• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

watsup said:
And yes, I am stupid, so someone please tell me how to break up a QUOTE so that I can respond to individual sections of it.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this, this is an example of what a reply of yours should look like, you manually isolate the things I said and put the quote begin and end tokens at either end:

watsup-fix.jpg
 
devildavid said:
And the irony really is that there is no difference between the two. You are describing two ways that the universe came from nothing. Only in the case of god does the word magically really apply, with god the source of the magic.
Click to expand...

And if indeed there's no difference between the two how can one claim that appeals to "God" is "magic" yet refuse to level the same claim against one's own proposal?

Answer: hypocrisy is an acceptable tactic for the atheist.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
And if indeed there's no difference between the two how can one claim that appeals to "God" is "magic" yet refuse to level the same claim against one's own proposal?

Answer: hypocrisy is an acceptable tactic for the atheist.
Click to expand...



Psychological projection.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
And if indeed there's no difference between the two how can one claim that appeals to "God" is "magic" yet refuse to level the same claim against one's own proposal?

Answer: hypocrisy is an acceptable tactic for the atheist.
Click to expand...

No, the atheist says nothing at all about how things came to be and is content to leave the question open rather than come up with a god performing magic. The main hypocrisy is from those who claim something can't come from nothing and then invent a god to perform that very trick. If the rule is that something can't come from nothing, why is is that positing a god changes that rule?
 
devildavid said:
No, the atheist says nothing at all about how things came to be and is content to leave the question open rather than come up with a god performing magic. The main hypocrisy is from those who claim something can't come from nothing and then invent a god to perform that very trick. If the rule is that something can't come from nothing, why is is that positing a god changes that rule?
Click to expand...

God is always conveniently exempt from the constraints of the syllogisms posited. Odd that...
 
What created their god? That is never addressed.
 
zyzygy said:
What created their god? That is never addressed.
Click to expand...

Defenders of religion have countered that the question is improper. We ask, "If all things have a creator, then who created God?" Actually, only created things have a creator, so it's improper to lump God with his creation. God has revealed himself to us in the Bible as having always existed.

A God that needs to be created is not God ...Gods are at its core, simply metaphors for that which is unknown ..pretending to know is a dangerous overconfidence that most religions embrace ..used to manipulate its gullible sheep often in destructive, non-productive ways. The Middle East is the perfect example of a backward looking people immersed in Islam.

Why does the bible makes reference to sheep no less than 220 times ..a few of the more notable passages that come to mind are the 23rd Psalm, Isa. 53:6 and John 10. The voice of the shepherd brings comfort and security to the follower, sheep get lost easily ..they tend to easily wander, Sheep were prized and a precious possession, Sheep can not get up on their own ..I could go on and on.

good-shepherd.jpg
 
On a planet in another galaxy thousands of light years from earth. Intelligent alien life somehow makes its way to our planet. They have no conception of a god creator as some of us do.

So the question becomes ..did Jesus die for Klingons too? So, the aliens who are much more advanced than us in the sciences, would they need to be corrected.

So, here's how the debate goes for me. If the whole of creation includes 125 billion galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars in each, as astronomers think, then what if some of these stars have planets with advanced civilizations, too? Why would Jesus Christ have come to Earth, of all the inhabited planets in the universe, to save Earthlings and abandon the rest of God's creatures?

The ethnocentrism of religion is so obvious as to make it laughable.

2.jpg
 
devildavid said:
And the irony really is that there is no difference between the two. You are describing two ways that the universe came from nothing. Only in the case of god does the word magically really apply, with god the source of the magic.
Click to expand...

You simply do not understand.
 
devildavid said:
No, the atheist says nothing at all about how things came to be and is content to leave the question open rather than come up with a god performing magic.
Click to expand...

How did you establish that all atheists behave that way?

devildavid said:
The main hypocrisy is from those who claim something can't come from nothing and then invent a god to perform that very trick. If the rule is that something can't come from nothing, why is is that positing a god changes that rule?
Click to expand...

Experience teaches that something cannot come from nothing, our conservation laws express that same fact.

So the universe cannot have come from nothing, yet the universe is here, therefore it came from something else - let's call that God because it's a pretty impressive feat to cause a universe, life, minds, love, hate, art, to exist.
 
NWO_Spook said:
God is always conveniently exempt from the constraints of the syllogisms posited. Odd that...
Click to expand...

God has to be exempt to satisfy the criteria we know are in effect (namely something cannot come from nothing so whatever God is it is not the same as nothing) this is trivial logic why are you fighting it?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
God has to be exempt to satisfy the criteria we know are in effect (namely something cannot come from nothing so whatever God is it is not the same as nothing) this is trivial logic why are you fighting it?
Click to expand...

