Jump to content

walterpthefirst

New Member
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About walterpthefirst

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_a-DgT7LI4

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    england
  • Interests
    cosmology
  • More About Me
    armchair cosmologist

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    no

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

walterpthefirst's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • First Post

Recent Badges

6

Reputation

  1. Agree. I'd arrived at that conclusion too. But that's not really a comforting thought... ...having to wait a couple of centuries for Islam to begin collapsing as Christianity is doing now. Before the collapse it'll become as all pervasive, intrusive and controlling as Christianity was in 18th and 19th century Europe? (Shudders at the thought.)
  2. But what about Christianity's darker, more oppressive and violent cousin... Islam? It may not be growing very fast in the US, but here in Europe... ?
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs According to this Wiki article Flat Earthers believe that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is 3,000 miles above the surface of the flat Earth. Therefore, we can use this information to calculate the true diameters of the planets Venus and Mercury. From time to time both of these planets cross the face of the Sun as seen from Earth, this event being called a 'transit'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus As you will see, both planets are tiny in comparison to the size of the Sun. So, given that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, both planets must be much less than a mile across. Possibly, even as small as a football stadium! NASA is clearly trying to mislead the world when it states that Venus is 3,760 miles in diameter and Mercury is 1,516 miles! Thank you. Walter.
  4. In the light of modern day forgeries, surely the very first question that theists should ask themselves is this? If there are people willing and able to fake religious texts today, then why not at any time during history - especially 2,000 years ago? Thank you. Wa;ter.
  5. There are other weapons in the apologist's arsenal besides teeth and nails. Outright denial is one. 'It's only a theory' is another. Those at the more extreme end will opt for conspiracy theories to prop up their beliefs. E.g., if the Mars rovers find traces of ancient life - then NASA is faking everything and there are no space probes that made it to the red planet. Or if another 'Wow!' type signal leads us to a bona fide source of alien transmissions - then the scientists are just faking that too. Thank you. Walter.
  6. Just so, Krowb. Your link provides this about the Kalam. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. No scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws and initial conditions of the universe) can provide a causal account of the origin (very beginning) of the universe, since such are part of the universe. Therefore, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a non-natural, personal agent). But he runs into trouble by using this paper to establish that the universe began to exist. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021 "The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made: (i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant),..." In 1998 it was established that the universe possesses a positive cosmological constant, thus invalidating Hawking and Penrose's first assumption. Which means that Craig cannot legitimately claim that the universe began to exist and therefore cannot make a proper Kalam-style argument. But, that's not the real thrust of my argument, Krowb. In this thread I focus on the dilemma exposed by Christians and Muslims both using arguments for Intelligent Design. Since ID arguments cannot reveal the identity of the designer, they have no way, outside of personal preference, to discover which is the true god. The penalty for getting it wrong is a bad as it can be. Thank you. Walter.
  7. Hello. https://livingislam.org/m/tskr_e.html The above page came to my notice recently and upon closer examination I realized that the Muslim writing it was using exactly the same Intelligent Design ( ID ) arguments that Christian apologists use. Even to the point of quoting certain the arguments of Christians like Michael Behe, Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig to make the case for Allah, the god of Islam. The fact that the same arguments can be used to make the case for two different gods is an immediate red flag for us sceptics and a terrible dilemma for the theists. ID arguments cannot identify which is the correct god to worship. This is not a trivial problem. For a theist, it is the ultimate problem. Worship the wrong god and you will pay for your mistake forever, suffering indescribable agony in everlasting fire. So, perhaps the next advocate of ID arriving in Ex-C should have this dilemma presented to them so that they can tell us exactly how they know which god to worship? Thank you. Walter.
  8. What do I believe? I believe that I can agree with points 2 through 9. But I also believe that I need to modify points 1 and 10, like this. 1 ) I believe that all religions are man made social constructs designed to comfort humans in the face of their own mortality. That is why every culture and civilization has created stories, tales and myths that they tell themselves to help stave off the terror of impending non-existence. Along the way certain people came to realize that by politicizing their mythology and folklore, they could gain power over the lives and thoughts of others. Thus religion became codified and settled into hierarchies and power structures that held sway over kings and commoners alike. This kind of cynical religious exploitation is alive and well today. 10 ) For the reasons given in point 1, I believe that humanity doesn't need the fluff and circus show of religion in order for people to do what's right, be decent, and get along. Instead, empathy is the one thing that would help people to do what's right, to be decent, and to get along. Experience in this forum has shown that religiously-minded people often have an empathy deficit towards others and often feel the need to rely on ancient rules of morality imposed upon them from upon high and believed to real, by faith. They are not comfortable working out moral solutions with others on an equal, one-to-one basis. But if they possessed greater empathy towards others their overreliance on absolute morality would diminish and they would become better people without bringing a god into the equation. Thank you. Walter.
  9. If he did lay back as you suggest Josh, how does that answer anything or get us any nearer the truth? Other people with their own faith-based belief systems can and do self-recommend, just as SR does. So, we're back to a level playing field again. But now it's personal preference on the part of the believer that's levelling the field. I think he knows this - which could be why he has studiously avoided answering the question. Thank you. Walter.
  10. Josh, I don't disagree with what you say, but my position on what SR has claimed in this thread isn't the same as yours. I'm not saying that what he believes is obviously false, that it was never true to begin with nor that he doesn't understand the problems associated with presuppositions. Rather, I'm asking that out of a multitude of beliefs that all rely upon faith, can he present anything other than self-recommendation to support his own? There's no need for me to do or say any more than that. The onus is upon SR to take it from there. Thank you. Walter.
  11. All belief systems that rely upon a foundation of faith (including SR's own beliefs) exist on a level playing field, where none can demonstrate superiority over another. Any believer's self-recommendation (including SR's own) is insufficient to change what is happening on the playing field. That is because any believer can make the same claims and assertions. So, there is still nothing to choose between any of these belief systems. Beyond self-recommendation, could SR please present something that breaks the deadlock between his and any other faith-based belief? Thank you. Walter.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.