Patrick

Exeter, UK

#64 Aug 30, 2014
Patrick wrote:
In the news
VATICAN CITY (CBSDC/AP)— A new report claims that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is targeting Pope Francis — a report that the Vatican says is simply not true.
According to Il Tempo, Israeli sources reportedly told the Italian newspaper that the pope is “in the crosshairs of ISIS.” The report stated that Francis is being targeted because he is “the greatest exponent of the Christian religions” and the “bearer of false truth.”
The Vatican, though, denounced the report.
“There is nothing serious to this,” Father Federico Lombardi S.J., a Vatican spokesman, told Catholic News Agency.“There is no particular concern in the Vatican. This news has no foundation.”
The Catholic News Agency reports that Italy has issued a nationwide terror alert, despite no imminent threats or specifics about a potential attack on the country.
On Friday, Britain raised the terror threat level from substantial to severe, meaning that a terrorist attack is considered highly likely.
Home Secretary Theresa Mays said the decision to raise the threat level was related to developments in Iraq and Syria, but that there was no information to suggest an attack was imminent. Some of the plots are likely to involve fighters who have traveled from Britain and Europe to take part in fighting in the Middle East.
I sometimes behave like a coward, because it was the way I was brought up.

Instead of admitting I am a creationist liar, I would rather spam you some badly written religious news / failed poetry.
CunningLinguist

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#65 Aug 30, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
The Ultimate Evidence of God
In 1922 the Theory of the big bang was the gift Science needed to break up with Aristotle that the universe was infinite. It was the gift of a Theist, George Lemaitre: The universe did have its beginning.
Now, the point is to demonstrate what or who caused the universe to begin because from the logical point of view, the universe could not have caused itself to exist. Simply because being the universe composed of matter and matter cannot cause itself to exist, the Primal Cause has ultimately become obvious.
Now, to all atheists, I have the following message: I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt and probably even my word that I am ready to change my views about the uiverse if there is one that believes the universe caused itself to exist. If the answer stands the screening of Logic, my proposal is as good as gold that I'll be no longer a theist.
I think that is fair, but to remove all doubt...

I have two simple, up front questions for you.

If you cannot answer these, ask your clergy for assistance.

Remember... they know the unknowable and can easily explain this.... right?

1) Provide evidence your God is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their God(s).

2) Provide evidence your holy book is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their holy book(s).

You are granted an eternity to answer!

Disclaimer: All spelling errors made by Siri are deliberately left in for my amusement, they are forgiven, will go to paradise and receive 72 dictionaries directly from: Lord Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc ious, the improbable.
Patrick

United States

#66 Aug 30, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is fair, but to remove all doubt...
I have two simple, up front questions for you.
If you cannot answer these, ask your clergy for assistance.
Remember... they know the unknowable and can easily explain this.... right?
1) Provide evidence your God is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their God(s).
2) Provide evidence your holy book is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their holy book(s).
You are granted an eternity to answer!
Disclaimer: All spelling errors made by Siri are deliberately left in for my amusement, they are forgiven, will go to paradise and receive 72 dictionaries directly from: Lord Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc ious, the improbable.
Problem seems to arise from faith which can not be proved.
Is there a material world and a non material world?
Love, friendship, beauty, kindness can not be proved..... do these exist?

Over good coffee with those we love and care about these issues may be discussed with no resolution except mutual respect !

