Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[Ouroboros]

The expansion will lead to one of those scenarios, yet no one knows which it will be.

 

taking the second law of thermodynamics into consideration, the most probable is, that our universe will NOT expand forever, but will end in heath death.

 

You clearly don't understand these concepts. A heat death is the entropy that occurs when a system of finite energy expands forever.

That's what I thought too.

[skepticalme]

no way someone like you to be able to convince me my faith is superstition.

 

Right here your true colors shine. You come on these forums pretending to be logical and ask for an alternative explaination, but right here the truth comes out. No other explaination will ever be good enough for you. We've known it all along but finally you have admitted it. Only someone who is not using reason makes statements like this. You are telling us that no explaination, not even the truth, would convince you that your faith is incorrect. Faith is not a virtue, faith is how ignorance stays ignorant. Faith also happens to be the only thing that a superstition has to defending it. So if faith is how you maintain your conclusion it is, by definition, a superstition. Faith is the opposite of reason. You can't start with the premise of a god and reason your way out of it. You have to shed all your preconceptions, even faith itself, start from a blank slate and work your way up from there. You don't have to have all the answers to life, the universe and everything; you just need to have the correct process for obtaining those answers. There is no room for a god in that process, otherwise that is a preconception and that process is tainted. Because even if you could prove a completely natural universe how would you know that god didn't just create a natural universe or wasn't involved at all in its formation. God is what we call an unfalsifiable conclusion. Such conclusions are not reason based, thats why all scientific theories must be falsifiable.

[agnosticator]

Damn, I missed all the excitement! Now that BAA , skepticalme, and Ouroboros have fully answered your question believeingod, can you admit you were wrong in your assertion? You can believe what you like, just don't put words in all those scientists' mouths. It's embarrassing!

 

You have reminded me that faith is deaf, dumb, and blind.

[agnosticator]

So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

 

"Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe that we know."

from WIKI (ref. Oxford English Dictionary Online)

 

Actually, God is an alternative explanation for natural laws and forces that run the universe. Before Modern Science, God was THE explanation. Not so anymore, since God has not shown up, nor been observed, in any of the inquiries and observations scientists made. Why don't scientists just accept that "God did it", and leave it at that? Because "God did it" explains NOTHING.

 

The Christian version of the creation of the universe is a story. God wrote the story, but didn't explain how it was done. He left that to the scientists, but they only found naturalistic evidence that He had nothing to do with. Poor God....

[believeingod]

The expansion will lead to one of those scenarios, yet no one knows which it will be.

 

taking the second law of thermodynamics into consideration, the most probable is, that our universe will NOT expand forever, but will end in heath death.

I thought heat death of the universe was the result of an infinitely expanding universe. You're saying they're not related? Heat death without infinite expansion?

 

once the universe is in a state of heath death, it cannot continue to expand.

[believeingod]

The expansion will lead to one of those scenarios, yet no one knows which it will be.

 

taking the second law of thermodynamics into consideration, the most probable is, that our universe will NOT expand forever, but will end in heath death.

 

You clearly don't understand these concepts. A heat death is the entropy that occurs when a system of finite energy expands forever.

 

please show the scientific evidence. i have no problem to learn better than what i thought about the subject til now.

[Guest Valk0010i]

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense. Since you probably do not believe anymore

that a God creator of our universe exists, you have left as alternative naturalism. Please explain , why you think naturalism has a better explanation, and present this explanation.

Please do not rely your argumentation on a negative, aka, i do NOT believe in God, because Genesis does not make sense, for example. I want to see positive arguments. A world view and explanation, which stands by its own.

I will actually go for the easy one, since i am just new to this thread. Deism is a relatively smooth god answer that works in our current knowledge, its just a tad redundant as far as I can see. It could stand to occams razor and a abandoning of the need for absolute certainty.

 

I am not sure I can give you a positive argument, because mostly my lack of a belief in a god comes from there being lack of a evidence of one, not proof that there isn't one. Get my drift.

[Guest Valk0010i]

Another thing, so you can say that I am not ducking it. I am not entirely sure I believe in anything more then methodological naturalism. Its claiming certainty that I don't have anymore, to say there is nothing but a material world. But it seems that there is all there is.

[believeingod]

no way someone like you to be able to convince me my faith is superstition.

 

Right here your true colors shine. You come on these forums pretending to be logical and ask for an alternative explaination, but right here the truth comes out. No other explaination will ever be good enough for you.

 

 

 

 

thats right. I strogly believe, atheism is a bankrupt world view. And the answers of the participants have clearly shown , that most do base their world view not on rational strong scientific evidence, but just on hand waving, and wishful thinking.

sad. Very sad.... but thats what it is......

 

 

We've known it all along but finally you have admitted it.

 

at no moment did i hide my intentions.

 

 

 

Only someone who is not using reason makes statements like this.

