Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[believeingod]

So far naturalism has failed in my view to present consistent answers.

 

What is lost on you and no doubt will remain lost, is it provides the only answers. Theism is a non answer. It says, we don't know, it's magic.

 

your claim we use the old wellknown god of the gaps argument is miserably flawed. We know the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. We know its finely tuned to life, and needs therefore a tuner. We know life build up on codified, specified, complex information, contained in DNA, and only intelligent beings produce this kind of information. We know sex , conscience, the hability of thinking and speech cannot be explained through evolution. We have morality. All these issues point straight to God.

God is a logical and consequent answer to all these presented reasons. I'd answer to your argument then : We don't want God, therefore we try to hide behind naturalism.

[MagickMonkey]

So far naturalism has failed in my view to present consistent answers.

 

What is lost on you and no doubt will remain lost, is it provides the only answers. Theism is a non answer. It says, we don't know, it's magic.

 

your claim we use the old wellknown god of the gaps argument is miserably flawed. We know the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. We know its finely tuned to life, and needs therefore a tuner. We know life build up on codified, specified, complex information, contained in DNA, and only intelligent beings produce this kind of information. We know sex , conscience, the hability of thinking and speech cannot be explained through evolution. We have morality. All these issues point straight to God.

God is a logical and consequent answer to all these presented reasons. I'd answer to your argument then : We don't want God, therefore we try to hide behind naturalism.

 

Rather than going into detail, I'll just say essentially EVERY SINGLE ONE of your assertions is incorrect. I will address your last assertion specifically. Many ex-christians, me included, DID NOT WANT to accept naturalism. We wanted DEARLY to hang on to our belief in god. We were simply intellectually honest enough to admit the evidence didn't support our belief in god. (Did I already cover this in this thread? I might be getting my threads confused.)

[thesadclown]

Rather than going into detail, I'll just say essentially EVERY SINGLE ONE of your assertions is incorrect. I will address your last assertion specifically. Many ex-christians, me included, DID NOT WANT to accept naturalism. We wanted DEARLY to hang on to our belief in god. We were simply intellectually honest enough to admit the evidence didn't support our belief in god. (Did I already cover this in this thread? I might be getting my threads confused.)

Thanks for that Monkey. I wanted to say the same thing. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous but yeah, his assertion that we're accepting naturalism because we don't want God was the icing on the stupid cake.

[Vigile]

The problem with guys like this is once you address each ridiculous claim they make, you end up going down a rabbit trail with them. I continue to assert it's not our job to educate the willfully ignorant. The onus is on him to address the body of science if he disagrees with scientific consensus. Instead he comes to a message board full of laymen, throws out psuedo scientific reasoning and demands that we defend science and show him why his reasoning is poor. Some may find this a worthwhile activity. I personally don't have the patience for it.

[MagickMonkey]

The problem with guys like this is once you address each ridiculous claim they make, you end up going down a rabbit trail with them. I continue to assert it's not our job to educate the willfully ignorant. The onus is on him to address the body of science if he disagrees with scientific consensus. Instead he comes to a message board full of laymen, throws out psuedo scientific reasoning and demands that we defend science and show him why his reasoning is poor. Some may find this a worthwhile activity. I personally don't have the patience for it.

 

Yep. And they always criticize science for not having all the answers, and pretend their religion explains everything when it explains nothing.

[florduh]

I shall not be, I shall not be moved;

I shall not be, I shall not be moved;

Just like a tree that's planted by the waters,

Lord, I shall not be moved.

[bornagainathiest]

Hmmm....

 

B.I.G. seems happy enough to debate with Bronxo, Overcame Faith, Ouroboros, Emilie, Vigile, Magick Monkey, the Agnosticator, the Sad Clown, Margee, FreeAsABird, Wester, Par4dcourse, Brother Josh, Florduh and SkepticalMe.

 

But for some reason, he just won't talk to me about Thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory or anything else!

 

Anybody else here smell something rotten in the state Jesusland?

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

We know the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

"We" do not know if it has a cause. You're making an assumption about what "we" know. It's presumptuous and pretentious to make statements like that.

 

We know its finely tuned to life, and needs therefore a tuner.

Bzzt. Again, we don't know that. The nose is perfectly created to fit the glasses...

