Roundtable Flame/Discussion about Beliefs

[PurplePoot]

~No actually those are signs of close-mindedness, i've never seen an atom but im pritty sure they excist (no this is not turing into a science debate,im just giving a simple example) and those books that talk about em arent lying.

A) It seems that you're equivocating here but I can't be sure. Regardless, I think the usage of the word "seen" was intended to be "seen evidence of", not just see with your naked eye.

B) Did you seriously just compare scientific theory, which has been constantly tested by independent sources based on repeatable and independent methods, to an untestable book with no peer-review and which presents no methods to verify its findings other than "believing"?

 

[Boris_Spider]

~The seirous questions always get awnsered.
~yes we kill people for our entertainment
~What he said was way to supid to be given a proper awnser.
~Nah you're one of those people who fear and hate what they cant understand and dont belive what they dont see

~Serious? Serious and religion aren't compatible.
~That's what he's been saying to you, not that you'd understand...
~Wrong. That's actually you and yours. Religion creates the spooky monsters, then professes to possess the only salvation.

You aren't running low on arguments to defend your viewpoint are you? It'd be a shame if you were.

Well, I undoubtedly agree with that.

I agree as well; however, I like to see which pins the ball bounces off of when I inquire into their beliefs. I admit, it is a bit like a cat playing with the mouse it just crippled. Keep in mind though, studying these people is like studying a primitive culture - it's fascinating! I'm curious about how they approach things and how they twist I/O to suit their desires. They're living/breathing history.

Edit: It would appear that I'm not alone...

//\\^^//\\

 

[trolman]

~If there really was no evidence we wouldnt know about it
~No i did not

~Serious? Serious and religion aren't compatible.
~That's what he's been saying to you, not that you'd understand...
~Wrong. That's actually you and yours. Religion creates the spooky monsters, then professes to possess the only salvation.

You aren't running low on arguments to defend your viewpoint are you? It'd be a shame if you were.

~Please get a brain and stop embaresing your team mates with such lousy words

~whats a i/o layout?

 

[fladdermasken]

Okay, I'll bite.

all the "opsticles" were defeated with banners flying high.

Pretty sure it's popsicles, and they are best served frozen with a composite stick for a handle.

Not with a banner stand, and not generally higher than you can reach.

~whats a i/o layout?

Input/Output:
If you submit data (input), you get processed information (output). If we change the input and you still output the same response (and vice versa), there should be some severe case of failure in communication present.

One or both parties fail to convey their own and/or decipher the other party's message properly.

If there really was no evidence we wouldnt know about it.

Well... that's a bit circular.

See, we're trying to say that we don't know about it. Due to lack of evidence.

What mostly runs the risk of being misconstrued is the difference of the concepts "lack of evidence," and "no evidence." And of course what you find to be evidence in the first place. Concretely, Poot, Boris and Riot are probably operating under the scientific method, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiments, and the formulation, testing, and modification of a hypotheses.

You also have concepts like circumstantial and direct evidence, where the former is insufficient and not self-supporting and the latter by itself can warrant verdicts and conclusions. Say, if you dropped a used condom at what turns out to be a homicide crime scene investigating a raped girl, you are liable to appear guilty, but not enough so to indict guilt. It's therefore circumstantial. If God dropped a used condom at a crime scene, it wouldn't even be circumstantial, because

• God is probably not liable to make mistakes.
• God's semen is probably not listed in the DNA database.

So if we're pitting evidence here, you should probably explain what shape it comes in and how concrete it is to other people that are not liable to have shared your experiences.

 

[trolman]

~as a non native english speeker its reasonable i make a shit ton of mistakes,but you got what i said

~okay...

~Yes I know about the scientific method and I also apply it but religion is difrent,it is not opposite to science as some "people" want to make you think.Infact when they work together the biggest prizes are discovered in both fields (example, the medival muslums basicly created the scientific method tough the aincient greeks and romans have some credit too). The base of it is faith, wich lies in us all and it can be unlocked in everyone but its always a personal journey in your way towards God. Some peole's road is longer and some just put their head in the,and make lousy excuses not to be on the road for enlightment (crusaders,bigotry,blooddripped bible, etc) and its just not the time for most. When you do you will know what to do.

Now i know you might say "sounds made up,blah blah","wasting your time yada, yada" but if there really is no road, its not like im missing out on much.

Also there is no evidence against it so... we come back to the start again.

