Who created God?

[Godless]

OK, now that you have a solid understanding of the concept of empathy, here's a new one for you to look up: "non sequitur".

LOL! LOL!

Here's a clue. We see non sequiturs frequently on these boards!.

Godless

 

[(Q)]

If atheists simply empathised they would have no business at a religions forum - in fact, an atheist would have nothing to state.

Unfortunately though, the theist mindset makes its way into society and has far-reaching affects on peoples lives, mine for example. Hence, I take serious opposition to this issue as do many others.

 

[MarcAC]

"non sequitur"

I assume here you refer to the current state of the atheist (lack of) belief system? So educate me then; is there a difference between a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief or are they the same thing?

 

[MarcAC]

Unfortunately though, the theist mindset makes its way into society and has far-reaching affects on peoples lives, mine for example. Hence, I take serious opposition to this issue as do many others.

not really, nobody's here to try and impose anybodies veiws on anybody. if anything we're here for some "intellectual masterbation" or maybe to gain a better understanding of other peoples views....

Work it out between yourselves will you?

 

[fadeaway humper]

I assume here you refer to the current state of the atheist (lack of) belief system?

No, I was refering to this, one of the most retarded, absurd, pathetic statements ever to grace Sciforums (Cesspool included):

"As atheists impose their belief that there is no God they will similarly impose thier beleif that life is meaningless and all should die."

Did I mention the fact that it was your statement?

So educate me then; is there a difference between a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief or are they the same thing?

Well, that would depend on the particular belief, wouldn't it?

 

[MarcAC]

No, I was refering to this, one of the most retarded, absurd, pathetic statements ever to grace Sciforums (Cesspool included):

"As atheists impose their belief that there is no God they will similarly impose thier beleif that life is meaningless and all should die."

Did I mention the fact that it was your statement?

Exactly, and my use of "belief" is intended. Is that not what you referred to when you referenced non sequitur ("belief" without "lack of") or did you want me to quote the definition at your benefit?

Well, that would depend on the particular belief, wouldn't it?

No, not in my mind. How so? Provide examples please as you must have knowledge of at least two by your statement of dependence.

 

[fadeaway humper]

Exactly, and my use of "belief" is intended. Is that not what you referred to when you referenced non sequitur ("belief" without "lack of") or did you want me to quote the definition at your benefit?

Nevermind, it's obviously hopeless.

No, not in my mind. How so? Provide examples please as you must have knowledge of at least two by your statement of dependence.

Dude (a) has a lack of disbelief in a deity which commands him to kill everyone in sight. Slowly. Dude (a) follows his lack of disbelief.

Dude (b) has a lack of belief in a deity which commands him to kill everyone in sight. Slowly. Dude (b) follows his lack of belief.

Can you see the difference now? The people in sight of dude (a) would surely appreciate it.

 

[MarcAC]

Nevermind, it's obviously hopeless.

The question is were you referring to that or not? Simply answer yes or no; simple isn't it?

Dude (a) has a lack of disbelief in a deity which commands him to kill everyone in sight. Slowly. Dude (a) follows his lack of disbelief.

Dude (b) has a lack of belief in a deity which commands him to kill everyone in sight. Slowly. Dude (b) follows his lack of belief.

Can you see the difference now?

I did not ask of the consequences of the belief or lack of belief my friend; I asked of the difference between having a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief. I mean the qualitative differences - those will highlight if they are the same or they are different.

You can replace the "deity which commands to kill" with a "deity which does not command to kill [or commands to save from death in fact]" and the outcomes while different result from the same mindsets. Try again; What is the difference between a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief ignoring the potential consequences?

Also, can you provide a situation in which they are the same thing?

 

[MarcAC]

The people in sight of dude (a) would surely appreciate it.

What are you implying here? Are you implying that dude (a), due to his lack of disbelief will kill everyone in sight? This would mean lack of disbelief = belief, no? But then if lack of disbelief is equivalent to belief why would lack of belief be not equivalent to disbelief? Clarify your position please, atheism hangs in the balance.

 

[fadeaway humper]

The question is were you referring to that or not? Simply answer yes or no; simple isn't it?

No. Wow, that was simple, indeed.

What is the difference between a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief ignoring the potential consequences?]

Lack of belief: Dude (a) doesn't believe.

Lack of disbelief: Dude (b) believes.

You are aware of the commonly accepted meanings of "lack of", "belief", and "disbelief", right? (Or, at the very least, the meaning of "dude"?).

A little help, just in case:

Disbelief
From Wiktionary
English
Noun
disbelief (plural: disbeliefs)
the condition of not believing


Belief
From Wiktionary
English
Noun
belief (plural: beliefs)

Mental acceptance of a claim as truth without evidence.

Also, can you provide a situation in which they are the same thing?[/color]

Nope.