 

We know life build up on codified, specified, complex information, contained in DNA, and only intelligent beings produce this kind of information.

I think it shows the opposite. It constantly builds itself and changes (which can be observed) from matter. When you look in a microscope, you can't see any magical wand floating around controlling the process. The process is self-contained in nature.

 

We know sex , conscience, the hability of thinking and speech cannot be explained through evolution.

What? You mean it can't be explained except for all hundreds of books and thousands of articles outlining and explaining it very well...? You need to go back to school and read up a bit on these things, because that's a false assumption that there are no explanations. There are well established explanations, but you have to look for the book and actually read it. I know. It might hurt at first, but you have to try.

 

We have morality. All these issues point straight to God.

Not good enough argument. Again, you have missed a lot of literature addressing this issue.

 

God is a logical and consequent answer to all these presented reasons.

No, God is not a logical consequence since all your premisses are flawed.

 

I'd answer to your argument then : We don't want God, therefore we try to hide behind naturalism.

Again, that's presumptuous and pretentious. I'm sure God values haughty attitude and gives you a seat next to him so you can feel special kissing his ass.

 

Amazing. It's so amazing that there are people like you in this world.

[bornagainathiest]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

There's a logical error in your argument. Can you see it? Try to think about what the word "prior" means.

 

substitute it with beyond.

 

Sorry B.I.G.!

 

Beyond won't do either. It's just as inappropriate as prior.

'Prior' is a word that relates to time and the relationships of anything that experiences the flow of time.

'Beyond' is a word that relates to space and the relationships of anything within space.

You can't use any word relating to time or space to describe something (dare I say it?) "outside" of those concepts.

(See? I can't do it either! But don't be too down. Nobody can make the KCA work.)

 

Ouroboros is right.

The Kalaam fails.

 

Try again, if you like. I'm sure we'd all love to see you make it work!

 

Catch you later,

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks BAA for picking up the torch there. These recent apologists are giving me a headache and I just feel like whacking them with clue-by-fours. Well said.

[oddbird1963]

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

There's a logical error in your argument. Can you see it? Try to think about what the word "prior" means.

 

substitute it with beyond.

 

Sorry B.I.G.!

 

Beyond won't do either. It's just as inappropriate as prior.

'Prior' is a word that relates to time and the relationships of anything that experiences the flow of time.

'Beyond' is a word that relates to space and the relationships of anything within space.

You can't use any word relating to time or space to describe something (dare I say it?) "outside" of those concepts.

(See? I can't do it either! But don't be too down. Nobody can make the KCA work.)

 

Ouroboros is right.

The Kalaam fails.

 

Try again, if you like. I'm sure we'd all love to see you make it work!

 

Catch you later,

 

BAA.

It's amazing how mind-blowing it can be when trying to get one's brain around cosmology. You really have to abandon basic words and concepts you are used to. This is where I think theists trip up. They can't let go of such ideas as "prior," "Beyond," "before" and a whole host of prepositions and adjectives which are rooted in a very earth-bound world-view. It's difficult to abandon traditional notions of causality and a hierarchical universe, even when you are willing to learn. It's all the more difficult when you are desperately clinging to a world-view held by ancient Greek and middle age philosophers.

[par4dcourse]

It doesn't need to be "true," B.I.G.

 

It just needs to be more likely than an eternally-existing, immensely powerful, universe-creating being pretending to kill himself for half a Friday, all day Saturday and a bit of Sunday morning so it would not feel compelled to torture thinking beings for eternity because their long-dead ancestors decided to listen to a Talking Snake™ instead of him.

 

When you put it all logical like that sister, I feel all compelled to the lard and slaver. Glory!!

(With nods to Brother Jeff)

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks BAA for picking up the torch there. These recent apologists are giving me a headache and I just feel like whacking them with clue-by-fours. Well said.

 

Thank you, friend.

 

Now, if you liked that, you're gonna love this!

 

.

.

.

.

.

 

SPLAT!

 

 

SPLAT!!

 

 

KER - SPLAT!!!

 

 

Can you guess what that sound is, Ouroboros?

 

 

BAA.

 

 

 

P.S.

There's a clue in the color.

[bornagainathiest]

Here's some more clues.

