|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2006 : 11:42:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, the atheist has to explain who the eternal first cause of the universe, in their hypothetical athesitc universe, is?
or
They somehow must contend that matter is eternal, and then correlate this with the fact that they lambaste the creationist for giving the attribute of eternal existence to a deity as being illogical, while they hold that matter itself is eternal, and therefor self-sufficient, as being a logical position. *sigh*
Nice false dichotomy you've got there, it's a real pity that a first cause need not have a "who" behind it, or that matter as we know it may be unique in all possible universes. Your either/or choice, in other words, has many more possible answers than you'd like to admit, since you're so fixated on trapping "atheists" you've blinded yourself to real logic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 12:34:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, the atheist has to explain who the eternal first cause of the universe, in their hypothetical athesitc universe, is?
or
They somehow must contend that matter is eternal, and then correlate this with the fact that they lambaste the creationist for giving the attribute of eternal existence to a deity as being illogical, while they hold that matter itself is eternal, and therefor self-sufficient, as being a logical position. *sigh*
Nice false dichotomy you've got there, it's a real pity that a first cause need not have a "who" behind it, or that matter as we know it may be unique in all possible universes. Your either/or choice, in other words, has many more possible answers than you'd like to admit, since you're so fixated on trapping "atheists" you've blinded yourself to real logic.
Nice false dichotomy you've got there, it's a real pity that a first cause need not have a "who" behind it, or that matter as we know it may be unique in all possible universes.
(bill) So give us you hypothesis on the first cause of the atheistic universe Dave, or do you still hold that it is eternal and therefor needs no cause and is self-sufficient?
Your either/or choice, in other words, has many more possible answers than you'd like to admit, since you're so fixated on trapping "atheists" you've blinded yourself to real logic.
(bill) Those are your choices Dave. An eternal first cause or eternal matter.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 13:01:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, the atheist has to explain who the eternal first cause of the universe, in their hypothetical athesitc universe, is?
or
They somehow must contend that matter is eternal, and then correlate this with the fact that they lambaste the creationist for giving the attribute of eternal existence to a deity as being illogical, while they hold that matter itself is eternal, and therefor self-sufficient, as being a logical position. *sigh*
Nice false dichotomy you've got there, it's a real pity that a first cause need not have a "who" behind it, or that matter as we know it may be unique in all possible universes. Your either/or choice, in other words, has many more possible answers than you'd like to admit, since you're so fixated on trapping "atheists" you've blinded yourself to real logic.
Your either/or choice, in other words, has many more possible answers than you'd like to admit, since you're so fixated on trapping "atheists" you've blinded yourself to real logic.
(bill) When your ready to acknowlege that an eternal first cause is required where an eternal universe will not fit then we can start the debate of:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:15:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Jack McNally = John McNally
John Kennedy was often called 'Jack'...
Oh... This is a colloquialism that I was unaware of, and though I did consider the possibility I didn't want to jump to conclusions.
quote:
Sorry, didn't know it was appropriate to quote "myself"...will do so in the future.
Normally, none would think twice of it, but in this case the authorship wasn't 100% clear. And the quoted text was a part of a larger thesis, and readers might want to read it in context.
In discussions such as these it happens from time to time that texts are quoted out of context in order to misrepresent the work or the author's intent. Especially creationists are prone to such tactics when engaging in discussions with people who are not used to employ critical thinking and source checking (or may not have available internet access to do such background checking). We "skeptics" are all too familiar such tactics and become weary of un-referenced material.
quote:
Like the forum - interesting discussions.
Thanks. We are trying to do our best to make this place interesting. Dissenting opinions makes for good discussions, and outside influence is imperative.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:23:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) When your ready to acknowlege that an eternal first cause is required where an eternal universe will not fit then we can start the debate of:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe?
I have already acknowledged this with my LIE hypothesis. How about you and me start the debate regarding who (or what) created or was the first cause of the universe?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:34:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So give us you hypothesis on the first cause of the atheistic universe Dave...
There can be no testable hypotheses of the cause of the Big Bang, because that event is a physical limit beyond which we cannot probe.quote:
...or do you still hold that it is eternal and therefor needs no cause and is self-sufficient?
When did I ever "hold" that nonsense?quote:
Those are your choices Dave. An eternal first cause or eternal matter.
You've given me no reason to think that those are the only possible choices. Your insistence that they are is not compelling evidence.quote:
When your ready to acknowlege that an eternal first cause is required where an eternal universe will not fit...
I've seen no evidence from you for "an eternal first cause" which excludes all possibilities of non-eternal first causes.quote:
...then we can start the debate of:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe?
Neither have you provided any evidence that any "first cause" must be a "who" in any sense of the word. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 14:57:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
I actually host about a dozen websites and THoR is a hobby site which explains a feasible rationale for the phenomenon of existence. It's funny, a lot of people criticize it (mostly those with a religious bent), but noone has ever even tried to challenge the logic behind it.