 

no kidding... almost all my arguments are based on scientific knowledge. I do not need the bible to make my point. But thats not what this topic is about. Its about YOUR world view, and about how consistent it is. Unfortunately, the ice is very thin.....just a littlebit weight, and it brakes......

 

 

You are telling us that no explaination, not even the truth, would convince you that your faith is incorrect.

 

where do i tell that ? do you really think, i am interested to cheat myself ??!!

 

 

Faith is not a virtue, faith is how ignorance stays ignorant.

 

No, faith can be based on reason. IN the end, all of us rely our life on things we cannot proof, are based on faith. Your world view is also based on faith. Nobody knows the ultimate truth.

 

 

 

You can't start with the premise of a god and reason your way out of i

 

despite the fact , that this is the way it works, i have made my argument out of scientific evidence. Because the universe has a beginning, it has a cause. Because its finely tuned to life, a tuner. Because life needs complex, speficied, codifided information, a mind, and so forth.....

 

t.

 

 

You have to shed all your preconceptions,

 

as shown , my conception are result of where the scientific evidence leads.......

 

 

you just need to have the correct process for obtaining those answers.

 

which in your case, is which one ???

 

 

 

 

There is no room for a god in that process

 

usupported assertion. There is room for what, then ? nothing ??????

 

 

 

thats why all scientific theories must be falsifiable.

 

historical science cannot be falsified......

[believeingod]

You have reminded me that faith is deaf, dumb, and blind.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/

 

You cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

[believeingod]

<p>

Why don't scientists just accept that "God did it", and leave it at that?</p>

<div>

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Because science relies on philosophic naturalism. And, because the explanations of the origin of our unviverse are of philosophic and religious nature, and these are personal standpoints. Many scientists are theists, btw.....</div>

<p> </p>

<p>

Because "God did it" explains NOTHING.

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And what alternatively explains something, and why ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

God wrote the story, but didn't explain how it was done.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>So what ? that makes God automatically a bad explanation, or a false one ?</div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

He left that to the scientists, but they only found naturalistic evidence that He had nothing to do with. Poor God....

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>baseless assertion. science has evidence, but the interpretation is individual. </div>

 

[mymistake]

thats right. I strogly believe, atheism is a bankrupt world view. And the answers of the participants have clearly shown , that most do base their world view not on rational strong scientific evidence, but just on hand waving, and wishful thinking.

sad. Very sad.... but thats what it is......

 

The issue was when you admitted that nothing is going to change your mind.

 

 

We've known it all along but finally you have admitted it.

 

at no moment did i hide my intentions.

 

You didn't come out and directly say you were trolling and that explaining science to you is a waste of time. Don't worry, it benefits me because this exercise reminds me of where I once was.

 

Only someone who is not using reason makes statements like this.

 

no kidding... almost all my arguments are based on scientific knowledge.

 

You demonstrated a profound ignorance of science.

 

I do not need the bible to make my point. But thats not what this topic is about. Its about YOUR world view, and about how consistent it is. Unfortunately, the ice is very thin.....just a littlebit weight, and it brakes......

 

Are you delusional? Where did you even get close to demonstrating that a world view without God is broken?

 

You are telling us that no explaination, not even the truth, would convince you that your faith is incorrect.

 

where do i tell that ? do you really think, i am interested to cheat myself ??!!

 

Did you not write the words "no way someone like you to be able to convince me my faith is superstition"?

 

 

 

MM

[believeingod]

You didn't come out and directly say you were trolling

 

you are not doing yourself a favour, in calling me a troll, just because i defend a different way of thinking, and present it here.

 

 

 

and that explaining science to you is a waste of time.

 

the participants here have shown very little scientific knowledge, and very little did i learn so far........

 

Don't worry, it benefits me because this exercise reminds me of where I once was.

 

you have not been able so far not even to scratch on the surface of my faith. The standpoint, you defend today, is based on very flimsy superficiality. I suggest you analyse your standpoint deeper. At least me, it would not satisfy at all.

 

You demonstrated a profound ignorance of science.

 

really ? what are we doing then the last 14 pages ? debating about the bible ? the difference between us is, that i base my faith not only on the bible, but on philosophical, scientific, and religious arguments.

You base it just on a negative : on disbelief in the God of the bible. Very poor, in my view..... and very risky, after all......

 

Are you delusional? Where did you even get close to demonstrating that a world view without God is broken?

 

i have not demonstrated it. You have......

 

Did you not write the words "no way someone like you to be able to convince me my faith is superstition"?

 

before my wife met me, she were visited by a prophet. He told her not to worry about a stranger, which she would met in the next couple of weeks. It would be her future husband. The prophet

described me in all details. My appearance, my car, the color of the car, my nationality, my profession, my kind of behavior, everything. He did it in front of all her family. He never met me before, and i did not know him.

