So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[avxo]

Debunked? Lmao. You don't have to provide an explanation of an explanation. That would lead to an endless loop of explanations with no answers and against the very principles on which science is based.

For example, if humans were to find extraterrestrial artifacts or technology on the moon which were not left behind by anyone from Earth, they would be able to recognize that a designer created those artifacts without asking the question who designed these extraterrestrials. Another example might be digging up artifacts from an ancient civilization on Earth. The archaeologists can instantly identify arrows as designed by a designer, without having to answer the question if these designers were created by a Creator.

It is debunked and it's an "argument" full of logical fallacies, the least of which is special pleading. You claim that everything requires a Creator, except the Creator. Why the exception? If the Creator doesn't himself need to be created why does the Universe need to be?

[avxo]

Could be out of nothing. You should be open to that idea, since you "believe" the Universe came from nothing. See you are a believer in something. "Nothing" is your Creator.

Checkmate.

See my previous post: Occam's razor. Postulating that the Universe was created by a Creator who was not, himself, created simply adds unwarranted complexity over the simpler case where it is the Universe that is not created.

To assume a Creator is illogical and irrational in the absence of concrete evidence justifying the existence of a Creator.

[devilsmile]

in conclusion:

the ones here who don't believe in god reject the bullshit from one book so they can cherry pick and choose the bullshit they like better from a whole bunch of differend books. do we believe in god with a capital g? maybe, haven't decided yet. continues to preach how he feels connected with the sun when he stares at it. believes in "energy". or when he's taking a piss in the woods, sees a deer looking straight into his eyes and starts pissing as well he explains it to be the most spiritual thing he has ever experienced. doesn't believe in hell or heaven but is on the fence of reincarnation. sets up the meditation app in the phone to 15 minutes

i win

[Yamcha]

in conclusion:

the ones here who don't believe in god reject the bullshit from one book so they can cherry pick and choose the bullshit they like better from a whole bunch of differend books. do we believe in god with a capital g? maybe, haven't decided yet. continues to preach how he feels connected with the sun when he stares at it. believes in "energy". or when he's taking a piss in the woods, sees a deer looking straight into his eyes and starts pissing as well he explains it to be the most spiritual thing he has ever experienced. doesn't believe in hell or heaven but is on the fence of reincarnation. sets up the meditation app in the phone to 15 minutes

i win

If only the underlined part above were true... 

[Man of Steel]

If only the underlined part above were true... 

AHAHAHAHAHA!!  Legit LOL!

[Man of Steel]

Logical fallacies called out in bold red.

First sentence: Proof by assertion; second sentence: fallacy of the single cause, circular reasoning and regression fallacy; third sentence: reification and false analogy.

There you go again... "Everything requires a creator! Except the creator, because that'd just be silly. He's just eternal." Come on... that argument was debunked at least as early as 1927 by Russell.



Well, if it's important to you, I'll try. But in order to comprehend that a Creator exists, I first need to comprehend why (a) a Creator is needed and (b) why this Creator doesn't, himself, need a Creator. On your mark... Ready... Set... Go!


But you're sure there is one. Interesting. Tell us, what attributes are you sure of and how did you come to be sure? How can we discover them for ourselves so that we can be sure too?


First paragraph: Fallacy of the single cause, gambler's fallacy, proof by assertion, begging the question, fallacy of insufficient sample and lucid fallacy; second sentence: Fallacy of quoting out of context and appeal to authority and/or accomplishment.

Ah yes, the argument of the fine-tuned universe. It's all the rage these days... except, it's nonsense. Let's start with the simple and indisputable fact that the Universe doesn't seem to be at all tuned to support human life.


Appeal to motive, false dilemma and bulverism

If they thought this, they committed a number of logical fallacies - starting with the either/or fallacy. I'm forced to conclude that the unnamed scientists whose motives and thought you're privy to probably weren't very good scientists. Are you sure you aren't just making this shit up and pretending that "some scientists" said it?