When it comes to challenging logical constructs, I'm hardly more than a layman, though my time here at SFN has improved my critical skills.
When it comes to deconstructing arguments and finding the core fallacies of any not-logically-sound arguments, Dave_W is the undisputed master in my opinion.
quote:
I don't claim to have credentials...other than that of BS which was aptly applied to me after college many years ago. But when the obvious is overlooked, sometines all it takes is a crumudgeon to point it out.
I didn't explore your site closely enough to find any credentials. What exactly is your BS?
quote:
Let's see if I understand you:
Are you telling me that quantum physicists have come up with experiments in which the equations don't balance with their theories.
The one-to-billion ratio of unbalance will be hard to verify in experiemts. As I'm only a entry-level astronomy- and astrobiology student at the University (I have yet to start with astrophysics) I'm not versed in the specifics of quantum mechanics.
I have been told that the symmetry isn't perfect, and that the result of the discrepancies is matter and not an equal amount of anti-matter.
quote:
DERN ! ! ! I hate it when that happens. And I, too, used to tell my prof's that the problem couldn't be with me - it HAD TO BE reality that was at fault 
If the theory does not conform with reality, find a way to interpret reality so it conforms with the theory. It works for creationists...
quote:
Of course I didn't have sufficient letters after my name to say that and make it stick...not even with the most gullible of my professors.
Well, the fictional character Mabuse was a doctor of psychology, so consequentially I cannot be trusted to have a valid opinion in astrophysics... 
I hope you'll choose to stay... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 15:21:21 [Permalink]
|
Bill, have a re-read of what H. Humbert posted:
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god. *sigh*
What's funny about it? We know the Universe is here. It exists. Invoking the existence of an unknown entity to explain the origin of the Universe explains nothing because now we are left having to come up with an origin for the unknown entity. If the "solution" to *that* question is just to assume this unknown entity is uncaused, then it makes no sense not to apply that solution to the original problem, and just assume the Universe is uncaused.
Bill, let me put it this way. We know the sky is blue, but not necessarily why it is blue, why light shifts to that hue when filtered through our atmosphere. However, it would make no sense to then use "blue sky fairies" as an explanation for the sky's color, since then we'd have to ask where the fairies get their "blueness" from. If the only solution to that problem is to say that the fairies' blueness "just is," then we can leave out the unevidence part and say the sky "just is" blue.
Making up mysterious beings with properties which defy logic are not explantions! It is a simple-minded exercise, bill. Only a fool finds such answers satisfying.
Bill, why does it bother you so much that atheists does not try to find the deity that caused the universe? (Temporarily granting you the premise that there may actually be a deity responsible for it)
Scientists have refined the theory of Big Bang to cover most of what happened back to the Planck-epoch. Which means 10-43 seconds after the beginning of Time. Science is the tool we use to examine reality. However, this tool does not allow us to look further back in time. In scientific terms, we therefore have no way of determining what came before, but have to move beyond science into the realm of philosophy.
What came before? No one can know. Yet you seem to have a need to, kind of, anthropomorphize this unknown into a deity.
Since the answer cannot be conclusively answered, I see it as a personal waste of time. I have no compelling need to find the answer to this question. There are far more pressing questions closer to home that demands my attention, that can be answered. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 19:27:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
When it comes to deconstructing arguments and finding the core fallacies of any not-logically-sound arguments, Dave_W is the undisputed master in my opinion.
Thanks, Mab! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 20:26:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Of coarse it is. It is at this point that the atheist is forced to deal with the circular logic of his worldview.
Due to the dearth of evidence presented thus far, I can only conclude that you believe god was the first cause because you believe that god was the first cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
They have no clue who/what could be the eternal first cause of the universe so that forces them to look at the possibility of eternal matter.
You have been told too many times, but you are clearly commited to nonsense of your theistic fantasy.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Instead of acknowledging the requirement of a infinite first cause for the universe
You haven't established this, and if you had been paying attention you would understand why your first cause is extraneous.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
They either have to dream up a infinite first cause, other then God, or they have to dream up how the universe can be eternal and uncaused
You have already had this false dichotomy pointed out a few times most recently by DaveW. You have not provided evidence for and in no established a need for an infinite first cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet the atheist fully acknowledges they have no clue, at all, as to where these "bowls" came from, or how they act spontaneously? It all comes straight from their imagination. *sigh*
Not knowing is honest, claiming a supernatural first cause is faith. Faith is nothing more than a firm belief in an assertion without evidence. Which is a liability and a limitation.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
From day 1 I have held the notion the deity is eternal. He is the uncaused first cause. He has no beginning or end. He is not limited to time and space, or cause and effect, because he created time and space, cause and effect. If the deity is not eternal then he is not a deity.