The same men went with my family to my ranch. I had land workers there, which he never met. He called one of them, in front of his sister, and told him : my friend, God is showing me , that in

2002 you had a car accident, your stomage was open through the injury, from one side to the other, and you were almost dying in hospital. But God saved your life, since he has a plan to fullfill in your life. His sister screamed out, and

said to him : Ed, thats all true !! This young men, and his sister, both became devote christians after this. I could go on and on. Moral of the story. If you would see a pink unicorn, and someone would tell you, that is impossible, who would you believe ?Your experience, or the person that told you that is impossible ? Same with me. I have made so many experiences of God interveening in my life, and seen in the life os so many other people, no way someone to be able to convince me of the contrary.

 

But you might be able to present evidence, all this was pure luck, the prophet was just guessing ?

that God does not exist.

[mymistake]

you are not doing yourself a favour, in calling me a troll, just because i defend a different way of thinking, and present it here.

 

That is not the reason. You pretended that you wanted an explanation when in reality there is nothing that will change your mind. You were not being honest with someone. Perhaps you lied to yourself.

 

the participants here have shown very little scientific knowledge, and very little did i learn so far........

 

That's funny. Clearly you are in no position to offer an informed opinion.

 

 

you have not been able so far not even to scratch on the surface of my faith.

 

That isn't my job.

 

really ? what are we doing then the last 14 pages ? debating about the bible ? the difference between us is, that i base my faith not only on the bible, but on philosophical, scientific, and religious arguments.

You base it just on a negative : on disbelief in the God of the bible. Very poor, in my view..... and very risky, after all......

 

Oh clueless one, I believe in God. You just don't know anything do you? You can even read the message below my generic avatar and it says I have a God as an agnostic or deist. The answer is right there.

 

 

Are you delusional? Where did you even get close to demonstrating that a world view without God is broken?

 

i have not demonstrated it. You have......

 

So that is a yes you are delusional. My world view has God.

 

 

Did you not write the words "no way someone like you to be able to convince me my faith is superstition"?

 

before my wife met . . .

 

I take your subject change to mean that yes you did say that and yes it does mean what the ex-Christians think it means and you find the consequences unpleasant. You pretend that you want an explanation when nothing is going to change your mind.

 

 

But you might be able to present evidence, all this was pure luck, the prophet was just guessing ?

that God does not exist.

 

Get a clue. I still believe in God. I cannot shake my belief in God. Even when I try to not believe in God I still do anyway.

[bornagainathiest]

To the Mods.

 

Mr. Big seems to have fully completed his metamorphosis from a (supposed) Christian apologist debating science into a Troll.

 

He is in total denial, when it comes to the matter of his arguments being successfully and repeatedly refuted.

He maintains, in total contrast to the true state of affairs, that he has comprehensively and fully debunked everything that has been presented by us.

He has begun to bad-mouth, not just the quality of the science cited by us, but also our grasp of said science.

These three behavioral tropes are the classic hallmarks of a die-hard, incorrigible troll.

 

To avoid a further 14 pages of futile effort on our part, I therefore request that this thread be locked and I politely ask my fellow members to join me in this request and to abstain from further dialog with him.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

To the Mods.

 

Mr. Big seems to have fully completed his metamorphosis from a (supposed) Christian apologist debating science into a Troll.

He was always a troll. He just had an apologist disguise. I'm letting him stay for now, but I already know he's a troll.

[BrotherJosh]

This guy's still around?

 

I lost interest after seeing his disingenuous posts asserting things with a truck load of assumptions behind them. However, reading through the thread I notice he has some difficulty in responding to BAA or Ouro and instead just posts random assertions like atheism is bankrupt worldview. Apparently, having a lack of belief in any deity comes with a laundry list of things you have to believe in as well? Or random stories about some magical sky prophet who told his wife to keep an eye out for some dude. John Edward probably has the same track record.

[Astreja]

Personally, I think B.I.G.'s faith is slipping away from him by inches. He's desperate to convince us that we're wrong, so much so that he lies about his intentions and misrepresents himself as being knowledgeable about science. He trots from one forum to another, starting arguments, ignoring or casually dismissing dozens of well thought-out counter-arguments, and pretending that he's won. All of these things are the hallmarks of someone with a low tolerance for ambiguity, and a narcissistic streak a mile wide. They are not indicative of an individual who is comfortable with his beliefs.

 

By screaming into the storm like a 21st century version of King Lear, he can avoid facing the very real possibility that his god is a fiction and that his dreams of eternal life will just fade into insentience when he reaches the end of his life.

 

B.I.G., stop wasting your life on primitive mythology. Stop wasting your respect and attention on a fictional torturer-god, and stop demeaning your humanity by threatening other people with the wrath of your invisible friend. All you've done is made yourself look like an immoral twit.

