Hello friends, I would like to apologize to everyone. I now realize how wrong and ignorant I was.
I have found the missing piece, the unchallenged proof that god exists. For all the times when I bashed god, I now realize I might end up in hell because I'm such a bad person.
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Please show me how.
show you how what?
That I am 8 or 7 years old, if anyone it's you with such behaviour. Not debating properly.
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Please show me how.
show you how what?
That I am 8 or 7 years old, if anyone it's you with such behaviour. Not debating properly.
debate what?i cant ignore it any longer dude lol have you heard the way you talk?Its like you are an anoying 7 year old,ignorant and naive that knows nothing and asking stupid questions like "why cant i go with that weird old man he told me he will give me candy"..you are just too stupid and you cant be saved,sorry.(not trying to insult you its just the truth)
Because God is in a way testing you. These kids can still get to Heaven. If people don't help those kids, God knows who He may punish. Some people got lucky, like me. But this means I should also help others.
So what you're saying is that god tested these two ones with poison gas, and they didn't pass the test. So god is a murderer, and you worship and defend him. Once again you sink yourself into stupid irrationality, defeating yourself without me having to even lift a finger. Way to go, you fucking retard.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Worst
Book
Ever
Your logic is that Pope = God.
i made my decision.you cant be that retarded as you seem,or you wouldnt be able to operate a computer.you are fuckin 7 or 8 years old.Go back to your room and play with your toys now,internet is for grownups.
Please show me how.
show you how what?
That I am 8 or 7 years old, if anyone it's you with such behaviour. Not debating properly.
debate what?i cant ignore it any longer dude lol have you heard the way you talk?Its like you are an anoying 7 year old,ignorant and naive that knows nothing and asking stupid questions like "why cant i go with that weird old man he told me he will give me candy"..you are just too stupid and you cant be saved,sorry.(not trying to insult you its just the truth)
Wow. Wow just wow. After I told you to tell me how I am a young kid you go on insulting me. And how can you prove what you said is the truth?
Moses: i bring you the ten commandments from God ...you shall not kill!!!!
.
.
.
God: go to the land of palestine and kill the people there to take over their land ...
God: oh yea also kill with stones etc. everyone who defies my commands
Hello friends, I would like to apologize to everyone. I now realize how wrong and ignorant I was.
I have found the missing piece, the unchallenged proof that god exists. For all the times when I bashed god, I now realize I might end up in hell because I'm such a bad person.
The analogy is flawed.
I am not aware of even the most fervent fan of Spider Man claiming that Spider Man exists.
I am not aware of any Christian or Muslim who claims that God's existence is Bible-or-Qur'an dependent.
I am certain that Spider Man would not exist without the comic-book.
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
....I suck at debating, so you won, but i still hold tight on my belief.
Why do you hold to your belief then?
It wouldn't be much of a *belief* if it couldn't survive without *proof* now would it?
It would be a *fact*.
You don't have to. The burden of proof is on those who claim the opposite. I can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I don't think about it either, or obsessively bring it up in everyday conversation. If I did, that would be considered insane.
Just because you keep saying that doesn't mean it is true. In an argument, the person making the claim has the responsibility for providing justification for their claim.
On at least a daily basis, you make the claim 'God doesn't Exist'.
I've only ever seen you ever provide justification twice (though maybe there are more attempts).
The first was the time-worn 'Problem of Evil' - and you messed that argument up.
The second is the flawed analogy. Spider man is in a book. Spider man is fictional. Allah is in a book. Therefore Allah must also be fictional.
Normally i wouldn't take part in discussions like this. But now i just want to post a quote from one of my hero's Sam Harris. Read it and think about it
"Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture a Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004, that killed a quarter of a million people. One of those, every ten days, killing children only under five. That's 24,000 children a day, a thousand an hour, 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence, some few children, very likely, will have died in terror and agony. Think of the parents of these children. Think of the fact that most of these men and women believe in God, and are praying at this moment for their children to be spared. And their prayers will not be answered. Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way, and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them, or doesn't care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil.