Straw man fallacy

The same is possible without a multiverse, just not in parallel. Not that "in parallel" means much when applied outside the temporal causality framework of the Universe we exist in.


Pooh-pooh fallacy, wishful thinking, kettle logic, argument from incredulity and Nirvana fallacy.

Well, since you see to have, precisely, quantified the odds, care to share them with us? I mean, it's not like I think you're bullshiting us... I just like to see the numbers.
 

Onus probandi and moving the goalposts

I'll answer after you tell me how your Creator come to be.


Fallacy of esoteric knowledge, fallacy of magical thinking, proof by assertion and thought-terminating cliché

This post looks like a KJV NT; although, in this case, the words in red are GB's atheist Messiah avxo!!    

And oh did the lambs then flock to this because "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me".

There's almost as many words related to randomly naming of logical fallacies than actual words in said fallacies....this is part I loved!  

Still your reply is essentially the fallacy fallacy or a subjectivist fallacy or a red herring.  

The other problem is that your reply doesn't really defend or refute anything....its simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God.  Perhaps a refutation wasn't a specific part of this post and is still to come....I get that.  Although if your prerequisite for presenting said refutation is first proving the need and origin of God I can make that pretty plain.  We need God to create all that is and we need God for salvation and freedom from sin.   We aren't told of an origin of God.  What we are told is that he has existed from everlasting to everlasting.  God simply is, was and always will be....he has no start or creator otherwise that "starter" or "creator" would be God and so forth and so on in an infinite regression (but you already know that).  You and I have discussed these things before so the answers are already there.

Either way, well played.....well played!   I again legit LOL'd!!      Still I mean no offense, I just literally LOL'd!

[devilsmile]

If only the underlined part above were true... 

if only. but i put it rather accurately if i may say so my self how this thread be about because it do

[Yamcha]

if only. but i put it rather accurately if i may say so my self how this thread be about because it do

YES!

[TheGrinch]

Why does the creator need a creator?

What if the true answer is God always existed?

People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?

The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol

How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?

[BigRo]

Why does the creator need a creator?

What if the true answer is God always existed?

People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?

The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol

How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?

Indeed.

[Necrosis]

That post was in response to Necrosis, who does not understand the fine tuning concept at all.

And apparently you don't understand the concept of reading.

You should be fucking impaled for your ignorance!

yes, we are fine tuned like the water is to a hole in the ground.

It's an old argument, why troll so late in the thread?

[Necrosis]

You don't understand the fine tuning concept moron.

There are 4 fundamental forces that have been identified. In our present Universe they have rather different properties.

Properties of the Fundamental Forces
•The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It acts only over ranges of order 10-13 centimeters and is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances.

• The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge.

• The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and, as its name indicates, it is very weak.

• The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive, and acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.

Scientists have ran computer simulations of the Big Bang, and if any of these forces are different by a minuscule fraction, the Universe does not develop as it did. Galaxies don't form, solar systems don't develop out of Nebulae, accretion of solar dust into planets and stars does not occur. And life does not develop on planets.

The fact that there could be millions of planets in the Universe teaming with life is irrelevant to the discussion about this fine tuning of the Universe. Planets would not even exist if the forces were different by a minuscule, incalculable amount.

Go do some reading and stop being a fucking idiot.

so... lol, the fundamental forces need to be specific, we have nothing to compare it to, it may be the only way it could ever be, the variations are SIMULATIONS as they don't exist, only this does, hence the N=1.

If monkeys didn't eat fruit and meat our PFC wouldn't have developed, then elon musk couldn't make teh model 3, god did it, to fine tuned.

[obsidian]

See my previous post: Occam's razor. Postulating that the Universe was created by a Creator who was not, himself, created simply adds unwarranted complexity over the simpler case where it is the Universe that is not created.

To assume a Creator is illogical and irrational in the absence of concrete evidence justifying the existence of a Creator.

It is actually the reverse. Scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang. So in order to account for the random development, they added complexity by coming up with the multiverse theory. Occam's Razor is not applicable.

The most simplest explanation is that the Universe was created with precise tuning.