 

[fadeaway humper]

But then if lack of disbelief is equivalent to belief why would lack of belief be not equivalent to disbelief?[/color]

It obviously would be. You realize that you are rambling, right? Are you feeling all right, man?

 

[(Q)]

Similarly, you are already presuming god does not exist such that you would reduce god to a simple belief.

In the same way that I presume god does not exist would similarily be to that of a toddler not presuming gods exist. Am I to also presume you were born a Christian?

But one must have a blank slate to start with, as everyone does when they're born.

Nice try but you must realise that the "lack of belief" claim is a pretty botched up patch...

We are talking about athiests not requiring a need to believe, not "lack of belief." Pay attention.

and the blind man analogy is still of veritable relevance.

If you so emphatically and undeniably state thusly.... I'll be forced to agree with you.

if an individual, say a non-scientific layman, doesn't believe that positrons exist are they necessary for the individual's existence?

Pleading ignorance is no defence.

You still apply one sided logic as if your disbelief (lack of belief) is of any dominant veracity as opposed to the opposing belief (belief).

I already told you before I am unable to comprehend the dogmatic mindset, equally as you're unable to comprehend the atheist.

If there be a need to believe, one can fill their boots from a large assortment of gods all vying for the spotlight. You may claim yours is the one and only god, but so will a muslim for Allah.

But if one were to see that the physical universe simply exists, one does not need to believe in gods. And that is the true nature of atheism.

The need to believe.

 

[Godless]

*It obviously would be. You realize that you are rambling, right? Are you feeling all right, man?

basically he should have just looked at the meaning of non sequirtu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

G

 

[jayleew]

Evolution is big business and worth a lot of money to prove Darwinism as true.

Please provide examples.

The archaeoraptor. "A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone had glued a dinosaur to a primitive bird. He created it to resemble just what the scientists had been looking for....Fakes are coming out of these fossil beds all the time because the fossil dealers know there's big money in it. I remained skeptical about that charge until I subsequently read an interview with ornithologist Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist....Feduccia said Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found...Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit." (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator)

Don't forget Alan is an evolutionary biologist and has nothing to gain or lose by stating this fact.

it is as political as Christianity, and therefore just as subjective.

If subjective, how do you explain the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution?

Is all of this evidence fact? No, some evidence still has to pass the scutiny of the scientific community.

There is even a fossil factory in China that produces fraudulent fossils and sells them on the black market.

So what? Those 'fossils' are fake and are easily distinguished from real fossils.

That is a little optimistic since money is a good motivator to create a good fake. Alan says it is difficult to distinguish from real fossils at shows because they are so good.

True, gullible humans latch onto many things, like religion for example. Rational humans do not.

It goes further than relgion. Look at some members of the associated press who accepted false evidence as fact because they believed in their theory.

Every time an icon of evolution is discredited...

I've heard of no such thing - please provide examples.

Every evolutionary finding is under scrutiny by theist scientists. I've already named a several, and I will continue to name ex-evolutionary and credited scientists who follow the evidence where it leads.

Another major player in science becomes a Christian at the age of 50. Allan Rex Sandage...

I am unable to find any reference to this claim other than from Strobel.

Go to http://www.google.com and type allan rex sandage christian and you get more than six hits.

At the meeting the scientific community conceded "that shortcomings of naturalistic explanations.

No, they did not.

"Even skeptics on the panels conceded the shortcomings of naturalistic explanations. Their main response was only to challenge the theists to provide scientific answers instead of merely invoking the idea of intelligent design." (Lee Strobel)

Until you can prove that they didn't say this, I'll accept the report from a journalist. People are known to be misquoted. I'll give you that. Usually when people are misquoted, they call the journalist and get the facts straight.

Biophysicist Dean Kenyon "who co-authored an influential book asserting that the emergence of life

Old news. His assertions were refuted long ago with hard evidence.

That's too bad, so you are saying that an evolutionist's evidence and research could be wrong. That is very scientific of you to admit.

I don't offer this as evidence of a creator to you all, but only that darwinism could be wrong and that many intelligent scientists who once believed as you did, found in their own sciences, that creation must of design.

No, a small portion of scientists believe in intelligent design. The scientific community knows evolution is fact.

I didn't say most, I said many.
Do you represent the scientific community when you speak for them like this?

The problem is that the evidence just isn't there one way or another

Wrong, mountains of evidence are readily available in favor of evolution

In fact, all new evidence they find is controversial and not accepted as truth by any scientist besides those that blindly say it is because they believe in evolution.

Please provide examples of controversial evidence against evolution.

Is everything that supports evolution fact?

Many parts, including the Icons and the fossil record are not yet fact.