God had to come from something or god came from nothing. So God must have a God (ad infinitum)
BTW not knowing what caused the universe does not mean someone is claiming it came from nothing that is a straw man that theists tend to make
 
Quag said:
God had to come from something or god came from nothing. So God must have a God (ad infinitum)
BTW not knowing what caused the universe does not mean someone is claiming it came from nothing that is a straw man that theists tend to make
Click to expand...


To make one's particular god exempt from the constraints of the syllogism requires special pleading, which renders the syllogism false.
 
Quag said:
God had to come from something or god came from nothing. So God must have a God (ad infinitum)
BTW not knowing what caused the universe does not mean someone is claiming it came from nothing that is a straw man that theists tend to make
Click to expand...

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book claiming it came from nothing, just sayin.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I am quite familiar with Krauss's position on this and although I have not read the book have read various excerpts and feel confident that the case he makes is logically unsound, I very much trust my own reasoning skills and have very high self confidence and always have.
Click to expand...

Sherlock Holmes said:
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book claiming it came from nothing, just sayin.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. You should try reading the book. Right in the beginning he qualifies that he doesn't mean 'nothing' in the way the philosophers think of 'nothing' but rather a very specific kind of something. The 'nothing' to which the title refers has to do with the question 'where did all the energy come from' and theories related to the idea that the total energy of the universe may be zero, when everything is accounted for.

So this is clear evidence that your pretending to know things you cannot be bothered to study has led you astray, and that your supreme confidence in your own reasoning is unjustified.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
God has to be exempt to satisfy the criteria we know are in effect (namely something cannot come from nothing so whatever God is it is not the same as nothing) this is trivial logic why are you fighting it?
Click to expand...

What makes god exempt other than claims that god actually exists and is also exempt? This is pretty much defining god to fit a conclusion. Of course god has to be exempt but so what? it takes no evidence or intellectual effort to make up a thing that is exempt from a rule that is applied to everything else. If you claim one thing is exempt, why can't other things be exempt? Because of a definition? I'll just make up my own definition and no one can show how mine is not correct.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
God has to be exempt to satisfy the criteria we know are in effect (namely something cannot come from nothing so whatever God is it is not the same as nothing) this is trivial logic why are you fighting it?
Click to expand...

I googled trivial logic and is says that it is also known as trivialism and that a trivialist believes that everything is true.
Yes, I agree. You are definitively using TRIVIAL logic .
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book claiming it came from nothing, just sayin.
Click to expand...

That doesnt make it sciences claim or atheists claim that would make it Lawrences claim, AFAIK he hasnt posted any such claim on this thread

Pease stop trying to debate people that arent here and try to debate those that are
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
How did you establish that all atheists behave that way?

Experience teaches that something cannot come from nothing, our conservation laws express that same fact.

So the universe cannot have come from nothing, yet the universe is here, therefore it came from something else - let's call that God because it's a pretty impressive feat to cause a universe, life, minds, love, hate, art, to exist.
Click to expand...

Lets call it god through our understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, this is where your argument breaks down into just another religion of which there have been thousands with thousands of gods. Your understanding of a god creator is mostly pacific to understanding the bible. Everything else is, the sciences, philosophy, etc. all colored/jaded by your belief through 2000 year old scriptures.

Something from nothing is possible if the universe is infinite and you don't know if it is or isn't. To claim otherwise is arrogant, self serving and reeks of supernatural religion.

If some sort of creator does exist you don't know what it is or isn't ..to pretend otherwise reveals an exaggerated sense of your importance in the face of what is not known. Its why I turned away from religion.
 
DarthPedant said:
No, he didn't. You should try reading the book. Right in the beginning he qualifies that he doesn't mean 'nothing' in the way the philosophers think of 'nothing' but rather a very specific kind of something. The 'nothing' to which the title refers has to do with the question 'where did all the energy come from' and theories related to the idea that the total energy of the universe may be zero, when everything is accounted for.

So this is clear evidence that your pretending to know things you cannot be bothered to study has led you astray, and that your supreme confidence in your own reasoning is unjustified.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Krauss has nothing of value, the title of his book is either deliberately misleading or simply disingenuous "A universe from nothing, why there is something rather than nothing".

Furthermore I'm sure the book does contain some valuable insights into theoretical physics and I know Krauss has a doctorate and knows far more than I but I turn to books by different writers when I want to learn more theoretical physics, for example Roger Penrose's The Road To Reality and any number of other helpful books.