It is illogical and irrational to insist that it happened randomly when science is providing proof that there must be a Creator.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

"There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"

[obsidian]

yes, we are fine tuned like the water is to a hole in the ground.

It's an old argument, why troll so late in the thread?

Not sure what you trying to say. Forget we, the whole Universe is fine tuned. Without this specific tuning of the Universe planets and galaxies would not even exist. For life to have developed on Earth just adds more to the odds. It is basically impossible that it developed randomly. Science is proving this.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

[obsidian]

so... lol, the fundamental forces need to be specific, we have nothing to compare it to, it may be the only way it could ever be, the variations are SIMULATIONS as they don't exist, only this does, hence the N=1.

If monkeys didn't eat fruit and meat our PFC wouldn't have developed, then elon musk couldn't make teh model 3, god did it, to fine tuned.

Are you a scientist? Computers can simulate the development of Universe. And if any of the values are changed even slightly, boom no galaxies, planets or life on planets.

[obsidian]

Why does the creator need a creator?

What if the true answer is God always existed?

People question who created God but don't question that the Universe is infinite?

The universe HAS to be infinite.... if not what's on the other side?..lol

How is an infinite universe possible but a God that always existed not to you?

The Universe is expanding. At one point right after the Big Bang it was smaller than a cell in your body and very shortly after as big as a golf ball. You could hold it in your hand. Of course we cannot comprehend this time scale. It expanded to the size of our Solar System in an instant. And it has been expanding ever since, for over 13 billion years. So it is not infinite.

Regarding the Creator, I am open to the idea that this Creator always existed, or appeared from nowhere. It is really crazy to think about these things. The reality is we just cannot understand this with our intellect. Why is there a Universe? Why is there a Creator? Using common sense and logic it would seem that there should not have been anything. And yet here we are on Getbig talking about this shit.

[obsidian]

It is debunked and it's an "argument" full of logical fallacies, the least of which is special pleading. You claim that everything requires a Creator, except the Creator. Why the exception? If the Creator doesn't himself need to be created why does the Universe need to be?

The problem is the Atheist viewpoint does not stand up when reviewing the odds stacked against a random development of the Universe.

How could the Universe develop from nothing? If you can explain that please do. Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang. Why are there Hydrogen Atoms?

The reality is as an Atheist you cannot answer this because it is impossible to explain. But please try.

[avxo]

It is actually the reverse. Scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang. So in order to account for the random development, they added complexity by coming up with the multiverse theory. Occam's Razor is not applicable.

Of course Occam's razor is applicable: you are adding a layer of complexity that, ultimately, explains nothing. You claim that everything needs a creator and deduce that, therefore, the Universe needs a creator. You then assert that the Creator doesn't need a creator. You've explained nothing while adding the unnecessary layer of complexity of a Creator.

You claim that "scientists have determined the odds are too great for the Universe to have developed as it did randomly after the Big Bang." Perhaps some scientist said so, but it's unclear to me how they can estimate odds with (a) a sample size of 1,  (b) without knowing how all the variables interact with each other and (c) how those variables affect life. This type of argument is favored by people like Eric Metaxas, whose article you quote a little further down in your post; specifically he babbles about how a miniscule change in the relative strength of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces - to the order of 1x10^-17 - would cause the Universe to not exist. This, of course, is nonsense. It might cause our Universe to not exist, but he can't claim that no Universe could exist.

The most simplest explanation is that the Universe was created with precise tuning.

Except it's not. Not only is it based on a faulty premise, but it also posits something of almost immesurable complexity - a Creator that can "fine tune" the entire Universe. I fail to see how positing such an entity is the "simplest" explanation.

It is illogical and irrational to insist that it happened randomly when science is providing proof that there must be a Creator.

Please explain what consistutes a proof that there must be a Creator and then produce said proof.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

I don't find Eric Metaxas' arguments particularly convincing. In addition to what I explained earlier, it seems to me that he takes great pains to make things fit into his preconceived notions and preexisting beliefs.

