That's not the attitude of an honest thinker either. Everything that exists is God, therefore you cannot live without God, but if you disagree, you're not being honest with yourself? Really?
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
That's not the attitude of an honest thinker either. Everything that exists is God, therefore you cannot live without God, but if you disagree, you're not being honest with yourself? Really?
Akka
Moody old mage.
Hu... It's not perfect ? By definition ?
Yes, its a technical issue, realy. Forget about religion dogma for the moment. Let say we have agreed to call sum of all existence the 'cbgt3-'. We dont know its precise nature yet but if I tell you you cant function outside/without the 'cbgt3-' are you going to call me a fool?
How can it be not perfect/ on what base? What are you comparing the world to claim itsnt perfect?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Well let's check some of it's claims then. We see every creature after it's own kind. That is what we see today, any change we see is butterfly into butterfly and so on. We certainly haven't seen evolution happening that we need for it to be true.
If you believe the big bang then there are so many just so stories about it, especially when inflation happens. An event that starts suddenly and ends suddenly with no explanation as to how it started and stopped an yet while it happens all laws of physics are broken. It is just nonsense and much of what we observe today cannot be properly explained by the big bang.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Slightly incorrect, everything has to be tested before it can be accepted.
So say "Everyone is a part of the universe". Why drag Gods into this?
You certainly keep repeating this for some reason, even though it's not true.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Addressing the magic aspect first. Is that not the outcome of interpretation? Every fact does not have to be explained away by magic, especially if it can be reasoned out logically. Another irrational point, is the fact the your offspring can be rational, and other parents offspring cannot be. Brainwashing is too general of a concept, and may not be a thing at all. It would mean that a lot of humans are incapable of thinking on their own. That may be, but it could also indicate a fear of what would happen if they did and not an inability to do so.
Calling a time period day and night is not determined by a single solar system. If that were the case calling the universe billions of years old, cannot be based on the same solar system. We use the term day and night based on the rotation of the earth, not merely that fact that it causes the sun to seem to appear and disappear. We have a rotating planet, but really do not need to have light from the sun to determine how fast it is rotating. There was still darkness for a time period, until the sun and moon were actually involved in provided the light we see during the day and night. It is not magic. It is an assumption on the individual interpreting without all the facts. Is it magic, that we get a 14 billion "year" light cone, even though there was no light being produced for thousands of years of darkness while matter was allegedly coalescing into stars and galaxies?
I may be wrong, but the arguments still seem to be based on the notion the story is not based in reality, by using literal facts we experience today. It is also irrational to liken it to stories based on myth that have clearly evolved into magic today. Yes, there are creation accounts that have evolved into a magical hardly comprehensable telling. It is obvious that even the Genesis account can produce different interpretations, including being explained away as "just magic".
Actually, that's exactly what it means. If you were standing on a comet outside the solar system, all you would see is night.
That simply does not follow. (For one, the age of the universe is not based on the age of our star, but the other way around.)
I suggest you check Theory of Evolution on the net. This was debunked in the 1860s already. But here's a simple example from daily life: you eat cereals? Did you know those grains can't be found in the wild? They were genetically modified by man. That wouldn't be possible without the basic principle of mutation. Same with dogs. They were bred by humans from (most likely) grey wolves. That is, all/I] of the current dog 'races', from chihuahua to Great Dane. And both of these examples are just from a 10,000 year time period.
So, if you say 'let's check', be a man of your word and do so.
The Big Bang is actually still happening. In fact, the universe is expanding at an exponential rate. The 'noise' from the original explosion can be seen on any TV which is not set to a channel: that white noise is residual from the original Big Bang. all other explanations for it have been eliminated. What is nonsense (both logically and scientifically) is your personal interpretation of the Big Bang.
In short, scientific theories, such as gravity, evolution and the Big Bang, aren't 'just theories'. They are scientific theories, which, to all intents and purposes, means they are solid fact. Quite unlike Genesis, which is indeed 'a theory' and, as theories go, not a very good one.
I'm inclined to refer to what I said above. Moses (if he was a historical person, which is far from being certain, to put it mildly) did not write Genesis. In fact, Genesis doesn't have a single author. as already mentioned, Genesis contains two creation stories, which differ slightly.
See also Sommwerswerd's reply.
Classy my response to this is exactly what you already quoted.
First of all, this is changing the subject. Arguing that the big bang is wrong doesn't remotely prove Genesis right. The rightness/wrongness of the big bang is as irrelevant to the rightness/wrongness of the Genesis creation story, as the rightness/wrongness of the theory of gravity is to the rightness/wrongness of Santa delivering all the presents in one night.