This thread is Discussion of Beliefs so besides stating your own opinion on the topic (influenced by your life) versus someone elses who belives otherwise (based on their life) these things arent really "condom on the crime scene" proovable. To you atheists I am just a crazy idiot obsessing himself over aincient fairy tales, and to me you are just a sad sight of pitiful blindfolded people who dont even strugle to take off the blindfold.

But again this is a discussion about belifes so there is no real way to win or lose.

Now you'll most likely quote and question what I say,i'll explain,you quote,i explain and it goes on till one side loses motivation, the author cleverly put an alternative title.

But now im waiting for Boris Spider to provide a good laugh/tear of pity by his genious words of truth.

Then Riot will come to agree to something you or purple pot said and somehow manage to insult my beliefs.

Then Purple Pot will come and quote something from this post which will further seal this thread.

So gentlemen,instead of doing all that shit, i suggest we kill this thread?K?

 

[HINDYhat]

I guess you guys will probably agree to take it easy now, but here's a helpful resource in case you'd like to get started again later, with more background knowledge: http://www.thebricktestament.com/

 

[RiotZ]

I guess you guys will probably agree to take it easy now, but here's a helpful resource in case you'd like to get started again later, with more background knowledge: http://www.thebricktestament.com/

I am going to rep you for that brilliant post, even though I can't do it here.

FIGHT DA POWAH.

 

[trolman]

I guess you guys will probably agree to take it easy now, but here's a helpful resource in case you'd like to get started again later, with more background knowledge: http://www.thebricktestament.com/

nice atheist propaganda

We've got a badass overhere! (handsup)

 

[eubz]

I don't know why some people won't believe with the existence of God. I would like to share a question: Is there somebody who created this site? Of course, there is, and everyone knows Ralle, the web master.

If you doubt that God exists, it is just like doubting that we exist. We exist because someone who has no beginning and no end has created us and all that our eyes can see. Ask yourself, Who did all these?

Yes, the big bang theory is near to reality but the question is, who created the first universe, the one that was once in an extremely hot and dense state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. Can anyone answer me? You'll probably say that the first universe was already there and no one created it. Now, if I tell you that hive is already here and no one created it, would you believe me? This is a concrete example that God exist.

 

[RiotZ]

I don't know why some people won't believe with the existence of God. I would like to share a question: Is there somebody who created this site? Of course, there is, and everyone knows Ralle, the web master.

If you doubt that God exists, it is just like doubting that we exist. We exist because someone who has no beginning and no end has created us and all that our eyes can see. Ask yourself, Who did all these?

Yes, the big bang theory is near to reality but the question is, who created the first universe, the one that was once in an extremely hot and dense state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. Can anyone answer me? You'll probably say that the first universe was already there and no one created it. Now, if I tell you that hive is already here and no one created it, would you believe me? This is a concrete example that God exist.

So your theory is, everything is created by someone, or something, and I completely agree with that, but then you create a paradox, if everything comes from somewhere, then who created God? He cannot just exist with no creator, because then, so could we, and so could the first universe.

The problem of the religious argument is, we are a knowledgeless race, and out there, somewhere beyond the stars, there are living, breathing, thinking creatures, like ourselves, who have existed since the real beginning of time. We are a young race, in a few thousand years, if we still exist as a race, and haven't killed each other over religious debates, we will come to understand the universe, and the dimensions that run parallel to ours. I mean there could be 50 gods, in 50 different dimensions, we could be an experiment, but how would we know, we know nothing, and until we have the ability to explore the depths of space, we will continue knowing nothing.

 

[eubz]

Well, the answer is also in my post. Read it again and you'll see, or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

 

[fladdermasken]

Pretty sure it's circular enough from the concept that only a creator can be infinite and not bound by the concrete rules of our existence. If we're assuming causality is definite to begin with, well, might as well grab the whole hog right?

This is a concrete example that God exist.

The watchmaker analogy has been called many things, and I don't think "concrete," has ever been an epithet.

 

[PurplePoot]

nice atheist propaganda

I like how the bible is atheist propaganda.

 

[Boris_Spider]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

~Please get a brain and stop embaresing your team mates with such lousy words

~Ah, I see. You think anyone who disagrees with you is of lesser intelligence.

Also, I'm speaking in simple language in the hopes you'll be better able to understand me. You've stated repeatedly in this thread that your English is far from perfect. No good deed goes unpunished...

