So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[Raymondo]

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).

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Religion cannot provide evidence for the existence of God that is not subject to serious logical fallacies like tautologies, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion/authority/tradition, etc. By any reasonable standard the claim must then be rejected.

Science offers reasons for the rejection of God, albeit indirectly, by providing natural explanations antithetical to religious doctrines. For example the origins of man are explained by evolution via natural selection instead of supernatural being creating us from scratch, the age of the Earth is known to be billions of years old as measured by carbon dating instead of just 6,000 years old, etc. You cannot entirely disprove the existence of God, especially since some religious claims are unfalsifiable (and thus beyond the realm of rational disource-they require faith), however, if every God-related claim regarding the natural world can be disproved and is eventually disproved, it gives very strong hints as to the non existence of God.

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.

Scientists are obliged to change their minds if presented with appropriate evidence. Even if they do not (they are only human), they still function in a peer-reviewed discipline that will ostracize them if they start acting irrationally, see for example the Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion experiments. Once it became clear they had made a mistake in their calculations and scientists worldwide could not replicate their results, cold fusion was as good as dead and is never published in scientific journals these days.

I think you answered your question with the first sentence. The difference is that a belief system of the religious type has a strong doctrinal core that is immutable, whereas science does not, it can evolve, change and admit errors in belief/practice. The science of the 21st century is radically different from the science of the 19th, whereas religion still relies on doctrines of some kind or other.

[bigmc]

Do you want to give your life to Christ?

i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment

i dont believe in christ

so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell

while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven

 

[Simple Simon]

i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment

i dont believe in christ

so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell

while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven

 

solid post.

[obsidian]

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.

blah blah blah....

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?

Occam's Razor is applicable from the Theist's point of view. The simplest explanation is that the Universe is designed.

Atheists are latching on to the multiverse concept which adds complexity. In addition, a multiverse cannot be observed or measured so cannot be proven. And what kind of fine tuning would this generator of Universes require?

The Cosmological Constant is tuned so precisely that it would be impossible for a random development of our Universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

"Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers."

Let's say before a Big Bang occurs the Cosmological Constant would always be random / different in the absence of a Designer. You would have to flip a coin almost forever and never come up with the correct Cosmological Constant value that would allow for the the formation of galaxies, stars, planets and ultimately life on planets.

[obsidian]

i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment

i dont believe in christ

so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell

while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven

 

You can still believe there is a Creator without subscribing to the concept of Hell and Heaven.

In my mind there is a Creator that designed the Universe, however I am not sure if there is a Heaven and Hell.

[Man of Steel]

i want to give my life to bringing my child up in a secure and loving enviroment

i dont believe in christ

so by your edict i am therefore damned to hell

while catholic priests abuse children safe in the knowledge that because they believe they have a place in heaven

 

I don't believe most Catholics are aaved.  I certainly don't believe that pedo priests are saved. Catholicism is not Christianity.

And good folks don't go to heaven.....none are good.

Those that trust in Christ do.  Lord knows the fakes from the real thing.

[obsidian]

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.

No human could possibly understand the concept of a Being that always existed. Christianity teaches that God always existed - a Beginningless Being.

Yet even an Atheist has to be open to the concept of eternity. If the Big Bang happened randomly as Atheists reason, what preceded that?

And why would the Universe start from nothing all of a sudden in this eternity? I mean in the absence of a Creator, what made the decision that a Big Bang would occur? If there was no intelligence behind it, then I fail to see how this came to be. Not even taking into consideration the precise fine tuned values.

I look forward to you answer.

[avxo]

I don't believe most Catholics are aaved.  I certainly don't believe that pedo priests are saved. Catholicism is not Christianity.

And good folks don't go to heaven.....none are good.

Those that trust in Christ do.  Lord knows the fakes from the real thing.

Let's say all that is true... even then, all it takes to be saved is genuine repentance at the very last pico-second before death. So that pedo-priest can be saved. True or false?

[Man of Steel]

Let's say all that is true... even then, all it takes to be saved is genuine repentance at the very last pico-second before death. So that pedo-priest can be saved. True or false?

