Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

GOD EXISTS

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by MAD-4A   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:36 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

gcomeau wrote:So, you were saying something about "completely wrong"?
Yes everything you said:
gcomeau wrote:Atheism has no set of beliefs covering any of the above...Atheism has no set of beliefs. It is simply the lack of one specific one...No set of beliefs for a body of persons to adhere to...Atheism involves no beliefs TO adhere to...
So your saying that there are Atheist who do believe in God? hmmm...how dose that work? I thought the
gcomeau wrote:2. specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
that ALL Atheists believe is that there is no God? I guess if you can find an Atheist who believes in God then you would be right.
gcomeau wrote:"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
adding the prefix "dis" does not change the root word belief it is still a belief in the negative.
gcomeau wrote:
gcomeau wrote:"American atheists" is just some club. (And I, an atheist who happens to be in America, am not a member thank you very much
That's fine, I'm not a member of any Church in America, but am still a member of the Christian religion, you can be a "non-denominational" Atheist if you like. :)
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:38 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:gcomeau,

That sides steps the question. Cyclic theories you mention have one common flaw. The contraction is so great that all matter is destroyed and even light no longer functions as we understand it. That means that gravity stops pulling as matter is destroyed. Current theory suggests that matter did not form for quite some time after the expansion begings. So, during the contraction phase what force drives the contraction beyond the destruction of matter? Momentum? That is a product of mass and matter. These models do not describe reversal of physical laws required to continue contraction beyond the destruction of matter and then the additional reversal of laws required to generate and fuel the subsequent expansion.

Those reversals speak to a larger set of laws encompassing the cycle that never cease to exist as the cycles play out. What is the cause of that, pray tell?


Your misunderstandings of the theories do not comprise fatal flaws in them. Do you really find it plausible that some of the greatest minds in cosmology on earth who have spent decades refining these models missed the "Oops, we forgot about gravity" detail the entire time, nobody else in the field caught it either, they persist in missing it to this day, but you caught it in a few minutes of looking at a post on a discussion forum?

Do you *really* think that's what's happening here?


To give you a quick hint at the error you have made...

"The contraction is so great that all matter is destroyed and even light no longer functions as we understand it. That means that gravity stops pulling as matter is destroyed."


E=mc^2


(Matter isn't the only thing with gravitational effect)
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:43 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

MAD-4A wrote:
gcomeau wrote:Atheism has no set of beliefs covering any of the above...Atheism has no set of beliefs. It is simply the lack of one specific one...No set of beliefs for a body of persons to adhere to...Atheism involves no beliefs TO adhere to...
So your saying that there are Atheist who do believe in God? hmmm...how dose that work? I thought the
gcomeau wrote:2. specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
that ALL Atheists believe is that there is no God?


Nope.

All atheists do NOT believe that there is a God. Which is different.

Some atheists actively believe there is not (and thus, by definition, also do not believe in it). Others simply find that there is insufficient evidence to compel them to believe.


gcomeau wrote:"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
adding the prefix "dis" does not change the root word belief it is still a belief in the negative.


The dis refers to the believing part. As in, NOT belief.
Last edited by gcomeau on Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by peke   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:46 pm

peke
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:24 pm

MAD-4A wrote:
Belief:
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction:
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

from the same source, you can't change the definition of a word from one definition to another to suit your argument.



Quote mining, again? Disappointing.

Here's the expanded entry on belief from http://dictionary.reference.com/

And FTR, I didn't check this definition until I read your latest post.

noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

Synonyms
1. view, tenet, conclusion, persuasion.
2. assurance. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology. Certainty indicates unquestioning belief and positiveness in one's own mind that something is true: I know this for a certainty. Conviction is settled, profound, or earnest belief that something is right: a conviction that a decision is just.
4. doctrine, dogma.

British Dictionary definitions for belief
/bɪˈliːf/
noun
1.
a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2.
opinion; conviction
3.
religious faith
4.
trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Word Origin and History for belief Expand
n.
late 12c., bileave, replacing Old English geleafa "belief, faith," from West Germanic *ga-laubon "to hold dear, esteem, trust" (cf. Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed," from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- "to care, desire, like, love" (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c.

"The be-, which is not a natural prefix of nouns, was prefixed on the analogy of the vb. (where it is naturally an intensive) .... [OED]

Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of Latin fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).



Note that the word has several different uses: one that expresses certainty, confidence, and another that expresses religious faith. I do not change meanings to suit my argument, it's you who chooses to ignore meanings to suit your own argument.

Agnostic: a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
is the position of someone who does not believe one way or the other and therefore does not believe & is not a religion. Atheists do believe there is no God and fits the definition of a religion whether you want it to or not - if you do not want to be in a religion then you are an Agnostic with Atheist views. Much as I'm not a member of a Political group, not even the "Independent" group, I am "A-political with Libertarian views"


So you consider me an Agnostic with Atheist views. Hmmmmmm... so according to you, I'm "on the fence" regarding Atheism and Religion. But also according to you, Atheism is a religion. So I'm "on the fence" between Religion and... what? Religion and the void?

