GSP, this now becomes an argument about epistemology. Notice when I used the arguments about the airlines and other examples we use in our every day life? The responses indeed back up exactly what I have said. Notice how I think it was biscuit who said he knows that Plane A will not crash. See the ignorant statement. He has go to bordelrline ridiculous lies just to avoid the word faith. How does he know the plane wont crash? No one knows. System then talks about past experience. Sure, what about the employees who walked into the world trade centre everyday for 30 years. Past experience told them , every day they will walk out of that building every day via the lift or at very very worst , the stairs....Who would have thought that some of those people would have jumped 90 floors to there death?
You see, every single day all these Atheists, Agnostics exercise faith. If they didn't, they would honestly not get out of their room. They would be trapped in it all day and night as they wouldn't trust anything. Actually, they wouldn't sleep at night, why? Cause do they have evidence they will wake up the next day? No they don't, but they still sleep comfortable. Then they will say, from past experience we have woke up, they means we will wake up the next day...Oh really, what about the several thousands of people who don't wake up the next day after sleeping? You see, this is what faith is, it is using evidence around us to determine how much faith we have, but still faith.
KK , there is no evidence for a multi verse. The multi verse geta resorted to try and reduce the deductive implications a beginning of the universe has. It also gets used to try and explain away the fine tuning of the universe. Their is no evidence, but I thought science is all about evidences?
Anyways, lets play it for this argument, even if there were a multi verse, all what you are doing is putting the problem 1 step back. Mathematics has shown enormous problems with an infinite regress.
Even if their were no problems with an infinite regress, it still wouldn't explain why their is something rather than nothing.
This is a massive problem for Atheism.
Faith is the belief of things unseen.
You are on this website, so I assume you also like to have a gamble on the games.
Lets look at the Bulls Wizards game (lets also assume I wrote this down in the morning before the game started)
- Suppose I want to place a wager on the game. The result is unseen. So who am I going to put my faith in to get my $$$.
Am I going to just flip a coin and that will determine who I bet on? No, that is blind faith. I want to use reasonable faith. How do I use reasonable faith?
Well, lets look at the arguments and evidences...Well, the Bulls are severely depleted missing Noah, Rose, Hamilton, bellineli, they have been inconsistent lately, only beat the pistons by 1 at home etc etc etc. The Wizards have been playing great especially at home , they have a fully healthy lineup, finishing the season strong where as the bulls are treading water. They put everything they had into beating the Heat last week and that might be telling...There are plenty more arguments / evidences , but we wont list them all.
Who am I gonna bet on. Well, I look at the evidences and it is more likely or more reasonable to conclude from the evidences that the Wizards will beat the bulls. Do I know for a fact they will? No, Have I seen the result? No, Do I know the Wizards will turn up flat today or energetic today? No. Do I know the Wizards will get breaks will calls? No. Do I know a Carlos boozer wont play out of his mind today? No. These are all unseen.
I haven't seen the result, but I am going to put my cash on the Wizards.
This is an example, where I have looked the arguments / evidences and rationally concluded that the Wizards will win. I put so much faith in the wizards that I will put my hard earned $$ on them. If I had no faith, I wouldn't put $$ on them. I haven't seen the result (unseen), but from the evidences I concluded that they will win.
Everyday this site is littered with people exercising their faith.
KK , there is no evidence for a multi verse. The multi verse geta resorted to try and reduce the deductive implications a beginning of the universe has. It also gets used to try and explain away the fine tuning of the universe. Their is no evidence, but I thought science is all about evidences?
Anyways, lets play it for this argument, even if there were a multi verse, all what you are doing is putting the problem 1 step back. Mathematics has shown enormous problems with an infinite regress.
Even if their were no problems with an infinite regress, it still wouldn't explain why their is something rather than nothing.
This is a massive problem for Atheism.
KK, you have 2 choices......
You can sit back and say I don't know and leave it at that. That's fine. But once you go around and start screaming God doesn't exist, idiots for believing etc etc, I am sorry but you get your feet dirty and you have to debunk the positive arguments for God. Saying you don't believe that God exist doesn't cut it. Saying God doesn't exist because I say so, doesn't cut it. Saying I don't know doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
The argument is that space, time and matter began to exist. Prior to this, their was no space, no time and no matter.