And worse than that, many of these people certainly, will be going to Hell because they're praying to the wrong God. Just think about that. Ok, through no fault of their own, they were born into the wrong culture, where they got the wrong theology, and they missed the revelation. There are 1.2 billion people in India at this moment. Most of them are Hindus, most of them therefore are polytheists. No matter how good these people are, they are doomed. If you are praying to the Monkey God Hanuman, you are doomed. You'll be tortured in Hell for eternity. Now, is there the slightest evidence for this? No. It just says so in Mark 9, and Matthew 13, and Revelation 14.
So God created the cultural isolation of the Hindus. He engineered the circumstance of their deaths in ignorance of revelation, and then he created the penalty for this ignorance, which is an eternity of conscious torment in fire. On the other hand, a serial killer in America, who spent his life raping and torturing children, need only come to God, come to Jesus, on Death Row, and after a final meal of fried chicken, he's going to spend an eternity in Heaven after death. One thing should be crystal clear to you: This vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability."
[..]
"Now, I'm obviously not saying that all religious people, are psychopaths and psychotics, but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic.
And I'm not the first person to notice that it's a a very strange sort of loving God who would make salvation depend on believing in him on bad evidence. If you lived 2,000 years ago, there was evidence galore, he was just performing miracles. But apparently, he got tired of being so helpful. And so now, we all inherit this very heavy burden of the doctrine's implausibility. And the effort to square it with what we now know about the cosmos and what we know about the all-too-human origins of Scripture becomes more and more difficult.
We come from people who used to bury children under the foundations of new buildings as offerings to their imaginary gods. There, in vast numbers of societies, people would bury children in postholes, thinking that this would prevent an invisible being from knocking down their buildings. These are the sorts of people who wrote the Bible. If there is a less morale framework than this, I haven't heard of it."
The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Salvation are almost singular philosophical problems for Christianity and Islam, because of the claimed omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent nature of God.
Mr. Harris has certainly demonstrated that *human beings* are immoral, but hasn't done a whit to argue against the existence of Krishna or Buddah, or the hundreds of other faiths that human beings worldwide happen to hold.
Finally, if miracles actually did occur, these were never proof of the existence of God. Did the Egyptians in Moses' time worship Moses' God when they witnessed his God's wrath? Did most Romans or Jews around the Sea of Galilee move to Jesus' teachings? No, clearly.
*Proof* is incontrovertible.
*Evidence* will only sway the mind open to it, and rational arguments are weaker yet, as they require a rational audience who is also open-minded. Mr. Harris has done nothing to argue against the existence of gods, and almost nothing to change anyone's mind about the existence of the God of Abraham.
That's only fair, and no criticism of Sam Harris, because *the argument that Harris* is trying to make isn't about the existence of God, per se, but against the necessity of God as the foundation of morality - as he's a hero of yours, I'm sure you're aware of this, but I don't think too many other people who read your post are.
Вчитување...
Вчитување...
Black Shark Корисникот е избришан
05.04.2014 - 02:19
Black Shark Корисникот е избришан
Wait, so I read about Galileo in a book. D-does that mean he's f-fake? Oh God no...
Hahah, good one :P Wait, did you write that, or did you copy/paste it from somewhere? Fine I'll play along
You have 5 paragraphs, so you will get as many in return, in the same order.
We don't know if earth is the only one supporting life. But let's assume it is. The universe is hostile to survival, you would die in 99.9% of the places in this cold, black void. Therefore in this case life on this planet would merely be an accident. Trial and error, billions of years of evolution. Amazing indeed, but obviously nothing designed by "someone". But fine, once again let's assume it is. If that were the case, I would describe that someone as a cruel, evil, bloodthirsty lunatic who doesn't give a fuck about anything whatsoever.
In the beginning there was Adam and Eve. Nobody else around. The only two humans to ever exist untill that point. Well then, who the hell was there to watch all that apple stuff and write the book while it was happening? "Unleashed, ur so stupd, their kids wrote it after their parents told them the story and it was passed on". Well then, if it was passed on how are you so gullible as to beleive it, anyone could add to that story whatever they pleased, LOL.
Human is able to govern himself, it's been happening for millenia, for more actually.
Wtf u talking about evolution is not a thing duh thats like saying u believe in gravity ;^)
N_N
I think its been clearly demonstrated that Unleashed *believes* in evolution, just doesn't *understand* what it is.
Thankfully, the existence of *evolution* isn't reliant on Unleashed's understanding.
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
So, if I go out on the streets with a sign that says "I hate black people" all white people hate black people?
And YOU'RE the one making fun of people's logic. LOL
It's not the same thing. Because I don't also carry a book around with me which says "Kill the non-believers"
Being a muslim means that you abide by the ALL the rules and teachings of the Quran. That includes killing the "non-believers". If you don't then automatically you're not a muslim, you're just a pretender. Speaking of which, isn't that what you religious people really are?
Taken from the Quran:
"Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing
[4:89]"so take no friends from unbelievers until they flee submit to Islam. But if they turn renegades, seize them and KILL them wherever ye find them"
So, to conclude, if someone is a muslim, then he's automatically a criminal. You try to sound superior but you're stupid as fuck.
Also, I'll try to stay out of the thread as much as possible and let other people discuss. I have developed a very low tolerance for stupidity and will most likely insult someone. Enjoy.
To deviate from a prescribed code of conduct no more makes one an unbeliever then to deviate from a nation's laws makes one less of a patriot. In the case of Islam and Christianity, the deviation is called *sin*. In the case of law, it is called *crime*.
That being said, you've definitely quoted the verses out of context (again) and clearly have little knowledge of the subject (again). That's poor logic (again). I suppose this would be a daily affirmation of your stupidity, ignorance and intolerance.
The 'sword' verses are to be understood in context with the admonitions to choose peace over war, and never to attack another except in self-defense. Islamic legal tradition is highly decentralized - there is no single authority to provide interpretation, with more validity, than any other (no 'Pope', no 'Supreme Court'), to all Muslims.
Example:
- In liberal democracies it is well understood that people have a right to 'free speech' - it is usually the right granted the most legal protections, short of life.
- This right is *not* unrestricted: There are higher laws that one owes obedience to.
- - You may not slander or defame.
- - You may not give false testimony.
- - You may not share certain national secrets.
- - You may not incite to riot or disturb the peace.
- - (in most) You may not engage in hate speech.
- - Certain professions curtail that person's speech in regards to their clients (attorneys, doctors, priests) or in regards to proprietary information (bankers, stock traders).
- - (in America) You are permitted to say spiteful and untrue things about my wife, and I am permitted to punch you in the nose, so long as it is done in the heat of the moment (fighting words)
Saying that muslims have a duty to kill unbelievers because of the verses above is like saying that Germans have a right to lie under oath because they have a a right to free speech. Not only is it wrong, it is idiotic.
There is proof that it was Egyptian workers who built the pramids there are thousnds of workers tombs around the pyramids and they kno they were workers because of the paintings on the walls infact there is soild proof that there was a whole Egyptian city built around the pyramids for the gyptian workers and if there was jews there there would be some evidence and in none of the Egyptians well documented history does it a that jews were a big slave population and wth your comments on Nazism and the jewish genocides I do belive that jews have been percicueted for mny year and in no ay do I deny the holocaust never happened or the other horrible things that have happened to the jewish people im just stating that there is no evidence that the mass exudos ever happened and your talking about ow wstern scientist could be saying this because of a secret agenda I ask you this couldent Israel scientist r Russian/ Chinese scientist have a secret agenda aswell the point is there is no soid PROOF that jews wereused as a massive slave population at this time the only people who say that there was are Christian and jewish scientist when mostly al othe scientist simple state there is not one real soild proof that the jews built the pyramids or that they were mass slaves to the Egyptians no proof and if you can find a reliable scientist that has no religious agenda that says otherwise pls end me link to his/her article
Completely agree.
Before Moses left Egypt, not one Jewish person helped build the Pyramids, nor was their one Jewish person enslaved. Not one Jewish person left Egypt with Moses, and when Moses left Egypt he wasn't a Jewish person.
There were no Jews until Moses came down from a mountain in the Sinai with 613 commandments.
Wait, so I read about Galileo in a book. D-does that mean he's f-fake? Oh God no...
Safaria was right, I really have to put you on ignore, because your stupidity evokes some violent responses in me. I actually feel sorry for you and wish I could help, but it's all in vain. Peace and have a nice life
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
Wait, so I read about Galileo in a book. D-does that mean he's f-fake? Oh God no...