Interlude in a coffee shop

To sip coffee with you,
Reading the newspaper,

Sitting close
Steam rises from my cup,

I relish this moment
Cherishing your smile,

Examine your face,
Lines, changes over the years

Still, I look in your eyes
And see the young man,

The hearth is still warm
And I’m thankful for that.
CunningLinguist

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#67 Aug 30, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Ben, here's the basic problem with your approach: the title of your thread promises the ultimate evidence of God, but you then present a variation of the same old argument that God must exist unless atheists can prove he doesn't.
Physicists have determined that the universe came to its present state from a massively rapid expansion from a single, very small mass of something--I'm not sure if they've figured out just what. They don't claim to know how that state came to be. One possibility is that the energy/mass of the universe has always existed in one form or another and that the BB marks the beginning of one of many cycles, each many billions of years in duration to whatever extent our concept of time is applicable. But it is unreasonable to insist that skeptics fill that gap with speculations or assumptions about supernatural beings or events. It's so much better to admit that we don't know and to devise ways of finding out.
Our species has figured out an amazing amount of stuff in a very short time, and we may have millions of years to investigate what we don't know. There will be false starts, investigations that lead nowhere, even fraudulent "findings" just as there have been in the past, but ultimately, all that can be discovered within the lifespan of our species will come to light.
But insisting that those who disagree with your beliefs either explain their disbelief to your satisfaction or accept your views is amazingly clueless no matter how logical you believe your argument to be,
A better approach, easy answer has been provided, by one of our foremost astrophysicists.

This short (4 mins) title presents a far clearer and easy for the layman to grasp...

The title alone will offend some, but the content is provocative, replete with graphs and information well beyond the reach of many of us.

I am proud to present:

Stupid design... By Neil DeGrasse Tyson

https://m.youtube.com/watch...

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."
~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Comments anyone?
CunningLinguist

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#68 Aug 30, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
I sometimes behave like a coward, because it was the way I was brought up.
Instead of admitting I am a creationist liar, I would rather spam you some badly written religious news / failed poetry.
Really?

Patrick vs Patrick clone?
Shameful!:-(
You degrade yourself by doing this, misdirecting others, that wish to reply to our "premier coffee addict".

Why use a alias moniker, be honest.

I am certainly "no day at the beach" but I do not hide behind what I post, in fact, I invite argument.

Jus sayin...
Patrick

East Barnet, UK

#69 Aug 31, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem seems to arise from faith which can not be proved.
Is there a material world and a non material world?
Love, friendship, beauty, kindness can not be proved..... do these exist?
Over good coffee with those we love and care about these issues may be discussed with no resolution except mutual respect !
Interlude in a coffee shop
To sip coffee with you,
Reading the newspaper,
Sitting close
Steam rises from my cup,
I relish this moment
Cherishing your smile,
Examine your face,
Lines, changes over the years
Still, I look in your eyes
And see the young man,
The hearth is still warm
And I’m thankful for that.
I used to be a Creationist but then I realised that the stupid things I write like this are worthless because I have no evidence of god.
Thinking

Sidmouth, UK

#70 Sep 1, 2014
My pub has to pay taxes, Ben's dodging them.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty good reason to go.
James

Kalamazoo, MI

#71 Sep 1, 2014
You should not kill.
You should not commit adultery.
You should not steal.
You should not lie.
religionislies

Hayes, UK

#73 Sep 3, 2014
James wrote:
You should not kill.
You should not commit adultery.
You should not steal.
You should not lie.
You should demand evidence from religious liars.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#74 Sep 8, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is fair, but to remove all doubt...
I have two simple, up front questions for you.
If you cannot answer these, ask your clergy for assistance.
Remember... they know the unknowable and can easily explain this.... right?
1) Provide evidence your God is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their God(s).
2) Provide evidence your holy book is true in a way religions other than yours cannot do with their holy book(s).
You are granted an eternity to answer!
Disclaimer: All spelling errors made by Siri are deliberately left in for my amusement, they are forgiven, will go to paradise and receive 72 dictionaries directly from: Lord Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc ious, the improbable.
----------

There is a small difference between me and all other theists to prove the existence of the Primal Cause; while they use the Bible, I use Logic and he Physics concept of Causality. If you discard it as I am sure you will, I expect the decency to provide an option.

Let me go through a syllogism which is the right method to figure the truth:
1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter and this is an observable fact.
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist and, this is a logical fact.
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist. It is only obvious that some thing that preceded the universe caused it to exist. There! The Primal Cause has been proved.

Again, and now, through the concept of Causality:
1. First premise: The universe cannot be composed of only caused elements.
2. Second premise: All caused things require a cause.
3. Resultant premise: The chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite according to premise one. Logically, the Primal Cause gave origin to the universe.