No, Krauss can be dismissed on the basis of what he says:

“Some people get upset that we change the meaning of ‘nothing,’” he told us in his Ingenious interview, when we asked if he was avoiding the question, “but we changed the meaning of light when we realized it was made of photons. I mean, it really is what learning is all about.” The old definition of “nothing”—Krauss called it “that from which only God can create something”—was never much of a definition to go on, anyway. It was once the conventional wisdom that that sort of nothing surrounded our galaxy, before we knew there were others out there, he said. Yet “that kind of nothing creates something all the time, because elementary particles pop in and out of that kind of nothing all the time—they’re called virtual particles.”
Click to expand...

Why does he take so long to simply say regions we previously thought were inert vacuums are now seen to contain energy? No need to change the meaning of fundamental words, no need for long waffly paragraphs, it really is a lot of fuss and hype over - dare I say - nothing.
 
devildavid said:
What makes god exempt other than claims that god actually exists and is also exempt?
Click to expand...

Because God is not material, is not a manifestation of mathematical laws.

devildavid said:
This is pretty much defining god to fit a conclusion. Of course god has to be exempt but so what? it takes no evidence or intellectual effort to make up a thing that is exempt from a rule that is applied to everything else.
Click to expand...

I did not "make up" a thing Dave, I inferred it from the evidence I see.

devildavid said:
If you claim one thing is exempt, why can't other things be exempt? Because of a definition?
Click to expand...

I never said other things could not be exempt, you also appear to have lost the context of the discussion.

God is "exempt" in the sense that God doesn't need to have a causal explanation it is the cause for the universe but is not itself a consequence of some prior cause.

This is the only way out of the paradox, the universe exists, it seems to have started to exist around 13.7 billion years ago, it has a finite age and it cannot have caused itself.

devildavid said:
WhatI'll just make up my own definition and no one can show how mine is not correct.
Click to expand...

Your confusing me with Krauss who made up his own new definition of "nothing".
 
gboisjo said:
Lets call it god through our understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, this is where your argument breaks down into just another religion of which there have been thousands with thousands of gods. Your understanding of a god creator is mostly pacific to understanding the bible. Everything else is, the sciences, philosophy, etc. all colored/jaded by your belief through 2000 year old scriptures.
Click to expand...

This is a strawman, my argument make no reference any scriptures.

gboisjo said:
Something from nothing is possible if the universe is infinite and you don't know if it is or isn't. To claim otherwise is arrogant, self serving and reeks of supernatural religion.
Click to expand...

It began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, the universe is finite (mass of around 1 x 10^60 Kg) this is what we see, this is evidence.

gboisjo said:
If some sort of creator does exist you don't know what it is or isn't ..to pretend otherwise reveals an exaggerated sense of your importance in the face of what is not known. Its why I turned away from religion.
Click to expand...

I can infer that it is not material, does not adhere to laws of nature else it would just be the universe in some other form the very thing we see to explain, the universe, cannot be the reason we have a universe, laws of nature cannot be the reason we have laws of nature.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
The majority of those who contributed to the renaissance, enlightenment and science over the past 500 years held a belief in God and found no conflict between that belief and their studies of the world around them. Some rightly saw that the structure and order seen around them were clear evidence that a creative agency existed.

Finally as I recently showed here "atheist" means "one who asserts there is no God", militant atheists want to label themselves as atheist when in reality they are simply agnostic - they do not know because they haven't encountered convincing evidence - nothing remarkable whatsoever about that position, if God did not exist there'd be no atheists, it is an intellectual dead end, a made up position that flies in the face of reason.
Click to expand...

You have used the term militant atheist a number of times. You have called Krauss a militant atheist a few times.
What defines a “militant atheist”? Please expand.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
If it means anything at all here, I studied physics and in particular general relativity which is the bedrock now of cosmology.

I am more than aware of the issues involved here and I'm well aware of the absurd popularity of the "something from nothing" which people like Krauss have popularized.

I consider myself intelligent and competent enough to disagree with Krauss and I am far from alone, there are many noted professional theoretical physicists and mathematicians too who share my opinions, here's just one:



One reason Krauss espouses this view is I suspect because of his miltant atheism not scientific rigour.
Click to expand...

Way to condemn a speculation as a speculation. That takes some insight. He's a physicist AND a "creative" philosopher as this particular musing of his demonstrates to all and sundry. This isn't science its science based philosophy that prompts way more questions than it has answers for, like any good intellectual contortion.

i'm actually surprised given your science education that this obvious distinction eludes you. It is sorta one of those 101 this is science topics afterall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom