Proof of God

[Mangafranga]

I'm not at all sure how that obviates anything. Care to explain?I'll answer this by first showing how this progressed, to make sure we are on the same page. You summarised what BillyJoe said thusly. Proposition: things happen over time (change)
Premise: No time.
Conclusion: No change.Which you then translated thusly.
Let T = Time
Let C = Change

If T, then C
T.
Therefore C.But the actual form should be

If T, then C
~T
So, ~C

This form is the logical fallacy commonly referred to as denying the antecedent.

You originally said that BillyJoe may well be committing a logical fallacy. My point does not refute this. My main point is just to keep the translation consistent. Of course it also rebuts the claim that you have turned what he said into modus ponens.

[Belz...]

Faith is the proof of God.

Assuming it wasn't sarcastic (didn't read the link), if faith is proof, then everything is true. No exceptions.

[Hardenbergh]

Assuming it wasn't sarcastic (didn't read the link), if faith is proof, then everything is true. No exceptions.

No, it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I discovered the writings of George MacDonald through a Christian friend. I began by reading a biography titled, George MacDonald, Scotland's Beloved Storyteller by Michael Phillips.

I read the original version that was published in 1987.

http://www.amazon.com/George-Macdonald-Scotlands-Beloved-Storyteller/dp/1556614039/ref=sr_1_1/105-6990358-9479623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189187790&sr=8-1


Originally published in 1987, this revised and updated edition commemorates the 100th anniversary of MacDonald's death. It starts off slow because of the abundance of background information, but it's a great read for those who want to get to know a life that despite challenges and controversy was exceptionally noble.

http://www.amazon.com/George-MacDonald-Biography-Scotlands-Storyteller/dp/0764200348/ref=sr_1_3/105-6990358-9479623?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189187790&sr=8-3

Here's a brief description of all of George MacDonald's published works, some of which may be familiar to you.

“I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself.”
—C.S. Lewis, 1946

http://www.macdonaldphillips.com/bibliographygeorge.html

[Belz...]

I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself

It's hard to be closer or further away than anyone from something that doesn't exist.

[Hardenbergh]

It's hard to be closer or further away than anyone from something that doesn't exist.

Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.


Here are two articles from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.


Now obviously, just because the vast majority of people believe in God or a god of some kind, we cannot conclusively say that therefore, God exists. Near universal belief in God throughout known history is a significant argument, but it doesn't amount to proof. But are there not other signposts for belief in God?

In his classic novel Crime and Punishment, Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who rejects the existence of God. This young man murders an old woman. Believing there is no righteous God who will judge, and therefore no absolute standard of right and wrong, he knows that he should not feel guilty. However, he is consumed with a sense of guilt until he confesses his crime and hands his life over to the God he once rejected.

http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=1275

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3

[Foster Zygote]

Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.
And?

Now obviously, just because the vast majority of people believe in God or a god of some kind, we cannot conclusively say that therefore, God exists. Near universal belief in God throughout known history is a significant argument, but it doesn't amount to proof. But are there not other signposts for belief in God?

In his classic novel Crime and Punishment, Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who rejects the existence of God. This young man murders an old woman. Believing there is no righteous God who will judge, and therefore no absolute standard of right and wrong, he knows that he should not feel guilty. However, he is consumed with a sense of guilt until he confesses his crime and hands his life over to the God he once rejected.
You'll have to do better than presenting a fictional example as evidence. I reject the idea of god and I feel that this does not in any way justify the taking of an innocent life. Quite the contrary in fact. My conclusion that this life is all anyone gets leads me to view it as that much more precious. I know many other atheists who would agree with me. I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear that your god would punish you.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4
This is a fine example of quote mining. It still may be the case that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
This entire argument is false. What the atheist says is not "If one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist". The atheists says "If one has no evidence for the existence of gods then one is not obliged to believe that gods exist". Atheists don't claim to know gods do not exist. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and that therefor there is no rational reason to assume that they exist.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
So you are agnostic about the existence of every mythological and fictional being ever conceived of by human imagination? This argument seems to assert that belief in a deity is just as erroneous as non belief. This argument assumes that there are only three states:


+1. Certain belief in the existence of a god or gods.
0. Pure neutrality
-1. Certain belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods.

But the reality is that someone can be +.95 just as easily as -.95. So the statement "Given the lack of evidence for the existence of gods I will provisionally disbelieve in their existence until such time as evidence may be presented" is rational. If you still don't think so then perhaps you should replace the word "gods" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "leprechaun".

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.
Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods? This assertion is made but not supported. What "strong evidence" of the nonexistence of these things do we have that does not apply to gods. And I mean all gods. If you mean to defend the existence of the Christian god then you are going to have to convince me that the Aten, Hanuman or Huitzilipotchli are not equally as likely.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found the "Paul Copan - "The Presumptuousness of Atheism" arguments to be poor as well. 'Rule rigging' is the woo position on why they cannot prove their claims with scientific inquiry. Failing to see or believe what I believe (My God belief is real and your Tooth Fairy belief isn't) is not a valid argument either. It isn't even an argument, it's a leap of faith. Foster Z addresses the problems with Copan quite well.

[BillyJoe]

Foster Zygote,

What is the real reason then?
(for your line drawing)


This entire argument is false. What the atheist says is not "If one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist". The atheists says "If one has no evidence for the existence of gods then one is not obliged to believe that gods exist". Atheists don't claim to know gods do not exist. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of gods and that therefor there is no rational reason to assume that they exist.


But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.)

Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods? This assertion is made but not supported. What "strong evidence" of the nonexistence of these things do we have that does not apply to gods. And I mean all gods. If you mean to defend the existence of the Christian god then you are going to have to convince me that the Aten, Hanuman or Huitzilipotchli are not equally as likely.


What about belief in the deistic god and belief in the tooth faerie?
Are they equivalent in your opinion?

[BillyJoe]

Hardenburgh,

Nice to see you again :)



First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.



If, for God, you susbstitute deistic god; and if you ackowledge that there are degrees of agnosticism/atheism (the more fantastic the claim and the longer you look without any evidence being forthcoming, the less likely something is to be true), I would agree with the above.

It is actually a very good summary of this thread from page 14.
(where it changed from "Proof of God" to "Disproof of god")

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.)Speak for yourself, it's what I mean.

...What about belief in the deistic god and belief in the tooth faerie?
Are they equivalent in your opinion?They are in my opinion. So you think Zeus beliefs and deistic gods are equal? Of course they are. To say, well gee, all the god myths and religious texts are less than credible, but I just can't let go of that god concept so I'll just invent one and make it conform to the laws of physics or something like that is silly in my opinion.

Where is there a single bit of evidence (aka a reason) to add this deity to one's conceptualization of the Universe?

[Mobyseven]

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

For Shiva's sake BillyJoe, why can't you just freaking let this go?

Your opinion here is inconsistent with how language functions to let people communicate clearly. You don't think that atheists should say, "There is no god," because we cannot claim omniscient knowledge of the universe. However, that would have to apply to every negated existential statement - you cannot hold god to a different standard, because to do so assumes that god is somehow more important, which in turn assumes that god exists!

This means that we could no longer say, "There is no bigfoot." "There is no Santa Claus." Hell, if you were out of tea and a guest asked you for some, you would not be able to say, "We have no tea." You'd have to say, "Based on the lack of evidence for the presence of tea in this house, I have provisionally concluded that there is no tea here."

You wish to couch the high-probability (99+%, less than 100%) non-existance of god in such unnatural language as, "Given the current state of evidence it seems that there is no god, though the state of evidence could change in the future." Why? To make your opinion sound more scientific? Or is it just that you are so afraid of being wrong that you shy away from definite statements of any type?

Either way, you should bloody well man up and accept that this is the way that the English language is used, and that your opinion means very, very little in the wide ocean of common understanding.

[Robin]

Robin,

Dear friend. :D


Firstly, I see you have made no further comment about that quote, so I take it that that is as close as I'm going to get to an apology. :)
Which quote? I lose track with the blow-for-blow and try to concentrate the argument on the important stuff. But I will certainly give an apology if one is due.

Secondly, I do not have "hissy fits". You would be surprised ar how calmly and good naturedly I repond to the posts in this thread. But, in reference to that so called "hissy fit", you will have to link to it because I can't think of a single reason why I would have denied that "began to exist" is the same as "came into existence". They very obviously mean the same thing.
Go back, then and read your reply - it does not come across as calm and you appear to be rejecting my words as misrepresenting yours.
Thirdly, universe as I have used it here is interchangeable with "multiverse", "bubble universe", or "everything that has ever existed". This is why "something from something else" is out of the range of my question about origins. Remember that I have been talking about ultimate questions. If this universe is not all there is, then we can use one of the other terms.
Let me consider this a while then, I am also reading up on some comments about time by RandFan and l0rca.
BTW, do you ascribe to circular time as a solution to our little problem.
No - in I still stick to the "something that did not begin to exist" and that this is not necessarily the same as "time without beginning", but again, let me reformulate in light of a couple of things.

[RandFan]

If T, then C
~T
So, ~C

This form is the logical fallacy commonly referred to as denying the antecedent.

You originally said that BillyJoe may well be committing a logical fallacy. My point does not refute this. My main point is just to keep the translation consistent. Of course it also rebuts the claim that you have turned what he said into modus ponens.
Thank you very much. Yes. You are correct on all counts.

I really should have spoted it. Damn logic. :o

[BillyJoe]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.


This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~Q

If, and only if, Time, then Change.
~ Time
Therefore, ~ Change

So simple!


regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Let me consider this a while then, I am also reading up on some comments about time by RandFan and l0rca.

No - in I still stick to the "something that did not begin to exist" and that this is not necessarily the same as "time without beginning", but again, let me reformulate in light of a couple of things.


I will wait. :)

[BillyJoe]

But that does not seem to stop many atheists saying: "There is no god".
(Especially, when you get right down to it, that is not actually what they mean.) Speak for yourself, it's what I mean.


Yeah, I know, "Burden of Proof"!
Or are you Dawkins' category #7?


They are in my opinion. So you think Zeus beliefs and deistic gods are equal? Of course they are. To say, well gee, all the god myths and religious texts are less than credible, but I just can't let go of that god concept so I'll just invent one and make it conform to the laws of physics or something like that is silly in my opinion.



But, if it conforms to the laws of physics, it is not disproven.
And until the laws of physics expands to include the question of origins....

Where is there a single bit of evidence (aka a reason) to add this deity to one's conceptualization of the Universe?



As far as I know, there is none.
But the deistic god is not disproven either, hence it's Dawkins' category #6 for me, not #7.

[BillyJoe]

Skeptigirl,


For Shiva's sake BillyJoe, why can't you just freaking let this go?

Your opinion here is inconsistent with how language functions to let people communicate clearly. You don't think that atheists should say, "There is no god," because we cannot claim omniscient knowledge of the universe. However, that would have to apply to every negated existential statement - you cannot hold god to a different standard, because to do so assumes that god is somehow more important, which in turn assumes that god exists!

This means that we could no longer say, "There is no bigfoot." "There is no Santa Claus." Hell, if you were out of tea and a guest asked you for some, you would not be able to say, "We have no tea." You'd have to say, "Based on the lack of evidence for the presence of tea in this house, I have provisionally concluded that there is no tea here."

You wish to couch the high-probability (99+%, less than 100%) non-existance of god in such unnatural language as, "Given the current state of evidence it seems that there is no god, though the state of evidence could change in the future." Why? To make your opinion sound more scientific? Or is it just that you are so afraid of being wrong that you shy away from definite statements of any type?

Either way, you should bloody well man up and accept that this is the way that the English language is used, and that your opinion means very, very little in the wide ocean of common understanding.


See what I mean. :D

[Mangafranga]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.Randfan was translating what you said. I was keeping his translation consistent. I don't really care to defend Randfan's original translation from what you said to his paraphrase. I'll leave that part to him, that is if he considers it worth doing.This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~QMTT is of the form

If P then Q,
~Q,
So ~P

(p.77, Rudiments of Logic, Myro, Bedau & Monroe)

Yes, (P iff Q, ~P, So ~Q) is a valid argument, but it isn't MTT (with some natural deduction you could extract an MTT form, but the biconditional form still isn't MTT). So this objection falls flat.

If you wish to claim that what you said, in the post Randfan was translating, contained a biconditional, go ahead. But to make this objection I contend that you actually have to show us the working that gets you the biconditional. And again, this part (from you to Randfan) wasn't my concern. My concern was to keep the translation consistent (namely to correct the clear blunder which forgot to keep the negations).

[RandFan]

Randfan & Mangafranga.


Seems you are now both in agreement.
Which is a pity because now you are both wrong.
This is inexcusable because we have already covered this topic.


This is not "Denying the Antecedent", which is a logical fallacy.
It is "Modus Tollens", which is actually a valid argument.


"Modus Tollens" is of the following form:

If, and only if, P, then Q.
~P.
Therefore, ~Q

If, and only if, Time, then Change.
~ Time
Therefore, ~ Change

So simple!


regards,
BillyJoeSorry Billy, I've got to go with manga on this one. That's not Modus Tollens and it is a fallacy (please note: the conclusion, as it relates to the equation is trivially true but can't be derived from Modus Tollens).

My point was that it was wrong to claim that there was no logic to your statement. FWIW, I don't have a dog in this hunt. However, the statement, "if there is no time there is no change", is both logical and true.

[Mangafranga]

Sorry Billy, I've got to go with manga on this one. That's not Modus Tollens and it is a fallacy (please note: the conclusion, as it relates to the equation is trivially true but can't be derived from Modus Tollens).I am not sure I understand this, are you saying that (P iff Q, ~P, so ~Q) is a fallacy?

[RandFan]

I am not sure I understand this, are you saying that (P iff Q, ~P, so ~Q) is a fallacy? Have you ever taken one of those formal logic tests on the net, you know the real hard ones? Damn, I feel that way today and this really isn't that hard.

No, I'm wrong. I'm typing and not paying attention to what I'm saying. This is what happens when you have been out of class for 20 years and haven't taken a refresher course in all of that time and yet think you are an expert.

I'm thoroughly embarrassed.

[Robin]

So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?

[Skeptic Ginger]

BillyJoe,

I have a particular atheist viewpoint. And I do not speak for all atheists. You are trying to use the rule in the scientific process which says you cannot prove a negative and apply it to god beliefs. I do not apply that rule to god beliefs. That is not the majority viewpoint, but that doesn't bother me.

God beliefs exist. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are inventions of humans. There is zero evidence god beliefs originated when humans had actual interactions with real gods.

Applying the rule you cannot prove the negative to something for which you have sufficient evidence to conclude the positive (gods were invented by humans) is not the appropriate application of that rule.

The rule that does apply is the rule of theories. Theories are not proved, they are operating conclusions. For all practical purposes, gods are human inventions. There is overwhelming evidence of that theory of god beliefs.

The rule about not proving the negative applies to things for which the questions are still open. You cannot prove there is no life in the Universe outside of the Earth. The rule applies because you cannot test for life in every corner of the Universe.

Do we talk of the theory of evolution and say you can't prove it is wrong? No, because if it were wrong, you could prove that. That is proving a negative isn't it? Can you prove the theory of gravity is wrong? And so on.

So, can you prove the theory that gods are human inventions wrong? You could if it was wrong. You could show that the Bible contained wisdom humans couldn't have known about and that would begin to suggest the possibility god beliefs were real and the theory was wrong. But that evidence has not been found. Nonetheless, the theory could be proved wrong and you would be proving something negative.

Where does that leave the supposed technicality that you cannot prove there are no gods because just like ETs, you can't test every possibility?

Well in the latter case, there is logic to the question. You have life on Earth and an incredibly large number of other locations in the Universe which would have to be tested in order to prove the negative.

But in the case of disproving gods, you have nothing. You have people's god beliefs but we have already shown the theory that god beliefs are human inventions is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

If I write a science fiction story does anyone look at the thing I made up in the story and say, "you can't prove that isn't true." Does anyone apply the concept in science that you cannot prove a negative to my science fiction story? It would be an inappropriate application of that rule in science. Technically true, but for all intents and purposes a useless application of the scientific process.

[Mobyseven]

So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?

Valid, yes. Sound, I'm not so sure. The idea that there can only be change through the passage of time makes intuitive sense because that's all we've lived with, but there is something about it that just doesn't seem right...for example, if I had created a perfect vacuum with no particles in it, sitting in a lead box on my desk - would it be correct to say that I had stopped time for that particular region of space? Or merely that I have (for all intents and purposes) stopped change, and the passage of time flows on?

[Mangafranga]

So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.

[RandFan]

So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?I would have to take a different view point than manga on this one. Premises are propositions. I would claim that the premise is true.

[Mangafranga]

I would have to take a different view point than manga on this one. Premises are propositions. I would claim that the premise is true.I agree that it is a proposition. But on the crucially pedantic point of whether or not a premise can be valid, what is your position?

[Belz...]

Apparently C. S. Lewis thought differently.

Good for him.

Here are two articles from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

Amuse me.

In his classic novel Crime and Punishment, Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who rejects the existence of God. This young man murders an old woman. Believing there is no righteous God who will judge, and therefore no absolute standard of right and wrong, he knows that he should not feel guilty. However, he is consumed with a sense of guilt until he confesses his crime and hands his life over to the God he once rejected.

Yeah. That's a work of fiction, mate. How does that prove anything ?

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.

The same is true for the reverse. The problem is we do have evidence of his non-existence.

[Belz...]

I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear that your god would punish you.

That's what makes me wary of some theists. If they claim that fear of god is the only thing preventing them from commiting crimes, then they're sociopaths and should be locked up, somewhere.

Why is belief in Santa Clause or mermaids not on the same level as belief in gods?

Because they're not HIS belief.

[Belz...]

For Shiva's sake BillyJoe, why can't you just freaking let this go?

Your opinion here is inconsistent with how language functions to let people communicate clearly. You don't think that atheists should say, "There is no god," because we cannot claim omniscient knowledge of the universe. However, that would have to apply to every negated existential statement - you cannot hold god to a different standard, because to do so assumes that god is somehow more important, which in turn assumes that god exists!

This means that we could no longer say, "There is no bigfoot." "There is no Santa Claus." Hell, if you were out of tea and a guest asked you for some, you would not be able to say, "We have no tea." You'd have to say, "Based on the lack of evidence for the presence of tea in this house, I have provisionally concluded that there is no tea here."

You wish to couch the high-probability (99+%, less than 100%) non-existance of god in such unnatural language as, "Given the current state of evidence it seems that there is no god, though the state of evidence could change in the future." Why? To make your opinion sound more scientific? Or is it just that you are so afraid of being wrong that you shy away from definite statements of any type?

Either way, you should bloody well man up and accept that this is the way that the English language is used, and that your opinion means very, very little in the wide ocean of common understanding.

Thank you, Moby. That sums it up.

[Hardenbergh]

You'll have to do better than presenting a fictional example as evidence. I reject the idea of god and I feel that this does not in any way justify the taking of an innocent life. Quite the contrary in fact. My conclusion that this life is all anyone gets leads me to view it as that much more precious. I know many other atheists who would agree with me. I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear that your god would punish you.

Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment. When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will. We want to please God. I heard a few minutes of Michael Youssef's radio program, Leading the Way while I was getting ready for work. He said surrendering to God isn't like having a tooth extraction. We surrender to God willingly and joyfully.

I wasn't suggesting that atheists don't have any sense of right and wrong and have more of an inclination to go around murdering people.

[Paulhoff]

Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment. When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will.
His will, and you have proof of his will. Where is this so-called proof, and don't point to the bible, a book written by men, (not women). And why is this so-called god a male, why would a so-called god have a sex.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Mobyseven]

I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.

Good point - when I mentioned validity and soundness before I was referring to the argument as a whole. ( t ≡ c, c, ∴ t ).

A single proposition cannot be valid, it can only be well-formed. t ≡ c is well formed, but I have doubts as to its truth value.

[Belz...]

Well, it's not just about fear of God's punishment.

Then why does Hell exist ?

When we believe in God and love God, we willingly do the things that are in accordance with His will.

No, I don't think so. Christians do what they do for the exact same reason that Muslims do or Jews do or Atheists do: because they damn well please.

We want to please God.

Why ? He's already perfect.

He said surrendering to God isn't like having a tooth extraction. We surrender to God willingly and joyfully.

With a huge carrot hanging before your eyes, no ? Eternal bliss ?

I wasn't suggesting that atheists don't have any sense of right and wrong and have more of an inclination to go around murdering people.

You weren't suggesting it ? But were you thinking it ?

[Z]

I find it hilarious that the OP is so insignificant, that we're reduced to discussing other issues related to proof - or disproof - of God... and that Dustin hasn't been back to try his proof again on us.

[Foster Zygote]

I wasn't suggesting that atheists don't have any sense of right and wrong and have more of an inclination to go around murdering people.

Maybe not, but the source you cited certainly was.

[Hardenbergh]

God became man through Jesus Christ.

God's greatest revelation of Himself to man is in Jesus Christ.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=536

[Foster Zygote]

God became man through Jesus Christ.



http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=536

Are you responding to a specific point or are you just preaching?

[Belz...]

God became man through Jesus Christ.

That's nice. Are you going to prove that, or just claim it ?

[Paulhoff]

God became man through Jesus Christ.
Proof please.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Z]

Proof please.

Paul

:) :) :)

Yeah... how do we know God wasn't man all along?

[Paulhoff]

Isn’t it amazing how people know everything about their so-called god, what it likes, what it doesn’t like, the list is almost endless and they know everything about that so-called god of theirs, but asked them why they like something like cherry-pie, and they haven't got a clue.

Paul

:) :) :)

Makes you what to throw-up.

[Skeptic Ginger]

God became man through Jesus Christ.



http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=536Title of the link paper, "Why God Became Man".

Simple version: God got mad at Adam and Eve for disobedience even though God put the temptation in the Garden and allowed the serpent to encourage the disobedience. Then God punished other people for years as if it was the other people who disobeyed and regardless of whether or not they obeyed God themselves.

Then God decided to let those same people torture and kill God, (if you accept Jesus is God and not God's son. If not, then substitute God's son for God in the story. Of course then you have to get into why Jesus is a better child of God than we are, but we'll leave that out of today's story for simplicity.) Being tortured and killed, made God or (God's son) feel like forgiving people as long as they believed God let himself (or his son) get tortured and killed so God could forgive them.

But even if you believe that and God forgives you for something you never did, God still doesn't stop punishing you. Some men toil and some don't regardless of their status with God. And women had their burden lifted if they have access to modern anesthesia since Eve's punishment was to have pain during childbirth. That was a couple thousand years after Jesus, but who noticed? And atheists like me must have been forgiven since I had anesthesia with the birth of my son.

[Robin]

I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.
Valid as in well grounded or justifiable.

[BillyJoe]

Isn’t it amazing how people know everything about their so-called god, what it likes, what it doesn’t like, the list is almost endless and they know everything about that so-called god of theirs, but asked them why they like something like cherry-pie, and they having got a clue.


Isn't it amazing how people edit their one sentence post and still manage to get it wrong. :D

....and I'm sure you know everything about what 4D curved space is like. ;)


Or, perhaps you having got a clue. :D


regards,
BillyJoe
(A victim of the "killer" 'flu', who may soon find out the TRUTH. :) :()

[Robin]

Here is an interesting lecture from Stephen Hawking about the beginning of time:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

[RandFan]

I agree that it is a proposition. But on the crucially pedantic point of whether or not a premise can be valid, what is your position? I thought ws the whole point

Proposition: (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+proposition+&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false.

[PBTree]

Just have a simple question to pose. 'WHY' does there have to be a god?

No-one will ever prove that there is one and neither will anyone prove the opposite. All the words that have been used in this thread are just that, words, yet nobody has ever actually shown proof of existence or proof of non-existence (sorry about negative-positive). I would have to think that other than lots more words and opinions, there isn't any!!!

So all we are left with is: WHY. Can anyone tell me why there needs or has, to be one.

There has to some simple two sentence reason WHY this being needs to exist, otherwise everything about the deity is 'stuff' we humans imagined. And, if we can imagine Freddie Kruger, then we can imagine almost anything.

Because: isn't a valid answer.

[Mangafranga]

I thought ws the whole point

Proposition: (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+proposition+&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false.And to have a valid argument you need a set of propositions (I wonder if theorems could count). The proposition isn't valid by itself, only the argument is valid. This is just a pedantic point though, of no great importance (lest the ghost of logic 1 hit me on the head).Valid as in well grounded or justifiable.Then no, I don't consider it well grounded or justifiable. But I am just going to neglect taking any position on it at all.

[kurious_kathy]

There has to some simple two sentence reason WHY this being needs to exist, otherwise everything about the deity is 'stuff' we humans imagined. And, if we can imagine Freddie Kruger, then we can imagine almost anything.

Because: isn't a valid answer.

How about cuz all things are created by him and for him. God is the one thing that defines us and gives us purpose. We are here to give glory to God. He created us for fellowship with him and eachother. How's that for pinpointing it a bit.

[RandFan]

And to have a valid argument you need a set of propositions (I wonder if theorems could count). The proposition isn't valid by itself, only the argument is valid. This is just a pedantic point though, of no great importance (lest the ghost of logic 1 hit me on the head).Then no, I don't consider it well grounded or justifiable. But I am just going to neglect taking any position on it at all. No, I think it is simply semantics. True vs Valid. I wouldn't use valid to describe a premise. So, with that you are right. The premise is true though.

Manga: So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?
RandFan: I would claim that the premise is true.

[PBTree]

How about cuz all things are created by him and for him. God is the one thing that defines us and gives us purpose. We are here to give glory to God. He created us for fellowship with him and eachother. How's that for pinpointing it a bit.

That's a 'because' answer which implies proof. We have just gone through a brazillion pages to'ing and fro'ing about proof and nobody has been successful. Faith is not proof, its just that, faith.

My question is WHY does there need to be a god.

It does nothing for anybody. Believers and non-believers alike are killed every day. Tornado survivors give thanks for being alive, whilst the 'believer' neighbour just lost 3 kids???

If nothing comes of it being there, then a deity is of no use to anybody.

For those who are concerned about the afterlife (worm food really), then wouldn't just living a good wholesome life ensure 'eternity' without all the nonsense?

We had our prime minister praying for rain on a prayer day. Two weeks later we had floods in parts of our country and people died. Everyone was delighted that the prayers had worked. Our prime minister was then on TV asking for prayers for the survivors. WHAT!!!

I mean if it can't even get the rain right (we only wanted a couple of inches, not the whole bloody ocean) of what use is it. Should the prayers have been: "please deity, can we have 3.5 inches of rain but only over the brown spots".

So once again i say WHY do we need a deity?

[Mangafranga]

No, I think it is simply semantics. True vs Valid. I wouldn't use valid to describe a premise. So, with that you are right. The premise is true though. Manga: So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid? RandFan: I would claim that the premise is true.Robin asked the question "So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?", not me.

[kurious_kathy]

That's a 'because' answer which implies proof. We have just gone through a brazillion pages to'ing and fro'ing about proof and nobody has been successful. Faith is not proof, its just that, faith.

My question is WHY does there need to be a god.

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's. Once we know him through faith we are complete and find purpose. People need purpose don't you agree?

[RandFan]

Robin asked the question "So is everybody claiming the premise "time iff change" is valid?", not me.I'm batting zero. Please feel free to put me on ignore.

Yes, you are correct. He did at that.

I would never claim a premise is valid. If we are talking logic, then validity is a feature of arguments, not premises. I would have no problem with saying the premise is well formed, or coherent, or meaningful (as a premise). I don't have a position on its truth value.

I was simply saying that unlike you, I would take a position on its truth value since it is a proposition.

Now, as to the validity, I wouldn't describe a premise as being valid or invalid.

So, to recap.

I claim the premise valid.
I take no position on it's validity.Now, I'm off to see if there is a forum out there where I won't likely make so many mistakes and look like an idiot. This one (http://www.hasbro.com/mylittlepony/) looks promising.

[Kopji]

Purpose emerges from the process of living, a quality like tolerance or kindness. 'Purposes' seem to have a similar imperfect nature, one we choose, change, and influence a great deal.

Science actually gives us a lot of the 'whys' too, but the thing that I think it is 'incomplete' without is a creative or artistic sense - an appreciation of beauty and wonder. A scientific and reasoning mind combined with heart is a happy path that creates its own purposes.

[RandFan]

How about cuz all things are created by him and for him. That's right.

When a child dies of leukemia, god.
When a child dies of malaria, god.
When a child dies of parasites, god.
When a child dies from a tidal wave, god.

God likes the death of children. That's why he killed so many of them throughout the bible. Flood, Egyptian babies and children, Amalekites, etc., etc..

Nice god. It always makes me feel so warm and fuzzy to think of god as a mass murderer. He is btw, there's no argument about that.

[RandFan]

...only God completes us and answers the why's. I didn't know that. I'm so glad I've found someone to answer my questions.

Why do children suffer and die?


Once we know him through faith we are complete and find purpose. Terrorists have their purpose given them by god.

People need purpose don't you agree?Life is purpose. Having and caring for a family is purpose. Contributing to society is purpose. Caring about others is purpose.

I don't need god to find purpose.

[PBTree]

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's. Once we know him through faith we are complete and find purpose. People need purpose don't you agree?

More faith. No proof, just faith.

So the answer to my WHY question is: Your deity gives us purpose.

Not much of a deity.

If you go to a Voodoo event, they claim they can kill your enemies and make the girl next door love you etc.. just for the price of a chicken. Much better than yours who just gives us purpose.

Purpose is not enough sorry, I still need to know WHY.

[Mangafranga]

Don't worry, I am not pointing out any mistakes in this post. :)I was simply saying that unlike you, I would take a position on its truth value since it is a proposition.Just to be clear, what I meant was that I am not taking a position on which truth value it has (that is to say, I accept that it is either true or false).
Now, I'm off to see if there is a forum out there where I won't likely make so many mistakes and look like an idiot. This one (http://www.hasbro.com/mylittlepony/) looks promising.:D

[RandFan]

Don't worry, I am not pointing out any mistakes in this post. :)Just to be clear, what I meant was that I am not taking a position on which truth value it has (that is to say, I accept that it is either true or false).

:D:)

Hey, I think we have a consensus. Cool.

[BillyJoe]

Valid, yes. Sound, I'm not so sure. The idea that there can only be change through the passage of time makes intuitive sense because that's all we've lived with, but there is something about it that just doesn't seem right...for example, if I had created a perfect vacuum with no particles in it, sitting in a lead box on my desk - would it be correct to say that I had stopped time for that particular region of space? Or merely that I have (for all intents and purposes) stopped change, and the passage of time flows on?


Neither.

According to Quantum theory, "vacuum energy"
exists even in space that is devoid of matter.
So, even in a vacuum, there is time and change.

:)

[BillyJoe]

Because they're not HIS belief.


...HER. ;)


Unless I'm mistaken, Hardenburgh's avatar is a self-portrait. :)

[Belz...]

Isn’t it amazing how people know everything about their so-called god, what it likes, what it doesn’t like, the list is almost endless and they know everything about that so-called god of theirs, but asked them why they like something like cherry-pie, and they haven't got a clue.

What's really amazing is how they know everything about their god's feelings, but when you ask them something they don't know or when you speculate, yourself, about what god would think, his ways are suddenly "mysterious".

[Belz...]

How about cuz all things are created by him and for him. God is the one thing that defines us and gives us purpose. We are here to give glory to God. He created us for fellowship with him and eachother. How's that for pinpointing it a bit.

Circular reasoning, but I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's.

Which doesn't preclude the fact that he doesn't exist.

[Belz...]

...HER. ;)


Unless I'm mistaken, Hardenburgh's avatar is a self-portrait. :)

I stand corrected.

But the point stands.

[BillyJoe]

skeptigirl,

Thanks for your response.
I am not entirely clear what you are saying here, so I will make some comments and see where they lead.
Your deas seem to be a bit of a hybrid between my ideas and those of ny adversaries in this thread.

I have a particular atheist viewpoint. And I do not speak for all atheists. You are trying to use the rule in the scientific process which says you cannot prove a negative and apply it to god beliefs. I do not apply that rule to god beliefs. That is not the majority viewpoint, but that doesn't bother me.


No, it was not me trying to do that
Seems others around here, who have put that view, disagree with you.
I actually agree but, it seems, for different reasons....


God beliefs exist. There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are inventions of humans. There is zero evidence god beliefs originated when humans had actual interactions with real gods.



The subject of your post here is "belief in god".
On the other hand, the subject in this thread is "the existence of god"

Applying the rule you cannot prove the negative to something for which you have sufficient evidence to conclude the positive (gods were invented by humans) is not the appropriate application of that rule.


Okay.

The rule that does apply is the rule of theories. Theories are not proved, they are operating conclusions. For all practical purposes, gods are human inventions. There is overwhelming evidence of that theory of god beliefs.


Fine.
But what if the subject is "the existence of god".
Democritus thought all matter was composed of indivisable particles that he named "atoms". There was absolutely no evidence for these "atoms" and he was justifiably ignored. Yet, as we now know, atoms do exist.
This doesn't mean god exists, of course, but it should caution us not to outright reject "human inventions" such as "the existence of god" - especially when science has not yet answered the questions which lead to the (deistic) god hypothesis.

The rule about not proving the negative applies to things for which the questions are still open. You cannot prove there is no life in the Universe outside of the Earth. The rule applies because you cannot test for life in every corner of the Universe.


Yes, that is the classic case where the "you can't prove a negative" argument holds.

So, can you prove the theory that gods are human inventions wrong? You could if it was wrong. You could show that the Bible contained wisdom humans couldn't have known about and that would begin to suggest the possibility god beliefs were real and the theory was wrong. But that evidence has not been found. Nonetheless, the theory could be proved wrong and you would be proving something negative.


Again I agree.
But there are others here who would have it that you cannot prove a negative, period.


Where does that leave the supposed technicality that you cannot prove there are no gods because just like ETs, you can't test every possibility?



Okay, here we have the "god" as the subject.


Well in the latter case, there is logic to the question. You have life on Earth and an incredibly large number of other locations in the Universe which would have to be tested in order to prove the negative.



Yes, you cannot possibly prove ETs don't exist because there are just too many places to look for them. Hence, I agree, you can't prove a negative applies to ETs.


But in the case of disproving gods, you have nothing. You have people's god beliefs but we have already shown the theory that god beliefs are human inventions is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.



Except that - for the deistic god - you have the fact that science has not yet explained the existence of the universe. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that science will ever be able to explain the existence of the universe (even if given enough time and allowing for evolving human intelligence).

If I write a science fiction story does anyone look at the thing I made up in the story and say, "you can't prove that isn't true." Does anyone apply the concept in science that you cannot prove a negative to my science fiction story? It would be an inappropriate application of that rule in science. Technically true, but for all intents and purposes a useless application of the scientific process.


This is my argument against the tooth faerie. :)
But it was denied me in this thread. :(
The tooth faerie was never meant to be other than fiction and amusement for children and, in any case, parents are perfectly capable of doing everything that the tooth faerie wass fictionalised to do.
The deistic god, is a little different - the existence of the universe has not been explained.


regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

I stand corrected.

But the point stands.


Yeah but....don't you feel just a little more religious now. :)
(Hey, there are hairs growing on my knees, but I am perfectly willing to sacrifice them)

[Paulhoff]

Science can give us some of the how things work, but only God completes us and answers the why's. Once we know him through faith we are complete and find purpose. People need purpose don't you agree?
Oh, so-called god, show me how to save a child from cancer.... no answer, silence.
Oh, so-called god, why haven't you parted any waters in the far east and saved the people there or at least the children..... no answer, silence.

So now we wait to hear from a believers for the reasons (pitiful excuses really) why their so-called god didn't show up again.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, so-called god must love us so much, because beats us down so often.

[Hardenbergh]

I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear that your god would punish you.

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty. I think there would be a lot more murders without it although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

This is the same statement with the "death penalty" in its place:

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

[volatile]

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty. I think there would be a lot more murders without it although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

This is the same statement with the "death penalty" in its place:

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

Stuff and nonsense. Compare homicide rates between countries with the death penalty and those without and there is, as far as I know, no discernible correlation.

You are wrong.

[Hardenbergh]

Stuff and nonsense. Compare homicide rates between countries with the death penalty and those without and there is, as far as I know, no discernible correlation.

You are wrong.

You are correct about the homicide rates. I was just looking at some documents. I was rather surprised. I guess I don't listen to the news often enough.

Here's an excerpt from one of the articles. Most of the article supports your statement. However, the excerpt below shows reasoning that may be in favor of the death penalty or at least bear some consideration:

Part of the support for capital punishment comes from the belief that the death penalty is legitimate under a theory of "just deserts" (Bedau, 1978; Finckenauer, 1988). This justification suggests that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons; "Murderers should suffer, and life imprisonment is insufficient suffering as retribution for taking a life." While such views are important and worthy of debate, no empirical research can tell us if the argument is "correct" or "incorrect." Empirical studies cannot answer the question of what specific criminals (or non-criminals) "deserve," or settle debates over the moral issues surrounding capital punishment.

On the other hand, much of the public and political support for capital punishment rests on its presumed value as a general deterrent: we need the death penalty to encourage potential murderers to avoid engaging in criminal homicide. Unlike the issue of retribution, empirical studies can answer questions about the death penalty's general deterrent effects.

Politicians and prosecutors are often quick to use some version of the deterrence rationale in their cries for more and quicker executions when they see such appeals as a promising way to attract votes (Bright, 1995; Pierce and Radelet, 1990-91). Examples are not difficult to find. Rep. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, believes that mass executions of "27 or 30 or 35 people at a time" will reduce the importation of illegal drugs into America (Taylor, 1995). When signing legislation that returned the death penalty to New York in 1995, Governor George Pataki said, "This bill is going to save lives" (Dao, 1995). Governor William Weld, who is trying to get his state of Massachusetts to return the death penalty to its law books, bolsters his belief in the deterrent value of the death penalty with data he gets from his "gut." "Beyond a certain point, I think you have got to make a choice and go with your gut. My gut is that ... capital punishment is a deterrent" (Lehigh, 1991). Ken Nunneley, an Alabama assistant attorney general in charge of the state's capital litigation division, obtains his data from the same source. "My gut tells me it has a deterrent effect, let me put it that way" (Lehr, 1993).

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence

[Belz...]

Yeah but....don't you feel just a little more religious now. :)

Nope.

[Belz...]

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty.

Except that the people doing it are not omniscient.

I think there would be a lot more murders without it

Statistics tend to disagree, I think.

although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

God is.

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

Yes, indeed. The reason why I have morals is not fear of punishment.

[Paulhoff]

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."
So it should also be the fear of hell and a so-called god, so is that what makes a person moral then, the fear of a so-called god and hell. So are you saying that morals only comes with fear, and that people have no true morals without fear.

Paul

:) :) :)

You don't think much of humans then.

[Hardenbergh]

So it should also be the fear of hell and a so-called god, so is that what makes a person moral then, the fear of a so-called god and hell. So are you saying that morals only comes with fear, and that people have no true morals without fear.

Paul

:) :) :)

You don't think much of humans then.

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

[Paulhoff]

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.
Well here comes a shocker for you, many countries in this world have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments and they still have so-called morality. The U.S. Constitution as nothing in it about the Ten Commandments either.

Paul

:) :) :)

By the way, there is nothing against slavery in the Ten Commandments or in the bible.

[thaiboxerken]

The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

More than half of the Ten Commandments are just silly, some of them have absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics. We should only be grateful that something stays the same if that thing is actually good. The ten commandments are not good, some are rather disturbing. For example, worshiping one god, that goes totally against the american value of freedom of religion. No idolatry, again, freedom of religion. What really disgusting is what the bible outlines as punishments for these two silly "crimes." Should people be killed for worshiping the wrong god?

[Hardenbergh]

This is an article from the Rutherford Institute titled, The Ten Commandments: The Role of Religion in Modern Society, written by Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead.


Religion, it must be remembered, once helped inspire and fuel important American social movements and reforms such as the abolition of slavery, temperance, the advancement of and movements against civil rights, war, nuclear weapons and abortion. However, today there is less agreement about the spiritual contours for modern-day solutions. Presently, there is a spiritual vacuum in the United States—a vacuum which is partially the result of history. The religiously homogenous America of some 200 plus years ago simply no longer exists.

History records that, from those who crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower to the modern televangelists, traditional Protestant Christianity has been the dominant religious stream flowing through the American consciousness. Indeed, as historian G. K. Chesterton remarked in 1922, America is “a nation with the soul of a church…the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.”

The “self-evident” truths, as described in the Declaration of Independence, were understood by the Framers of America’s founding documents as stemming from traditional Judeo-Christian principles. At the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the American people lived under laws that were either taken directly from the Bible or influenced by it.

Despite some differences in theology, the Framers generally agreed that just laws were God-given, absolute and revealed to human beings through Scripture (such as the Ten Commandments), nature and conscience. Religion, they believed, must be assured access to public processes, as religion was thought to be a requirement for the proper functioning of a nation’s political institutions. With these presuppositions, the Framers created institutions they hoped would guarantee freedom as well as justice in America—defined, of course, in Protestant Christian terms.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=326

Here's an article about Thomas Jefferson regarding the display of the Ten Commandments:

http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew040312.htm

[Paulhoff]

Here's an article about Thomas Jefferson regarding the display of the Ten Commandments:
Which is someones idea of what Thomas Jefferson would do, not what he said he would do, that is a big different.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Foster Zygote]

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

Which ten commandments?

Exodus 20

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Exodus 34

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.

The Bible also lays out the required punishment for those who break some of these commandments

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:15 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21:17 He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

Not only have the Ten Commandments changed, but I see little morality contained within them. In fact, the only ones I wouldn't chuck into the dustbin would be 6, 8, and 9 from Exodus 20. These are the only three that are worthy of being written into contemporary law. They are in contemporary law. But many societies with no basis in Abrahamic tradition and no connection to the Ten Commandments have laws prohibiting murder, theft and defamation. And oddly enough, the commandments of Exodus 20 are the ones Moses smashed. Exodus 34 lists the replacement commandments (claiming them to be the same words, which they clearly are not) so this second set is really the "official" set of God's commandments. Should we really base our modern society on them?

[Belz...]

Morality can be innate but social mores influence our behaviour. Social mores are always changing but that's what different about God and the Bible. The Ten Commandments will always remain the same. Social mores are trendy. The Ten Commandments obviously are not. We should be grateful that something stays the same.

What do the ten commandments have to do with real laws ?

And don't you find it odd that Jesus doesn't mention the same ten commandments as those mentioned in Exodus ?

[Hardenbergh]

What do the ten commandments have to do with real laws ?

Think of it as a soup starter for chicken noodle soup.

And don't you find it odd that Jesus doesn't mention the same ten commandments as those mentioned in Exodus ?



How do God's Ten Commandments apply today?

Many people today feel that God's Ten Commandments are no longer valid because they do not apply to our current society. They look to the Ten Commandments as being outdated and full of inflammatory language which doesn't sit well with our politically-correct viewpoint. The Ten Commandments are also considered by many people to have been abolished by Jesus when He made a new covenant between God and man with His death and resurrection.

The problem in thinking that Jesus came to abolish the Ten Commandments is that Jesus never claimed to have abolished the Ten Commandments. Instead, in Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

In this verse, Jesus gives a clear indication that the Ten Commandments are still to be followed and adhered to even in our generation and every generation to come until the day that Jesus returns. So what does all this mean to us and how do God's Ten Commandments apply today?

God's Ten Commandments are still valid because Jesus declared them to be. We are still called by God to honor the Ten Commandments and obey what they call us to do. Jesus also told us that obeying the Law or the Ten Commandments is not just a superficial act, but one that carries the essence of the law into our thoughts and hearts.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/gods-ten-commandments-faq.htm

[thaiboxerken]

Think of it as a soup starter for chicken noodle soup.

Can you illustrate this analogy? Right now, it doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect it won't after you explain it either, but I could be wrong.

God's Ten Commandments are still valid because Jesus declared them to be.

Actually, according to Jesus, all of the laws in the OT are still valid, including the ones about eating shellfish and killing homosexuals. Do you agree with Jesus?

Also, why should anyone that isn't a christian give a rat's butt about what Jesus said?

[Foster Zygote]

Think of it as a soup starter for chicken noodle soup.


In this verse, Jesus gives a clear indication that the Ten Commandments are still to be followed and adhered to even in our generation and every generation to come until the day that Jesus returns. So what does all this mean to us and how do God's Ten Commandments apply today?

http://www.allabouttruth.org/gods-ten-commandments-faq.htm

So we should put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?

[Belz...]

Think of it as a soup starter for chicken noodle soup.

What the hell are you talking about ?

As for Jesus, I didn't say he abolished the commandments. You didn't read my post. I said he didn't mention the SAME commandments. How do you explain that ?

Many people today feel that God's Ten Commandments are no longer valid because they do not apply to our current society

I think that they are no longer valid because God does not exist.

[Hardenbergh]

As for Jesus, I didn't say he abolished the commandments. You didn't read my post. I said he didn't mention the SAME commandments. How do you explain that ?

You were referring to the commandments in this passage about loving God and your neighbor?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:%2037-39;&version=9;

Some theorize that the Ten Commandments are the Father's, while Christ's commandments are just two, totally unrelated to the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. A careful study of the Ten Commandments however, reveals that the first four deal with our love toward God, while the last six deal with our relationship to our neighbor. This is why Jesus said, "On these two commandments hang all the law". The Father's commandments and Christ's commandments are one and the same!

http://www.benabraham.com/html/what_about_god_s_law_.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:%2040;&version=9;

[Foster Zygote]

Excuse me Hardenbergh, should we put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?

[Hardenbergh]

Excuse me Hardenbergh, should we put to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?

Where does it say that?


8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ~ Exodus 20: 8-11


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:%208-11;&version=9;

[Belz...]

You were referring to the commandments in this passage about loving God and your neighbor?

I was asking you why Jesus doesn't mention the same commandments as in Exodus. That should be fairly easy for you to answer.

Where does it say that?

Leviticus if memory serves. But then leave it to true believers to be ignorant of the very book they claim provides divine inspiration.

[thaiboxerken]

Hardenbergh, why do you ignore the punishment portions of the OT? Why do you ignore the other laws that aren't the 10 commandments? Why should non-christians care about what your bible says?

[Foster Zygote]

Where does it say that?





http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:%208-11;&version=9;

Exodus 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

So again, should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

[Paulhoff]

Exodus
{21:7} And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
{21:8} If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself,
then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.


A lot of good old morality in that bible.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

Nope.

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar311_11.gif

[Hardenbergh]

Exodus 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

So again, should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

I'll refer you to some verses of scripture in the New Testament if you wish to take time to read them:

Luke 13: 10-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:10-17;&version=9;)

Luke 14: 1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:1-6;&version=9;)

Matthew 12: 1-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:1-8;&version=9;)

Mark 2: 23-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:23-28;&version=9;)

Also, this link will answer some questions. It references the same Bible passages with comments. Some of the comments may reflect the doctrine of the church that is represented at the website but it seems to be fairly accurate.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl11.htm

[volatile]

I'll refer you to some verses of scripture in the New Testament if you wish to take time to read them:

Luke 13: 10-17
Luke 14: 1-6
Matthew 12: 1-8
Mark 2: 23-28

Also, this link will answer some questions. It references the same Bible passages with comments. Some of the comments may reflect the doctrine of the church that is represented at the website but it seems to be fairly accurate.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl11.htm

I note you didn't answer the question. Do you think that we should put those who work on the Sabbath do death? If not, why should be ignore that verse but not the Commandments, which appear in the very same book of the bible?

Your own words would be preferable to a proletysing bible-verse hit and run.

[thaiboxerken]

You don't get it, do you, Volatile. Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the OT, unless Hardenbergh doesn't like a particular law, at which point Jesus denounced it. It's all in how you "translate" it.

[volatile]

You don't get it, do you, Volatile. Jesus said he came to uphold the laws of the OT, unless Hardenbergh doesn't like a particular law, at which point Jesus denounced it. It's all in how you "translate" it.

Obviously... :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

It's very hard to convince a Christian that the morality they say comes from the Bible actually comes from elsewhere and they simply use the bible to support it.

[Mobyseven]

I suppose someone could say the same thing about the death penalty. I think there would be a lot more murders without it although I'm not personally in favor of the death penalty.

This is the same statement with the "death penalty" in its place:

"I would be appalled to think that the only thing keeping you from remorselessly killing someone was simply your fear of the death penalty."

Hi, Hardenbergh - we haven't met yet. I'm from a little island in the south pacific, gosh, I don't know if you've heard of us - 'Australia'?

Yeah, turns out we don't have the death penalty here, and we also don't have a higher murder rate than you.

Well, I must be off - a kangaroo's gotten out, and it's trained to attack heathens.

Mobyseven

[Foster Zygote]

I'll refer you to some verses of scripture in the New Testament if you wish to take time to read them:

Luke 13: 10-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:10-17;&version=9;)

Luke 14: 1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014:1-6;&version=9;)

Matthew 12: 1-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:1-8;&version=9;)

Mark 2: 23-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:23-28;&version=9;)

Also, this link will answer some questions. It references the same Bible passages with comments. Some of the comments may reflect the doctrine of the church that is represented at the website but it seems to be fairly accurate.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl11.htm

Should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

[Hardenbergh]

The Sword of the Spirit
"for the Word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword."
-Hebrews 4:12

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/sword.gif

[thaiboxerken]

Your god is weak. It cannot do anything I can do. For example, I can type in an internet forum. Your god cannot do this.

[volatile]

The Sword of the Spirit
"for the Word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword."
-Hebrews 4:12

(http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/sword.gif)


Was that a "Yes" or a "No" on the death question? I don't speak fundie...

[Foster Zygote]

The Sword of the Spirit
"for the Word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword."
-Hebrews 4:12

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/sword.gif

Should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

[Hardenbergh]

Should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?

I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.

[joobz]

Should we put to death those who work on the Sabbath?
No, i think it is obvious that the bible means that we should post smarmy worded gif images

[Hardenbergh]

No, i think it is obvious that the bible means that we should post smarmy worded gif images

I like to play around with the editing features using different type fonts and colors. Neat, huh? ;)

[Paulhoff]

So, have we figured out which of the billions of so-called gods we are talking about.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Foster Zygote]

I like to play around with the editing features using different type fonts and colors. Neat, huh? ;)

Yeah, it beats answering uncomfortable questions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.I've heard this false claim before.

Here are some passages for you to study from the New Testament (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html) where Jesus himself advocates all kinds of violence.

For example:Mark 7:10 "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law.

And Jesus tells us to follow the Old Testament laws as well.Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[RandFan]

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar311_11.gif I resemble that remark.

[BillyJoe]

So, have we figured out which of the billions of so-called gods we are talking about.

Paul

:) :) :)


....and have we figured out that 4D rotating hypercube thingy yet? :nope:

[PBTree]

I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.

How in blazes can anyone be a bible scholar or study the bible. Who do you ask for confirmation on confusing items? If the author(s) of a book is dead, you will never know exactly what he/she meant and studying it word for word hoping for a revelation of knowledge, seems rather sad. You could go 'eureka' thinking you have solved some part and still be wrong if you don't know or cant prove what the authors meant.

Someone can be a maths scholar because other people know what 2+2 equals and can prove it and then teach you. Nobody knows what was meant throughout most of the bible and if they say they do, then they are obviously hearing voices and need assistance.

You mean you are a bible reader. Different thing altogether.

Led Zepplin: "A bustle in your hedgerow". Nobody knew what this meant for years until they explained. If they had all died, it would never have been explained and it would be confusing to this day. Exactly the same thing as the bible.

The bible is just a mishmash of words interspersed with a little bit of common sense and a good smattering of brutality written by a bunch of uneducated people, some good time ago.
Anyone saying they know exactly what is meant by things stated in the bible, are arrogant in the extreme, usually do all the talking on sundays and should be avoided. They are usually the people who advocate violence towards believers and un-believers alike.

[BillyJoe]

Led Zepplin: "A bustle in your hedgerow". Nobody knew what this meant for years until they explained. If they had all died, it would never have been explained and it would be confusing to this day.


First of all, it's not "they".
The lyrics to "Stairway to Heaven" were written by Robert Plant, lead singer of the group.
Secondly, he has never revealed what those words actually mean.
Thirdly, Plant is, at best, a third rate lyricist.
Most likely the words just sounded good.
That, he succeeded in.

If you can show otherwise, I'd be pleased to hear it though.

[Belz...]

I'll refer you to some verses of scripture in the New Testament if you wish to take time to read them:

Also, this link will answer some questions. It references the same Bible passages with comments. Some of the comments may reflect the doctrine of the church that is represented at the website but it seems to be fairly accurate.

What amazes me is that you didn't answer the questions put forth.

1- How do you explain that Jesus doesn't mention the same commandments as those listed in Exodus ?

2- Do you think that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death, in accordance with the word of God ?

[Belz...]

I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.

What an exciting way to make sure that you never have to answer those difficult questions, eh ?

[PBTree]

First of all, it's not "they".
The lyrics to "Stairway to Heaven" were written by Robert Plant, lead singer of the group.
Secondly, he has never revealed what those words actually mean.
Thirdly, Plant is, at best, a third rate lyricist.
Most likely the words just sounded good.
That, he succeeded in.

If you can show otherwise, I'd be pleased to hear it though.

Well there you go, a third rate lyricist but known throughout the land. Never confuse talent with entertaining. If talent meant anything in this world, Bruce Willis would be broke.

I do remember seeing an interview with Plant once where they asked him about it but I don't recall what he said. Someone told me that it was supposed to mean a disturbance in your world. Now I could be and probably am, wrong. This more or less assists with my view of the bible. If you can't get proof from the person(s) who actually authored something, how do you prove whether you are right or wrong?? ergo, how do you study it. Learning something off by heart is great if its something like the 'times tables', something that has substance but the poor old bible has nothing to back it up.

[BillyJoe]

Well there you go, a third rate lyricist but known throughout the land. Never confuse talent with entertaining. If talent meant anything in this world, Bruce Willis would be broke.


:D

Actually, I asked the five people immediately around me and not a single one recognised the name "Robert Plant". They all recognised "Led Zeppelin" however.

In any case, I was commenting only on the lyrics. The music is another matter entirely. I have all eight albums and the DVD, "The Song Remains The Same". Overstating it only a little, they have moments of pure genius.


regards,
BillyJoe

[Hardenbergh]

Not only have the Ten Commandments changed, but I see little morality contained within them. In fact, the only ones I wouldn't chuck into the dustbin would be 6, 8, and 9 from Exodus 20. These are the only three that are worthy of being written into contemporary law. They are in contemporary law. But many societies with no basis in Abrahamic tradition and no connection to the Ten Commandments have laws prohibiting murder, theft and defamation. And oddly enough, the commandments of Exodus 20 are the ones Moses smashed. Exodus 34 lists the replacement commandments (claiming them to be the same words, which they clearly are not) so this second set is really the "official" set of God's commandments. Should we really base our modern society on them?

I was just reading Exodus 34. Which version of the Bible did you quote from?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2034;&version=9;

Lack of agreement among various divisions with Christianity and Judaism makes it very difficult to reach a consensus about how the Ten should be printed for display in public locations. Usually, the preferences of Jews, Roman Catholics and some Lutherans is overruled, and the Protestant format is chosen.

The Bible makes

"frequent reference to "two" tablets...(Exodus 31:18; 32:15; 34:1, 4, 29; Deuteronomy 4:13; 5:22; 9:10, 11, 15, 17; 10:1, 3; 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10). According to rabbinic tradition, the purpose for having two tablets was to divide the Ten Commandments under two rubrics. The first tablet, we are told, contained the so-called religious commandments, describing obligations owed to God. The second tablet contained ethical or moral commandments, describing obligations we owe to one another as creatures of God and as fellow human beings." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c4.htm

Yes, people were stoned to death as punishment (in Israel). Do you see anyone here being put to death for working on the Sabbath? Then don't worry about it.

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, yet not from the commands of it. The first and the best evidence of the pardon of sin, and peace with God, is the writing the law in the heart. (Ex 34:5-9)

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=19&source=2&seq=i.2.34.1

[Mancunian]

I have only skim read partly through your post, but I'd like to pick up on one point. You talk about existence being a property. One argument for the existence of God is that, if God as we understand the concept, has every perfection, then that perfection must include existence. However, existence is not a property of a thing or person; it is statement of number.
For example, if you say the an army has 1000 soldiers, what is the 1000 a property of? Is it the army, is it the soldiers? No, it is a property of instances of the unit soldier.
If you say that something exists, what you are say is that there is 1 instance of something. Therefore the property of existence of something relates to the number of instances of the thing, not the thing itself. Therefore, you cannot presume that God must exist because existence is a property that he, by definition, must possess.

[volatile]

I have only skim read partly through your post,

You're about 1,600 posts and a good three months or so late, I'm afraid. Dustin is long gone from this thread, and the discussion has moved on quite considerably...

[Paulhoff]

Yes, people were stoned to death as punishment (in Israel). Do you see anyone here being put to death for working on the Sabbath? Then don't worry about it.
So are you going to cherry-pick only those parts that you like from that black-book. If so, that will be your idea of a so-called god. And of course everyone else who believes that black-book as being the so-called words of a so-called god will cherry-pick it and make up their own so-called god. And of course other people can believe that other books, etc are the so-called words of a so-called god and will cherry-pick those writings and make up their own so-called god. So once again, which so-called god do you believe in.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, the ontological argument has been put to bed long ago.

[Robin]

OK, let's start with something we all agree on:

You shouldn't use gods to fill gaps in knowledge

OK?

No consensus on the time/change thing, however BJ's claim was:

"Time without beginning or something from nothing"

So if time and change are more or less the same thing we can substitute and reformulate:

"Change without beginning or something happened for no reason".

The first is basically "turtles all the way down", so maybe we can park it.

So here is my basic list possibilities for the so-called origins problem:

1. At least one thing exists which did not begin to exist AND/OR;
2. At least one thing began to exist without a source or cause AND/OR;
3. At least one event occurred with no cause AND/OR;
4. Causality is not unidirectional

Is there something I have missed? Probably.

Can we narrow it down? Probably not.

Is this a gap in our knowledge? Absolutely.

And don't forget that we all agree that you shouldn't use gods to fill gaps.

So what about the eternally existing deistic god?

We have no use for that hypothesis.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, people were stoned to death as punishment (in Israel). Do you see anyone here being put to death for working on the Sabbath? Then don't worry about it.

Well this still isn't an answer. What is so hard about saying "yes" or "no"? But I'll assume your answer is "no". Of what value are the Ten Commandments then? Other than the prohibitions on murder, theft, and defamation (which are common prohibitions certainly not unique to the Bible) what about the Ten Commandments, in either list, is relevant today? How many of them do you observe?

[Belz...]

Lack of agreement among various divisions with Christianity and Judaism makes it very difficult to reach a consensus about how the Ten should be printed for display in public locations. Usually, the preferences of Jews, Roman Catholics and some Lutherans is overruled, and the Protestant format is chosen.

So it all depends which God you worship. Big surprise.

[BillyJoe]

Robin,

We're pretty close.

But I see no point in adding: "There is no god".
Especially when you actually mean something else.
And the "burden of proof"/"you can't prove a negative" argument doesn't change that.



It is interesting that skeptigirl believes god can be disproven (perhaps I am overstating her view) and dismisses the "you can't prove a negative" argument as being irrelevant in the case of god, whereas MobySeven uses that very argument to justify his proclamation that "there is no god" (even though he doesn't actually mean that exactly).


BJ

[Mobyseven]

OK, let's start with something we all agree on:

You shouldn't use gods to fill gaps in knowledge

OK?

No consensus on the time/change thing, however BJ's claim was:

"Time without beginning or something from nothing"

So if time and change are more or less the same thing we can substitute and reformulate:

"Change without beginning or something happened for no reason".

The first is basically "turtles all the way down", so maybe we can park it.

So here is my basic list possibilities for the so-called origins problem:

1. At least one thing exists which did not begin to exist AND/OR;
2. At least one thing began to exist without a source or cause AND/OR;
3. At least one event occurred with no cause AND/OR;
4. Causality is not unidirectional

Is there something I have missed? Probably.

Can we narrow it down? Probably not.

Is this a gap in our knowledge? Absolutely.

And don't forget that we all agree that you shouldn't use gods to fill gaps.

So what about the eternally existing deistic god?

We have no use for that hypothesis.

QFE


And a note to BillyJoe - when I say, "There is no god," I mean exactly the same thing as when I say, "There is no bigfoot," or, "There is no cold fusion."

Moreover, I mean the same thing as everone else does as well when they say those things, even if they do not consciously realise it - after all, there are not many who actually analyse the meaning in the language they use.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps you haven't had time to address my post #1611, Hardenbergh.

I'll repeat it for you. My source is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Originally Posted by Hardenbergh
I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.

I've heard this false claim before.

Here are some passages for you to study from the New Testament where Jesus himself advocates all kinds of violence.

For example:

Quote:
Mark 7:10 "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law.
And Jesus tells us to follow the Old Testament laws as well.

Quote:
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[BillyJoe]

And a note to BillyJoe - when I say, "There is no god," I mean exactly the same thing as when I say, "There is no bigfoot," or, "There is no cold fusion."

Moreover, I mean the same thing as everone else does as well when they say those things, even if they do not consciously realise it - after all, there are not many who actually analyse the meaning in the language they use.


Perhaps I just expected more on a forum such as this. :)

[Robin]

Robin,

We're pretty close.

But I see no point in adding: "There is no god".
Especially when you actually mean something else.
I didn't say there is no god. I said we had no need of that hypothesis.
And the "burden of proof"/"you can't prove a negative" argument doesn't change that.
And I have argued pretty consistently that you can prove a negative, for example my previous discussion about "The Earth has exactly one moon".

You can't prove a negative about an undefined god, but see my "God Proposition" thread about the Christian God, which I feel is pretty much disproven, at least beyond reasonable doubt.

[Belz...]

It is interesting that skeptigirl believes god can be disproven (perhaps I am overstating her view) and dismisses the "you can't prove a negative" argument as being irrelevant in the case of god, whereas MobySeven uses that very argument to justify his proclamation that "there is no god" (even though he doesn't actually mean that exactly).

"There is no god until proven otherwise".

Does that sound better to your sensitive ears ?