Safaria was right, I really have to put you on ignore, because your stupidity evokes some violent responses in me. I actually feel sorry for you and wish I could help, but it's all in vain. Peace and have a nice life
You have to be a troll or one of the most stupid people I have ever met. What I was saying was just like those pics you posted. I was showing how stupid your logic is, and you refuse to believe you are like that.
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
You can't simply take the "belief in a god" and create an analogy with the love of a mother. And since your argument is founded on that premise, most of your intervention is off-topic and irrelevant.
But I think I understand the message of your intervention. If I understand you correctly, your "love cannot be measured and is thus nonexistent" premise, corresponds to the objective-objective effect vs objectivity and subjectivity.
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
However, if we hypothetically detach ourselves from everything we think we know, for instance, if we were able to view the entire universe from an omnipresent perspective, that same example (big bang being more objective than creationism) would be false because both are technically not measurable if we were to consider the "big picture".
So, to juxtapose this example with your intervention, from an objective-objective perspective you're saying love is non-existent due to too many uncertainties as is my original premise of "because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Am I understanding correctly? You're saying it is illogical to consider believing in nothing more logical than to believe in a god? If so you are right in that sense, but I already knew that. I was basing my knowledge on objective terms in correspondence to our physical world, not the objective-objective sense, or the "completely objective" sense, if you wanna call it that.
Which actually means my first premise: "belief-without-proof is illogical" is correct in your terms. So... either you're contradicting or you you were simply summarizing.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Let's correct that a little bit shall we? Stop telling other people what to apply or when.
You do not apply reason or logic to religious faith. There can be two reasons for that.
a) You're afraid of the possibility of eternal hell
b) You're an idiot.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Let's correct that a little bit shall we? Stop telling other people what to apply or when.
You do not apply reason or logic to religious faith. There can be two reasons for that.
a) You're afraid of the possibility of eternal hell
b) You're an idiot.
- Tophat didn't write that. I did.
- Are you alleging that a mother's love can be seen through an electron microscope? Show me.
- Perhaps you are alleging that mothers can condemn souls?
- Can you show me where I ever ever ever make a claim to being religious?
- Perhaps you are unaware of the philosophical difference between science and metaphysics?
- Maybe you don't know what the difference between science and metaphysics is?
I will concede: If I am an idiot, how incredibly moronic are you?
I belive in God. All of this, the universe and beyond, needs a start. In my religion, God created all of this. As well, you might wonder:
"And, how did God get created? God needs a start....."
In my religion, God existed at all times. God existed all the time, from the start of the universe, before, and after.
What start? Your belief is illogical. Why must there be a start? We simply don't know what created us, or if there is a god, or if there ever was a start. We can't even define what "nothing" is. You're simply substituting what you don't know with god. And hear me out, I'm not insulting here, but I would like to hear your thoughts further because your belief is illogical. Now before you go against me, understand that when I say "illogical" it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means of course that you have no concrete proofs of the existence of god, or your god I should say.
Now, it is undoubtedly faith am I correct? You have faith that god exists because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right? I'm assuming you grew up in a religious environment correct? Meaning either your parents passed it on to you, or you live in area where religion is prominent. Are you open to accept that you may be incorrect? That other's with other religions might be more correct, or that others with no religious beliefs might be correct? Sorry for the questions, but I need to situate where you're at so that I can either learn from you, disprove you or direct you.
That's an uncharitable approach, and poor reasoning.
- On the left hand: You allow that belief-without-proof is illogical.
- On the right hand: You force a false choice, as if there were only two options - "... because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Using the same reasoning, I would contend that your mother never loved you, if she even exists, but you're free to think so, but it is illogical. (Obviously this is a thought experiment: I am sure your mother is a kind, decent woman who loves you very much)
The woman you think is your mother is not your mother.
- Who gave birth to you?
- How do you know?
- Is it possible that you're wrong?
- How do you know the genetic test that I'm sure you're going to cite isn't faked? Or that the woman claiming to be your mother isn't your sister, or your aunt, assuming you perform the genetic test yourself in your *secret laboratory*
If she is your mother, she never loved you.
- Can you give proof of this love, or only evidence?
- Is it that she protected and nurtured you? Even some fish care for their young. Is that love?
- Did she sacrifice herself for you? A mother-cat will die to protect her kittens, but is that love?
- There is no such thing as love. We cannot measure it, and no machine can detect it. It doesn't exist, because it is *illogical*. Animals have instincts, humans have choice.