Sort yourself out. Either atheism is a religion, in which case I can't be on the fence between atheism and Religion, because atheism is included within Religion, and therefore the issue of choice is bogus. Or atheism is not a religion, in which case it's a completely legitimate choice that doesn't involve me belonging to a religion, which is exactly my point.

This, my quote-mining friend, is called Logic.
Last edited by peke on Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem so complex that it cannot be solved through the judicious application of high-power explosives.
Top
Re: Sunday Blue Laws re: GOD EXISTS
Post by MAD-4A   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:46 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:By the way, I did not notice that you quoted any of the things I said that agreed with or supported your points.
oh-sorry - I was not addressing them so didn't re-copy them to save space (thought that was the protocol)
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:03 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

No. Stephen Hawking doesn't appear to agree with you. I rely on his argument supporting an atheist position stating that: 1) just before the expansion of the Big Bang nothing existed, not even time and space. 2) the creation of multiple universe out of nothing, M-Theory, as the only big idea that explains what he observed.

The implication of this is that Hawking believed the creation of multiple universes out of nothing better explains creation that the regular and constant shift of laws required by any cyclic model.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

gcomeau wrote:
PeterZ wrote:gcomeau,

That sides steps the question. Cyclic theories you mention have one common flaw. The contraction is so great that all matter is destroyed and even light no longer functions as we understand it. That means that gravity stops pulling as matter is destroyed. Current theory suggests that matter did not form for quite some time after the expansion begings. So, during the contraction phase what force drives the contraction beyond the destruction of matter? Momentum? That is a product of mass and matter. These models do not describe reversal of physical laws required to continue contraction beyond the destruction of matter and then the additional reversal of laws required to generate and fuel the subsequent expansion.

Those reversals speak to a larger set of laws encompassing the cycle that never cease to exist as the cycles play out. What is the cause of that, pray tell?


Your misunderstandings of the theories do not comprise fatal flaws in them. Do you really find it plausible that some of the greatest minds in cosmology on earth who have spent decades refining these models missed the "Oops, we forgot about gravity" detail the entire time, nobody else in the field caught it either, they persist in missing it to this day, but you caught it in a few minutes of looking at a post on a discussion forum?

Do you *really* think that's what's happening here?


To give you a quick hint at the error you have made...

"The contraction is so great that all matter is destroyed and even light no longer functions as we understand it. That means that gravity stops pulling as matter is destroyed."


E=mc^2


(Matter isn't the only thing with gravitational effect)
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:19 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:No. Stephen Hawking doesn't appear to agree with you. I rely on his argument supporting an atheist position stating that: 1) just before the expansion of the Big Bang nothing existed, not even time and space. 2) the creation of multiple universe out of nothing, M-Theory, as the only big idea that explains what he observed.

The implication of this is that Hawking believed the creation of multiple universes out of nothing better explains creation that the regular and constant shift of laws required by any cyclic model.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html


First: You really don't want to rely on popular media to get your understanding of the basic science. I linked you to two detailed papers written by the cosmologists themselves. You linked me to a web article written by someone who, if we're lucky, maybe took an introductory physics course in college once with second hand accounts of some simplified remark Hawking made that was designed to be digestible by a room full of non-cosmologists.


(And I'm pretty sure an article that entitled "Big Bang Didn't Need God, Stephen Hawking Says" would kinda be more him disagreeing with you than disagreeing with me anyway... don't lose the forest for the trees there...)


Second: I believe I mentioned *competing models*. Steinhardt and Turok think it happened one way, Linde thinks it happened another, Hawking has his ideas. None of them are proven by testing yet. That testing, as I said, continues.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:36 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

gcomeau wrote:
First: You really don't want to rely on popular media to get your understanding of the basic science. I linked you to two detailed papers written by the cosmologists themselves. You linked me to a web article written by someone who, if we're lucky, maybe took an introductory physics course in college once with second hand accounts of some simplified remark Hawking made that was designed to be digestible by a room full of non-cosmologists.


(And I'm pretty sure an article that entitled "Big Bang Didn't Need God, Stephen Hawking Says" would kinda be more him disagreeing with you than disagreeing with me anyway... don't lose the forest for the trees there...)


Second: I believe I mentioned *competing models*. Steinhardt and Turok think it happened one way, Linde thinks it happened another, Hawking has his ideas. None of them are proven by testing yet. That testing, as I said, continues.


I wish you would pay attention to what I post. His observations allow for chance creating something out of nothing. He does not describe how that manifests. My position has always been that the creation of something out of nothing is not subject to chance. Neither he nor I can prove our belief. If he can prove it, he would have. Barring that proof, the primal cause that creates everything our of nothing is still open to question.

