There Is No God

[Ouroboros]

What do you mean that God is complex? God is immaterial and therefore without parts and therefore, not complex as you would assert. God is a single mind, not made up of parts.

Ah. I get it. God is simple minded. God can't think complex thoughts. God has a brain of a slug.

 

Problem solved.

[agnosticator]

You say there is a problem with time but there is only now. I told you that. Watch Spaceballs explain it.

 

I love that scene. "We're at now, now." SPACEBALLS got it right. Christians live in the past and with their future mirage.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I find it downright patronising and profoundly offensive to be told that evolutionary theories of morality are faulty. They are what got us here in the first place. They predate your stupid fake god. You're just too willfully ignorant to recognise or acknowledge it. Your ten commandments are from cultures that predate the Israelite culture, or borrowed from neighboring cultures.

 

Of course, you are right. Morality and social issues are definitely evolutionary. The Hebrews thought it was quite o.k. to sanction stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers. Thankfully, our society's morality has evolved in the past 2500 years.

 

As for the Hebrew Law in the bible, the 10 commandments are, as you note, from earlier cultures. Hammurabi had 282 laws on stone tablets(they even exist, unlike Moses' tablets). He was chosen by the gods Shamash or possibly Marduk to take the laws, carved on stone tablets to his people. Sound familiar?

[Shyone]

As for the Hebrew Law in the bible, the 10 commandments are, as you note, from earlier cultures. Hammurabi had 282 laws on stone tablets(they even exist, unlike Moses' tablets). He was chosen by the gods Shamash or possibly Marduk to take the laws, carved on stone tablets to his people. Sound familiar?

I have long thought that the "tablets of stone" of the OT with the 10 commandments on them were probably just baked clay tablets with cunieform writing on them. It makes me wonder though: If the 10 commandments existed in written form when the bible was written, couldn't they get the commandments straight?

 

"Literally read, the Decalogue includes 19 different commands and prohibitions." If the text is further divided into component parts, there are a total of 25 instructions. Christians and Jews believe that there are precisely ten commandments. This is based on the biblical passages: Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4 which confirm that there are ten. They have grouped them differently in order to add up to 10:

 

If there were a question about Hamurrabi's code, we could look it up even today.

[Mriana]

I have long thought that the "tablets of stone" of the OT with the 10 commandments on them were probably just baked clay tablets with cunieform writing on them. It makes me wonder though: If the 10 commandments existed in written form when the bible was written, couldn't they get the commandments straight?

 

I propose that it's just a story and the tablets never actually existed. IF they existed then we wouldn't have different versions of the 10 Commandments (besides the three there is the Catholic and the Protestant version). I also propose that the author had Moses worshiping a volcano god.

[J.W.]

I have long thought that the "tablets of stone" of the OT with the 10 commandments on them were probably just baked clay tablets with cunieform writing on them. It makes me wonder though: If the 10 commandments existed in written form when the bible was written, couldn't they get the commandments straight?

 

I propose that it's just a story and the tablets never actually existed. IF they existed then we wouldn't have different versions of the 10 Commandments (besides the three there is the Catholic and the Protestant version). I also propose that the author had Moses worshiping a volcano god.

 

 

Ethiopia claims to have the tablets, but they wont let anyone look at them. There is a guard who watches the fenced tabernacle and if anyone tries to get in- the guard will raise the alarm, and the town will come running to stone the person to death. Im not joking... its bazaar

 

thats if I remember the story right anyway-- I might have a couple of details wrong here http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html

[peaceatlast]

can you provide the references for the research studies showing that children in single parent households are worse off please.

[J.W.]

can you provide the references for the research studies showing that children in single parent households are worse off please.

 

There is lots of proof of that, but its tied more into "broken" homes. Stability seems to be a key for success and so does 2 parents. Thats not saying they won't be successful. Here are a few from a quick google.

 

On Bastards like me

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

On Broken Homes

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1999/06/Broken-Families-Rob-Children-of-Their-Chances-for-Future-Prosperity

http://mom4biz.com/?p=3

General Coverage of Topic

http://www.rainbows.org/statistics.html

An Argument for hope

http://single-parenting.families.com/blog/broken-home

[Mriana]

Ethiopia claims to have the tablets, but they wont let anyone look at them. There is a guard who watches the fenced tabernacle and if anyone tries to get in- the guard will raise the alarm, and the town will come running to stone the person to death. Im not joking... its bazaar

 

thats if I remember the story right anyway-- I might have a couple of details wrong here http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/ark-covenant-200712.html

 

Probably a forest, a gimmick to gain attention to the tribe. I seriously doubt there is anything in the tabernacle.

[peaceatlast]

can you provide the references for the research studies showing that children in single parent households are worse off please.

 

There is lots of proof of that, but its tied more into "broken" homes. Stability seems to be a key for success and so does 2 parents. Thats not saying they won't be successful. Here are a few from a quick google.