~Yes I know about the scientific method and I also apply it but religion is difrent,it is not opposite to science as some "people" want to make you think.

... The base of it is faith, wich lies in us all and it can be unlocked in everyone but its always a personal journey in your way towards God. Some peole's road is longer and some just put their head in the,and make lousy excuses not to be on the road for enlightment ...

...To you atheists I am just a crazy idiot obsessing himself over aincient fairy tales, and to me you are just a sad sight of pitiful blindfolded people who dont even strugle to take off the blindfold.

But now im waiting for Boris Spider to provide a good laugh/tear of pity by his genious words of truth.

~How is the Scientific method NOT the opposite of religion? The method is always trying to prove itself wrong. Religion is always deeming itself right.

~You'll have to forgive me for preferring to make my own way off-road. Better experiences.

~Be aware that statements like that tend to offend mods. I don't know why certain mods get like that at certain times, but they do. Just an FYI.

~I knew you'd miss me.

nice atheist propaganda

This:

I like how the bible is atheist propaganda.

...If you doubt that God exists, it is just like doubting that we exist. We exist because someone who has no beginning and no end has created us and all that our eyes can see. Ask yourself, Who did all these?

Yes, the big bang theory is near to reality but the question is, who created the first universe, the one that was once in an extremely hot and dense state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. Can anyone answer me? You'll probably say that the first universe was already there and no one created it. Now, if I tell you that hive is already here and no one created it, would you believe me? This is a concrete example that God exist.

~Clearly you've never seen The Matrix scene where everyone argues about tasting chicken. Also, god would be a something. Just because we look like it (how exactly does that make any sense, ignoring gender differences, there are color/shape/proportion/etc differences!?!) doesn't mean we're anything alike.

Never judge a book by its cover. ...No pun intended.

~The "first universe" and ours are the same one. The only difference between the two is approx. 14 billion years.

That's a concrete example that you don't understand the meaning of "concrete example" (The implication here being that said statement can't currently be reasonably questioned). Now we enter the paradox of how evidence is defined and by whom it is defined which can then in/validate it.

//\\oo//\\

 

[eubz]

~The "first universe" and ours are the same one. The only difference between the two is approx. 14 billion years.

That's a concrete example that you don't understand the meaning of "concrete example" (The implication here being that said statement can't currently be reasonably questioned). Now we enter the paradox of how evidence is defined and by whom it is defined which can then in/validate it.

//\\oo//\\

You haven't read my post clearly. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state
Does this one says the old universe and today's universe are the same?

 

[trolman]

No boris, you seem to lower your intelligence with each post

They cut away all the good stuff and left all the bad out of context which is propaganda yeah. But if we're gonna post links now...

http://www.bibleexplained.com/

 

[PurplePoot]

I don't know why some people won't believe with the existence of God. I would like to share a question: Is there somebody who created this site? Of course, there is, and everyone knows Ralle, the web master.

If you doubt that God exists, it is just like doubting that we exist. We exist because someone who has no beginning and no end has created us and all that our eyes can see. Ask yourself, Who did all these?

Yes, the big bang theory is near to reality but the question is, who created the first universe, the one that was once in an extremely hot and dense state? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. Can anyone answer me? You'll probably say that the first universe was already there and no one created it. Now, if I tell you that hive is already here and no one created it, would you believe me? This is a concrete example that God exist.

Wasn't the First Mover argument first rejected several hundred years ago? Seriously, it falls flat on its face as soon as you ask "who created god". It's pretty unique among arguments for god in that it falls flat on its face internally; you don't even need to invoke any outside evidence/arguments.

Another thing that several arguments for a god/for belief, such as this argument and Pascal's Wager, totally neglect is that even if they were true they wouldn't give any evidence of a Christian god/an Islamic god/take your pick. They'd just give evidence of some sort of god. It could be Thor, it could be a superintelligent plasma, it could be a trans-kobold.

No boris, you seem to lower your intelligence with each post

They cut away all the good stuff and left all the bad out of context which is propaganda yeah. But if we're gonna post links now...

http://www.bibleexplained.com/

You're a Young-Earth Creationist and yet you reject the Old Testament? I'm confused.

 

[trolman]

Wasn't the First Mover argument first rejected several hundred years ago? Seriously, it falls flat on its face as soon as you ask "who created god". It's pretty unique among arguments for god in that it falls flat on its face internally; you don't even need to invoke any outside evidence/arguments.