I bet you have never had "God" proved by using your own weapon.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#75 Sep 8, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
There is a small difference between me and all other theists to prove the existence of the Primal Cause; while they use the Bible, I use Logic and he Physics concept of Causality. If you discard it as I am sure you will, I expect the decency to provide an option.
Let me go through a syllogism which is the right method to figure the truth:
1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter and this is an observable fact.
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist and, this is a logical fact.
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist. It is only obvious that some thing that preceded the universe caused it to exist. There! The Primal Cause has been proved.
Again, and now, through the concept of Causality:
1. First premise: The universe cannot be composed of only caused elements.
2. Second premise: All caused things require a cause.
3. Resultant premise: The chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite according to premise one. Logically, the Primal Cause gave origin to the universe.
I bet you have never had "God" proved by using your own weapon.
At long last, you've posted something worthy of a response. The fatal flaw is in your resultant premise: it assumes an unstated premise (a logical faux-pas in itself) that the universe was ever nonexistent. But the Big Bang may well have been a transition from one state to another, not a true beginning. That the current state of astrophysics cannot currently show anything before the first billionth of a second after the BB doesn't remove that possibility. So the first two premises fail to show a primal cause as anything more than one possibility. It is just as likely--more likely in my view--that there is a preceding chain of cause and effects that may not be detectible from our time and place in this dimension.

Your resultant premise shown to be logically uncertain, your second three are premature. You have not proved God or anything like it.
religionislies

Hayes, UK

#76 Sep 9, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
There is a small difference between me and all other theists to prove the existence of the Primal Cause; while they use the Bible, I use Logic and he Physics concept of Causality. If you discard it as I am sure you will, I expect the decency to provide an option.
Let me go through a syllogism which is the right method to figure the truth:
1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter and this is an observable fact.
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist and, this is a logical fact.
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist. It is only obvious that some thing that preceded the universe caused it to exist. There! The Primal Cause has been proved.
Again, and now, through the concept of Causality:
1. First premise: The universe cannot be composed of only caused elements.
2. Second premise: All caused things require a cause.
3. Resultant premise: The chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite according to premise one. Logically, the Primal Cause gave origin to the universe.
I bet you have never had "God" proved by using your own weapon.
You're full of sh*t and have no evidence of god. Stop lying like an ignorant idiot.
Patrick

United States

#77 Sep 9, 2014
Thinking wrote:
My pub has to pay taxes, Ben's dodging them.
<quoted text>
Churches seem exempt in the US
-
Babies don't need a vacation, but I still see them at the beach... it pisses me off! I'll go over to a little baby and say 'What are you doing here? You haven't worked a day in your life!'
Steven Wright

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#78 Sep 9, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
At long last, you've posted something worthy of a response. The fatal flaw is in your resultant premise: it assumes an unstated premise (a logical faux-pas in itself) that the universe was ever nonexistent. But the Big Bang may well have been a transition from one state to another, not a true beginning. That the current state of astrophysics cannot currently show anything before the first billionth of a second after the BB doesn't remove that possibility. So the first two premises fail to show a primal cause as anything more than one possibility. It is just as likely--more likely in my view--that there is a preceding chain of cause and effects that may not be detectible from our time and place in this dimension.
Your resultant premise shown to be logically uncertain, your second three are premature. You have not proved God or anything like it.
---------

And the state the big bang was a transition from, what did cause it to exist? Don't forget the concept of Causality. And for your conclusion that I showed no evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause, I didn't expect any different.

Now, it is your turn to show you have been decent enough to prove an alternative: Did matter cause
itself to exist? Yes or no? As you have implied above, the big bang could be a transition from a state into another, not the cause of the universe. Since according to Logic a caused element requires a cause, what caused the universe to exist? You must come out with an answer to my questions to justify your conclusion that I have not proved the existence of the Primal Cause.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#79 Sep 9, 2014
religionislies wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of sh*t and have no evidence of god. Stop lying like an ignorant idiot.
---------

I hope a coordinator read this post of yours and act upon it. Only barbarians can post such words without any acquaintance with whom you choose to offend.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#80 Sep 9, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
And the state the big bang was a transition from, what did cause it to exist? Don't forget the concept of Causality. And for your conclusion that I showed no evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause, I didn't expect any different.
Now, it is your turn to show you have been decent enough to prove an alternative: Did matter cause
itself to exist? Yes or no? As you have implied above, the big bang could be a transition from a state into another, not the cause of the universe. Since according to Logic a caused element requires a cause, what caused the universe to exist? You must come out with an answer to my questions to justify your conclusion that I have not proved the existence of the Primal Cause.
Therein lies the essential difference between science and religion. In the one, it's perfectly acceptable to say, "we don't know yet, We may never know, but that won't stop us from working on it," while in the other, unanswered questions are an anathema and must be soothed with speculation masked as truth.

