[QUOTE=zakedodead;41976067]YEAH DISCUSSING THINGS ON FORUMS IS BAD[/QUOTE]
so no than yes?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976156]I don't ascribe by the cosmological argument because smart people have said it's valid, I believe because I've seen its premise and have found no better response to it. The fact that some very intelligent people also ascribe by it simply helps support that belief and anyone who claims that it deserves no attention is essentially saying the same about these extremely intelligent people's conclusions. I can see where you thought I was claiming that the individuals themselves validated the cosmological argument, but I was simply showing that it's not just a sort of out-there theory.
The fact that everything came from complete void has religious implications alone. Claiming that matter, space, time and energy appeared out of it through to certain observed laws of the universe doesn't really discredit the cosmological argument because it claims that the universe came to existence through certain laws within the universe and I think it's clear how that can't be the case. Naturalism simply can't come up with an answer for how everything truly came from nothing.[/QUOTE]
yes, so god did it
such a lazy and useless line of thinking
no of course we can't figure out the cause of things or fully understand things, so lets not bother then and just say what we want to, god did it
[QUOTE=Riller;41976093]Discussing atheism vs religion is stupid since you're not gonna sway anyone's opinion on it. In cases of current events, a particular article or piece of information might convince a person to the contrary of what they thought, but this debate is just stupid and worn out so bad, it's holes got holes in them.[/QUOTE]
So there can be pages and pages of feminazi vs mra, pages and pages of conservative vs poor, but the minute religion is mentioned it becomes pointless?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976177]yes, so god did it
such a lazy and useless line of thinking
no of course we can't figure out the cause of things or fully understand things, so lets not bother then and just say what we want to, god did it[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying stop looking into how God did it, I'm saying claiming he didn't is far from absolute fact. Besides, using your line of thinking, isn't claiming that random chance and time did it just as lazy and useless?(that's not to say I personally think it is) This isn't about what's "lazy" or "useless" but about what the truth is.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;41976274]So there can be pages and pages of feminazi vs mra, pages and pages of conservative vs poor, but the minute religion is mentioned it becomes pointless?[/QUOTE]
Actually, they're all pointless.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976317]I'm not saying stop looking into how God did it, I'm saying claiming he didn't is far from absolute fact. Besides, using your line of thinking, isn't claiming that random chance and time did it just as lazy and useless?(that's not to say I personally think it is) This isn't about what's "lazy" or "useless" but about what the truth is.[/QUOTE]
wait trying to find an explination for thing as I said is using "chance and randomness" is lazy? The fuck are you talking about.
So what proof do you have that god is factually involved in the creation and maintence of our universe? None. I'm not able to say "He did" or "he didn't". In fact, it's a question of so little importance that wondering if God made us or not is irrelevant. There's NO reason to believe he has anything to do with anything. I lack proof of him. I will by default, take the normal position, there is no god in an absence of his evidence.
Can we just laugh at the joke posted and move on? We got a debate section for a reason.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;41976328]Actually, they're all pointless.[/QUOTE]
forums themselves might just be better not existing.
we just shouldn't talk or post about anything really
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;41976328]Actually, they're all pointless.[/QUOTE]
When was the last time an SH thread got more than three pages without being fueled by idiots?
Because I can't think of one.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;41976356]Can we just laugh at the joke posted and move on? We got a debate section for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Every section is a debate section son
[QUOTE=zakedodead;41976274]So there can be pages and pages of feminazi vs mra, pages and pages of conservative vs poor, but the minute religion is mentioned it becomes pointless?[/QUOTE]
Well the difference is that one thing are views on culture and social mechanics, rooted in ideas concerning the supposed betterment of society.
And the other is a semi-rigid ruleset usually derived from bronze-age myths and fables.
I love how any topic involving words like "religion" immediately turn into an argument over it instead of the original discussion.
The Facepunch Theory of Derailment.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;41976400]I love how any topic involving words like "religion" immediately turn into an argument over it instead of the original discussion.
The Facepunch Theory of Derailment.[/QUOTE]
if you think this is unique to FP, you've not been around the internet enough
that is every thread ever made.
There wouldnt be half as many posts if not for all of the even bigger tools who pile in to post about the futility of posting.
