Its a Chicken-n-Egg question. What came first, Chicken or Egg? We know universe began around 14 billion years ago. Then what existed before that time? http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html The answer to this question is given by the no-boundary wave function theory --> http://www.physorg.com/news133515283.html That proves that the universe does not have a beginning... It was always there. Big bang happened 14 billion years ago, but the universe had contracted, "bounced" to a small but non-zero radius, and then expanded again.
You are still making things up. Why is it it in every thread you try to participate in you invariably end up misrepresenting what people are saying? I have continuously stated that i don't know how the universe got here and that no conclusive answer currently exists. At no point did i say that it "just appeared". What i am saying, though, is that just because no conclusive scientific answer exists that isn't in it's self evidence for a magic man in the sky.
Its only you. You get that feeling because you need to retreat to nuance when when your flawed bigoted arguments get you your ass handed to you. Nuance cant save you bro. Have you found your dictionary yet? Shake n' Bake.
Really? Show me where i said the universe "just appeared" then, as you claimed i did. or you could, as i suspect you will, just ignore the question and go off ranting about something completely different or acting like some kind of victim...
Perhaps people who believe in any of the hundreds of gods throughout history should simply forgo all medical treatment and instead pray their ailments away. They could all go to heaven and the human race could advance beyond some of the theological limitations religion imposes on us. Win win?
Unfortunately, with all the religious scientists, it might set us back. Sounds good in theory though. stOx, showing you would be as useless as throwing pearls before swine. Here is something else from that scary book: As in, whether you said the universe just appeared, or whether you said it always existed, or whether you say you don't know does not change the relevance of my post. "you rail against the idea of a higher intelligence period and you refute what most would consider evidence and you propose no alternative solution [to where the universe came from]". Since you can't dispute the remainder of my quote, you pick at nuance, which really doesn't effect the meat of my charge at all. Like I said, this probably works very well with your high school friends, but as you grow older, you are going to have to be able to argue points on their merits.
Which part? I am particularly keen on the idea that you are agreeing that they would all die if they prayed instead of God actually... you know... doing something. Seems the all powerful God actually stepping in and saving his faithful was such a ridiculous notion you didn't even consider it.
Of course not. I never have. Your straw man generalization could have most people who believe there is life on other planets donning their Nike tennis shoes and drinking poison to hop on board the Hale Bop comet. It's just nonsense. There are nut job fringes to every group. The larger the group, the larger the fringe. Some Christians do refuse medical treatment. Some Muslims do strap bomb to their chests to kill infidels. Some Atheists are slanderous, bigoted, and pushy. While those are all problems to be dealt with, to generalize a whole group of people or religion based on the actions of a few idiots is somewhat ridiculous.
Obumanation, if you want to discuss things we can. But when you lie about what i have claimed i will pull you up on it and i will drag you across the coals until everyone knows what you are like. Sorry if you don't like being accountable for your actions, but tough. Maybe next time you wont try to misrepresent someone in order to fabricate your strawman arguments.
Its ok stOx. You will always be a champ in your own mind, and that is what counts. I only chide you about about reading comprehension and the ability to use a dictionary because I care, and learning these skills could help you when you get out of high school. Even if you don't, you are still good in my book and, of course, Jesus loves you.
We *know* this? Or it is a theory? I appreciate the link; it's an interesting theory, but hardly 'proof'. It seems the reality is whether you are a Theist or Atheistic it is a question of what authority you place your faith in. Mark
Therefore the whole point of praying to God is....? It's easy to label solid arguments that lead to an inevitable conclusion "strawman" arguments. Facing them head on and disproving them is a lot tougher I suppose. Fact is I brought up the notion of God actually doing ANYTHING being ridiculous because once you start making concessions on that path it opens up the door to a wide range of biblical fallacies. For example, God's miraculous ability to perform miracle after miracle that coincidentally STOPPED the moment we as humans developed the ability to record such phenomena.... You see it's not "fringe nut jobs" who believe God is all powerful. His ability to affect change and perform wildly public and fantastical miracles is at the very CORE of your religion. I simply demonstrated how ridiculous that is and you just agreed with me. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what just happened here. No straws attached.
