GOD EXISTS

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
So we're just going to ignore where I just told you that no, science does not say there was nothing before the Big Bang.... that science has competing models that differ over whether there was a "before" the Big Bang or not, and that those models are still under testing to try to figure out which are right?

That testing is still underway. it will likely be underway for a very long time indeed. In the meantime saying "we don't know" about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang is not a lack of commitment. It is honesty.

Do tell. What assumptions does this line of inquiry entail?

The same assumptions that all scientific inquiry entails. the absolute minimum necessary.

Do you have a brief description about what those various models look like? Am I to take your word for it that these models exist and their insight into an area that even Steven Hawking asserts that neither time and space exist? Not just that but he postulates that since time and space does not exit, then he postulates that nothing could act/change in this period, including God.

I don't ignore your points, I am politely waiting for you to describe what alternatives there might be. What other scientific models are there about the primal cause and what do they predict? You have done nothing but claim they exist. Fine, bring them forth that we may discuss them.

A couple examples...

Steinhardt and Turok's Cyclic model:

http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf


Note, this model entails the universe quite possibly being eternal with the Big Bang being one in a series. No "primal cause".


Or there's Linde's Inflationary model:

http://web.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

Note, again, this model entails the larger universe (or the multi-verse) being possibly eternal, with the local universe we inhabit which was produced by the Big Bang 14 and change billion years ago not being all that there is. Again, no "Primal Cause"

(Linde's model recently got a boost from some test data that confirmed one of it's predictions btw)

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/marc ... 31714.html

Do you wish to bring those Blue Laws back, MAD-4A?

Yes, I remember them.
Why should I, a Jew, be stopped from working on Sunday?
Why should 7th-Day Adventists be stopped?
There are other Christian groups who say that Saturday
is the Sabbath. I used to have a pamphlet from one of
them, which said that celebrating it on Sunday was a
blasphemous and heretical usurpation by the Pope and
his Bishops!
And then of course there are Moslems, whose Sabbath is
Friday, and other religions who don't have a Sabbath.

And what did those Blue Laws show about Christian
tolerance for others? Whatever it showed, the Repeal
of them by legislatures composed mostly of Christians,
or their overturn by mostly Christian judges, showed
something completely different.

BTWay, Atheists can no more have a "pope" than Baptists
and Congregationalists can. The atheist whom you called
a "pope" was more like a "president-of-the-Southern-
Baptist-Convention," except that he represents fewer
people.
I do agree with you that Atheism is a religion, or a
group of religions the way Christianity is a (group
of) religions.

Howard, a Jewish Map-addict

MAD-4A wrote:{snip - htm}
You probably don't even remember the Blue-Laws. Even up through the '70 there were Christian Laws, known as the Blue Laws, that prevented anyone from being allowed to work on Sunday. Saturday was a big shopping day because you couldn't even go to the store (no-one could work at the store so the stores weren't open) you had to make sure you had everything you needed for Sunday, on Saturday.
{snip}

gcomeau wrote:So the Devil is free to do *absolutely anything he wants* without any interference whatsoever from God because God won't violate Lucifer's free will?...God has given Lucifer free reign over the earth, and humans are left to fend for themselves against an evil magical super being God created but now will not step in and stop?

No. he is given the same restrictions God has limited himself too. That is why neither of them go "Poof" and appear in your living room demanding "worship me or else!" They both work threw influence, which is also why there is no physical "Proof". There are some few & rare exception.

btw: if you don't want to be a member of a "religion" then you should stop being an Atheist, switch to "Agnostic with Atheistic leanings" by definition, Agnostic is the lack of belief and are the only ones who can be "not a member" of a religion.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Do you wish to bring those Blue Laws back, MAD-4A?

No, they're a violation of free-will. Just proof that this is a Christian country - or we wouldn't of had them in the first place.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:...I, a Jew, ...

shalom a member of Jesus's people, Welcome, I a'm a big Pro-Semite (as any true Christian must be - by definition).

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:And what did those Blue Laws show about Christian tolerance for others?

A group claiming to be Christian (like the other groups claiming to be Christian & worship Jesus, a Jew, but then spewing hate against Jews - which you know about) they are no more Christian than Buddha was.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Atheists can no more have a "pope"

Well not by title.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:The atheist whom you called a "pope" was more like a "president-of-the-Southern-Baptist-Convention," except that he represents fewer people.

on a size/influence level but the point stands - he is the religious leader in America. Just wait for any of the Atheists to want something forced threw & who do they run too to try to get it threw?

MAD-4A wrote:

Religion:
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly

Atheism:
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
(dictionary.reference.com/)

Two things.

First, I think we use the word "believe" differently. You, and apparently religious people in general, usually use the word "belief" with religious connotations. Which is the use I see when I read the dictionary quotes you posted.

I, however use the word differently. When I say "I believe that it will rain tomorrow", I am expressing a degree of confidence that, indeed, tomorrow will be rainy. When I say "I believe there is no God", the subject of the sentence is plainly religion, but the word "believe" has no religious overtones; I am expressing a degree of confidence that there is, in fact, no God.

That is, I believe (note the use), the reason that true believers say that atheism is a religion; because it believes in the non-existence of God. Only, it's not a religion.