Second, if we are operating in the world of Biblical metaphor, which all fundamentalists must do to reconcile the Bible as absolute infallible truth... and if I were talking about the big bang to a fundamentalist for example, (which I have done in the past) I would often say that maybe the sentence... "God said 'Let there be Light' and there was light" ... refers specifically to the big bang (metaphorically of course).
Like this:
"Let there be Light!"
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Hardly everything.
Accepting without testing is called faith. Happens all the time. Accepting with testing requires faith that it is a valid test. It requires faith in the tester and the communication. Faith is more common than knowledge.
J
It's then meaningless. Everything that exists is part of the universe, therefore the universe is part of your life. What's the point of even saying something that is so hopelessly broad?
What is the difference?
Becouse its understood to be representation of either wider existence or an existence which is not yet manifested, representation of all possibilities or common base for all existence. There is no reason to suppose we have arrieved at either physical or psychological limits of this expanding universe or what exist either beyond or in paralel with it. It makes sense to bring God into the picture becouse of thousands of years of social and intelectual development in religion, philosophy etc.
Its not only broad but challenging and thats why its an opposite of meaningless. Its challenging our limitations. Its difficult to grasp all the connotations but existence of religion is part of that.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Let me rephrase:
Everything has to be tested before it can be accepted as fact.
I don't really understand the question, to be honest. Isn't the difference clear? In your example everything is accepted as fact until it is tested and possibly rejected. In my example nothing is accepted as fast until it is tested and possibly accepted. Two completely different approaches, but seem similar due to similar wording.
I'm sorry, but it really is not. When you say that everything is part of the universe, including us, that's an utterly banal (and generally unarguable) thing to say. If you then go on to claim that that means that God (without specifying which one or anything useful like that) is part of everything and thus atheists are being dishonest to disagree with you, then you're not challenging anyone so much as being thoroughly disingenuous.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
People are rejecting the "non manifest" stuff that has no testable consequences.
Nobody is disputing the existence of the universe in this thread, but they are disputing the utility in setting god = universe + "some other stuff that is only that way because I say so but we can't see it".
To be fair, it's hard for humans to manage scope insensitivity, even at WAY SMALLER values than what we're talking about with the big bang. That's not something where people can readily put an accurate image in their minds. Without resisting the incredulity fallacy a person could easily fall to rejecting its apparent absurdity on the same grounds as mythology.
To build on this, there is no rational way to conclude the existence of things beyond what we can observe in the universe merely by attempting to replace one word for "universe" with another.
At the end of the day, the evidence is identical and you can make up whatever pretend stories you want for things "beyond the universe" with no demonstrable difference on the outcome on reality.
Maybe the troglodyte is part of everything too.
This seems to be quite clearly mental-psychological issue which isnt entirely surprising. When I say you cant live without the universe
most sane people arnt going to give it second thought becouse the universe is something neutral to them or something they can do nearly nothing about. When I say everybody depends on God it becomes a challenging issue for most because the implication of a conscious will outside of ones ego or some larger social ego or general human existence. But regardless of what term you use the fact is we are all of the time in a drag of some larger forces beyond our control.
I think one of the main points here to understand is that whatever makes us disconfortable is as much part of our existence as anything else be it religious
dogma or some will outside ours. Religion simply tries to deal with it in specific way. But the problem stands and has to be solved. Why does it even bother us what others believe or not? Why does it makes us disconfortbale? I think it reflects something in our psychology and some may see that spirituality offers an answer to the issue.
You cannot really call them 'the Books of Moses' as if they are actually attributable to Moses. The versions we have were edited and compiled long after the Israelites had forgotten their own history. To assume they preserved authoritative writings from before then just isn't feasible.
The compilers of the Pentateuch both thought that the Exodus happened at scale AND thought the Israelites conquered Canaan as foreign invaders. Not just as associated texts (like the book of Joshua), but literally within the texts themselves (the book of Exodus).
I can understand looking for wheat in the chaff when it comes to the Pentateuch. But it's easy to give it waaaaay more authority than it deserves.
The compilers of the Pentateuch both thought that the Exodus happened at scale AND thought the Israelites conquered Canaan as foreign invaders. Not just as associated texts (like the book of Joshua), but literally within the texts themselves (the book of Exodus).
I can understand looking for wheat in the chaff when it comes to the Pentateuch. But it's easy to give it waaaaay more authority than it deserves.
What I mean is that everything has to be dealt with as a possibility (not a fact) before its tested and rejected (or accepted).
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Again, no. More things are accepted on faith then are accepted as proven. All are accepted as fact.
Not even that. Tests must be tested. Testers must be tested. At some point you must accept without proof.
J
Similar threads