 

And with that, I recuse Myself from this thread and second BAA's suggestion that it be locked.

[agnosticator]

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith.

 

Yet another Christian who purposely confuses ordinary faith in the natural universe, with religious faith in the supernatural. The two are fundamentally different. Absolute, 100% proof is like perfection. It ain't possible within our universe. Like perfection and absolute proof, the supernatural ain't possible within our universe. But I can trust the sun will come up tomorrow, because it has been proved to have risen many times in the past.

[agnosticator]

All of these things are the hallmarks of someone with a low tolerance for ambiguity, and a narcissistic streak a mile wide.

 

And a high tolerance for absurdity. (quote from Edmund Cohen)

 

And with that, I recuse Myself from this thread and second BAA's suggestion that it be locked.

 

I third BAA's suggestion.

[Ouroboros]

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith.

 

Yet another Christian who purposely confuses ordinary faith in the natural universe, with religious faith in the supernatural. The two are fundamentally different. Absolute, 100% proof is like perfection. It ain't possible within our universe. Like perfection and absolute proof, the supernatural ain't possible within our universe. But I can trust the sun will come up tomorrow, because it has been proved to have risen many times in the past.

Exactly. The sun has risen 16,900+ times in my life. Jesus has done 0 (zero) miracles. The sun has a better track record. I'll change my mind about Jesus after he's done 16,900 supernatural things in my life...

[agnosticator]

Because science relies on philosophic naturalism. And, because the explanations of the origin of our unviverse are of philosophic and religious nature, and these are personal standpoints.

<p>

 

The philosophical and religious explanations must be shown to be testable and true in reality (the known universe), or they are fruitless and useless. If not, they explain nothing but fantasy.

[agnosticator]

Exactly. The sun has risen 16,900+ times in my life. Jesus has done 0 (zero) miracles. The sun has a better track record. I'll change my mind about Jesus after he's done 16,900 supernatural things in my life...

 

Sun Worship doesn't seem so bad after all.

[believeingod]

 

The philosophical and religious explanations must be shown to be testable and true in reality (the known universe), or they are fruitless and useless. If not, they explain nothing but fantasy.

 

they have been so, as shown in my previous post today. But such testimonies are ignored.... they don't fit the preconceived perception God shall not exist......

[sdelsolray]

You have reminded me that faith is deaf, dumb, and blind.

 

http://www.cosmicfin...incompleteness/

 

You cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

 

Proof only applies to mathematics and logic (and some say to alcohol). Science does not prove anything. Accordingly, scientists do not attempt to "PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times" (your words). Your attempt at creating a strawman (if that was your intent) falls on deaf ears.

 

Yes, science is usually based on inductive reasoning, but it is also based on deductive reasoning. Regardless, neither is harmful is the arguments are valid and sound.

 

Yes, science is generally based on Uniformitarianism, an assumption that certain universal laws have been consistent in the past and apply anywhere in real time. Again, no scientist attempts to "PROVE this" (your words). Uniformitarianism is, is essence, a postulate, an axiom, an assumption.

 

And yes, I "can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning" (again, your words). I would not try (it is not a mathematical or logical query, nor does it deal with alcohol). However, I can utilize the scientific method and predict that the sun will rise tomorrow. I'm sure you know how I can do this. Based on the laws of gravity and inertia and based on certain empirical evidence (e.g., the Earth is rotating presently, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, I am located at a certain point of its surface, etc.), I can predict that the Earth will continue to rotate and, being the oblate spheroid it is, position me in a place with a direct observational line to Sol tomorrow morning, i.e., sunrise.

 

No, I do not "literally have to take [this] on faith" (your words), at least according to my definition of "faith". Perhaps your definition is different (please tell us if it is), but I describe faith as wishful thinking (e.g., the substance of something hoped for) and something equal to belief without empirical evidence. My reasoning about the sun rising (in the prior paragraph) does not fit my definition of "faith". Please explain how it fits your definition or, if you are intellectually honest, withdraw your claim.

 

In any event, you imply that "faith" is some sort of hinderance, or thinking defect. Generally, I agree (at least using my definition of "faith"). Faith (as I describe it) seems to be invoked by the intellectually lazy, intellectual cowards and those in need of emotional support.

 

As to the hierarchy of philosophy and science, I disagree with your claim, in part. I agree that science can be considered an offspring of philosophy. However, because it has a limited goal and because it relies on empirical evidence, it is not dependent on philosophy for the results it generates. Indeed, many scientific theories call into question prior philosophy.

 

The fact that certain philosophers and (budding) scientists in the past may have based the adoption of Uniformitarianism based on some religious premise ("Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe" (again, your words)), is an interesting historical note, but is not evidence of the existence of such God.

 

If you require absolutism in your world view, do not look to science. Instead, look to one of many available mythologies and maintain the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty that entails.