I absolutely LOVE the "theory isn't "proof" argument. It is a constant reminder that the only defense religious followers have against scientific discovery is what we haven't discovered... yet. Every time science discovers or proves something you just accept that you were wrong but point to something else that hasn't been proven Which ironically happens to be the very same thought process that spawned religion in the first place. Fact is the big bang "theory" is a lot more plausible and believable than a magical being creating it who by the way actually still exists and actually listens to our thoughts and prayers. But never mind how far fetched that is, it's only "theory" so you don't have to admit it's true until it's proven beyond your ability to spin it. It's all about spirituality and accepting God into your heart. Nevermind the fact that your heart is a muscle mass in your chest that pumps blood. Oh wait... you meant your heart as in your thoughts and psych that exist in your brain that AH HA... we haven't yet fully discovered how it works Yes the magic in your brain... and because we can't fully explain it... that is what you'll cling to because it hasn't been proven that there is no eternal soul in there. Forget about the fact that brain surgeons have been opening up the brain and carrying out proven techniques that work for over a hundred years and saving lives thanks to medical breakthroughs, studying, and good old fashioned curiosity. Nevermind that we now know how your brain works. How tiny electrical currents travel through it, how the different regions work. There's a magic soul in there, you just "can't see it"! Now there's no soul in that steak you just ate because lowly animals don't have souls. Only us. We're important. That's God's way, not some human desire to feel important. We used to point to the clouds when asked where God was and why we can't see him. But that was before planes, space shuttles, and a flag was planted on the moon. Now he's just invisible. It's extremely entertaining to wonder just how many compromises and backpedaling religion can withstand before it collapses in on itself from the sheer weight of the contradictions and disproven ideology. But don't worry, that may never happen. As long as we have the unknown, you can continue to make shit up and reinterpret what was written by primitive men who thought the earth was flat and the solar system orbited around us
Which is why you don't do that? Or perhaps because it isn't possible.... take your pick. Fact: I never said, implied, or hinted at refusing medical care in favor of waiting for god to cure someone. That's all you. That's all straw man. To refute that makes you look like an idiot. Its called jump to the absurd. You did it, I didn't. I could make an equally absurd statement and attribute it to your beliefs: All life in the Universe came about by accident. Oh wait, you actually believe that. Hey its ok. Like you said, I think its ok to believe in the absurd. My religion? Let me clue you in on something. You don't know anything about "my religion". For all you know, right now you are in my church and the congregation and I are preparing to present you to our god we call "The Clue Giver" because you came into our temple without one. I've stated nothing about my religion, other than the fact I'm agnostic. Perhaps you and stOx can hold weekly "Atheist" meetings where you and he can get together and talk about how to convert people to your religion. He can teach you how to argue without your strawman, and you can show him how to use a dictionary. You both seem to have argument by generalization down to a science.
I've noticed through passing observation that your best defense against logical arguments is to label them strawman arguments. Literally... that's it. As if because if you can apply a label to it that makes it seem beneath you to argue against it so you simply don't have to. You win by default. It's kinda like stOx signature and arguing with chimps. They eat the cards and think they've won. In reality, what I did was draw a perfectly legitimate analogy. Call it a strawman so you don't have to argue against it but don't call it an analogy... because well then you might have to actually refute it. You see when dealing with believers, rational discussion doesn't work. It's a really simple circular argument that plays over and over again. Believers get backed into corners with logical deduction then proclaim that their beliefs are based on "faith". Faith destroys any possibility to have a reasonable discussion because it is intangible. Just like the unknown. Believers like it for that very reason. So there is nothing left but to point out the absurdity in their own paths of belief. Like a God looking down upon us and performing miracles. You tried to spin it as if I was "jumping to the absurd"... fact is... the religious idea of God is absurd... not me pointing it out. Oops... you seem to have made the same mistake I did. I assumed you were a believer because you seemed to be coming to the defense of religion. You assumed I was an atheist. Truth is.... I am the founder of the now defunct (because I sold it) but what was once the only active online Agnostic community on the internet. AgnosticForums.com. I started that back in 2006. Don't know what type of Agnostic you are but I personally am anti-religion and anti-atheist arrogance. Not anti-God. Some atheists will admit they don't know but most of them seem to believe they have all the answers. They just can't explain it to you (ironically the same way believers can't explain the logic behind their faith.) Sure we could have it wrong and the things we don't understand could turn out to be God. Sure the big bang theory really could simply be our interpretation of God's creation process. But this vengeful spiteful human emotion filled storybook God that religion passes off on individuals who either can't or don't want to think for themselves... well... I don't buy that. God could be anything. A race of beings even. But my whole stance is that there just is no evidence that would lead me to believe any one of the HUNDREDS of man made religions have it right. Hell the sheer NUMBER of them speaks for itself.
