Call Me...double A7 Not 007. (No Nice Athiests Allowed!)

[mymistake]

We know the universe has a beginning due to the Cosmicback wave radiation. Look it up

 

No we don't know that.  The cosmic background radiation is a left over from the big bang.  This proves that a singularity expanded.  We do not know what happened before that and we have no reason to assume there was nothing before that.  We don't know the universe had a beginning.

[florduh]

Okay fine. We have no evidence of a god, so therefore he exists.

 

Now, what about my leprechaun? 

[midniterider]

Thanks for the fun....I'm out for a while.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse, so as long as you keep thinking im trying to prove God then you will always be disappointed. Thats not my purpose here. If scientists cant do it what makes you think i can?

 

We jsut here to chat.

 

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

[Roz]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse, so as long as you keep thinking im trying to prove God then you will always be disappointed. Thats not my purpose here. If scientists cant do it what makes you think i can?

 

We jsut here to chat.

 

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

 

If you don't have evidence that means the answer is "I don't know" not "it's not true."  You don't have evidence for your christian god.  The humble honest answer then is "I don't know if there's a god or not."

[Roz]

And A1, if you want to play the game of possibilities of "is it more likely that a god exists or not," why do you still to 1 god?

 

Why can't there be 2, 3, 4, 100, 1000 gods?

 

If you're honest with yourself then you know that the polytheists (technically poly-deists) have the odds in their favor.  And yet you reject their positions.  Why?

 

Oh right, because you haven't been convinced that 2 or more gods exist, therefore you take the atheist's position and reject the poly-deist claim.

[mymistake]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse . . .

 

 

But you are not being rational.  How can we have rational discourse if you won't do your part of the bargain?

[Roz]

Maybe A1 is Mark...

 

[mymistake]

Okay fine. We have no evidence of a god, so therefore he exists.

 

Now, what about my leprechaun? 

 

You should probably feed him Lucky Charms.  Leprechauns like Lucky Charms.  

[mymistake]

And A1, if you want to play the game of possibilities of "is it more likely that a god exists or not," why do you still to 1 god?

 

Why can't there be 2, 3, 4, 100, 1000 gods?

 

If you're honest with yourself then you know that the polytheists (technically poly-deists) have the odds in their favor.  And yet you reject their positions.  Why?

 

Oh right, because you haven't been convinced that 2 or more gods exist, therefore you take the atheist's position and reject the poly-deist claim.

 

 

So much this.

[Ravenstar]

[Guest]

We know the universe has a beginning due to the Cosmicback wave radiation. Look it up

 

[midniterider]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse, so as long as you keep thinking im trying to prove God then you will always be disappointed. Thats not my purpose here. If scientists cant do it what makes you think i can?

 

We jsut here to chat.

 

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

 

Just because you don't have evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt mean he doesnt exist. If the Flying Spaghetti monster does exist but nobody ever finds this evidence does this mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist? Of course not. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could very well exist... and I'm pretty sure he wants to have a pasta relationship with you! It's not a religion, it's rigatoni! :-)

[midniterider]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse, so as long as you keep thinking im trying to prove God then you will always be disappointed. Thats not my purpose here. If scientists cant do it what makes you think i can?

 

We jsut here to chat.

 

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

 

Christians aren't here for rational discourse. They are here to try to save souls.

[moanareina]

again my argument isnt to prove God its jsut for rational discourse, so as long as you keep thinking im trying to prove God then you will always be disappointed. Thats not my purpose here. If scientists cant do it what makes you think i can?

 

We jsut here to chat.

 

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

 

Why are you expecting people to go without evidence and come up with the same conclusions you do?

 

If someone kills you and there is no evidence there will be investigation. No one will go and say oh, he just dropped dead, must have been God. If there won't be any outer marks that indicate murder or suicide there will be an autopsy to see if you had a heart attack or a stroke or whatever else can cause sudden death. If they find signs for outer force there will be an investigation of the surroundings. Maybe they will find a chair lying there and a bucket of water next to the window...so they will check the angle of you lying there and assume you where cleaning the windows and for some reason fell off the chair and hurt yourself in a way that lead to immediate death. If no such thing is found and it is obvious that it has been murder they will take fingerprints and look for every hint they can find that will lead them to a murderer. Maybe they will find your smartphone if you have one or check on your facebook profile and start investigating your friends. Asking them about you and their relation to you. Maybe if there really is no evidence and no effort leads to results they have to close the case. But they would still be convinced that someone murdered you. No God. No supernatural force. But they would just not know who it was and why it happened.

