Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Joshpantera last won the day on September 1

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,227 Holy Cow!


About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    General Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Gone off exploring a lot of science, religion, philosophy, biblical criticism, archaeology, eastern mystical content, and esoteric comparative content. Atheistic about gods with a spiritual side about nature.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,258 profile views
  1. It seems that the OP article is conflating universe with space. Isn't it space which has been observed to be flat? Because space could be flat, infinite and eternal and extend out forever. But a universe is merely some observable region within the context of space. If there's no hard boundary, then it doesn't seem to make very much sense to see a universe as anything more than a larger sized region of star systems in space. Such as the level beyond super clusters of galaxies within the context of a flat space. I'm trying to visualize this issue.
  2. I've heard many of us here argue the same. It's a logical conclusion to force the apologist to look at the OT and then account for where they're trying to go with the apology. It only serves to shine a spot light on their own moral short comings.
  3. First of all, the questions that you're being asked are aimed at trying to get you to think about something further, consider something deeper than you have been. Is that understandable enough? You've questioned a lot of things, but you sort of stop the questioning at some point and just accept these claims at face value. For instance, we're coming from a place of mind where we once thought like you guys are thinking. We weren't thinking critically. We weren't questioning enough. We were just taking too much at face value. And then we identified these problems, eventually, and moved past them into newer ways of thinking, basically. So when people are asking you questions it's aimed at trying to get you to think further. And to possibly see if you can do that or if you are unable to do that. For example, we used to leave the "why did god such and such?" questions alone like you guys are doing. Until we actually locked horns with the hard questions and started seeing the hard answers come into view, something that you guys have yet to accomplish. That's the line of questioning where we've asked you to reconcile the contradictions between the "omni" claims about god. The contradictions are there. They are black and white obvious. The question is to have you try and account for the contradictions, not for us, for YOU. It's not to anyone else's benefit aside from your own. You're the one who's up until now turned a blind eye to these obvious contradictions, and lacked the critical thinking applications that can identify inconsistency within a given belief system. Which red flag the belief system as less than, "true." Internally inconsistent belief's turn into a breaching dam - you the little Dutch Boy trying to plug the holes with his fingers, but unable to plug them all. Let's talk about you having "them stumped." Can you provide an example of you having someone stumped so I can see what you're talking about? What could you have possibly stumped anyone here with?
  4. As to the bubble universes, the diagram suggests a hard boundary. But we've been discussing no hard boundary elsewhere. So is that what the diagram of bubble universes is suggesting or does it only looks as if that is the case?
  5. We would have this image from external a given universe. Looking at all of the nearby universes from the outside. New bubbles continuously forming. The flat appearance in the above, is just an appearance if all universes are bubbles that never actually flatten out. It looks like approaching the spherical earth from space until you get close enough that the sphere starts looking flatter. So bubbles, where a bubble can look flat from one perspective. But for all bubbles to ever get to literally flat, like I said, it seems to follow that they'd all merge into one instead of remaining as individual. I'm curious what the cosmological (standard model) answer to this inquiry can entail.
  6. So what are we looking at with the bubble universe proposal? Obviously for all of the infinite bubbles to each expand to flat and infinite would interfere between individual universes. One would run right into the others with them all literally flat, right? So they'd have to be spherical bubbles which only appear flat from observation within or right near the edge of any given bubble, looking outward. But they couldn't actually be flat, could they? Is that what you were trying to explain with all of the diagrams? I'll reproduce all of the diagrams below.
  7. Prohibited from observing before the CMBR is the only context we've been discussing. This has been an ongoing part of the discussion, the universe prior was opaque. Then on the current page the question has continued in terms of what way science can try and glean something about the origin of the universe outside of direct observation. But the overall idea here is that science hasn't the ability to know for sure whether or not the universe had any fixed beginning, because we're prohibited by the CMBR observational boundary we've been discussing. Science certainly hasn't proven that the universe did have a fixed beginning singularity, which, is what WLC has been falsely claiming since the 90's even though the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory had already been falsified via data by that time. He's still making the falsified claim now, despite the fact that it was falsified before even took up the argument in the first place. Obviously not, my beliefs state clearly that I do not believe in gods. And theological prohibitions are a different issue entirely.
  8. True or false, does Genesis 1 describe the origin of the planet earth and the correct order in which life came to existence on the planet? This is going to require epistemic truth knowledge from the sciences in order to try and answer. But that seems clear enough. The question is a knowledge based question. How would you work it out? Trying to be fair to everyone, and diplomatic, some might try to say true and false, true in some sense which is obscure and stretches what we mean by the term truth, and false in straight forward ways that are self evidently false by what we generally mean by the term false. An example is where Campbell says that myths are true in certain senses, truth as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. That's not entirely wrong, but it's also not what we mean when asking if a creation myth is true or false. Not what non-believers mean by the question and not what believers mean by the question. Believers are pretty well claiming that their beliefs are ontological truths, period. Even when I've encountered believers who are making subjective arguments, they are usually trying to argue that their subjective experiences or subjective religious content equals ontological, objective truth. LuthAMF said as much in our debate. In any case, I'm interested in seeing how this theory of truth relates to some practical application examples like the above.