I don't need no phony god's radio. All I need is my fedora and my euphoria.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;41976356]Can we just laugh at the joke posted and move on? We got a debate section for a reason.[/QUOTE]
a forum is for discussions
discussions are pretty much arguments unless you want a discussion where no one disagrees or has anything to say that hasn't already been said
why are you on a forum if you don't want to read posts, read discussions, etc. that's what a forum is for. it's in the word.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976452]a forum is for discussions
discussions are pretty much arguments unless you want a discussion where no one disagrees or has anything to say that hasn't already been said
why are you on a forum if you don't want to read posts, read discussions, etc. that's what a forum is for. it's in the word.[/QUOTE]
If debate and discussion are the same thing, why is there another section for it?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976351]wait trying to find an explination for thing as I said is using "chance and randomness" is lazy? The fuck are you talking about.[/QUOTE]
I'm pointing out that holding to a naturalistic position is equally lazy and useless using your logic on people who believe God to be the creator. Holding to the view that God made the universe doesn't magically bar you from exploring how it works or how he did it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976351]So what proof do you have that god is factually involved in the creation and maintence of our universe? None. I'm not able to say "He did" or "he didn't". In fact, it's a question of so little importance that wondering if God made us or not is irrelevant. There's NO reason to believe he has anything to do with anything. I lack proof of him. I will by default, take the normal position, there is no god in an absence of his evidence.[/QUOTE]
Consider the laws that govern the universe, they don't change, they simply are. We have an existence governed by laws that are simply taken for granted, even though any slight changes in these vital physical laws would cause all out chaos. That fact alone is amazing to fathom, then there's the miracle of life and its mysterious origins. These are two big factors that support my belief in God in terms of scientific observation. Of course there's no evidence to prove his existence without a doubt, but there's no evidence to prove anything without a doubt apart from the fact that I personally can think and exist.
In any case, the origin of the universe is a extremely important. Whatever the answer is, it has powerful implications about our perspective on reality as a whole. Also you can't just say that there is no God if there is no evidence(an inaccurate statement regardless), you also have to prove that there is nothing but the physical world around us and frankly the attempts that have been made to do so have proven fruitless. For instance, the naturalistic origins of life and the universe have been unable to display arguments that don't just put another stage between the untouched origin and the present state.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;41976509]If debate and discussion are the same thing, why is there another section for it?[/QUOTE]
so you're saying that a thread is posted in ITN, what can be discussed in that thread? It can't turn into a debate because it's not in a debate thread, so should everyone walk in and post the same thing to remove the aspect of debate you're so annoyed with?
[QUOTE=Primigenes;41976607]See man, now people are gonna call you a dick. Brought it upon urself[/QUOTE]
i was going to but i got lazy
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976552]I'm pointing out that holding to a naturalistic position is equally lazy and useless using your logic on people who believe God to be the creator. Holding to the view that God made the universe doesn't magically bar you from exploring how it works or how he did it.[/quote]
No, believing God did it doesn't bar you from it. It however is different from coming up with explanations. Discovering "how god did it" is not discovering how the universe works. It's ascribing how the universe works to your explanation.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976552]
Consider the laws that govern the universe, they don't change, they simply are. We have an existence governed by laws that are simply taken for granted, even though any slight changes in these vital physical laws would cause all out chaos. That fact alone is amazing to fathom, then there's the miracle of life and its mysterious origins. These are two big factors that support my belief in God in terms of scientific observation. Of course there's no evidence to prove his existence without a doubt, but there's no evidence to prove anything without a doubt apart from the fact that I personally can think and exist.[/quote]
The laws weren't always like this. The universe wasn't always like this. Yes, two great things that are improbable exist. That's proof of god? No, you're right, why not get all Descartes up in this bitch, you're unable to prove anything at all besides that you can doubt. What's your point. This isn't an argument or anything that furthers the discussion.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976552]
In any case, the origin of the universe is a extremely important. Whatever the answer is, it has powerful implications about our perspective on reality as a whole. Also you can't just say that there is no God if there is no evidence(an inaccurate statement regardless), you also have to prove that there is nothing but the physical world around us and frankly the attempts that have been made to do so have proven fruitless. For instance, the naturalistic origins of life and the universe have been unable to display arguments that don't just put another stage between the untouched origin and the present state.[/QUOTE]
If there is no evidence of god, and you hadn't told me god existed, would I naturally assume, "well life is here, someone must have created it"? Maybe. Would I not then have to ask the EXACT same question "well life is here, someone must have created it, but who created that" and I get into a loop that lacks logic.
So i'll take the default principle that until I can see evidence of something, I have no reason to believe it did anything.
Also, if you want to talk about the soul, there's proof there's no such thing as a soul and it's really clear cut. It's so clear cut the discussion has been over for years.