[BillyJoe]

Robin,

It seems we're even closer than I thought. :)

I didn't say there is no god. I said we had no need of that hypothesis.



But what we do have a need for is a hypothesis about origins and, if the best we can do is some sort of multi-dimensional circular spacetime continuum, have we really done much better than a god hypothesis?

regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

"There is no god until proven otherwise".


This is clearly a false statement.

If it turns out that there is a god, the fact of his existence is not dependent on evidence for his existence becoming available.
Which is what you statement implies.

:)

regards,
BillyJoe

[Paulhoff]

This is clearly a false statement.

If it turns out that there is a god, the fact of his existence is not dependent on evidence for his existence becoming available.
Which is what you statement implies.

:)

regards,
BillyJoe
We are still waiting for this so-called proof, please hurry, I haven't got billions of years to wait.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hardenbergh]

Perhaps you haven't had time to address my post #1611, Hardenbergh.

I'll repeat it for you. My source is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Originally Posted by Hardenbergh
I think that the verses of scripture answered your question. Those were the Old Covenant laws under Moses. As I said, I'm just an amateur Bible scholar. You'll have to study the Bible and you can judge for yourselves.

I've heard this false claim before.

Here are some passages for you to study from the New Testament where Jesus himself advocates all kinds of violence.

For example:

Quote:
Mark 7:10 "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law.
And Jesus tells us to follow the Old Testament laws as well.

Quote:
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I found some articles that might give the reader a better understanding of Matthew 5:19:

http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/14702_4904.html
http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/4406.html

http://www.pbc.org/library/message/verses?verses=Matthew+5%3A19

My Bible reads this way:

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: ~ Mark 7:10

Moses was mediator and communicator of the law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:10;&version=9;

[Paulhoff]

Funny, my bible has nothing in it about so-called gods.

Paul

:) :) :)

http://www.sciam.com/

[Belz...]

This is clearly a false statement.

If it turns out that there is a god, the fact of his existence is not dependent on evidence for his existence becoming available.
Which is what you statement implies.

:)

regards,
BillyJoe

How about "We can safely assume that there is no god until evidence to the contrary is presented" ?

We can dance like this for years, Billy. The fact remains that "There is no god" is a concise way of putting it. That _you_ don't believe the statement makes no difference.

[Belz...]

Moses was mediator and communicator of the law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:10;&version=9;

Sounds to me like a wonderful cop-out. So, the bibble is suspect because it was written by man, but useful because it was inspired by god. Great, now we can accept what we want and reject what we don't like about the "good" book.

[Hardenbergh]

I was just reading a sermon titled "Letting Go of Legalism" and the verse from Exodus regarding working on the Sabbath is used as an example. Scroll down to the heading, "How to Recognize Legalism."

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work...(Exodus 20:8-9)

http://www.bethelstpaul.org/sermon.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:%201-21;&version=9;

[bokonon]

If there is in existence any singular entity or occurrence that I find myself completely enamoured of it is to witness someone utilise convoluted grammatical structure and words of voluminous length in an attempt at coruscation and subsequently confuse a pronoun having the quality of possessiveness with it's homophone.
I enjoyed that too, as well as the "genuflections worship" in the following paragraph, and the "bare with me" which followed that.

I have to confess that my eyes glazed over soon after that, as I watched the soporific screed scroll silently by.

I just tried to use words that would convey the most meaning and be most easily understood by a majority of readers.
Whoosh.

I doubt that I'll ever find the time to consider this blather. I'll check out the last page, and see where it's all led, but honestly...

[Belz...]

I was just reading a sermon titled "Letting Go of Legalism" and the verse from Exodus regarding working on the Sabbath is used as an example. Scroll down to the heading, "How to Recognize Legalism."

I hope for your sake that you've never worked on the sabbath!

[Paulhoff]

You're not to eat pork or ham you know.

Paul

:) :) :)

And no cheeseburger either.

[Hardenbergh]

I had Alaskan Roll (salmon and avacado) and Shrimp and Vegetable Tempura for lunch from the Sakura Japanese Cuisine Restaurant.

[thaiboxerken]

As figured, you pick and choose which of the biblical laws you want to believe are relevant. That's ok, Hardy, we know that all Christians do this because secularism has watered down their religion, thank gawd.

[Hardenbergh]

I hope for your sake that you've never worked on the sabbath!

I usually spend Sunday having dinner with my parents and doing the dishes. I also do laundry on either Saturday or Sunday. Am I safe? I don't get paid for doing the dishes or the laundry.

[thaiboxerken]

Doing laundry and dishes is work, if you don't think so, feel free to tell housewives that it's not.

[Hardenbergh]

Doing laundry and dishes is work, if you don't think so, feel free to tell housewives that it's not.

That could be taken as a sexist remark but I'll let it go. You at least acknowledge that laundry and dishes are work so I'll give you credit. Women still seem to do the bulk of the housework. Many men act like they're still living in the 50's while pretending that women aren't out in the workplace.

[Foster Zygote]

I usually spend Sunday having dinner with my parents and doing the dishes. I also do laundry on either Saturday or Sunday. Am I safe? I don't get paid for doing the dishes or the laundry.

Of course you are safe. You are safe because the Ten Commandments are an archaic set of laws from a Bronze Age society that have little to no relevance to today's world. The idea of posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings is just silly unless one thinks we should start prosecuting people for cooking a goat in it's mothers milk or mowing their lawns on the Sabbath.

[Foster Zygote]

That could be taken as a sexist remark but I'll let it go. You at least acknowledge that laundry and dishes are work so I'll give you credit. Women still seem to do the bulk of the housework. Many men act like they're still living in the 50's while pretending that women aren't out in the workplace.

Can we stick to the subject?

[Hardenbergh]

Of course you are safe. You are safe because the Ten Commandments are an archaic set of laws from a Bronze Age society that have little to no relevance to today's world. The idea of posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings is just silly unless one thinks we should start prosecuting people for cooking a goat in it's mothers milk or mowing their lawns on the Sabbath.

You don't think any of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to today's world? I don't think the display of the Ten Commandments would be harmful to anyone. For one thing, they'd have to purposefully walk up to the display to get close enough to read them (depending how large the print). Just keeping them as part of our history and heritage is reason enough to leave them alone.

Have you ever heard Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_2/ai_n11838232

[thaiboxerken]

You don't think any of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to today's world? I don't think the display of the Ten Commandments would be harmful to anyone. For one thing, they'd have to purposefully walk up to the display to get close enough to read them (depending how large the print). Just keeping them as part of our history and heritage is reason enough to leave them alone.

No, the 10 commandments have no relevance in any world. They are laws passed down from an imagined being to a fictional character. That, and they are rather stupid. The display of the 10 commandments might not be harmful to anyone, but neither would the display of wiccan reid.

The 10 commandments are not part of my heritage, and I'm an american citizen born and raised. They are part of USA history, sure, but so is slaver.


Have you ever heard Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)? The ACLJ is an organization founded by Pat Robertson with the purpose of opposing secularism and tearing down the wall of seperation between christianity and the government to better christian interests. They are scum.

They say that the 10 commandments have played a vital role in the USA law, and maybe they did. But did they play a positive role?! I think not.

[Hardenbergh]

No, the 10 commandments have no relevance in any world. They are laws passed down from an imagined being to a fictional character. That, and they are rather stupid. The display of the 10 commandments might not be harmful to anyone, but neither would the display of wiccan reid.

Not fictional to everyone.

The 10 commandments are not part of my heritage, and I'm an american citizen born and raised. They are part of USA history, sure, but so is slaver.

I don't think that the Ten Commandments and slavery are on the same level.

The ACLJ is an organization founded by Pat Robertson with the purpose of opposing secularism and tearing down the wall of seperation between christianity and the government to better christian interests. They are scum.

They say that the 10 commandments have played a vital role in the USA law, and maybe they did. But did they play a positive role?! I think not.

Scum? I've heard the same disparaging remarks about the ACLU.

[thaiboxerken]

Not fictional to everyone.

Yes, to everyone, regardless of if they believe it to be so or not.


I don't think that the Ten Commandments and slavery are on the same level.

I think they are. Both played a role in USA history, but the negative contributions far outweigh the positives.


Scum? I've heard the same disparaging remarks about the ACLU.

Really? The ACLU was founded by a fundamentalist christian who wants to tear down the wall of seperation between christianity and government?

[Hardenbergh]

An article from the ACLJ website titled, A Patriotic Right to Say 'God' in the Classroom?

Sekulow holds that it is "hardly likely" that patriotic expressions that include reference to God present a threat to the separation of church and state "greater than the study and performance of religious songs and hymns associated with Christmas (or other) observances."

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=305

Here are a couple more articles by Jay Sekulow:


It's often talked about, Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Connecticut Association, where he talked about what he called the "high and mighty duty in this wall of separation between church and state." There's something else that Jefferson wrote several years before he wrote that famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, and that was during the debates on the First Amendment and also in discussions with friends about the concept of liberty. He wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that the liberties are a gift of God and that they are not violated but with His wrath?"

Now, Thomas Jefferson, in the classic understanding of his religious belief, would not fall within what most people would consider an orthodox Christian position. In my view of history anyway, I would not consider him to be – and I'm not speaking as a theologian— He had various views on religion and faith. I don't think faith was insignificant in his life, I don't mean to suggest that at all, but it wouldn't be what we would typically talk about today as a Protestant form of Christianity or Catholic form of Christianity. He kind of had his view of faith, Christianity, and the deity of Jesus, and that's a whole different topic.

But he recognized something very fundamental in that our rights don't come from a king; they are endowed to us. So if the requirement of the school district in Elk Grove was that we begin each school day by reminding ourselves, as students, that we should remember the history of this great nation, that we are endowed by our Creator with these rights, they're inalienable, and that the Creator bestowed them upon us – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – I submit that many people, Dr. Newdow included, would object, saying again it's this compelled reliance.

http://www.aclj.org/Cases/Resources/Document.aspx?id=1075

And you think that the ACLJ is scum?

The ACLU is at it again. With an outrageous boldness that only they could muster, the ACLU has once again set their sights on Christmas celebrations. In their never-ending quest to completely eradicate all things religious from public life, the ACLU’s latest lawsuit is an all-out frontal attack on the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Let me ask you—when did a children’s Christmas program become “an illegal activity”? When did the nativity story and Christmas songs become unconstitutional? This is the outrageous and dangerous charge the ACLU has leveled against a school district in Tennessee. A children’s Christmas program has been deemed to be an “illegal act” because of the ACLU.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaySekulow/2006/11/28/the_aclu_targets_christians&Comments=true

[thaiboxerken]

Of course Sekulow would have such an opinion, he's a fundamentalist christian. I am thinking he'd not hold the same opinion if such expressions referenced Allah though. Appealing to the ACLJ as an authority is rather silly, especially since it is a well known fact that the ACLJ fights for christianity to be the single, most influential religion in the government and to tear down the wall of seperation. It was created by Pat Robertson!