One does not apply reason or logic to religious faith anymore than one uses an electron microscope to see a mother's love for her son. It isn't the right tool for the job.
Shaking one person's faith does no more to disprove the existence of supernatural forces than Einstein's being wrong about quantum indeterminacy discredits the entire realm of physics.
You can't simply take the "belief in a god" and create an analogy with the love of a mother. And since your argument is founded on that premise, most of your intervention is off-topic and irrelevant.
But I think I understand the message of your intervention. If I understand you correctly, your "love cannot be measured and is thus nonexistent" premise, corresponds to the objective-objective effect vs objectivity and subjectivity.
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
However, if we hypothetically detach ourselves from everything we think we know, for instance, if we were able to view the entire universe from an omnipresent perspective, that same example (big bang being more objective than creationism) would be false because both are technically not measurable if we were to consider the "big picture".
So, to juxtapose this example with your intervention, from an objective-objective perspective you're saying love is non-existent due to too many uncertainties as is my original premise of "because it is more reasonable to believe in his existence and so forth than to believe in nothing right?"
Am I understanding correctly? You're saying it is illogical to consider believing in nothing more logical than to believe in a god? If so you are right in that sense, but I already knew that. I was basing my knowledge on objective terms in correspondence to our physical world, not the objective-objective sense, or the "completely objective" sense, if you wanna call it that.
Which actually means my first premise: "belief-without-proof is illogical" is correct in your terms. So... either you're contradicting or you you were simply summarizing.
In the first paragraph of your superficially-well-ordered reply, you tell me of a rule-of-debate that I wasn't aware of ('thou cannot create this analogy'), falsely characterize my argument ('your argument is based only on this'), then dismiss the argument as 'off topic and irrelevant' based on the rule-of-debate-that-doesn't-exist and poor characterization of my response.
In the next paragraph, you then affirm a part of my analogy, and go on to demonstrate *exactly* how it my analogy is at least as topical and relevant as many others.
I don't accuse you of poor sportsmanship, I attribute your lack of rhetorical rigor to passion, unrestrained by reason. I will be mindful of the intellectual disadvantage this places you in, and attempt to apply rhetorical charity in my defense.
Regarding your assertion of objectivity and evidence, and the creation of the universe.
Quote:
Let's take the example of creationism vs the Big Bang. Objectively, there is more evidence that the Big Bang created the universe than a God. Objectively that is. Now, objective in this example means objective in correspondence to OUR physical world as we see it and seemingly understand it.
1. *I do not agree* that there is more objective evidence that the Big Bang (BB) created the universe than a god/gods.
Applying charity, I think it is probably valid to say that *scientists* agree that BB was necessary to explain *the expansion of the universe* and the *conditions for the current state of the universe*, based on the evidence available to them. BB is a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation for the creation of the universe. Science is *not objective*. The scientific method *strives* for objectivity, but *science* is populated by humans.
2. I do not believe that god/gods are a *scientifically* satisfying answer to the creation of the universe, either. I am simply saying that science provides *no better of a scientific answer as to the creation of the universe*, than a superstitious origin.
As to the rest of your argument, it is built on false premises. It may be *true* (I don't believe it is) but it isn't *valid*. Being charitable (as I believe you *intended to be* with me, before your emotion took hold) I would say that my Mom argument is manifold.
- It would be a fair statement to say that I believe that it is about as logical to believe in a mother's love as it is to believe that supernatural forces created the universe.
- It is also a fair statement to say that I characterize human belief without proof as neither illogical or logical.
I believe in many scientific theories that are ultimately beyond my capability, or science's, to prove.
- It is also a fair statement that I say the truth value of a statement is independent of its logical validity.
Example 1: Just because Unleashed cannot structure an argument to *save his life* doesn't mean what he says is *untrue*.
Example 2: Unleashed states a belief in *evolution*, but has demonstrated ignorance of key aspects of it. This doesn't mean that natural selection as a mechanism to drive speciesization is *untrue*
Example 3: I accept that light cannot exceed C, and in a vacuum, C is constant. I cannot prove the first assertion experimentally, and the second assertion is only falsifiable experimentally (it is true until it is proven false). The arguments for C's boundary conditions lie not in experimental falsification, but in the application of C to other equations explaining the universe - some of which I do not know, and many of which I readily concede *I may never understand*
Is my belief illogical?