You're a Young-Earth Creationist? Somehow I'm not surprised.

No, I just CnPed from Google without giving it any proper read thinking its legit,but if its that important to you,skip on genesis.

Becasue God is almighty he isnt limited by anything nor can we understand him anytime soon.

 

[PurplePoot]

No, I just CnPed from Google without giving it any proper read thinking its legit

Nice. Goes to show how honest your arguments are when you don't even look for evidence to support yourself, just pick stuff at random and hope it shares your view.

It's really interesting how as often as not all you need to do in a debate against Christians is let them talk for long enough and they'll inevitably do this to themselves.

 

[eubz]

Wasn't the First Mover argument first rejected several hundred years ago?

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html Is this what you are talking about. If that is so, I don't think everybody has rejected it.

Another thing that several arguments for a god/for belief, such as this argument and Pascal's Wager, totally neglect is that even if they were true they wouldn't give any evidence of a Christian god/an Islamic god/take your pick. They'd just give evidence of some sort of god. It could be Thor, it could be a superintelligent plasma, it could be a trans-kobold.

He is called in many names, but still he is God.

 

[PurplePoot]

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html Is this what you are talking about. If that is so, I don't think everybody has rejected it.

I mean that it was refuted. I realize that just because something has been shown to be wrong doesn't mean everyone stops accepting it, considering they weren't intellectually honest when they first did.

He is called in many names, but still he is God.

No, that's really not how it works. Not every religion is Christianity but renamed, and thinking that they are is rather arrogant.

 

[eubz]

I realize that just because something has been shown to be wrong doesn't mean everyone stops accepting it

So, what is really true?

 

[PurplePoot]

So, what is really true?

Okay, allow me to break it down for you.

The first cause argument goes like this:

1. The universe exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore the universe must have been caused.

4. That cause is god.

The refutation of the first cause argument is equally simple.

1. Assume that god exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore god must have been caused.

4. ???

Now if we take the answer that "god caused himself", we can continue messing around.

1. The universe exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore the universe must have been caused.

4. The universe caused itself.

We're still stuck. The first cause argument does not work.

 

[eubz]

1. Assume that god exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore god must have been caused.

4. ???

With this argument, you are saying that something/someone might have created God.
Christians believe that God is Almighty, and that he is without the beginning and without the end. He is the one who caused everything that we see. He is the ultimate creator. Who can create Him who has no beginning? Can He who has NO BEGINNING begins?

 

[PurplePoot]

With this argument, you are saying that something/someone might have created God.
Christians believe that God is Almighty, and that he is without the beginning and without the end. He is the one who caused everything that we see. He is the ultimate creator. Who can create Him who has no beginning? Can He who has NO BEGINNING begins?

And that is addressed in my third part which you so conveniently skipped over; you're copping out by saying that either god created himself or is eternal, by which point I could equally argue that the universe created itself or is eternal.

In addition, what christians believe about something has no bearing on the reality of a situation. As I've already stated, even if the first cause argument worked (which it doesn't), it would give no information about the god it proved, so you couldn't show it was christian vs islamic vs some pagan belief vs greek or something vs something humans never came up with vs whatever.

 

[eubz]

. The universe exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore the universe must have been caused.

4. The universe caused itself.

Didn't I say that God is ultimate creator? What does this mean? This defies number 4 in your argument which I have quoted. The universe did not cause itself but caused by Him. Didn't he said that he is the alpha and he is the omega? and he is infinite.

 

[fladdermasken]

Didn't I say that God is ultimate creator? What does this mean? This defies number 4 in your argument which I have quoted. The universe did not cause itself but caused by Him. Didn't he said that he is the alpha and he is the omega? and he is infinite.

Bullshit called it.

You realize that your rhetoric right now rests on thin ice, right? When you start fucking brushing off arguments with the only reasoning being "it can't be true because then I'm wrong," you will eventually slip in your own shit and be soaked in cold water.

With this argument, you are saying that something/someone might have created God.
Christians believe that God is Almighty, and that he is without the beginning and without the end. He is the one who caused everything that we see. He is the ultimate creator. Who can create Him who has no beginning?

Jeez, don't you get it? That's exactly where it falls apart. And the analogy goes down the drain with it. The only thing we've done here is demonstrate how you can't state claim to a God persona with this simple piece of reasoning, because it has been refuted many times and we all happen to agree that the counter-premise is more intuitive than the premise.