Your "concept of Causality," by the way, is not a scientific principle but a philosophical one. Indeed, you insistence on capitalizing the word suggests a religious aspect. It is an unproven premise and I don't accept it. Before you can base arguments on it, you must prove its universality.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#81 Sep 9, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Therein lies the essential difference between science and religion. In the one, it's perfectly acceptable to say, "we don't know yet, We may never know, but that won't stop us from working on it," while in the other, unanswered questions are an anathema and must be soothed with speculation masked as truth.
Your "concept of Causality," by the way, is not a scientific principle but a philosophical one. Indeed, you insistence on capitalizing the word suggests a religious aspect. It is an unproven premise and I don't accept it. Before you can base arguments on it, you must prove its universality.
---------

And there lies your mistake. I am not using religion to prove the existence of the Primal Cause but Physics and Logic. The problem is that you feel pushed against the wall and the only way out you can find is through denial. I am aware that you don't know any thing but one, that there is no chance for the Primal Cause to exist. Denial all the way through even that my research on the concept of Causality is not scientific. Evidence? You don't even have a scientific explanation for the concept of Causality. The only thing you guys know is how to deny any thing that concerns the Primal Cause without the least explanation why. You don't have to accept it but you don't need to deny it up-front. Give it the benefit of the doubt in terms of a place within the concept of probability.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#82 Sep 9, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
And there lies your mistake. I am not using religion to prove the existence of the Primal Cause but Physics and Logic. The problem is that you feel pushed against the wall and the only way out you can find is through denial. I am aware that you don't know any thing but one, that there is no chance for the Primal Cause to exist. Denial all the way through even that my research on the concept of Causality is not scientific. Evidence? You don't even have a scientific explanation for the concept of Causality. The only thing you guys know is how to deny any thing that concerns the Primal Cause without the least explanation why. You don't have to accept it but you don't need to deny it up-front. Give it the benefit of the doubt in terms of a place within the concept of probability.
I'm not aware that you've done any research--you certainly have not presented any. At any rate, if you don't realize that in both science and logic, no concept need be accepted as self-evident shows your unfamiliarity with the basic principles of both fields.

As for physics (not capitalized as it is not a holy grail), your statements about it also reflect a tendency to place the cart before the horse. "Using" science to support philosophical arguments that are outside the scope of science is inherently unscientific, especially when that science is twisted as far out of shape as your presentations are.

In science, you don't have to present new evidence in order to challenge assertions that are on shaky ground. You have obviously never attended a doctoral defense or seen one go awry. Having supported family and friends through that process, I have. Committee members don't have to go back to the lab to prove a candidate's research is faulty or incomplete. They only have to point out its flaws. The same applies when you claim to present ultimate, irrefutable evidence for the existence of God. Skeptics need not provide evidence for alternatives in order to refute your claims. We don't even have to poke holes in it, only point to the ones that you've left glaringly obvious.

As far as I can see, you've failed to present your "ultimate evidence," or, for that matter, any evidence at all. Until you do, I will continue to read without comment.
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#83 Sep 9, 2014
Religitards hate swearing more than child abuse. Why?
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
I hope a coordinator read this post of yours and act upon it. Only barbarians can post such words without any acquaintance with whom you choose to offend.
Patrick

United States

#84 Sep 9, 2014
"Religitards" a defensive term used by some atheists but Not most.

I went to a restaurant that serves 'breakfast at any time'. So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.
Steven Wright

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 16 min Eagle 12 2,401
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 23,198
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 232,852
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 5 hr Pahu 33
God' existence 5 hr Carchar king 63
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 5 hr Carchar king 138
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 12 hr Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web