My cite simply asserts that my disagreement with your positing a cyclical theory of creation rests not on my meager scientific expertise, but Mr. Hawking's not so meager scientific brilliance. Even he believes as I do that a cyclical state model is unlikely to be correct.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:57 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:I wish you would pay attention to what I post. His observations allow for chance creating something out of nothing. He does not describe how that manifests.


Oh I was paying attention. And I even tried to give you a helpful tip.

One of the reasons "he does not describe how that manifests" is, as I tried to tell you, because you are reading a popular science article written to be understandable to people with effectively no background in cosmology. It is a second hand account of something Hawking said to a non-professional audience written by an article writer who, I can almost guarantee, wouldn't understand and would be ineffective at communicating such an explanation even if Hawking had given it.



My position has always been that the creation of something out of nothing is not subject to chance. Neither he nor I can prove our belief.


You are drawing false equivalencies.

Hawking is engaged in formulating cosmological models which, although not *currently* proven, *can* be tested and eventually corroborated or disproven,

Whereas you are simply making up magical explanations which can *never* be tested and thus can *never* be disproven.

Science calls that an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and rejects it for good reason.

My cite simply asserts that my disagreement with your positing a cyclical theory of creation rests not on my meager scientific expertise, but Mr. Hawking's not so meager scientific brilliance. Even he believes as I do that a cyclical state model is unlikely to be correct.


All the authors of all the competing models are scientifically brilliant. All you are doing is taking one facet of one of those scientists models (a scientist who says you are wrong about the MAIN point of our discussion), saying you agree with that one point that one competing model states, therefore you are on solid ground disagreeing with EVERY ONE of the scientists we are talking about regarding the central question of the universe requiring a deity to have been created.


Which is like saying that sure all scientists in the field of geology and plate tectonics disagree with me about the underground fire breathing dragons that I believe are really responsible for the existence of magma... but one of those scientists does agree with me that one of the other ones is wrong about the density of one of the layers in the earth's crust therefore my fire breathing dragon hypothesis is based on a solid scientific backing because look! This one brilliant scientists says the same thing as I do about this one tiny point!!!!!


Sorry, nope. That doesn't scientifically legitimize my fire breathing dragon hypothesis, and the same goes for your "magic superbeing created the universe" hypothesis.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:25 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

I find your posts neither persuasive nor clarifying. You appear to claim understanding of cosmology but share very little of that understanding in your posts. The style of your posts does not lend itself to continued discussion.

What about the models make Mr. Hawking's position inaccurate? What about my belief in God make my positing an intended action to initiate the primal cause any more fantastic than sheer chance creating many massive somethings created out of absolutely nothing? Both strike me as magic or perhaps miraculous.

Test all you want, pending proof either assertion: that chance or God created all things from absolutely nothing are equally fantastic in their different ways and each are possible. I doubt that either will convince the other.

So, not only will we not persuade each other, I find nothing of interest to continuing this conversation.


gcomeau wrote:
PeterZ wrote:I wish you would pay attention to what I post. His observations allow for chance creating something out of nothing. He does not describe how that manifests.


Oh I was paying attention. And I even tried to give you a helpful tip.

One of the reasons "he does not describe how that manifests" is, as I tried to tell you, because you are reading a popular science article written to be understandable to people with effectively no background in cosmology. It is a second hand account of something Hawking said to a non-professional audience written by an article writer who, I can almost guarantee, wouldn't understand and would be ineffective at communicating such an explanation even if Hawking had given it.



My position has always been that the creation of something out of nothing is not subject to chance. Neither he nor I can prove our belief.


You are drawing false equivalencies.

Hawking is engaged in formulating cosmological models which, although not *currently* proven, *can* be tested and eventually corroborated or disproven,

Whereas you are simply making up magical explanations which can *never* be tested and thus can *never* be disproven.

Science calls that an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and rejects it for good reason.

My cite simply asserts that my disagreement with your positing a cyclical theory of creation rests not on my meager scientific expertise, but Mr. Hawking's not so meager scientific brilliance. Even he believes as I do that a cyclical state model is unlikely to be correct.


All the authors of all the competing models are scientifically brilliant. All you are doing is taking one facet of one of those scientists models (a scientist who says you are wrong about the MAIN point of our discussion), saying you agree with that one point that one competing model states, therefore you are on solid ground disagreeing with EVERY ONE of the scientists we are talking about regarding the central question of the universe requiring a deity to have been created.


Which is like saying that sure all scientists in the field of geology and plate tectonics disagree with me about the underground fire breathing dragons that I believe are really responsible for the existence of magma... but one of those scientists does agree with me that one of the other ones is wrong about the density of one of the layers in the earth's crust therefore my fire breathing dragon hypothesis is based on a solid scientific backing because look! This one brilliant scientists says the same thing as I do about this one tiny point!!!!!


Sorry, nope. That doesn't scientifically legitimize my fire breathing dragon hypothesis, and the same goes for your "magic superbeing created the universe" hypothesis.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...