Let me rephrase and illustrate, although there is a mountain of evidence supporting macroevolution, conclusive evidence that ends the argument has yet to be found. Fact is not a fact until the research is completed AND accepted by the WHOLE community. I may have a dog leash, dog shampoo, dog food, dog droppings, a dog comb, a dog bath, etc. but I do not have a dog until everyone says that I have a dog, regardless of if I actually have one or not. When everyone has seen my dog, it becomes fact.

A huge problem of evolution is that one person started saying, "We all have a common ancestor." Some scientists said, "Oh, you are right, I see your evidence. It is fact." And before the whole community accepts it, it is printed in textbooks the world over as 100% fact, when evolutionists even on this forum said that they realize the odds are very small that we were created by random chance and natural selection. They followed saying that Creationism has a 0% chance (I don't know where their data is), but the point is that an unlikely theory is not fact just because it is the best solution available. That is just until everyone accepts it as fact. If 999 out of 1000 people said to me that I am an idiot, the chances are very high that I am. But still, it is not a fact until 100% say that I am. Science at its core is the search for truth without a limit on the possibility. It is not scientific to accept anything until it is 100% true. The true scientist is objective, patient, and skeptical. Anything else is a belief, more closely kin to religion.

Clearly, Strobel will say anything to prop-up his assertions - lies and deceit are not beneath him. Anyone with an ounce of rationale will easily come to the same conclusion.

The gullible and the dogmatic will eat it up.

Clearly, many evolutionists will say anything to prop-up their assertions - lies and deciet are not beneath them. Anyone with an ounce of rationale will easily come to the same conclusion.

Are lies beneath anyone?

Are you gullible and/or dogmatic? Who says you aren't? I'm not arrogant. Who can say that I am or that I am not? Not me, but people around me.

My point is that people who believe in Darwinism are not excused from the norm.

 

[jayleew]

there is nothing to govern your actions other than physical limits

Reason and rationale govern an atheists actions.

The problem with reason and rationale to govern our actions is that morality is relative to the individual's selected method of ethics as well as the situation. Without a universal morality system that is black and white (like the ten commandments), morals shift and change. If morals shift and change, then it is logical to say that there is a chance that what was deemed immoral today will be deemed as moral tomorrow. In fact, the black and white lines have already started to grey and we question what is right or wrong. No one has a definitive answer, so injustices are commited every day.

The only solution to give a universal morality system is to teach only one set of ethics and enforce it with laws and regulations. The ten commandments are being taken out of America. If America wants God out, I will cry, but it is OUR America, NOT MINE alone. Take it out if the majority wants it out, but put something in its place.

 

[jayleew]

He sure did Hitler was a Christian!.

*George W Bush, speaking words the "Christian Right" wants to hear, is not the first national leader to use Christian morality as a rallying cry. Nor is he the first whose actions do not correspond to his words.

"The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life."
We can perhaps learn from human experience. Those two sentences were spoken February 1, 1933 by Adolf Hitler during his first radio address after coming to power. These quotes that follow are also from Hitler, the same year.

It is the purpose of the Government "to fill our whole culture once more with a Christian spirit, and that not only in politics. We want to burn out the harmful features in our theater and our literature."*
Click Ref.

**"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."**Adolf Hitler.
Click

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

---Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.
For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

---Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

---Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

---Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Ref

Godless

Hitler is not any different than "Christians" today. They use the word of God to their own means. They put God into a box to be used to justify their sins. Hitler is alive and well in the lives of many "Christians." You can see them everywhere. It is no wonder many are turned off by the word. A few months back I was in debate with "Hitler" over their use of scriptures to justify their homosexuallity. Something so plain in scriptures, but yet so bad they want to sin. This was a woman who was a lesbian "Christian" preacher. It's no wonder in my mind why any rational man would not want any part of this.

Pack that up as an excuse, in case you can use that, when and if you meet God.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Amen sister,

Now we're getting somewhere. Someone who actually might see things like I do!

 

[Raithere]

Well 100 of them from all over the Country put a two page advertisement in a national magazine saying "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examinination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

How many are named Steve?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4023_the_press_release_2_16_2003.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

Now, the only thing I have proven is that there are a lot of smart people who say Darwinism is gibberish and the number is apparently growing. Why is that?

Even smart people can be wrong, particularly when they have an emotional stake in the answer.

By the way, anyone who thinks the book is just a "rant" by a Christian needs to read the first two chapters where Lee Strobel details why he believed in evolution, and he believed because of everything you all are telling me you believe it for.

Strobel presents himself as a skeptic taking an honest look at Evolution. He is not. This is just another book in a series of Christian apologetics. It's wasn't the first, it wasn't the last.

The time when you stop searching is the time you are not scientific.

Agreed. But neither is accepting unfounded hypotheses as revolutionary scientific theory. Question away. Keep trying. I applaud the effort. But until you have some evidence it is unscientific to state that the irreducible complexity hypothesis has any scientific merit.

I challenge you all to dive into this book with me and discover if it is evidence enough, or just a piece of tinder. No skimming allowed, Raithere.