  9. We went over this a while back and there are some twists and turns. On the surface, blasphemy of god generally means claiming that you are god, when you aren't god. I would think that blasphemy of the holy spirit would allude to people who claim to be speaking on behalf of the holy spirit, who are not speaking on behalf of the holy spirit. This works out to a plain understanding if blasphemy of god and blasphemy of the holy spirit work out the same general reference. God and holy spirit, whether viewed in triniarian terms or just gods spirit, are pretty much the same thing any which way it's spun. They always boil down to one. Three in one, means one in the end. But people usually interpret it as rejecting the holy spirit, or making fun, and similar examples I've seen posted here. In my church I don't recall anyone taking the way I've taken it above, the same as blaspheming against god by falsely claiming to be god. It could be that blasphemy is not the best translation for the context of the unpardonable sin. I think we explored that last time, but I don't remember what the conclusion was. I'll look back.
  10. There's a lot to read through in the link above. I see the conflict here boiling down to how people perceive in terms of large scale. Those who have difficulty perceiving on the largest of scale, seem to try and tune it all down to something they can wrap their minds around. Those are the people in various cultures (including christianity) who tend to go for the "ex nihilo" type of thinking. It gives them a safe place where their mind can rest. They don't need to thinking any further. It all begins right exactly here! No need to think back any further. Done. End of story. I can see this reflected in various religions and cultures that have gravitated towards "ex nihilo" conclusions. And their arguments are full of problems and holes. You can read through all of the supporting arguments. The other personality types, or thinking types who argue against "ex nihilo" reasoning, do so from a platform of thinking further into the problem despite the possibility of encountering things like infinite regress, past eternal conclusions, and similar lines of thought. They tend to realize that although placing something with a beginning gives us a safe place to just stop and let it go, we can't actually just stop and let it go for all of these reasons. And then lay out all of the reasons. These are deeper thinkers. And the opposing christian arguments against "ex nihilo" tend to reflect deeper thinking than that of where WLC currently stands. Craig simply hasn't thought this through far or deep enough. That's evident and demonstrable from several fronts ranging from theology, philosophy and science. In each case, he hasn't gone far enough. He stopped short. This is a major polemic we have going here against Craig, but what else can be said? It's just that bad. We're not just making it up. We're not just bullying the poor bastard. He's way, way, way off in all of these various disciplines. By way off, I mean launching untenable claims in all of those areas. This problem is much bigger than just a scientific problem.
  11. If or when we're ready for it, I've been reading on WLC's premise. The very premise of accepting "creatio ex nihilo" as biblical requires a lot of assumption on his part. Because it's contested (like the doctrine of the trinity and other contested beliefs) as non-blblical or possibly non-biblical. Craig may be wrong sweeping across the entire board, from theology, to philosophy, and finally to the science. We've been discussing the science. He's just plain wrong for myriad reasons. You've mentioned that you're going to move on and address some religious issues. I've touched on some philosophical issues concerning fixed beginnings. Here's a link for anyone interested in getting up to speed on "creatio ex nihilo" in and of itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
  12. As would the future of the universe be just speculation by you, me, or anyone else for the same reasons. I generally take all such speculation with a grain of salt.
  13. I agree completely. Even this business about fundamental consciousness can not change your approach from what I understand about it. Axiom 1 stands regardless. We can doubt just about anything except for the brute fact that we exist as experiencing entities of some type. We may be a brain in a vat, or some program in a computer simulation, but by gollies that still makes us some type of existing thing, engaged in the experience and awareness of existing. If consciousness is absolute or some similar claim, Axiom 1 still remains. Axiom 2 stands as well. Just because human perception happens within the brain, doesn't mean that the external world doesn't exist. Modern philosopher Peter Russell goes into this while address the hard problem of consciousness. Whether or not we're perceiving an external reality as it actually is, is questionable. But that we're still perceiving something out there and interpreting that perception within our brains seems very straight forward. This can be explored further, but that's the general idea. Axiom 3 stands in the same way. Whether a simulation, fundamental consciousness, or whatever, the brute facts of existence such as gravity remain. It would just go back to meaning that these brute facts are part of the simulation, part of a fundamental consciousness, etc., etc. The facts are not deniable via these popular alternative ways of trying to view reality. New Age views and religious views would have a hard time trying to counter these axioms with eternal consciousness claims or anything similar. The three axiom's look bullet-proof as far as I can tell.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.