 

http://forum.motorcy...0windshield.jpg

 

http://www.spacetele...en/opo0428b.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia....dynamic_systems

An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Mass and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or mass transfer takes place across the boundary.

 

In answer to BAA's question, 'Is the universe an open, closed or isolated Thermodynamic system?"

B.I.G. wrote...

 

"its a isolated system"

 

[agnosticator]

Hmmm.... B.I.G. seems happy enough to debate with Bronxo, Overcame Faith, Ouroboros, Emilie, Vigile, Magick Monkey, the Agnosticator, the Sad Clown, Margee, FreeAsABird, Wester, Par4dcourse, Brother Josh, Florduh and SkepticalMe. But for some reason, he just won't talk to me about Thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory or anything else! Anybody else here smell something rotten in the state Jesusland? BAA.

 

It sure does stink in here! He just can't compete with your detailed scientific explanation, even though his OP asked for one! SMACKDOWN!

[believeingod]

We were simply intellectually honest enough to admit the evidence didn't support our belief in god.

 

But you have not been capable so far, to present a more compelling explanation.

[believeingod]

The problem with guys like this is once you address each ridiculous claim they make, you end up going down a rabbit trail with them. I continue to assert it's not our job to educate the willfully ignorant. The onus is on him to address the body of science if he disagrees with scientific consensus. Instead he comes to a message board full of laymen, throws out psuedo scientific reasoning and demands that we defend science and show him why his reasoning is poor. Some may find this a worthwhile activity. I personally don't have the patience for it.

 

but you actively participate at this topic. Why ?

[believeingod]

Hmmm....

 

B.I.G. seems happy enough to debate with Bronxo, Overcame Faith, Ouroboros, Emilie, Vigile, Magick Monkey, the Agnosticator, the Sad Clown, Margee, FreeAsABird, Wester, Par4dcourse, Brother Josh, Florduh and SkepticalMe.

 

But for some reason, he just won't talk to me about Thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory or anything else!

 

Anybody else here smell something rotten in the state Jesusland?

 

BAA.

 

oh, forgot. You asked abou the boundary of the universe , right ? honestly ? i don't know the answer. And i dont know if science has come up with a explanation so far.

[skepticalme]

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

 

That is special pleading. You have created a special catagory that bends the rules to accomedate god. If god can exist uncreated and uncaused, why can't the universe? And before you say I am special pleading for the universe, I can see the universe, we all know it exist. I can't see god. Why the extra step?

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

 

You are making the false assumption that there was a nothing. Time exist WITHIN the universe so he universe has quite literally existed for all of time. The universe HAS always been in existance. There was never a time when there was nothing. A line that goes from zero to infinity is just as infinite as one that goes from negative infinity to positive infinity.

[skepticalme]

We were simply intellectually honest enough to admit the evidence didn't support our belief in god.

 

But you have not been capable so far, to present a more compelling explanation.

 

Why would the truth be contingent upon you feeling subjectively compelled by it?

 

You aren't god, so why would the truth be compelled to satisfy your emotional needs?

[Vigile]

The problem with guys like this is once you address each ridiculous claim they make, you end up going down a rabbit trail with them. I continue to assert it's not our job to educate the willfully ignorant. The onus is on him to address the body of science if he disagrees with scientific consensus. Instead he comes to a message board full of laymen, throws out psuedo scientific reasoning and demands that we defend science and show him why his reasoning is poor. Some may find this a worthwhile activity. I personally don't have the patience for it.

 

but you actively participate at this topic. Why ?

 

Why do people stop and stare at train wrecks?

[bornagainathiest]

Hmmm....

 

B.I.G. seems happy enough to debate with Bronxo, Overcame Faith, Ouroboros, Emilie, Vigile, Magick Monkey, the Agnosticator, the Sad Clown, Margee, FreeAsABird, Wester, Par4dcourse, Brother Josh, Florduh and SkepticalMe.

 

But for some reason, he just won't talk to me about Thermodynamics, the Big Bang theory or anything else!

 

Anybody else here smell something rotten in the state Jesusland?

 

BAA.

 

oh, forgot. You asked abou the boundary of the universe , right ? honestly ? i don't know the answer. And i dont know if science has come up with a explanation so far.

 

You don't know the answer, eh? Well, shall we take a look at your explanation of it?