"There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

No, sorry... I won't. As I said, this argument isn't convincing for a number of reasons. First, even if it's true that gravity, and the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces could have different values, we don't know what the result would be. Sure, maybe our Universe wouldn't be possible, but so what? It says nothing about the possibility of other Universes.

What's more, this argument is deeply rooted in a hasty generalization. Just because the Universe is what it is and we evolved in it does not mean that the Universe was designed or fine-tuned for us.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"[/i]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything in the above quote is correct: that the odds are beyond even astronomical. So? Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. But even if it were, one is forced to wonder... surely, by a similar argument, a creator that's able to "create" such a Universe could not have "happened" by chance. Why, a brief back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that would be like tossing a coin and coming up heads 666 octillion times in a row. Really?

[avxo]

The problem is the Atheist viewpoint does not stand up when reviewing the odds stacked against a random development of the Universe.

The problem is that you assume that all Atheists have a common viewpoint about how the Universe developed.

How could the Universe develop from nothing? If you can explain that please do. Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang. Why are there Hydrogen Atoms?

Let's say I can't explain any of those things. Now, I have a question for you: how could the Creator you posit develop from nothing? If you can't explain that, then adding a Creator into the mix adds nothing of value and needs to be rejected outright.

The reality is as an Atheist you cannot answer this because it is impossible to explain. But please try.

I'm unintersted in answering those quests as an atheist, because those questions aren't relevant to my atheism. I attempted to answer these questions as a scientist more than once and you kept ignoring those explanations and repeating the same nonsensical questions, page after page after page.

You, on the other hand, can't really even answer those questions, despite inventing a "Creator" as the answer. You can't answer them because your invented answer is vacuous. Allow me to demonstrate:

    - You ask "How could the Universe develop from nothing?" You answer "the Creator!"
    - You ask "Where did the mass and energy come from prior to the Big Bang"? You answer "the Creator!"
    - You ask "Why are there Hydrogen Atoms"? You answer "the Creator!"

Your answer adds nothing of value to the discussion. And, what's more, you can't identify a single characteristic of this Creator that allows us to distinguish him from nothingness. If you want to try and prove me wrong, I have one very simple question for you:

How could the Creator develop from nothing?

[avxo]

This post looks like a KJV NT; although, in this case, the words in red are GB's atheist Messiah avxo!!    

And oh did the lambs then flock to this because "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me".

There's almost as many words related to randomly naming of logical fallacies than actual words in said fallacies....this is part I loved!  

Still your reply is essentially the fallacy fallacy or a subjectivist fallacy or a red herring.  

The other problem is that your reply doesn't really defend or refute anything....its simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God.  Perhaps a refutation wasn't a specific part of this post and is still to come....I get that.  Although if your prerequisite for presenting said refutation is first proving the need and origin of God I can make that pretty plain.  We need God to create all that is and we need God for salvation and freedom from sin.   We aren't told of an origin of God.  What we are told is that he has existed from everlasting to everlasting.  God simply is, was and always will be....he has no start or creator otherwise that "starter" or "creator" would be God and so forth and so on in an infinite regression (but you already know that).  You and I have discussed these things before so the answers are already there.

Either way, well played.....well played!   I again legit LOL'd!!      Still I mean no offense, I just literally LOL'd!

I'm glad I could make you laugh, but I'd hardly describe myself as a Messiah.

As for the style of my reply: I've engaged with Obsidian in this thread before and I refuse to play his game. I see little point in spending time and energy addressing arguments that are based on faulty premises or are, otherwise, fundamentally flawed. I choose to call out the logical fallacies in the arguments to show that they are, indeed, fallacious and flawed and don't make the point that Obsidian claims they do.

You say that my reply is "simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God." But that's not true. My reply is challenging Obsidian's unfounded and unsupported assertion that there exists a Creator. He made this claim, and it's up to him to defend it. Yes, I want him to defend the need and origin of a Creator that was not, himself, created, especially when his argument about why a Creator is necessary boils down to that something can't come from nothing. I refuse to allow Obsidian - or you for that matter - to have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that the Universe - and everything else - requires a creator then I will not allow you to get away with asserting that your creator is special and bypasses that rule.