 

Now if someone came to the  police and report he had some information regarding your case they for sure would consider it and start investigating, trying to find evidence. Now imagine they would arrest someone without evidence. What would you think of it? If they charged this someone with murder without evidence, just due to someones claim. What would that be?

 

Can you see that evidence is key?

[bornagainathiest]

No, 1AAT1, that's wrong.

 

We don't KNOW that the universe has a beginning. 

We INFER (from the evidence) that it might have had a beginning.  An inference, made on the basis of scientific data is tentative, not absolute.  Which explains why I use the word, 'might have'.  If you can be absolutely certain (that is, you KNOW) then you can say that the universe had a beginning.  Until you can be absolutely certain, you're obliged to use the words, 'might have had'. 

.

.

.

 

As to reality being eternal or needing a point of origin, here are two recent papers on that issue, by leading theorists.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385.pdf

 

You'll note that Mithani and Vilenkin don't KNOW (absolute certainty) that reality had a beginning.  They write...

"Did the universe have a beginning?  At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes."

See?  They don't KNOW, they infer (tentative) that it seems (appears to be) probably (tentative) yes.

 

In his reply to them, Susskind takes the correct approach, saying that M & V argue that the universe had a beginning. 

That qualification is very important!  If M & V are arguing their case, their position MUST be a tentative one, relying on inference.  If they knew for certain, they wouldn't need to argue their case, would they?

 

So please modify your future posts accordingly

.

.

.

Lastly, the RogueScholar is quite right to tackle you about your usage of the word, 'universe'.

Could you please precisely define what you mean by that word. 

 

Thanks.

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

A point of order, MyMistake.

 

I've just corrected 1AAT1 on his use of the word. 'know'.

You wrote that the CMB proves that a singularity expanded.  Nope.  Sorry.  That's not correct either.  It's inferred to have been so.  We don't know that it was so. 

 

I cover this in post # 25 of the, "Why vs.How" thread in the Den. 

Guess who I was debating with?  Looks like he hasn't got the message about inference does it, huh? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

[moanareina]

So we put things in the Unknowable category and the only way to get out of it is evidence right? what if that evidence is never found? Just because you dont have evidence doesnt mean its not true, if someone kills me and they dont have evidence does that mean it didnt happen?

 

By the way, the evidence to you being killed would be your dead body. Unless there is a dead body there is no evidence that you had been killed. In that case it would be pretty devastating if people just assumed you to be dead and not even bother to look for your remains. I mean, it could be you would have been kidnapped or you fell off a rock and might still be alive and if people would actually look for you they might save your life while if they just assume you had been killed because they took it on faith you will be dead soon. Can you see where your logic fails?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.. ITs 7/31 thursday morning a brand new day,

 

i awake evryone with a word to the wise Daily Advice for all ages and different situations, if this doesnt apply to you then maybe you know someone who it can apply to
"They want you to do better as long as you don't do better than them. Don't be surprised if your success turns friends into strangers. Everybody loves you until you become competition. Too many people want change without having to make changes. In order to move up, there's some things you must be willing to give up.They want you to do better as long as you don't do better than them. Don't be surprised if your success turns friends into strangers. Everybody loves you until you become competition."

 

 

Ok So, let me make some Calrifications

 

clarification 1

im not here to prove God i cant do that because people have different criteria in which they accept and 2 proof is different from persuasion and persuaion is different from truth and evidence and on top of that truth changes and on top of that there is MULTIPLE KINDS of evidences. So its futile to try to be the magic christian to change history in a single sentence.

 

calrification 2

some one asked me the clarification of Logc and Logical absolutes. Well to me Logic is subjective its subejcted to chemical process in our brain and that change the way we reason and HOW we use logic als o based ont he information we have availble to US. Logical absolutes are NOT subjective in the way logic is the are truth statements.

Clarification 3

Someone asked about my term universe, well i havent thought about HOW its used so thats interesting im open to ideas. Although im simply referring to the universe that we know, i havent thought about the multiverse but i guess i would like to include those as well. The reason why the CBR proves the universe had a beginning because it talks about the universe expanding from a single point. This is different from just tracking radtion in space and creating a hypothesis or inference, otherwise we could turn ANy and every fact that we know in the entire world into a inferance(tentative). Here the thing if the universe expanded from a single point, then at one point there was NOT something and then there WAS something. This is irrefutable. Can something come into existence without any pre existing materials?(hence my topic why vs how) topic covered this In order for something to bring itself into esitence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it HAS attributes , then it ALREADY HAS existence. IF something does NOT exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions


 

[mymistake]

 

 Here the thing if the universe expanded from a single point, then at one point there was NOT something and then there WAS something. This is irrefutable. Can something come into existence without any pre existing materials?