 

[PurplePoot]

Didn't I say that God is ultimate creator? What does this mean? This defies number 4 in your argument which I have quoted. The universe did not cause itself but caused by Him. Didn't he said that he is the alpha and he is the omega? and he is infinite.

This is completely circular. You are saying your argument follows the lines of reasoning I presented, whereas it actually follows the following line of reasoning:

Premise: God created the universe.

Irrelevant filler: Stuff

Conclusion: God created the universe.

If you can't see what's wrong with an argument which has the same premise and conclusion, then you don't understand reasoning at all. Wikipedia has an excellent article on circular reasoning and an even better article on Begging the Question, which is very similar and often interchangeable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Here's another relevant explanation, if you're interested http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Edit: I should also include a general description of fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[RiotZ]

Okay, allow me to break it down for you.

The first cause argument goes like this:

1. The universe exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore the universe must have been caused.

4. That cause is god.

The refutation of the first cause argument is equally simple.

1. Assume that god exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore god must have been caused.

4. ???

Now if we take the answer that "god caused himself", we can continue messing around.

1. The universe exists.

2. Nothing can happen without a causer.

3. Therefore the universe must have been caused.

4. The universe caused itself.

We're still stuck. The first cause argument does not work.

Thank you for clarifying my argument.

 

[trolman]

Actually purple i didnt have the time because i had just woke up and had to go to school/soul prison

Also i dont know how the universe can create itself when it already has a set of own laws.But who made them?The universe?We are part of God, we are part of the Universe, could whatever runs the universe be considered... i dont know... God?

Also this was intresting for me and yes i've read it before (not all of it and dont remember much details)
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ it deals with the creation and modern scientific discoveries, if you're curious/have the time to spare,please check it out.

 

[PurplePoot]

Actually purple i didnt have the time because i had just woke up and had to go to school/soul prison

The point is that you picked supporting evidence based on what it sounded like, not based on what it actually was. Similarly, it's unlikely you actually read the Brick Testament and noticed that it actually uses the passages from the bible in order under each picture to explain where it is in the story and show where it got the events from, which makes it pretty difficult to honestly call propaganda.

Also i dont know how the universe can create itself when it already has a set of own laws.But who made them?The universe?We are part of God, we are part of the Universe, could whatever runs the universe be considered... i dont know... God?

If you want to call the framework in which stuff exists "God", fine, but you can't therefore attribute a bunch of Christian properties or even general properties of deities to it. For example, why does the framework of existence have to be sentient? Powerful? Alive at all?

You and eubz are arguing based on a false dilemma that either there is no such thing as a god (for any definition of the word) or there is the christian god exactly as it's laid out in the bible or your personal interpretation of the bible. You can't just say "I define the framework of existence to be called God, therefore the christian god is true". The reason for this should be obvious.

Also this was intresting for me and yes i've read it before (not all of it and dont remember much details)
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ it deals with the creation and modern scientific discoveries, if you're curious/have the time to spare,please check it out.

I'll have a better look later, just skimmed one of the articles at random and it didn't really have anything to do with religion.

 

[trolman]

~why not just go to a library or something and get the actuall book? And you're right it wasnt propaganda,it was pornography!

~well i dont know what he thinks but i do belive there is one force behind everything (the framework is not God but apart of him) and that there are many roads towards it (religions) I am on the christian one and no i do not claim to know it as an absolute truth to all,im just stating my personal beliefs,like the name of this thread.

~i agree with it for almost everything but its been like 6 times since i last read it so there might be some changes

 

[PurplePoot]

I'm not attacking the fact that you have specific beliefs, but the fact that you argue for those beliefs (using statements like the one I quoted in my previous post) using arguments which don't support a specifically Christian god.

 

[trolman]

I was simply trying to help ebuz in showing you guys that there can be a force in the universe that can be considered God. I did not state if he was the Christian or Muslum (Allah means God in arabic) or zeus and his family and what not. Everyone has their own road to walk and their own way to walk it. (lets try to keep out of the pinball trap)

 

[PurplePoot]

I was simply trying to help ebuz in showing you guys that there can be a force in the universe that can be considered God. I did not state if he was the Christian or Muslum (Allah means God in arabic) or zeus and his family and what not. Everyone has their own road to walk and their own way to walk it. (lets try to keep out of the pinball trap)

And what I'm getting at is that that definition is so vague that it's useless. For example, suppose I was a sun worshipper who believed the sun was actually an ascended person or something. I could go on and on and on about how the sun was clearly there, we could see it in the sky, how it was responsible for our survival, thus we should worship it.