And you have provided exactly zero evidence to support your theistic fantasy. Somehow you expect a pass on this very issue, the foundation of your argument. Until you can support your diety with something a bit more compelling than your word you have nothing, nothing but a statement of personal incredulity.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Of coarse this is all true if the atheists are talking about an infinite God or deity as the first cause of the universe.
btw. I believe you mean course. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 20:49:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So give us you hypothesis on the first cause of the atheistic universe Dave...
There can be no testable hypotheses of the cause of the Big Bang, because that event is a physical limit beyond which we cannot probe.quote:
...or do you still hold that it is eternal and therefor needs no cause and is self-sufficient?
When did I ever "hold" that nonsense?quote:
Those are your choices Dave. An eternal first cause or eternal matter.
You've given me no reason to think that those are the only possible choices. Your insistence that they are is not compelling evidence.quote:
When your ready to acknowlege that an eternal first cause is required where an eternal universe will not fit...
I've seen no evidence from you for "an eternal first cause" which excludes all possibilities of non-eternal first causes.quote:
...then we can start the debate of:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe?
Neither have you provided any evidence that any "first cause" must be a "who" in any sense of the word.
There can be no testable hypotheses of the cause of the Big Bang, because that event is a physical limit beyond which we cannot probe.
(bill) Well, we know that matter would not be able to be used in the big bang, otherwise this would have to be eternal matter as we also know, thanks to nasa, that the universe is finite. So if the atheist begins their origins hypothesis off with physical matter already in existence then the next question that will have to be asked is where did this matter come from? This ends in circular logic. Now, if the first cause of the universe is eternal, this would break the circular logic of a finite first cause redundancy. Now understanding that it takes an infinite cause which would be the more logical suggestion for this infinite cause?
A. eternal matter is somehow the first cause of the universe, even though NASA proved the universe was not eternal. If the universe is not eternal, then how can eternal matter exist as a first cause? Eternal matter is an oxymoron. You are taking matter, and giving to it the attribute of eternal existence, which is an attribute of deity.
B. The eternal first cause is an infinite deity. Eternal existence is an attribute of deity. If the deity is not eternal then he is not a deity
quote:
...or do you still hold that it is eternal and therefor needs no cause and is self-sufficient?
When did I ever "hold" that nonsense?
(bill) Good, then that will help us narrow it down quickly to an eternal first cause then, because those are your only two choices. Now the main question shifts to what/who is the eternal first cause? The choice would have to be infinite matter of some kind or an infinite deity? If you have |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2006 : 21:09:49 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you cannot define something into existence. Simply claiming god is defined as an eternal creator does not constitute a logical argument for the existence of such a god.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2006 21:10:24 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 00:59:31 [Permalink]
|
Time is a dimension that exist in correlation with space: Space-time.
It was created at the same time as space was. It's like a video-tape: we can play it backward to the beginning, then we come to the start of the tape and cannot rewind further, because there exist no "before the Big Bang".
You however believe in a being that put the tape in the VCR, but we have no evidence of that.
The deity you insist exist, only exist in the realm of philosophy because there is no evidence that science can examine.
If a deity exist in a state of eternal, how does he measure up the appropriate moment to create the first cause? How did he find the right time to make his creation if time did not exist before the BB?
Edited: some spelling errors |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/28/2006 10:17:36 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 01:29:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who created, or was the first cause, of the universe?
Picture this: Hawks is jumping up and down on the spot while shouting excitedly: ME ME ME, debate with ME. LIEs were the first cause of the universe and they were not eternal. Pure logic. Debate with ME!!!
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 01:57:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) I have clearly demonstrated, which many of your atheistic cohorts, as well as NASA, seems to agree with. The most important question man should ponder in relation to his own existence is not:
Is there an eternal first cause to the universe, and life itself?
but rather,
Who is the eternal first cause to the universe, and life itself?
Bill, you have demonstrated exactly nothing beyond certain skills on the keyboard. And even then, your posts are poorly formated. Not to mention that they are virtually all the same: unevidenced claims, hand-waving, and a little ad hominem aimed at atheists. Indeed, I no longer read them in entirety because I know almost to the very punctuation what they will say beforehand. A quick scan is sufficent, and I may abandon doing even that.
Your entire argument, if such it is, is from incredualty: you don't believe thus can happen, therefore thus cannot possibly happen, even if it has. The fact that you can not, or will not, produce even the vaguest reference in your support is, apparently, not withstanding. Pretty typical, fundie attitude, come to think of it.
But let's quit fucking around and bone this carcass out. Who or what, exactly, is your version of a first cause, bearing in mind that the universe, as we very slighty know it, might not be the first and only one?
Do try to answer with a minium of rhetoric and spitting at atheists. "Atheisism/theism" are mere lables and have nothing to do with the study of cosmology.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/28/2006 02:17:16 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