Yes in that extremist of examples that would be true.

The ole Hitler deathbed conversion example.

[avxo]

No human could possibly understand the concept of a being that always existed. Christianity teaches that God always existed - a Beginningless being.

And yet, you somehow claim to not only understand this concept, but that it is absolutely necessary and without it, nothing makes sense.

Yet even an Atheist had to be open to the concept of eternity. If the Big Bang happened randomly as Atheists reason, what preceded that?

As I've pointed out before, there's no common position about the origin of Universe shared by all "Atheists". The only shared, common position between atheists is our lack of belief in deities.

You ask what preceded the Big Bang. As I've explained before, the question is meaningless. "Precede" implies a temporal relation (and, perhaps, a causal one) but temporal and causal relations as we understand them are a property of the Universe itself.

And why would the Universe start from nothing all of a sudden in this eternity?

Even if this is a question that is (a) worth asking and (b) possible to answer, I suggest that "because the Creator started it" is a vacuous answer - one that answers nothing and only adds an additional layer of complexity without proving that it is necessary.

I mean in the absence of a Creator, what made the decision that a Big Bang would occur?

You assume that a decision is needed and that one was taken. Where's the proof of this? Notice, answering this is a prerequisite to even asking your question.

If there was no intelligence behind it, then I fail to see how this came to be.

Oh... well... if you fail to see how it could be, then... shit... I guess it couldn't.

Not even taking into consideration the precise fine tuned values.

You mean the bogus argument that has been thoroughly debunked - a fact that I pointed out a few posts ago in an post that you conveniently ignored?

I look forward to you answer.

I hope that it's everything you were hoping it would be.

[bigmc]

Yes in that extremist of examples that would be true.

The ole Hitler deathbed conversion example.

and there is it

a lifetime of sin

one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven

if you cant see how nonsensical that is

the you might as well be a potato

[obsidian]

And yet, you somehow claim to not only understand this concept, but that it is absolutely necessary and without it, nothing makes sense.

What concept? I asked the question earlier: "If Atheists are open to the idea of a self creating Universe, why would they oppose a self creating Creator?" I don't have a clue about the origins of the Creator. The Creator could always have existed or spontaneously started. All I believe is the Universe was designed based on Scientific data.

As I've pointed out before, there's no common position about the origin of Universe shared by all "Atheists". The only shared, common position between atheists is our lack of belief in deities.

So you do believe in something. Interesting choice of words for an "Atheist" - lol! Belief should not be part of your vocabulary.

be·lief.

[bəˈlēf]

NOUN

1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:
"his belief in the value of hard work" ·
[more]

2.
(belief in)

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:

You ask what preceded the Big Bang. As I've explained before, the question is meaningless. "Precede" implies a temporal relation (and, perhaps, a causal one) but temporal and causal relations as we understand them are a property of the Universe itself.

Even if this is a question that is (a) worth asking and (b) possible to answer, I suggest that "because the Creator started it" is a vacuous answer - one that answers nothing and only adds an additional layer of complexity without proving that it is necessary.

Nice dodging of the question. So basically you're choosing the easy way out. You can claim the Universe just started by itself and just magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for you to exist. And a question of what preceded this Auto Start Universe is meaningless. That's not an answer. Looks more like a dog running with his tail between his legs.

You assume that a decision is needed and that one was taken. Where's the proof of this? Notice, answering this is a prerequisite to even asking your question.

The proof is in the fine tuned nature of the Universe. And the fact that you exist - and will die (via impalement  .. j/k)

Oh... well... if you fail to see how it could be, then... shit... I guess it couldn't.

Yep, glad you agree  

You mean the bogus argument that has been thoroughly debunked - a fact that I pointed out a few posts ago in an post that you conveniently ignored?

Where? Link?

I hope that it's everything you were hoping it would be.

Nope, too much dodging.

[obsidian]

and there is it

a lifetime of sin

one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven

if you cant see how nonsensical that is

the you might as well be a potato

An Atheist with morals? What? By what standards? The is no Creator or God according to you - right? So why do you care if someone is murdered or raped? Where do you get your morals from?