And second, quote mining is a distasteful thing. If you're going to quote, do it well. Here's an expanded entry on atheism from dictionary.reference.org (not complete, it includes some other info which I feel is irrelevant. Feel free to disagree )

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Related forms
antiatheism, adjective, noun
proatheism, noun


British Dictionary definitions for atheism
atheism
noun
1.
rejection of belief in God or gods

Word Origin
C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god

atheism in Culture Expand
atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)]

Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism.)

Note that the only part that defines atheism as a "belief" is the one you quoted. That is why quote mining is not a nice thing.

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?

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:...

completely wrong...

I'm assuming what was supposed to be iside my quote was the part where I pointed out Dembski invented the Law of Conservation of Information?

Perhaps I should have elaborated... there is *a* law of conservation of information, namely the law of conservation of quantum information. This however has nothing to do with anything living or dying.


The law of conservation of information YOU were speaking of (the information that comprises your personality and consciousnes has to be eternal and can never be destroyed) has zip to do with that however. That so-called "law" was absolutely invented by William Dembski as part of his attempt to convince people "Intelligent Design" was anything other than a re-named Creationism.


If *that kind* of information could never be destroyed then the delete key on your computer would be a physical impossibility. Do you think the delete key on your computer violates the laws of physics? Nobody has ever run a magnet over a magnetic drive and wiped all the information on it because it's physically impossible?


Because unless you want to make that argument, no, there is no such thing as "The law of conservation of information" as you are attempting to portray it here.

]Not your atoms, your sentience - your self-awareness

See above. That has nothing to do with any physical law.

gcomeau wrote:Atheism is not a religion

Completely Wrong

Religion:
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...

Atheism has no set of beliefs covering any of the above...

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

Atheism has no set of beliefs. It is simply the lack of one specific one.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

No set of beliefs for a body of persons to adhere to...

.something one believes in and follows devotedly

Atheism involves no beliefs TO adhere to.

So, you were saying something about "completely wrong"?



And the dictionary is actually a pretty crappy place to get definitions of philosophical terms as it relies on popular usage... or mis-usage. You'll note that even your dictionary.com source (which I'm betting you picked after looking through several until you found one that included a definition phrased in a manner to your liking) has multiple definitions. The second one is more accurate.

"disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

And that's IT. There is no "set of doctrines". There is only people like you saying "there's this all powerful magic superbeing ruling the universe and he wants you to do this and this and this!"... and people like me saying "Yeah... I don't see any reasons to believe you. ".

Well, don't know what country your in, but if you'r American, then he's your Pope:

The Board of Directors of American Atheist

"American atheists" is just some club. (And I, an atheist who happens to be in America, am not a member thank you very much)

If I make a club called "American Christians" and name myself president do I get to be YOUR Pope?



And I think I missed what the challenge was?

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:So the Devil is free to do *absolutely anything he wants* without any interference whatsoever from God because God won't violate Lucifer's free will?...God has given Lucifer free reign over the earth, and humans are left to fend for themselves against an evil magical super being God created but now will not step in and stop?

No. he is given the same restrictions God has limited himself too.

That is why neither of them go "Poof" and appear in your living room demanding "worship me or else!" They both work threw influence, which is also why there is no physical "Proof". There are some few & rare exception.

Ah, so he DOES interfere in Lucifer's free will then.

So what you're really saying is God limits Lucifer's free will in the ways he feels like it, and then let's Lucifer do everything else he doesn't care to place limits on him about.

Which means God chose what to let Lucifer do to humanity and what not to let Lucifer do to humanity.

btw: if you don't want to be a member of a "religion" then you should stop being an Atheist, switch to "Agnostic with Atheistic leanings" by definition, Agnostic is the lack of belief and are the only ones who can be "not a member" of a religion.

Ugh... nope.


Agnosticism addresses a different consideration than atheism or theism. It is not a third option to atheism or theism.

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/up ... /wGl13.jpg

peke wrote:First, I think we use the word "believe" differently. You, and apparently religious people in general, usually use the word "belief" with religious connotations. Which is the use I see when I read the dictionary quotes you posted.

Both definitions used the word:

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.

peke wrote:...because it believes in the non-existence of God. Only, it's not a religion.

yes it is. as I pointed out:

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"

Choosing only one of your points to reply to:

Part of my point, which you seem to have missed,
was that there are *many* presidents of Baptist groups,
none of whom accept the authority of any of the others.
I also referred to Congregationalists,
who accept no human authority but their own.
On reconsideration, that Atheist leader you cited,
is more like the leader of a much smaller Baptist
group than the President of the triple-sized SBC.

Let us say he is "a" religious leader of Atheists,
not "the" religious leader.
Just as the SBC President is not "the" leader of
all the Baptists in the world, or even in America.

I'd expect, when Atheists want to change a law (that
they consider oppressive), the first person they run
to ... is a *lawyer.* Also the next ten or so.
Christian lawyers, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, whoever they
deem good.

By the way, I did not notice that you quoted any of
the things I said that agreed with or supported your
points.

HTM

MAD-4A wrote:
{much snipping - htm}

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:The atheist whom you called a "pope" was more like a "president-of-the-Southern-Baptist-Convention," except that he represents fewer people.

on a size/influence level but the point stands - he is the religious leader in America. Just wait for any of the Atheists to want something forced through, & who do they run to, to try to get it through?