...why?

Do we worship everything else which helps us out?

Does the fact that the sun helps make sure we stay alive mean the sun is sentient or alive?

Do my beliefs about the sun being an ascended person have anything to do with what the sun actually does?

Similarly, it's pretty safe to circularly define some sort of framework for existence, but that doesn't say anything about the framework other than the fact that it's a framework for existence. It doesn't say it's alive, sentient, powerful, demands worship, writes holy books and hands them to shepherds, etc.

 

[trolman]

I see what you mean but again we are in "personal belifes" territory, we are given free will and you can live without with or without any worship.And as for you the universe is dead but for me, well the world is crafted and govenerd by God, who designs rational and universal principles.These principles are available for all people to discover and allow them to pursue their own aims fruitfully in this life and to perfect themselves with their own rational powers.

I can not make you see God as you see the sun,It is something you must do yourself.

But if you want to worship the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Its just another road...

 

[PurplePoot]

I absolutely agree that that falls into personal beliefs territory, I'm just explaining (mostly for the benefit of eubz, but possibly you/other thread readers as well) why arguments like the First Cause argument don't show a Christian god, or any god at all, even if the premises and the conclusion (that there must be a first mover outside the bounds of what we know, in this case) are sound.

I think ultimately we're working towards Ye Olde Standard Disagreement here; you really can't prove or disprove faith, so some people will take the skeptic's approach and not believe without proof and others will take the faithfuls' approach and believe without proof. At that point it's a fundamental disagreement in philosophy.

 

[trolman]

Its pritty obvious we will most likely never agree.

And about that last part,theres the Pascal Wager and my opinion that if I fall on the false side,i dont lose anything.

Now we wait for riot to quote something you said and claim it was his theory/wanted to say that...

 

[PurplePoot]

And about that last part,theres the Pascal Wager and my opinion that if I fall on the false side,i dont lose anything.

Pascal's Wager falls to the same basic problem that I've been addressing in that it assumes a false dilemma where either there's Christianity or nothing at all.

 

[trolman]

Well you're both right and wrong,yes it leaves only the possibilities of Christianity or nothing but since I am one, and you are of no religious afflication, i belive that for this scenario,it wouldnt be a false dilemma.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.

Basicly a 1.01 version can be made where its worship of X or nothing. And it wouldnt be a false dilema,atleast if im understanding you correctly,i appolagise its time for my slumber and my mind aint so sharp but now goodnight.

 

[PurplePoot]

Well you're both right and wrong,yes it leaves only the possibilities of Christianity or nothing but since I am one, and you are of no religious afflication, i belive that for this scenario,it wouldnt be a false dilemma.



Basicly a 1.01 version can be made where its worship of X or nothing. And it wouldnt be a false dilema,atleast if im understanding you correctly,i appolagise its time for my slumber and my mind aint so sharp but now goodnight.

But the problem is Pascal's Wager relies on the only possible god to worship being a Christian god. To use an example, suppose there is a deity who hates Christianity and lets atheists into "heaven" and sends Christians to "hell". Taking Pascal's Wager, which is supposed to be a no-loss pick, actually leaves you in a bad spot.

Let's put it in the False Dilemma framework:

Pascal's Wager:

You may either worship no god or a Christian god.
There are no benefits of worshipping no god and potential benefits to worshipping the Christian god.
Therefore you should worship the Christian god.

 

[Boris_Spider]

You haven't read my post clearly. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state
Does this one says the old universe and today's universe are the same?

The only difference is time. I'm sorry I didn't state that explicitly, I thought it was obvious. I take it that you think the Earth at approx. 1 billion yrs after initial formation is a seperate entity from the one one we live on currently (about 4 billion yrs after initial creation).

I have no idea how to explain this to you... hmmm... hopefully I'll come up with one.

No boris, you seem to lower your intelligence with each post

~Again, glad to see you believe everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Hopefully you'll grow out of that.

I fear I have disarmed you...

It's really interesting how as often as not all you need to do in a debate against Christians is let them talk for long enough and they'll inevitably do this to themselves.

Hmm... I like to see how many times I can get them to argue in their circle before they degrade to the point trolman is at currently. It's fun, but it's also a useful way of studying their arguments.