 

On Bastards like me

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

On Broken Homes

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1999/06/Broken-Families-Rob-Children-of-Their-Chances-for-Future-Prosperity

http://mom4biz.com/?p=3

General Coverage of Topic

http://www.rainbows.org/statistics.html

An Argument for hope

http://single-parenting.families.com/blog/broken-home

 

 

None of these are properly conducted research studies, they have no credibility at all and are NOT evidence. claims need to be backed up by evidence, not opinion, I would be interested in reading research studies about the claims you have made if you have references.

[J.W.]

can you provide the references for the research studies showing that children in single parent households are worse off please.

 

There is lots of proof of that, but its tied more into "broken" homes. Stability seems to be a key for success and so does 2 parents. Thats not saying they won't be successful. Here are a few from a quick google.

 

On Bastards like me

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

On Broken Homes

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1999/06/Broken-Families-Rob-Children-of-Their-Chances-for-Future-Prosperity

http://mom4biz.com/?p=3

General Coverage of Topic

http://www.rainbows.org/statistics.html

An Argument for hope

http://single-parenting.families.com/blog/broken-home

 

 

None of these are properly conducted research studies, they have no credibility at all and are NOT evidence. claims need to be backed up by evidence, not opinion, I would be interested in reading research studies about the claims you have made if you have references.

 

I just went through school and took victimology. I have seen it come up in a lot of places. Im not going to play that game okay... if you want a research paper go to the Arena.

[peaceatlast]

I'm not playing any games, it was a simple request about a statement you made, I was shocked to see google links, particularly if you've studied at university level.

if thats the level of discussion and debate here I'm not interested in participating. haven't got time or breath to waste

[J.W.]

I'm not playing any games, it was a simple request about a statement you made, I was shocked to see google links, particularly if you've studied at university level.

if thats the level of discussion and debate here I'm not interested in participating. haven't got time or breath to waste

 

Fair enough,

Looking at the context of what I was saying it was a comment in passing really. A small point in support of morals coming from society and evolution-- and that was support for the non existence of god. I just don't want to get in a debate on evidence for small points. The Arena is the more formalized setting if that is what you are looking for. I can say that generally speaking there is a lot of legitimate support for being disadvantaged when you come from a single parent home. I don't want to stray to far in detail from the subject of the existence of God.

 

A PhD wrote one of those google links.. the second one, I believe- I bet you didn't click it

[Guest Valk0010]

I can speak only for myself I was raised by my grandmother and I turned out alright.

[J.W.]

I can speak only for myself I was raised by my grandmother and I turned out alright.

 

Yeah its derailed now.

[Guest Valk0010]

I can speak only for myself I was raised by my grandmother and I turned out alright.

 

Yeah its derailed now.

Sorry heh sorry

[J.W.]

I can speak only for myself I was raised by my grandmother and I turned out alright.

 

Yeah its derailed now.

Sorry heh sorry

 

Its all good. I should have known better

[Ouroboros]

No.

 

Don't take it to the Arena unless you have someone you are going to have a formal debate with. The Arena is not for just "serious" discussions, it's not for discussions at all, in fact. It's only for approved discussions, moderated, and structured, i.e. formal debate. However, take more serious discussions to the Coliseum/Colosseum, that's the place for serious debate, without being formal.

[J.W.]

No.

 

Don't take it to the Arena unless you have someone you are going to have a formal debate with. The Arena is not for just "serious" discussions, it's not for discussions at all, in fact. It's only for approved discussions, moderated, and structured, i.e. formal debate. However, take more serious discussions to the Coliseum/Colosseum, that's the place for serious debate, without being formal.

My bad, Im in the Den too much.

[LNC]

The point I was trying to make via the last hawking vid,(I think I could state it a tad better now) was if we don't know what happened before the big bang, then, how is the issue with entropy solvable. If we don't know what the matter that was around before the big bang(remember the mantra said by apologists,"something can't come from nothing")was doing or how long that matter existed. How can the issue you raise be of any substance.

 

We know what is happening since the Big Bang and can extrapolate to determine that given a finite amount of usable energy and an infinite amount of past time, the universe should be in a state of heat death; but it is not, so apparently the universe had a beginning.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Well the idea of a god existing faces bigger challenges than The Big Bang/Crunch theory, because it is not scientific. I could prove the Big Bang theory easier than I could prove a god exists, despite it's challenges. Although I must admit, JW could have phrased his opening statement in which to challenge you better. However, you would have better luck proving there was a Big Bang than proving a god exists. Therefore, my first statement of "I've got nothing" still stands, because no one has anything in which to prove a god, any god, exists and that is the whole point of the thread. He is asking for evidence that your god or any other god exists. In fact, I could prove 0 faster than I could prove a god. Even a mathematician could prove 0 exists easier than s/he could prove a god exists.

