The Four Horsemen

Eyal wrote:Think of it as a train running on a rail. Periodically, it encounters a junction and can go either way. Given infinite time, it can wind up anywhere; and if you have infinite trains, eventually there will be a train everywhere. However, the catch is that "anywhere" and "everywhere", while (infinite), are limited to those places where the rail reaches; other (locations) are (unreachable).

Except that God is - by definition Omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time) - therefore he would exist everywhere and there is nowhere that he doesn't exist. so there are no "other (locations) are (unreachable)."

Eyal wrote:That statement would allow God to exist only if He can come into existence under the universe's natural laws.

Furthermore, even accepting your argument, God's existence would be guaranteed over the lifetime of the universe. It does not require that He already exists at this point in time.

Furthermore, even accepting your argument, God's existence would be guaranteed over the lifetime of the universe. It does not require that He already exists at this point in time.

What "laws" who wrote these "laws" and made the universe follow them? Your claim requires that God be subject to these so-called "laws". An empty dead universe can't write any laws of enforce them. So who made them up. The bible specifies that God isn't subject to them. He does not exist within the universe - the universe exists within him. Put another way, if you dream something, are you subject to the rules in your dreams? no, they have no real influence over your physical body, just as these so-called "laws" have no influence over God. He is not subject to subjective time and therefore exists over all time. This is specified in the Bible.

Further, your stamen assumes that this is the only Universe and that no other universe exists. There is no proof of this either, so making that assumption is as close minded as assuming "the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it." There was plenty of "proof" that this was true in the 15th century - and no 'accepted' proof that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

Tables have turned. In todays society, it is the so-called "pure scientists" who are the close-minded snobs that refuse to accept that what they're sect as deemed "true" may not be the whole story, and those who accept religion, accept the FACT that there is more than what has been documented.
I know for a FACT that what present-day "science" has deemed "true" is neither whole nor (in even the remotest sence) complete.

MAD-4A wrote:What "laws" who wrote these "laws" and made the universe follow them? Your claim requires that God be subject to these so-called "laws". An empty dead universe can't write any laws of enforce them. So who made them up. The bible specifies that God isn't subject to them. He does not exist within the universe - the universe exists within him. Put another way, if you dream something, are you subject to the rules in your dreams? no, they have no real influence over your physical body, just as these so-called "laws" have no influence over God. He is not subject to subjective time and therefore exists over all time. This is specified in the Bible.

So you're saying your god has no power over our universe?

Glad you cleared that up.

Further, your stamen assumes that this is the only Universe and that no other universe exists. There is no proof of this either, so making that assumption is as close minded as assuming "the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it." There was plenty of "proof" that this was true in the 15th century - and no 'accepted' proof that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

Until and unless it can be shown that events in one universe can affect events in another one, the existence or nonexistence of other universes is strictly academic and, like the simulation hypothesis, meaningless for most of life.

Tables have turned. In todays society, it is the so-called "pure scientists" who are the close-minded snobs that refuse to accept that what they're sect as deemed "true" may not be the whole story, and those who accept religion, accept the FACT that there is more than what has been documented.
I know for a FACT that what present-day "science" has deemed "true" is neither whole nor (in even the remotest sence) complete.

You do know that the scientific method doesn't claim to find truth, only the closest possible approximation of truth, right? I mean, you'd have to be a complete scientific illiterate who doesn't understand something as simple as thermodynamics or phase changes to believe that .... I think I see the problem here.

The E wrote:So you're saying your god has no power over our universe?

Are you reading what is said or is someone translating poorly into another language?
The Universe has no power over God.

The E wrote:... the existence or nonexistence of other universes is ... meaningless ...

Not in the least. The existence of other universes would have a profound meaning whether they can interact or not.

MAD-4A wrote:

The E wrote:Until and unless it can be shown that events in one universe can affect events in another one, the existence or nonexistence of other universes is strictly academic and, like the simulation hypothesis, meaningless for most of life.