With this argument, you are saying that something/someone might have created God.
Christians believe that God is Almighty, and that he is without the beginning and without the end. He is the one who caused everything that we see. He is the ultimate creator. Who can create Him who has no beginning? Can He who has NO BEGINNING begins?

~Someone did create god - us. Everything that exists has a point of origin. Just because this god existed before the universe doesn't mean it always existed. Fish born in a fish tank could deem that everyone outside the tank is eternal, since we are there long before and after said fish's existence. According to your argument, we're the fish inside the tank.

Technically, the lack of a beginning is a beginning in and of itself...

The universe did not cause itself but caused by Him. Didn't he said that he is the alpha and he is the omega? and he is infinite.

While it's true the universe is reactionary in nature, you have no grounds to declare a god as the previous reaction the sparked our universe's "birth."

Also, supposedly this god told a few people who told a few more people who told a few more people who ...etc. Now thousands of years later... people still think his original message is the one they hear. All you know is that someone told you that said god declared itself the beginning and the end (literature counts as a form of communication).

Also i dont know how the universe can create itself when it already has a set of own laws.But who made them?The universe?We are part of God, we are part of the Universe, could whatever runs the universe be considered... i dont know... God?

Also this was intresting for me and yes i've read it before (not all of it and dont remember much details)
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ it deals with the creation and modern scientific discoveries, if you're curious/have the time to spare,please check it out.

~Why do you need everything to have a cause? Do you believe the universe is an epically scientific experiment? Why is the notion that something can "just happen" so alien to you? This view of the world has always confounded me, hopefully your reasoning will be another piece in that puzzle...

I was simply trying to help ebuz in showing you guys that there can be a force in the universe that can be considered God. I did not state if he was the Christian or Muslum (Allah means God in arabic) or zeus and his family and what not. Everyone has their own road to walk and their own way to walk it. (lets try to keep out of the pinball trap)

Any topic that religion is involved with is pinball by nature. Religion's only answer is: "God did it. *shrug*"... Anything else is a variation of the same argument at different concentrations. The reason: faith prevents questioning.

But if you want to worship the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism Its just another road...

Another topic that's confused me: Why do believers take the position that everyone has to worship something? Atheism is not a religion (yet). I understand how you guys can argue that the lack of a belief is a belief in nothing (technically faulty logic, but I'll run with it), how does belief require worship???

You may either worship no god or a Christian god.

Yet again, its true those are two options; it's also true one can worship anything.

Where does the notion that people have to worship come from?

//\\0o//\\

P.S. Damn you European/Asian-region people. You're all (well, most of you) in bed before I get out of work!

:

 

[PurplePoot]

Yet again, its true those are two options; it's also true one can worship anything.

Where does the notion that people have to worship come from?

I was illustrating the false dilemma in that statement, not agreeing with it.

 

[Boris_Spider]

I was illustrating the false dilemma in that statement, not agreeing with it.

I didn't intend to imply that you agreed with it.

I was wondering if you could provide some additional insight on the matter.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Ash]

Hmm dog thread.... yea that can work. Can anyone tell me what breed is the dog that appears as a critter in warcraft ?

Strange... classic.battle.net says its a wolf...

I believe that dog to be a 'Cartoonus Dogus'. I found this other photo of it, let me know if I'm right. xoxoxoxo

 

[eubz]

"I define the framework of existence to be called God, therefore the christian god is true"

With this line you are saying that God is false, aren't you? We, Christians believe that there really is the Divine Creator out there. Arguments about Him will be infinite if there is no God.

 

[PurplePoot]

With this line you are saying that God is false, aren't you? We, Christians believe that there really is the Divine Creator out there. Arguments about Him will be infinite if there is no God.

I'm saying that you can't just add properties to something just because.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you give evidence for. My point is that regardless of the validity of the First Cause argument (it's invalid, but ignore that) it still wouldn't show the existence of a Christian god were it true.

 

[Gilles]

I was simply trying to help ebuz in showing you guys that there can be a force in the universe that can be considered God. I did not state if he was the Christian or Muslum (Allah means God in arabic) or zeus and his family and what not. Everyone has their own road to walk and their own way to walk it. (lets try to keep out of the pinball trap)

Yes, everyone is free to walk down whatever road they choose, but that doesn't make them right. I like to send people down the right path, whatever path I believe.