 

Again you still don't get it.  When the universe was a singularity is wasn't nothing.  That singularity contained all the mass that the universe contains today.  It was a universe mass black hole.  

 

 

You keep trying to prove God with your something from nothing assumption.  You don't know there ever was a nothing.  The science and cosmology you lean on has moved forward to theorize multiverses.  It doesnt' say what you wish it says.  A singularity is something.  What was the universe before it was a singularity?  We don't know.  However quantum theory suggests that at very small size something can come from nothing.  So either way your god is screwed.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Ok back to logical Absolutes
 

an error can be in existence even if a mind has not accessed the situation, or evaluated it or examined it. The error itself will still physically be there even if you do not know about it, an error is a term we use to detect logical error(loose definition) but even without the description we use to determine an error, its just a description not a reality of what actuality IS. just because we haven't put a description TO a term does not erase the reality. IF an arrangement of sticks form an X just because the letter x do not exist does not change the ACTUAL formation and that it is still there. When we later discover the letter X we can place that term back in time to what that arrangement of sticks WAS forward or Backward. There is prescriptive and descriptive. descriptive is about the norms of rules within a given moment of reality prescriptive would be the process of action in the way we could USE a description at ANY time instead of just in a particular time.

 

Example.

Roz in the car with Florduh they and they are heading to disney together to meet up with midniterider and mymistake, Roz is driving 80miles an hr because he is really excited about his new adventure
here is the difference between presciptive logic and descriptive
Prescriptive event. He comes upon road works and there is a sign announcing
that he should slow down. This event can be modeled by the communicative
act
Descriptive event. A police car behind him tells him to slow down. This event
can be modeled by the communicative act As a result he learns that
he is speeding.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

i didnt say from NOTHING"  I said from NOT something to Something. there is a HUGE difference. That singularity has to have preexisting materials to exist did it not?

otherwise the singualrity would be eternal but then this turns into a slippery slope and infinite transgression again

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Can you form an unbias opinion about new information without using a presupposition?

[disillusioned]

calrification 2

some one asked me the clarification of Logc and Logical absolutes. Well to me Logic is subjective its subejcted to chemical process in our brain and that change the way we reason and HOW we use logic als o based ont he information we have availble to US. Logical absolutes are NOT subjective in the way logic is the are truth statements.

 

That was me. This does not even begin to answer my question. To say that logic is subjective is not to define it. I have told you precisely what I refer to when I say "logic". I am asking you to do the same. It will be impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion unless I know what you are talking about.

 

As for logical absolutes, if all you mean by this term is "truth statements", then I would again draw your attention to the fact that these are not absolute. Axioms are assumed, and they vary from system to system, as do rules of inference. Truths that are deduced in a particular system are not absolute, since they need not be true in other systems. Again, I must ask for clarification.

 

Ok back to logical Absolutes

 

an error can be in existence even if a mind has not accessed the situation, or evaluated it or examined it. The error itself will still physically be there even if you do not know about it, an error is a term we use to detect logical error(loose definition) but even without the description we use to determine an error, its just a description not a reality of what actuality IS. just because we haven't put a description TO a term does not erase the reality. IF an arrangement of sticks form an X just because the letter x do not exist does not change the ACTUAL formation and that it is still there. When we later discover the letter X we can place that term back in time to what that arrangement of sticks WAS forward or Backward. There is prescriptive and descriptive. descriptive is about the norms of rules within a given moment of reality prescriptive would be the process of action in the way we could USE a description at ANY time instead of just in a particular time.

 

Example.

Roz in the car with Florduh they and they are heading to disney together to meet up with midniterider and mymistake, Roz is driving 80miles an hr because he is really excited about his new adventure

here is the difference between presciptive logic and descriptive

Prescriptive event. He comes upon road works and there is a sign announcing

that he should slow down. This event can be modeled by the communicative

act

Descriptive event. A police car behind him tells him to slow down. This event

can be modeled by the communicative act As a result he learns that

he is speeding.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but honestly, I have no idea what I just read. If you want this to be considered you will need to rephrase it in a more coherent way.

[Orbit]

1AA1--if you're not trying to prove God exists, what exactly ARE you doing?