This statement is accepted by the majority of Cosmologists and Astro-physicists.
From this it is rational to believe that something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial caused space, time and energy to exist. Otherwise, you are led to believe these itself out of nothing for nothing.
The deductive argument from this scientific statement is that something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial that can cause something like the universe is God. The only other abstract items are numbers, but they have no causal power, ie, the number 7 cannot cause anything.
This is a very sound argument. Please note, the beginning of a universe is a religiously neutral statement. However, Atheists try and avoid this simply because of the implications of the statement.
As Alexander Vilenkin said, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Being presented with an argument above and then replying with "I don't know" does not mean God does not exist.
Either debunk the argument or zip it.
In terms of an infinite regress, how can a being that is not bounded by space, time and matter be subject to an infinite regress?
you know dirt, if you told me this thread was going to include multiverse talk, as well as a visit from my boy rostos, i would have been back a helluva lot sooner (handshake)
Faith is the belief of things unseen.
You are on this website, so I assume you also like to have a gamble on the games.
Lets look at the Bulls Wizards game (lets also assume I wrote this down in the morning before the game started)
- Suppose I want to place a wager on the game. The result is unseen. So who am I going to put my faith in to get my $$$.
Am I going to just flip a coin and that will determine who I bet on? No, that is blind faith. I want to use reasonable faith. How do I use reasonable faith?
Well, lets look at the arguments and evidences...Well, the Bulls are severely depleted missing Noah, Rose, Hamilton, bellineli, they have been inconsistent lately, only beat the pistons by 1 at home etc etc etc. The Wizards have been playing great especially at home , they have a fully healthy lineup, finishing the season strong where as the bulls are treading water. They put everything they had into beating the Heat last week and that might be telling...There are plenty more arguments / evidences , but we wont list them all.
Who am I gonna bet on. Well, I look at the evidences and it is more likely or more reasonable to conclude from the evidences that the Wizards will beat the bulls. Do I know for a fact they will? No, Have I seen the result? No, Do I know the Wizards will turn up flat today or energetic today? No. Do I know the Wizards will get breaks will calls? No. Do I know a Carlos boozer wont play out of his mind today? No. These are all unseen.
I haven't seen the result, but I am going to put my cash on the Wizards.
This is an example, where I have looked the arguments / evidences and rationally concluded that the Wizards will win. I put so much faith in the wizards that I will put my hard earned $$ on them. If I had no faith, I wouldn't put $$ on them. I haven't seen the result (unseen), but from the evidences I concluded that they will win.
Everyday this site is littered with people exercising their faith.
Good call
KK, you have 2 choices......
You can sit back and say I don't know and leave it at that. That's fine. But once you go around and start screaming God doesn't exist, idiots for believing etc etc, I am sorry but you get your feet dirty and you have to debunk the positive arguments for God. Saying you don't believe that God exist doesn't cut it. Saying God doesn't exist because I say so, doesn't cut it. Saying I don't know doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
he's not saying it because he says so, he saying it because there is no evidence for "god" 
The argument is that space, time and matter began to exist. Prior to this, their was no space, no time and no matter.
This statement is accepted by the majority of Cosmologists and Astro-physicists.
From this it is rational to believe that something that was spaceless, timeless and immaterial caused space, time and energy to exist. Otherwise, you are led to believe these itself out of nothing for nothing.
The deductive argument from this scientific statement is that something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial that can cause something like the universe is God. The only other abstract items are numbers, but they have no causal power, ie, the number 7 cannot cause anything.
This is a very sound argument. Please note, the beginning of a universe is a religiously neutral statement. However, Atheists try and avoid this simply because of the implications of the statement.
As Alexander Vilenkin said, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Being presented with an argument above and then replying with "I don't know" does not mean God does not exist.
Either debunk the argument or zip it.
In terms of an infinite regress, how can a being that is not bounded by space, time and matter be subject to an infinite regress?
don't fret friend, i plan on spending some quality time in this thread going forward.......................WWCD
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
