by humans one way or another, which we ought to be taking care of.
You're not a very smart troll even though you try quite hard to be.

When you have evidence to back up your god, then you qualify to criticize science, that's how being honest works - I'm sure your cult did not teach you this.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#1689 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you meant accept not except I think.
Yea I did. Typing to fast and not looking back at what I wrote.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> and it is their idea that we came from out of nothingness? or out of some notion in some mind of some God?
Most all that I converse with state that “god did it” so yes it would be out of the mind of a god. In which case it would be out of nothingness unless they want to concede that there had been other matter that god used. If so did this god make that matter too?
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I think what they want most is to think they know without having to consider science - it was easier to be superstitious when there was less scientific investigation.
But science should not claim to have found an Alternate Absolute Truth either. or even that it is definately possible to find one.
I do not think nor have I heard that science claims absolute truth.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> people need to become comfortable with not knowing about many things they are curious about.
Curiosity awakens the search for knowledge, and to learn more than what we know.

Why just be happy to be ignorant?
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> It is knowing what to try to learn, and how to apply it to better our lives and lives (not just human) in the future, that both science and religion should be aiming for. If religion would teach a kindness ethic, instead of a hate policy, that would help.
I agree with you there.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1690 May 25, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
All other books of History are nothing else but books written by men. The Bible is also a book written by men. The books of Josephus
are also books of History and they witness about the Exodus from Egypt. What is this paranoia about the book called Bible, is it because it teaches about God? Would you accept its testimony if all
pages about God were torn from the book? The whole book of Esther in the Bible does not mention the name God even once. Would it be adopted by atheists if it was not included in the Bible? And last but not least, ironic it might be, no book has ever matched the Bible as the most famous bestseller on earth. "Long live the king!"
As far as I know, the Bible is also a book written by men. Perhaps by men who claim to be writing for your god, but then there are lots of other books written by men who claim to be writing for their god. The Vedas, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. etc.

Yet you DON'T believe that any of these other books are true, despite having the same claim your book has. So why is that? It certainly can't be based on evidence for the Bible agrees with very little of the evidence.

Where as science and history books do agree with the evidence. In fact, to be accepted as science or history MUST agree with the evidence.

It makes me wonder just what criteria you use to decide whether a book is presenting a credible story or complete bollocks.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1691 May 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, the answer is that causality does not apply. Time began when the universe began, and it is self-contradictory to talk about the cause of time because causes *require* time.
------

You are back and I thought you had some answers this time. I am not asking about time but about how the universe caused itself into existence if it had a beginning and the Primal Cause is NOT implied.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1692 May 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you said that. You were wrong.
<quoted text>
You are *assuming* there was a cause. That is where you go wrong.
<quoted text>
No need to invoke a primal cause either. Why don't *you* admit you have failed?
------

Let me see if I understood you right: You admit that the universe had a beginning with the BB. If it had a beginning it means that it was not always there. Since I am wrong to admit the Primal Cause
how did the universe happened to be there? Out of magic or what? Even out of magic we need the magician. How is going to be?

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1693 May 28, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Not every scientist believes the big bang created anything more than our locally observable universe.
So what have decapods got to do with it?
<quoted text>
-----

All scientists I have read about or listened to on the History channel adopt the role of the BB to explain the origin of the universe. Only atheists who for sure know better than scientists deny that role for the BB. Obviously because the father of the BB theory was a theist. What's new?

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1694 May 28, 2013
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
Is what you are trying to accomplish that only a being can cause something (the universe) into existence? As far as we know there have always been forms of matter in the empty space that the universe is expanding in. We do not and cannot know what is in what we call empty space.
If you are fishing for a cause to back up your cause then will you concede that there is no god if someone can prove to you that some form of substance came from empty space?
I have never really cared were we came from. We are here and some day we will not be here.
My comment is aimed at the fact that you believe a god created everything if so then that belief can only mean that you believe that we came from nothingness or as you put it caused into existence by a unknown, unseen , empty void called god.
------

What is the matter with atheists, don't they have a mind of their own? I have given up the intent to prove the Primal Cause. Again, forget about God! If there was no need for a outside cause to the universe how did the universe cause itself to exist? Can a question be simpler than that?

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) 5 min Thinking 227,590
Our world came from nothing? 13 min Thinking 472
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 13 min Thinking 4,101
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Richardfs 22,242
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr Thinking 62
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 3 hr BeHereNow 104
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 10 hr Patrick 762
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••