This isn't a book club. Present the arguments yourself.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

You accept that some sort of evolutionary process occurs within the universe right?

I wouldn't apply it to the Universe at large, no. Evolutionary processes occur in life on Earth.

Now add the fact that we have free will to affect and effect the course of that evolution - much more relevant to "the world (earth)" of course. While God is creator, we also have to accept responsibility for the state of human society - i.e. "the world the way it is". What does that mean anyway? Of course you might have preferred to be a star or an atom of silicon, both of which appear to have no will... I prefer my free will and thus my awareness.

I've no idea what your getting at here.

While I concur with the former, I think the latter is a non-issue; regardless, it (physical world) is all experienced via neural processes. Providing God's Spirit lives within I would think it "senses" the non-physical. The "former" may be regarded by some as evidence for a God who specially values humanity.

Again, I have no idea what you're saying. Are you telling me that because we are intelligent and have free will that we have some kind of ESP that can detect God?

How do you establish the validity of assumptions themselves Raithere? You assume that too?

They are assumptions. It's a supposition of truth, not verified. That is what assumption means.

So how do I know that it is God as opposed to the universe, because it doesn't have to be God, it could be the universe? Same statement - just paraphrased. How do you know this is correct surely implies that there are rational alternatives - if not why ask - no rational reason?

Show me God. Then we can debate whether God has the attributes necessary to be first cause. Otherwise God is merely an unnecessary assumption.

Thus God, The Creator, Is, and so is His creation which we are a part of and there is meaning. One universe: no meaning. That's what you're saying right? Meaning must be defined from some "frame of reference". We are assigned puprose relative to God we assign God's purpose relative to what we are able to "trace back to" God; His Creation. So why are we disagreeing then?

No that wasn't what I was saying. What I am saying is that the only thing necessary for meaning is that we have more than one thing. There is no requisite, unless you'd like to provide an argument, which states that an absolute is necessary for meaning to exist.

But from above and I would say my previous posts Occam's Razor is not applicable in this case. All things are not equal. With God there is meaning, purpose, sense. Without God there is none.

Where's your argument? All we have so far is you assertion that this is true. You just want me to take your word for it? Sorry. No.

Of course not; God is a necessity. Necessary for logic to make sense, necessary for us to exist and necessary for the salvation of humankind.

Again, where is your argument?

You said it yourself [above]... meaning implies a relationship... reference... I for one cannot live without acknowledging some purpose to my existence other than existence itself... sure... I came from dust... but I'm not dust... I'm more than that, aren't you?

Are you talking about an emotional or intellectual inability? Or do you mean there is a logical necessity? Thus far you haven't demonstrated anything. You're just ranting about God.

But I say that's not my exact "premise". It simply is that there must be a First Cause and that makes it all make sense - especially when you apply your "meaning is like movement" analysis to it.

But you're arbitrarily assigning all sorts of attributes to the First Cause and making it into God. Why? How do you know that the first cause isn't simply a background energy fluctuation without personality, will, intelligence, or purpose?

And you have provided yourself with your logical answer [see above].

I've yet to see an argument. Thus far, my conclusion is that it cannot.

No, we're not. I've seen the valiant water use the phrase "circles in time" for circular reasoning. A very profound statement IMO... or better yet, beautifully expressed... a paraphrase would be; "logic is built on assumptions". Turning around the bad stigma attacehd to "circular reasoning" as if it all isn't reduced to that.

I've already stated that I operate under certain assumptions. I've no problem with you operating under different assumptions. But if you're going to try to argue God existence logically, you cannot simply opt out at some point by saying that logic doesn't apply to God. You might as well just start off saying that your belief is illogical and leave it at that. I have no argument there.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

The archaeoraptor. "A Chinese paleontologist proved that someone had glued a dinosaur to a primitive bird.

Yes. There have been some forgeries. They were discovered to be forgeries by the scientists who examined the fossils. Fortunately, there have been many more discoveries that have proven not to be forgeries.

Oh, and the fossils that were put together to build the forgery were valuable in their own right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm

Is all of this evidence fact? No, some evidence still has to pass the scutiny of the scientific community.

Of course, the fossil record will neither prove nor disprove the facts Evolution which stand on their own. You could dismiss the entire archeological record and still you would have proof of evolution. Rebuilding the history of evolutionary change on Earth is a different matter. It is much more theoretical (although there are mountains of evidence).

This type of argument is like saying that the Pyramids don't exist because we don't know everything about how they were built.

Fact is not a fact until the research is completed AND accepted by the WHOLE community.

Science is not confirmed by polls. And theories never turn into facts.

It is not scientific to accept anything until it is 100% true.

Nothing is ever 100% true in science. The most evinced laws of science are only presumed true until there is a finding that contradicts them.

~Raithere