[BigRo]

being moral is not dependent on belief in God.

[avxo]

What concept? I asked the question earlier: "If Atheists are open to the idea of a self creating Universe, why would they oppose a self creating Creator?" I don't have a clue about the origins of the Creator. The Creator could always have existed or spontaneously started. All I believe is the Universe was designed based on Scientific data.

You don't have a clue, but you are sure that a Creator is needed. Also, enough with this nonsense about basing your belief on scientific data - you aren't.

So you do believe in something. Interesting choice of words for an "Atheist" - lol! Belief should not be part of your vocabulary.

Nonsense. I believe in many things. I believe, for example, that my girlfriend loves me; I believe that my parents will be home later tonight; I believe that my DVR recorded at least two shows and I believe that in about 10 days I will receive a bill for my cellular phone.

As a rational person, I don't believe things on faith (that is, in the absence of or contrary to evidence).

As an atheist, I don't believe in deities.

Nice dodging of the question. So basically you're choosing the easy way out. You can claim the Universe just started by itself and just magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for you to exist. And a question of what preceded this Auto Start Universe is meaningless. That's not an answer. Looks more like a dog running with his tail between his legs.

Except I make none of those claims. Let's take it one at a time, shall we?

I don't claim the Universe just started by itself - I merely observe the fact that Universe exists and proprose that your suggestion that the Universe couldn't have started by itself and required a Creator is bogus since, by extension of your argument, the Creator you posit couldn't have started by himself and required a Uber-Creator and that even positing him answers nothing.

I don't claim that the Universe magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for me to exist. I make no claim that other Cosmological Constant Values would preclude my existence or the existence of the Universe. You make that claim by arguing that these values are fine-tuned and proof of design. Yet, you offer no evidence that these values are anything other than random, except to say "well, it's unlikely" but "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible" and unlikely things happen all the time.

The proof is in the fine tuned nature of the Universe. And the fact that you exist - and will die (via impalement  .. j/k)

You haven't proven that the Universe is fine tuned. You merely claim that it is, because you assert that the probability of these values being what they are is infinitesimally small and if they were something else we wouldn't exist. But again, infinitesimally small doesn't equal impossible and doesn't imply design, and you have no concrete evidence that only these values and no others lead to other viable universes. Our existence can't be used to infer that the Universe was designed for us; the simple fact is that the Universe is a terribly hostile place for us and doesn't seem designed with us in mind.

[Man of Steel]

and there is it

a lifetime of sin

one second of retribution and bingo a ticket to heaven

if you cant see how nonsensical that is

the you might as well be a potato

Here's the thing, the extreme example (that isn't based any real examples) and the conclusions reached are basically a fallacy of exaggeration.  Last second, deathbed conversions such as this do not occur for the fully twisted, evil folks.  Pol Pot, Mae Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, etc....did not convert from their evil, reprobate ways moments before death....simply false.  And to then conclude that given the possibility that this type of conversion is possible ("while my sweet, nonbelieving grandmother that never hurt a fly goes to hell") that Christ and Christianity is perverted and twisted.  It's an example purely for shock value, but grounded in nothing.  Scripture is full of examples of fully evil and reprobate folks going to their deaths fully evil and reprobate....these folks RARELY (if ever) change their ways.  Jeffrey Dahmer didn't murder some of his unbelieving victims and send them to hell and then convert to Christianity in his last breaths after being stabbed in prison and go to heaven with Jesus...it's nonsense.

[Man of Steel]

An Atheist with morals? What? By what standards? The is no Creator or God according to you - right? So why do you care if someone is murdered or raped? Where do you get your morals from?

Basically grounded in the subjectivity of a group of nonbelievers disguised behind the facade of scientific consensus.....all in all it's an argumentum ad populum.

[Yamcha]

Where does Purgatory fit in to the grand scheme of things?

[Man of Steel]

Where does Purgatory fit in to the grand scheme of things?

false catholic doctrine...fits into the catholic church

[Agnostic007]

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

i have to say, you are one of my favorite posters.. 

[Man of Steel]

i have to say, you are one of my favorite posters..  

 

No offense at all meant towards avxo....I like him too!