[Foster Zygote]

You don't think any of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to today's world?
As I stated earlier, there are three from the first set of laws that are relevant. They are the ones prohibiting murder, theft and defamation. But these prohibitions are common to most societies.

I don't think the display of the Ten Commandments would be harmful to anyone.
I do. What if a Hindu citizen has to make use of the courts and walks into the lobby to see "Thou shall have no other gods before me? How does a display of the Ten Commandments respect this person's rights?

For one thing, they'd have to purposefully walk up to the display to get close enough to read them (depending how large the print).
What does this have to do with anything?

Just keeping them as part of our history and heritage is reason enough to leave them alone.
Then lets display them along with other historical legal codes like the Codex Hammurabi, the Great Qing Legal Code and the Magna Carta.

Have you ever heard Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)?
Yes I have. I find him to be a highly biased activist determined to erode the separation of church and state and establish Christianity as a dominant force in government policy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_March_2/ai_n11838232[/QUOTE]

[Paulhoff]

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
What does that have to do with any laws.
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
What does that have to do with any laws.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
What does that have to do with any laws.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
What does that have to do with any laws.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
What does that have to do with any laws.
6. You shall not kill.
Finally something to do with a law.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Good in theory.
8. You shall not steal.
Sounds good.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Well there goes gosip, yea we know this one is followed real well.
10. You shall not covet.
Well there goes free enterprise.

So out of 10 only 4 have any meaning when it comes to law, not a good average.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Belz...]

I usually spend Sunday having dinner with my parents and doing the dishes.

Who said anything about Sunday ? We're talking about the Sabbath, here. Unless you contend that the Christian Sabbath is somehow different from the Jewish one in God's eyes.

I also do laundry on either Saturday or Sunday. Am I safe? I don't get paid for doing the dishes or the laundry.

You are not to do ANY work on the Sabbath, period. Penalty: death.

You don't think any of the Ten Commandments have any relevance to today's world?

Nope.

I don't think the display of the Ten Commandments would be harmful to anyone.

As long as the commendments of ALL other religions are also on display, fine.

Not fictional to everyone.

Actually, yes.

[Robin]

Robin,

It seems we're even closer than I thought. :)




But what we do have a need for is a hypothesis about origins and, if the best we can do is some sort of multi-dimensional circular spacetime continuum, have we really done much better than a god hypothesis?

regards,
BillyJoe
But a god is not a hypothesis about origins, it is simply moving the problem back somewhat. A god implies intelligence with implies a dynamic mind which implies time (by your own claim), so we have your problem or origins all over again, just further up the street so to speak.

Add to that we have the question of how 'mind' can be a fundamental substance and yet capable of complex tasks. If mind is (as it necessarily is) a complex system in itself then that implies it is dependent on less complex parts, this god is dependent on something that is not god.

In other words it does not move us towards a solution, it moves us away.

And in any case it is not a hypothesis since it is not testable.

But for our own universe we have Hawking's hypothesis that is testable and if true would remove the need for any outside force to light the fuse on the big bang. And it is not quite circular time, but it is finite time with no boundaries, which is not so far away. Hawking even uses the analogy of the spherical earth to desribe the concept.

[bokonon]

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Well, he's clearly not talking to me. I've never even BEEN to Egypt.

[Rando22]

The endless BS in this thread shows how people love to talk about something that probably can never be understood.
This thread is like a Church.

[BillyJoe]

How about "We can safely assume that there is no god until evidence to the contrary is presented" ?


If I remember correctly (I have passed my father-in-law's copy onto my sister-in-law), Richard Dawkins put it like this:
Category 6: "God almost certainly does not exist, and I live my life as if there is no God"?

The fact remains that "There is no god" is a concise way of putting it.


It sounds more like Dawkin's category 7:
"I know there is no God"

[BillyJoe]

The endless BS in this thread shows how people love to talk about something that probably can never be understood.
This thread is like a Church.


How perceptive. :)

[Belz...]

The endless BS in this thread shows how people love to talk about something that probably can never be understood.
This thread is like a Church.

You know, that's just vague enough to be worthless.

Explain yourself.

[Belz...]

If I remember correctly (I have passed my father-in-law's copy onto my sister-in-law), Richard Dawkins put it like this:
Category 6: "God almost certainly does not exist, and I live my life as if there is no God"?

It sounds more like Dawkin's category 7:
"I know there is no God"

I'm not in a category.

Nice two-part dodge, by the way.

[Paulhoff]

Saying, “GOD DID IT” is not much different than telling a child who asks why something is the way it is, by giving the non-answer “BECAUSE I SAY SO”, there is no proof and/or thought behind both of them.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BillyJoe]

Explain yourself.


He has said more in 1 short post than you have said in 100. ;)

[BillyJoe]

I'm not in a category.


;)

[Belz...]

He has said more in 1 short post than you have said in 100. ;)

Do you ever do anything without insulting people ?

You must be a hoot at parties.

[Foster Zygote]

He has said more in 1 short post than you have said in 100. ;)

You may want to pick your friends with more care. Rando22 seems to be a big fan of the ET Corn Dogs translation code too. In fact, I think Rando22 may smell a bit like sweaty feet.

[BillyJoe]

Robin,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It is a refreshing change. :)


But a god is not a hypothesis about origins, it is simply moving the problem back somewhat. A god implies intelligence with implies a dynamic mind which implies time (by your own claim), so we have your problem or origins all over again, just further up the street so to speak.


Yes, I am aware of this problem.
In his book, Dawkins called it the real Boeing 747 problem.
Yes, if there is a god, then we will have the really big problem of god's nature and origins to solve.
But this still does not preclude him from existing.
If god exists, maybe we will figure him out, or....


Add to that we have the question of how 'mind' can be a fundamental substance and yet capable of complex tasks. If mind is (as it necessarily is) a complex system in itself then that implies it is dependent on less complex parts, this god is dependent on something that is not god.



...maybe he will prove too hard a nut to crack.
(and I'm not really being facetious here)

In other words it does not move us towards a solution, it moves us away.


I know what you mean but, if there is a god and we find him, we will surely be closer to a solution, not further away. But, yeah, the distance we will have come to find him, may be as nothing compared with how far we will still have to go to solve him.
Bummer hey?

But what we do have a need for is a hypothesis about origins and, if the best we can do is some sort of multi-dimensional circular spacetime continuum, have we really done much better than a god hypothesis? And in any case it is not a hypothesis since it is not testable.


If you read carefully, you will see that I wasn't actually saying that god is a hypothesis. I was simply making a comparison to the so called multi-dimensional circular (or curved) spacetime continuum hypothesis, which is also not really an hypothesis, though you think otherwise....

But for our own universe we have Hawking's hypothesis that is testable and if true would remove the need for any outside force to light the fuse on the big bang. And it is not quite circular time, but it is finite time with no boundaries, which is not so far away. Hawking even uses the analogy of the spherical earth to desribe the concept.


Okay, perhaps I've missed something here.
Is Hawking's hypothesis any more of an hypothesis than the god hypothesis? Is it really testable? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I really want to know, because I had always thought that it was mere conjecture on Hawking's part, a way of seeing a little more clearly how the problem could possibly be solved. The initial grasping attempts towards a possible way to a solution as it were. Not an actual solution to the problem.
Am I wrong about this?

[BillyJoe]

Do you ever do anything without insulting people ?...You must be a hoot at parties.


Alas, I do not do well at parties. :(

But that is not because I insult people.
(They already know I am really a harmless little joker :) )
It's just that I hate the friggin' small talk. ;)


regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

You may want to pick your friends with more care. Rando22 seems to be a big fan of the ET Corn Dogs translation code too. In fact, I think Rando22 may smell a bit like sweaty feet.


Well, I don't know, I was thinking more pawn than sockpuppet. :)

[Belz...]

Alas, I do not do well at parties. :(

No kidding.

But that is not because I insult people.
(They already know I am really a harmless little joker :) )
It's just that I hate the friggin' small talk. ;)

It's not small talk you hate, but short talk.

You must prefer long-winded philosophical nonsense.

[Foster Zygote]

Hardenberg seems to be unwilling to address the issue of why the Ten Commandments are relevant to modern law.

[thaiboxerken]

He knows it does not, so he'll evade the question.

[BillyJoe]

No kidding.


Actually, I was kidding.

It's not small talk you hate, but short talk.


Hmmm...talk...ta
No, it's definitely small talk.


You must prefer long-winded philosophical nonsense.


Oh, no, you have me confused with my dog, Ralph.
I often catch him sitting on the back porch looking up at the sky.
He glances at me over his shoulder, entreating me to join him in his searching enquiry.
He talks a lot of nonsense that boy.

:)

[BillyJoe]

He knows it does not, so he'll evade the question.

She...

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar3134_1.gif
.Hardenbergh

:)

[Robin]

Yes, I am aware of this problem.
In his book, Dawkins called it the real Boeing 747 problem.
Yes, if there is a god, then we will have the really big problem of god's nature and origins to solve.
But this still does not preclude him from existing.
Well no, Dawkins raises the issue of probability, which I don't think is a structural problem with god. The problem I am raising is that a complex entity will be dependent on less complex parts. This, by definition cannot be god since god must be the fundamental unit of existence.

Traditional theologians (and Aristotle) have known this for centuries and have insisted that god (or the Prime Mover in Ari's scheme) is "simple". But this is not really satisfactory.
I know what you mean but, if there is a god and we find him, we will surely be closer to a solution, not further away.
Not really since all god adds to the equation is "mind", which does not say anything about origins
Okay, perhaps I've missed something here.
Is Hawking's hypothesis any more of an hypothesis than the god hypothesis? Is it really testable? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, I really want to know, because I had always thought that it was mere conjecture on Hawking's part, a way of seeing a little more clearly how the problem could possibly be solved. The initial grasping attempts towards a possible way to a solution as it were. Not an actual solution to the problem.
Am I wrong about this?
No, he has provided testable predictions. As far as I know he does not yet consider that the hypothesis has been demonstrated, although a number of the predictions have been successfully tested against observation.

[Belz...]

Oh, no, you have me confused with my dog, Ralph.
I often catch him sitting on the back porch looking up at the sky.
He glances at me over his shoulder, entreating me to join him in his searching enquiry.
He talks a lot of nonsense that boy.

Stop taking after him.