The argument that since existence coming from nothing doesn't make sense, there must be a god behind it is nonsense, because it does nothing to answer the question and just adds a pointless step in the equation. Something must have created that god, and saying that he's exempt from causality is begging the question.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;41976800]The argument that since existence coming from nothing doesn't make sense, there must be a god behind it is nonsense, because it does nothing to answer the question and just adds a pointless step in the equation. Something must have created that god, and saying that he's exempt from causality is begging the question.[/QUOTE]
i never understood it
it's a totally illogical solution to the problem
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976662]No, believing God did it doesn't bar you from it. It however is different from coming up with explanations. Discovering "how god did it" is not discovering how the universe works. It's ascribing how the universe works to your explanation.
The laws weren't always like this. The universe wasn't always like this. Yes, two great things that are improbable exist. That's proof of god? No, you're right, why not get all Descartes up in this bitch, you're unable to prove anything at all besides that you can doubt. What's your point. This isn't an argument or anything that furthers the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Believing that that there is no God and viewing scientific evidence in that context is also ascribing ho the universe works to your explanation. Also, what laws have changed? is there astronomical evidence for these changes? In any case there are many physical laws that have remained the same and obviously any changes in them have allowed us to survive. My ultimate point with what I said though is that naturalism is not the conclusion of viewing the universe from a strict existentialist perspective. Strict existentialism leads to the singular conclusion that I exist and I can think.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976662]If there is no evidence of god, and you hadn't told me god existed, would I naturally assume, "well life is here, someone must have created it"? Maybe. Would I not then have to ask the EXACT same question "well life is here, someone must have created it, but who created that" and I get into a loop that lacks logic.
So i'll take the default principle that until I can see evidence of something, I have no reason to believe it did anything.[/QUOTE]
That's the wonderful thing about theism(or at least some forms of theism) as it proposes an intelligent entity that transcends time and space. So an infinite entity that does not have a beginning or an end, so searching for such an entities origins is useless because it has none.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976662]So i'll take the default principle that until I can see evidence of something, I have no reason to believe it did anything.[/QUOTE]
I cannot say that this is a bad position, in fact I would dissuade people from relying on anything other than it. Of course I don't expect my 2 points of evidence above to convince you that God exists, I'm just stating that there is in fact evidence, contrary to your previous statements. Those aren't the only 2 pieces of evidence, but they are the easier to summarize and display.
There is nothing special about how the laws of the Universe support life, because if they didn't support life, there'd be nobody around to think about it.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976825]Believing that that there is no God and viewing scientific evidence in that context is also ascribing ho the universe works to your explanation. Also, what laws have changed? is there astronomical evidence for these changes? In any case there are many physical laws that have remained the same and obviously any changes in them have allowed us to survive. My ultimate point with what I said though is that naturalism is not the conclusion of viewing the universe from a strict existentialist perspective. Strict existentialism leads to the singular conclusion that I exist and I can think.[/QUOTE]
When the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, the laws of the universe were not set, they were fluid and they changed and eventually settled. They've not always been the same as they are today. Yes, there's evidence in these changes. You act like me NOT seeing God where there is no place for him in an equation is forcing God out of things or being specifically hostile to theism. It isn't. There's just NO room for him when you're forcing him in there and telling me he belongs.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976825]
That's the wonderful thing about theism(or at least some forms of theism) as it proposes an intelligent entity that transcends time and space. So an infinite entity that does not have a beginning or an end, so searching for such an entities origins is useless because it has none.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, no. I'm 100% against that because it doesn't answer anything and only leaves me with more questions. I have NO reason to believe that this is the case because nothing in life follows that cause. I'm not ascribing things to my beliefs, as I've already stated, I can't say God doesn't exist. I just don't see a reason for him where you're pointing because there's no evidence where you're pointing, just you claiming evidence.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41976825]
I cannot say that this is a bad position, in fact I would dissuade people from relying on anything other than it. Of course I don't expect my 2 points of evidence above to convince you that God exists, I'm just stating that there is in fact evidence, contrary to your previous statements. Those aren't the only 2 pieces of evidence, but they are the easier to summarize and display.
[/QUOTE]
So what is your without a doubt true evidence you keep toting around? The existence of life and the existence of the universe in a Goldilocks zone? Anthropological principle, minor, if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to ask that question. It had to be that way.