[Agnostic007]

MOS, the truth is, you were faltering long before  that.. to pretend you were even close to holding your own in the discussion is funny. You were and are giving 5th grade apologist answers that have been debunked long before this thread. You believe what you do because you want to believe it. To suggest science supports your belief or it makes logical sense   is ridiculous  

[Man of Steel]

MOS, the truth is, you were faltering long before  that.. to pretend you were even close to holding your own in the discussion is funny. You were and are giving 5th grade apologist answers that have been debunked long before this thread. You believe what you do because you want to believe it. To suggest science supports your belief is ridiculous  

LOL!! Settle down Agnostic.....after the 10000 memes thrown at me y'all can endure 4.  

I like that one by the way...."5th grade apologetics"....that's actually a new insult I haven't heard before!

[Agnostic007]

LOL!! Settle down Agnostic.....after the 10000 memes thrown at me y'all can endure 4.  

I like that one by the way...."5th grade apologetics"....that's actually a new insult I haven't heard before!

Thanks, I considered 6th grade but I recall by the 6th grade their logic and reason is further developed ;-)

[obsidian]

You don't have a clue, but you are sure that a Creator is needed. Also, enough with this nonsense about basing your belief on scientific data - you aren't.

Do you have a clue? Why are you here? Why is there a Universe. You don't have a clue so don't act like you do. Oh yes, you will probably counter that you never claimed to have a clue - lol! However you do know for a fact there can't be a Creator. How do you know this for a fact? Why do you believe this?

Nonsense. I believe in many things. I believe, for example, that my girlfriend loves me; I believe that my parents will be home later tonight; I believe that my DVR recorded at least two shows and I believe that in about 10 days I will receive a bill for my cellular phone.

And let's say hypothetically your parents had a flat tire or had a drink with friends and could not reach you on the phone, what happens to that belief of yours that they would be home in the evening? You believed your parents would be home as usual with you waiting eagerly in the Basement. You had faith that they would bring you food and video games as usual. But it did not happen as you dreamed. What then??

As a rational person, I don't believe things on faith (that is, in the absence of or contrary to evidence).

You have faith that your parents would be home, however that might not always be the case.

Except I make none of those claims. Let's take it one at a time, shall we?

I don't claim the Universe just started by itself - I merely observe the fact that Universe exists and proprose that your suggestion that the Universe couldn't have started by itself and required a Creator is bogus since, by extension of your argument, the Creator you posit couldn't have started by himself and required a Uber-Creator and that even positing him answers nothing.

I don't claim that the Universe magically had the correct Cosmological Constant Values required for me to exist. I make no claim that other Cosmological Constant Values would preclude my existence or the existence of the Universe. You make that claim by arguing that these values are fine-tuned and proof of design. Yet, you offer no evidence that these values are anything other than random, except to say "well, it's unlikely" but "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible" and unlikely things happen all the time.

You haven't proven that the Universe is fine tuned. You merely claim that it is, because you assert that the probability of these values being what they are is infinitesimally small and if they were something else we wouldn't exist. But again, infinitesimally small doesn't equal impossible and doesn't imply design, and you have no concrete evidence that only these values and no others lead to other viable universes. Our existence can't be used to infer that the Universe was designed for us; the simple fact is that the Universe is a terribly hostile place for us and doesn't seem designed with us in mind.

But surely as an Atheist you know for certain a Creator did not create the Universe. That is the impression you are giving. What is you position then on the origins of the Universe? You just proposed that you make no claim on whether the Universe self started or not. Do you agree that the Universe had a beginning?

I don't have to prove the Universe is fine tuned. This has already been proven by leading Scientists.

And who said the Universe was designed with us in mind? Not me. The human species is only 200,000 years old. That's young compared to most species with some being a few million years old. Hostility could very well be part of the designer's plan and necessary so species can adapt via evolution. I see evolution as just part of the design.

The Universe was designed for everything. Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems, Planets, Earth, Dinosaurs, Megalodons, Monkeys, Humans, Cars, Computers etc.

We are star dust. Your great great great..... parents were ancient stars that died before our Solar System was born.