George, you are an interesting cat. You may not be an atheist, but I would bet age is something you have in common with stOx. For a reality check, let me replay the history of this thread for you. You bash believers in god and indirectly, religion, with this statement. I respond with this: And you respond by trying to get me to tacitly admit that anyone who believes in god, or is religious thinks that they can pray their illnesses away, when in reality all I said was that there are many scientists who are religious. Sorry if I didn't agree with your ridiculous generalization. Of course I call out your strawman and ridiculous generalization with this: and you respond with an off the hook rant about how the religious cannot be reasoned with.With all due respect, you are an idiot, and don't forget, I said with all due respect. I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of argument. If you like, feel free to drop the anti-religious hatred for a second, reset your conversation and post something that is legitimately contiguous to my post that claims many scientists are religious. You won't because you don't want to discuss that point. It doesn't add legitimate fuel to your hatred. So, in that spirit, go ahead and retreat to your strawman filled with groundless allegations about chimps and inability to discuss an issue. Just be aware you are going to have that conversation with yourself, because I cant be bothered with it. I usually respond to nonsense with..... nonsense.. Shake N' Bake. P.S. What did the religious ever do to you?
A) My first post was mocking those that believe in prayer, as in man made religion, as in not God. B) Your response about religious scientists is factual. Did you expect me to say otherwise? I wasn't avoiding that point in the slightest. I simply saw it more important to address your response as a whole as it pertains to my analogy being flawed. I assumed you understood your point was taken given my response. Otherwise we'd be sitting here arguing that scientists can't be religious.... which truly would have been absurd. I completely understand my argument was lost on you because you're agnostic. However, had you been a theist, my analogy would have been dead on. It would simply not be ridiculous to state that as a believer, you would believe that God is all powerful and answers prayers. That would not be a misrepresentation of a believer's position, which is what a straw man actually is... did you know that? Or are you one of those people who think any complex argument is a straw man because you can't keep up? (and incidentally don't actually know what a "straw man" argument is.) So have I been correct all along? You strategy is that any time someone presents you with an argument that requires thought and grasping of concepts you run away screaming NUANCE!! -- STRAW MAN STRAW MAN! All the posts after that in response to yours up until my last one were made under the assumption that you were a theist. Just like your responses were made under the assumption you were dealing with an atheist. Brash name calling won't scare me away I'm afraid. Unfortunately for you, calling me an idiot doesn't make me second guess my intellect in the slightest nor convince anyone that you know what you're talking about. Assault the argument, not the individual. Not sure what type of discussion you're used to having with people that disagree with you, but if you're the type that needs people to validate every correct point you make by stating so, I hope B) above helped you. As for my "hatred", well I wouldn't call it hatred. Hatred is hijacking a plane and killing thousands of people because they won't submit to your belief system. But if that helps you try to paint me as irrational please continue. Because as anyone can see I make absolutely no misrepresentations about being anti-religion in any post I make. But I won't stop you from restating the obvious over and over again if that helps your thought process. Sorry the shake n bake reference is lost on me. I don't visit this forum with regularity. Is that your cool sign off for when you think you've won an argument? Premature ejaculation much? See my original post: "They could all go to heaven and the human race could advance beyond some of the theological limitations religion imposes on us."
obumanation is a theist, he just pretends to be "agnostic" because he knows how indefensible his real beliefs are. It makes it easier for him to defend irrationality from a position of indifference than to admit his true beliefs and have his entire world view dismantled in front of everyone.