 

1.

You say that there's been a Big Bang event that is the origin of our universe.

Do you know how astronomers came to this conclusion? (Rhetorical question, B.I.G... I'm going to tell you.) It was this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shift

Astronomers saw that stars and galaxies seemed to be receding from us. The further away the galaxy the greater it's red shift and the faster it seemed to be moving away from us. So they discovered that the universe was expanding. Now, if it's currently expanding, it must therefore have been smaller in the past. Winding the clock back further and further, the smaller, hotter and denser the universe gets. Take it back 13.7 billion years and the universe must have been infinitely small, infinitely dense and infinitely hot. Guess what?

 

This is exactly what the Big Bang event is.

The explosive, super-luminal and exponential expansion of the universe in the very first zillionths of a second of it's existence. This expansion was powered by the process of Inflation. Remember that, word?

 

So, if you accept the Big Bang, then you must accept the Inflation model, which says that we live in an expanding universe. You can't deny the red shift and support the Big Bang because the second depends on the first.

 

2.

You say that the universe is finite and an Isolated Thermodynamic system. In an isolated system, nothing can pass thru the boundary, ok? The Wiki page says this... Isolated system

An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Mass and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or mass transfer takes place across the boundary.

 

3.

So B.I.G., taking these points and putting them together, I really must ask you this question.

If galaxies are moving away from us at up 99.9999999% the speed of light, BUT our universe is finite and isolated, what's that sound I hear?

 

SPLAT!

 

 

SPLAT!!

 

 

KER - SPLAT!!!

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yep!

That's the sound of stars, galaxies and planets smacking up against the impenetrable barrier of your 'isolated' universe, like bugs on a windshield!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the universe is expanding, then where do these rapidly moving galaxies go to?

According to you... nowhere.

According to you they get totalled on the invisible barrier that encloses our universe.

According to you, mass and energy stay constant within an isolated system - meaning that in every second trillions of stars and planets are converted into heat energy and radiation by their impact on this invisible barrier. And this has been happening for 13.7 billion years. Really?

Man, it's a bit shitty if you're an alien on one of these planets and it's your birthday!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry friend, but that is the ILLogical outcome of what you've written in this thread. What you say is the "truth" violates just about everything in modern Cosmology. What you call science, isn't. It's an unworkable mess put together by pseudo-scientists who's first order of business is to validate the Book of Genesis.

 

Oh and btw, there is a valid scientific explanation for what we see as the 'edge' or boundary of the universe.

Interested?

 

BAA.

[believeingod]

That is special pleading.

 

for a long time, it has been supposed, the universe had no beginning, and existed forever. Why is that not special pleading, but God is ? beside this, how could there have been a time, where absolutely nothing existed, since from absolutely nothing, nothing derives ? it is obvious, that there must have been something, that was not created, but existed eternally, without beginning.

 

You have created a special catagory that bends the rules to accomedate god. If god can exist uncreated and uncaused, why can't the universe?

 

for several reasons. I wont go into details, you can read them at link below, but all scientific evidence shows our universe had a beginning.

 

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning1

 

You are making the false assumption that there was a nothing.

Time exist WITHIN the universe so he universe has quite literally existed for all of time.

 

Time is finite in the past. Otherwise, we would not be here right now.

 

 

The universe HAS always been in existance.

 

thats not what scientific evidence suggests.

[believeingod]

Interested?

 

BAA.

 

Sure. Go ahead with your explanations. I am always all ear to learn new things.....

[PatrickG]

We don't know there was nothing prior to the cause! Don't assume it.

 

+1

 

I find that "God" is a fine faith to live one's life by. First Cause. Back of all things. God.

 

It can not be proven, so whatever we make up about this God, is our frame to work with.

 

Science does not have all the answers. Since science does not have all the answers, and we can now develope a God concept, I prefer a rational God.

 

Christianity is not a rational God view, unless it is really the truth. Here is my favorite artical about God concepts.

http://www.ex-christ...534-providence/

 

I find Deism much more rational then Christianity.

 

In Christianity God started it, and God is going to fix it, after we fail at having a good world.

In Deism God started it, and has faith that mankind will be able to make it work.

 

I have fiath. Not in a God that makes us loosers, though. I prefer a God that makes us able participants in this world.