Not in the least. The existence of other universes would have a profound meaning whether they can interact or not.

No. If other universes are incapable of interacting with ours, we have no way to determine whether they exist or not. They can't affect our universe in any way, so their existence or non-existence makes no difference to us. That makes them irrelevant, and meaningless.

You need to make some attempt to understand science.

Science is not a thing, not an authority, it is a process. A proven methodology for determining facts and truth. Science has given us everything we have today, from the power to move mountains to better health and longer lives. And, yes, the power to destroy entire cities in seconds. We don't always use it for good things.

SCIENCE IS NEVER WRONG.

Scientists may sometimes be wrong. People who misunderstand and mis-apply science are always wrong. The most common way science is misused is by attempting to force evidence and logic to fit some preconceived premise, by denying evidence that does not support it, and making up evidence that does not exist.
———————————
It's all in yer 'ead, Mister Tweedy. All in yer 'ead!

" The bible specifies that God isn't subject to them. He does not exist within the universe - the universe exists within him. Put another way, if you dream something, are you subject to the rules in your dreams? no, they have no real influence over your physical body, just as these so-called "laws" have no influence over God. He is not subject to subjective time and therefore exists over all time. This is specified in the Bible."

This whole argument is predicated on your belief that the Bible is the absolute authority, without any further evidence or proof.

Daryl wrote:" The bible specifies that God isn't subject to them. He does not exist within the universe - the universe exists within him ... just as these so-called "laws" have no influence over God. He is not subject to subjective time and therefore exists over all time. This is specified in the Bible."

exactly

And where's your proof that the Bible is a correct source of information?

That's what Daryl was asking about and what you (and generations of believers like you) have failed to answer.

The E wrote:And where's your proof that the Bible is a correct source of information?

And not the topic of this discussion. Why do Atheists have to foist their religion off on everyone else? Can I not have an intelligent discussion on a topic of my choice without being bombarded with closed minded drivel just because YOU don't believe in it? I posted this thread to discus the meaning of the section NOT whether YOU believe in it or not!

MAD-4A wrote:

The E wrote:And where's your proof that the Bible is a correct source of information?

And not the topic of this discussion.

The topic here is religion. Specifically, your interpretation of some parts of your chosen religious text and how those interpretations are, in your mind, supported by events in the real world.

Bringing up questions about the applicability of the text, your ability to interpret it and, fundamentally, how reliable a guide that text is is not off-topic.

Inconvenient for you, perhaps. I would imagine the fact that you have no arguments to support your beliefs that are valid outside of your personal worldview might have something to do with that, or your insistence on making really really stupid mistakes in your application of scientific theory.

Why do Atheists have to foist their religion off on everyone else?

Why do you?

Can I not have an intelligent discussion on a topic of my choice without being bombarded with closed minded drivel just because YOU don't believe in it? I posted this thread to discus the meaning of the section NOT whether YOU believe in it or not!

Ultimately, the question here is whether or not you can make others believe as you do. You want us to agree with you, to praise you for your insight; The problem is that some of us aren't particularly impressed by your deductive reasoning skills.

When you post in a public forum you don't control, you are inviting comment. Some of that comment can and will be harshly critical, and that's just something you need to be able to deal with when you choose to engage in a public forum. Are you sure you are able to do this? Are you certain enough in your beliefs to defend them with confidence?

So yes, you can have an intelligent discussion. But that means that you have to start the discussion intelligently first. In this instance, your reasoning is fundamentally circular (the bible is true because my belief tells me it is because the bible says it's true); what truth there is in your beliefs is not accessible with the tools of scientific inquiry. Thus, if you claim to have scientific insights stemming from your beliefs that are superior to the insights generated through scientific means, you need to be able to prove that superiority, and since you are trying to convince nonbelievers, you need to use their tools to do so. At which point, as evidenced above, you fail miserably: You cannot use science to prove the truth of your beliefs because there is no scientific methodology to do so; even if there was, your ignorance of what science is and does would make it impossible for you to do so.