This is actually clever and seems like an ad my church would put out. Much better then someone just painting a massive cock on it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976886]When the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, the laws of the universe were not set, they were fluid and they changed and eventually settled. They've not always been the same as they are today. Yes, there's evidence in these changes.[/QUOTE]
I've honestly never heard of this, the big bang theory itself relies on the assumption that the physical laws are set in stone. I also have never heard of scientific observations that have been contradictory to the laws of the universe.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976886]You act like me NOT seeing God where there is no place for him in an equation is forcing God out of things or being specifically hostile to theism. It isn't. There's just NO room for him when you're forcing him in there and telling me he belongs.[/QUOTE]
You're saying there's no room for him in the naturalistic interpretation of scientific fact, which would be accurate, yes. You still haven't really given any rationality behind a naturalistic interpretation though, apart form the fact that you personally have not seen good enough evidence for God.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976886]Honestly, no. I'm 100% against that because it doesn't answer anything and only leaves me with more questions. I have NO reason to believe that this is the case because nothing in life follows that cause. I'm not ascribing things to my beliefs, as I've already stated, I can't say God doesn't exist. I just don't see a reason for him where you're pointing because there's no evidence where you're pointing, just you claiming evidence.[/QUOTE]
So, you fail to take that statement as reasonable because you can't compare something that transcends the universe to something within it...
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41976886]So what is your without a doubt true evidence you keep toting around? The existence of life and the existence of the universe in a Goldilocks zone? Anthropological principle, minor, if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to ask that question. It had to be that way.[/QUOTE]
I've been stating all along precisely that there is not "without a doubt true evidence" for anything. That's the entire reason why I stated that a strict evidentialist perspective doesn't really lead you to much of a conclusion at all. Instead we must find evidence to support different positions, if you try and prove anything without a shadow of a doubt you fail 99.9% of the time to do so.
As for the statement that without the facilities to support intelligent life, there would be nothing to observe said facilities, that honestly doesn't discredit what I've been saying in the slightest. You would need evidence for a sort of mechanism that produces infinite universes randomly for that statement to have any affect on the proposed existence of God.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;41977159]I've honestly never heard of this, the big bang theory itself relies on the assumption that the physical laws are set in stone. I also have never heard of scientific observations that have been contradictory to the laws of the universe.[/quote]
So you're saying that the Universe when it's condensed down to less than the size of an atom had the same physical laws that we see today? No scientist who studies the big bang or the universe believes this.
[QUOTE]You're saying there's no room for him in the naturalistic interpretation of scientific fact, which would be accurate, yes. You still haven't really given any rationality behind a naturalistic interpretation though apart, form the fact that you personally have not seen good enough evidence for God.[/QUOTE]
I haven't given a reason? Yes I have. It's simpler. It's cleaner. It's easier. If you have no reason to believe something, why should you?
[QUOTE]So, you fail to take that statement as reasonable because you can't compare something that transcends the universe to something within it...[/QUOTE]
No. I fail to agree that a being like that is the simpler, or even, the likely answer for things. If such a being exists, surely there would be some evidence of it in our current lives, no? What is this? The sheer existence of the universe is not proof when the sheer existence of it doesn't lend itself to needing an all powerful super being.
[QUOTE]I've been stating all along precisely that there is not "without a doubt true evidence" for anything. That's the entire reason why I stated that a strict evidentialist perspective doesn't really lead you to much of a conclusion at all. Instead we must find evidence to support different positions, if you try and prove anything without a shadow of a doubt you fail 99.9% of the time to do so.[/QUOTE]
If you go into an experiment or a thought experiment and you expect to get a result, and you're aiming to get a result, you're more than likely going to get that result. Building ideas off the evidence is better than building ideas into the evidence as you're saying. We can understand the universe in complex and sophisticated ways. We already do. We're only going to learn more. Philosophy on these subjects is VASTLY important to our future. That isn't the same as saying "well we're trying to prove god is real, here's proof we found".
[QUOTE]As for the statement that without the facilities to support intelligent life, there would be nothing to observe said facilities, that honestly doesn't discredit what I've been saying in the slightest. You would need evidence for a sort of mechanism that produces infinite universes randomly for that statement to have any affect on the proposed existence of God.[/QUOTE]
We exist. We exist in a world that allows us to exist because that the only way we can exist. Your statement doesn't have any credit to it as it is.
[QUOTE=acds;41974665]Man I feel euphoric reading that. Bet the guy who did it is a true Sir with a classy fedora.[/QUOTE]
This just in! If you make a harmless, legitimately funny and not antagonistic joke on a Christian billboard you're automatically a stereotypically awkward teenager with bad taste in hats
and, as we've all learned from the brilliant posters in SH, wearing fedoras literally makes you a bad person
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.