 

Does that mean that any knowledge that is not acquired via science is not real knowledge? BTW, he still has the burden of proof since he made the positive claim that God doesn't exist.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I did present a theory that did not require god, the first cause, or a magical it out there.

 

Stated again Mass and attraction period. Thats all there is, and I don't think matter can be destroyed. It probably depends on what you call matter-- but I contend that there is a physical substance that can not be destroyed. You can mash it into hot plasma, or a liquid like substance, you can change its shape, you can compress it to a certain point, BUT-- it never, never, never goes away and has always been there. Before you refute that I would like to ask you to prove to me that God has always been there. I say matter and attraction [really simple]. You say a very complex, immaterial, all powerful, all good, all knowing God that has always been there. Occams Razor that-- mine is much simpler and makes sense.

 

By the way I am a Nihilist. Not that a label would disprove a theory as you later insinuate. My philosophy has nothing to do with whether the theory is correct.

.

 

However, you have not explained the existence of mass, nor the origin of th laws governing attraction. You cannot merely posit their existence, you must explain how and why they exist. You are also incorrect in asserting that matter cannot be destroyed, it in fact can be destroyed and converted into energy. This occurs in a nuclear reaction. Energy is converted from usable to an unusable state.

 

BTW, I don't posit that God is complex. God is immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, but also not complex (no moving parts to immaterial beings, in fact, no parts at all). Your view has many moving parts and is a very complex explanation (which actually requires more explanation than you have offered), so I'm afraid that Occam's razor is able to shave away at your explanation showing that it is not the most parsimonious available.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

It has everything to do with mass. Roll with this. Energy primarily comes from movement-- movement from polarity, attraction, and repulsion-- polarity is a property of the mass its self. So mass attracts mass, makes mass move, creates energy-- that can be applied to the universe. A cycles between big bang and big crunch.

 

The reason we have not created a perpetual moving machine its that is requires a zero sum. It requires everything [all mass]. We can build a machine but it needs to work against gravitational forces much larger than itself. A car pushes against the gravity of the whole earth. The universe is a perpetual machine. The fact we are here is proof of it. It boils down to something existing forever-- you say complex being and I say matter.

 

If something did not exist forever than it has to come from nothing. That is not proven anywhere

 

So lets go over the possibilities [feel free to add some]

 

1. A very complex God existed forever and created everything

2. Matter existed forever and goes through cycles of expand and contract

3. Stuff just appears and disappears all over the place

 

 

Um number 2

 

You seem to be in disagreement with the 2LOT which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet, you say that energy can be created. Do you have some new understanding of physics that the rest of the world has not ascertained as of yet? Or, are you speaking in hyperbole? You are also mistaken about time as time itself came into existence. So, to say that something has existed forever, implies that time has always existed, which is a mistake. God existed timelessly causally prior to the existence of the universe, yet, that is not the same as saying that God has existed from eternity past, since again, that would imply that time always existed. There is no evidence to support your claim that matter has always existed, that is an unfounded assertion that goes against what we know of the universe which has only existed for about 14 billion years. That would be when all matter, space and time came into existence according to the best cosmological research (see Hawking, Hartle, Lemaître, Hubble and others)

As to your three points above.

1. This is a straw man argument. Neither I, nor any other theist with whom I associate posits such a God.

2. This is an assertion for which you have no proof and which goes against the best cosmological explanations and the Big Bang theory.

3. An assertion for which you have no experimental nor observational evidence. A bald assertion.

LNC

[Mr. Neil]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

George Carlin.

 

 

Wait...what?! HE'S DEAD?!?!

 

 

 

 

Never mind.

[Guest I Love Dog]

God existed timelessly causally prior to the existence of the universe, yet, that is not the same as saying that God has existed from eternity past, since again, that would imply that time always existed.

 

Gods have only existed since man began to imagine them. They still exist in the minds of some humans, not all of them.

 

Imagining a god or gods doesn't make them real, however real you try to make your imagined god sound. Your god still only exists in the minds of those people who have been exposed to the thought of a god and have absorbed it into their imagination. If your god was real, it would magically appear into people's minds, which it doesn't. It only appears when people have been groomed to the idea, as with young children and Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. Adults EXPOSE children to the idea and in their impressionable minds, that imagined character becomes real, in their minds. Only in their minds, like gods.

 

There is no physical or scientific evidence of any of the 30,000 gods that have been invented in the past 6000 years, even though many, many of them are still worshiped. Imagination and worship don't make them real.

 

I'm assuming that your god is the Christian god, Yahweh, only in existence(in the mind of humans) for about 4000 years, the nastiest of the Hebrew gods.

 

I would suggest reading the following, it's certainly very interesting:

 

http://secweb.infidels.org/article816.html