- Metaphysical speculation (Love, God, What 'started' the big bang) is not necessarily inconsistent with the scientific method. When the two overlap its asshats and opinions (Sam Miller fans are free to disagree, but then should read on to the details below). BB does not explain the creation of the universe, in that it is not a *sufficient* explanation. What 'caused' the BB? Children, Xeno, and I all would ask 'what came before' and leave the conversation unsatisfied.
God's existence is not a special case claim of fact. This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the questions of Love.
- The Nature of Evidence is ultimately based on faith, anyway. The nature of proof is not, but the ultimate expression of proof (deductive reasoning) has been repeatedly demonstrated to be founded on indemonstrable axioms (Godel et. al). This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the nature of evidence.
- I generally trust scientists. That's a personal choice. There are plenty of reasons not to. I cannot ever make a fully informed choice, because I cannot have all of science in my head at once. I *can* look for logical inconsistencies, but peer review should have removed these.
A perfect example: If I traveled back in time to debate with Newton, I could *know* that Newton was wrong about the universe, but I wouldn't have the ability to *demonstrate* it to him, because the experiments required to demonstrate the non-euclidean nature of spacetime required technology outside of Newton's time. I would be *right* but my argument would be *scientifically invalid*.
Ultimately, trust in scientists is a resort to argument from authority. I will never have the religious training of a rabbi or a mullah, and I will never have the scientific training of a cosmologist or chemist. Both domains of human knowledge ultimately rest on tautological, self-referential, recursive axioms.
Each is a cult.
This aligns with the Mom Conjecture on the issue of Argument From Authority.
<<< More Detail >>>
On Scientists And Truth
I believe the scientists are *sincere* in their belief, and since scientists are the community who get to decide what is and is not a scientific theory, their consensus is that BB is the theory most consistent with the evidence they have.
I am also painfully aware that this same 'community' *also* gets to determine who is, and isn't, a scientist, and who is, and isn't credible. This is the same community that said Newton was right, then Einstein was right and Newton was 'simplistic', then Einstein was 'deterministic' and Heisenberg et. al. were right. I *do trust* the scientific method and scientific *honesty* but that's a personal choice, because I value reason, and so do they. Scientists do not work in the realm of Truth, only in the realm of Theory. No one person is compelled to feel the same way that I do about scientists, as a class, or science, as a discipline. There are plenty of examples of science and scientists that I *do not trust* (e.g. Eugenics).
Finally, though I can be relatively familiar with physics and cosmology, at some point in a discussion with a professional scientists, the math or physics will be beyond my current capability to comprehend. If I were to dedicate my life to studying cosmology to the 'Hawking' level, and be sufficiently knowledgeable about cosmology, then, I'd still have to trust 'economists' or 'chemists' in their assertions.
[To save you time typing, there is a difference between science and technology]
Ultimately, who is to say that the Cult of Science provides more meaning than the Cult of Superstition?
On BB and The Creation of the Universe
The BB is a *necessary but not sufficient* explanation of the creation of the universe. It was the 'second step'. What caused the BB to occur? Largely cosmologists will tell us 'we don't know' - questions of 'before' have no meaning because spacetime had no form before the BB. Some cosmophilosophers will provide *conjectures*, often contradictory, which always-always lead precocious children, Xeno, and rational people who aren't cosmophilosophers to ask 'what, before then, then'?
On the 'Usefulness' of Science
Science only provides questions and theories. Technology provides things. The Internal Combustion Engine was built applying Newtonian principles. Newton was wrong; but under local boundary conditions, was 'right enough' to permit it's creation. Einstein was generally wrong about the deterministic nature of the universe, but was right enough to lead to the construction of atomic weapons.
The IC Engine is in use today, and, according to *scientists* is a likely threat to human civilization. Atomic weapons were used twice, and will hopefully never be used again, and are also a threat.
Technology didn't require science: Fire, the wheel etc. were trial-and-error refined. The scientific method provided a force multiplier on technological development but also deprecated the value of metaphysics to the human condition. The scientific method was 'useful' in that it wildly expanded technological development, and in the human economy, resources were allocated to science and away from metaphysical. How useful is the scientific method to humanity if it ultimately leads to human destruction?