If you think that this is forcing you defend your deity, then so be it.

[Man of Steel]

I'm glad I could make you laugh, but I'd hardly describe myself as a Messiah.

As for the style of my reply: I've engaged with Obsidian in this thread before and I refuse to play his game. I see little point in spending time and energy addressing arguments that are based on faulty premises or are, otherwise, fundamentally flawed. I choose to call out the logical fallacies in the arguments to show that they are, indeed, fallacious and flawed and don't make the point that Obsidian claims they do.

You say that my reply is "simply generalizations, questions and requirements to defend the need for and origin of God." But that's not true. My reply is challenging Obsidian's unfounded and unsupported assertion that there exists a Creator. He made this claim, and it's up to him to defend it. Yes, I want him to defend the need and origin of a Creator that was not, himself, created, especially when his argument about why a Creator is necessary boils down to that something can't come from nothing. I refuse to allow Obsidian - or you for that matter - to have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that the Universe - and everything else - requires a creator then I will not allow you to get away with asserting that your creator is special and bypasses that rule.

If you think that this is forcing you defend your deity, then so be it.

Well, I don't need to defend God (and he definitely doesn't need me to defend him LOL), but I do give reasons for the hope within me and explain the experiences I've had with God and knowledge of God I've learned.  God has and will exist from everlasting to everlasting.  He's uncaused and has no beginning and only those things that have a beginning are caused (simple kalam cosmological argument).  If you consider that having my cake and eating it too then so be it that's fine by me....I take no offense.   I'm not at all worried about convincing the atheists of this board about anything as it pertains to God....minds are made up.   Would I love for atheists to become Christians?  Absolutely.  I don't want to see any of you separated from God in an eternal hell....I honestly do care for the members of this board.  I'm just giving the Christian perspective, answering questions, correcting misinformation about Christianity and attempting to help others that might want to know more.  If that happens primarily through dialogue with atheists then so be it.  You keep things civil and lighthearted with a touch of heat here and there  so it's all good.  I appreciate that you really don't insult....goes a long way with me.  

[Dave D]

Some great intelligent discussion taking place here, it makes a fascinating read.

I have a serious question, as science is ever learning, evolving and adapting has it ever been able to prove that there is no other "advanced life forms" (obviously I'm referring to a "creator", if it be the judo Christian God or some other alien life).

And as a thought,  if science can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice and it is readily accepted why is the same grace not extended to a belief system, Christianity for example. In this case people seem to focus on its history of short comings and poor practices, yet no one ever harps on false scientific beliefs that were widely held years ago like genetic ethnic superiority (or a superior sex). Any comments or thoughts are welcomed.

[BigRo]

Some great intelligent discussion taking place here, it makes a fascinating read.

I have a serious question, as science is ever learning, evolving and adapting has it ever been able to prove that there is no other "advanced life forms" (obviously I'm referring to a "creator", if it be the judo Christian God or some other alien life).

And as a thought,  if science can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice and it is readily accepted why is the same grace not extended to a belief system, Christianity for example. In this case people seem to focus on its history of short comings and poor practices, yet no one ever harps on false scientific beliefs that were widely held years ago like genetic ethnic superiority (or a superior sex). Any comments or thoughts are welcomed.

As the human consciousness evolves or joins with what is already above, behind and within then its scientific scope will also increase. If it insists (or the atheists who proudly proclaim to be her mouthpiece) stubbornly to require logical proof on the level of ordinary human reasoning then I cant see it ever comprehending these things.

Wiggs still believes in genetic ethnic superiority!

[bigmc]

so to sum up

good people who dont believe in god go to hell for eternity

bad people who believe in god go to heaven

good stuff 

[Man of Steel]

so to sum up

good people who dont believe in god go to hell for eternity

bad people who believe in god go to heaven

good stuff 

Do you want to give your life to Christ?