Why I am not a christian

[Joshpantera]

 

[TABA]

Was Bertrand Russell an agnostic or an atheist?  The terms mean somewhat different things to differ people.  Here Bertrand Russell describes his position:
 

“Russell described himself in 1947 as an agnostic, saying: ‘Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.’ “

- from Wikipedia

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/20/2022 at 9:31 AM, TABA said:

Was Bertrand Russell an agnostic or an atheist?  The terms mean somewhat different things to differ people.  Here Bertrand Russell describes his position:
 

“Russell described himself in 1947 as an agnostic, saying: ‘Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.’ “

- from Wikipedia

 

 

 

Agnostic - atheist before it was a thing. Sort of explaining why it eventually became a thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Johnny]

I didn't listen to the whole thing but this guy is such.....a doofus. 

 

To say there is no reason to think the world can come into existence without a cause.....then goes on why it should not have always existed, makes me wonder how did it get here then and how can it have always existed?

 

The first cause argument is flawed. First off, if a person is thinking in only a naturalistic sense of it all, then they are stuck with just that. They can't make sense of anything much. Just knowing basic science shows we could not have gotten all this on its own, and it shows it could not have just been there forever. That even lacks any explanation how was it just there?! 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.

2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.

3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

If Russell wants to say such things and if people want to believe it, that's fine with me, but I would ask them to have evidence to back it up.

 

If a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created.

[TABA]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Just knowing basic science shows we could not have gotten all this on its own, and it shows it could not have just been there forever.

If it’s not reasonable to speculate that the universe always existed, why is it reasonable to believe that God always existed? 

[walterpthefirst]

I didn't listen to the whole thing but this guy is such.....a doofus. 

 

To say there is no reason to think the world can come into existence without a cause.....then goes on why it should not have always existed, makes me wonder how did it get here then and how can it have always existed?

 

The first cause argument is flawed. First off, if a person is thinking in only a naturalistic sense of it all, then they are stuck with just that. They can't make sense of anything much. Just knowing basic science shows we could not have gotten all this on its own, and it shows it could not have just been there forever. That even lacks any explanation how was it just there?! 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.

2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.

3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

If Russell wants to say such things and if people want to believe it, that's fine with me, but I would ask them to have evidence to back it up.

 

If a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created.

 

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

 

Hello again Johnny.

 

I have comprehensively answered points 1, 2 and 3 in the 'Can the Universe Create Itself' thread.

 

Point 4 is outside of my remit because I prefer to confine myself to known science, not science fiction.

 

Please meet me there if you want to discuss things further.

 

Btw, you seen to be labouring under the impression that cosmological science says that the universe came from nothing.

 

But that is not so.

 

Anyway, I remain available to debate and discuss this topic with you.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Oh btw, Johnny...

 

Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove.

 

You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that real science proves things.

 

But that is not so.

 

Please follow these links to discover the facts.

 

https://blog.drwile.com/science-cant-prove-anything/  

https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=1d828ae62fb1

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

https://futurism.com/can-science-prove-anything-2

 

Please note that the first one is a blog by a Christian who is a scientist.

 

As a scientist he understands that science does not employ proofs.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Johnny]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

If it’s not reasonable to speculate that the universe always existed, why is it reasonable to believe that God always existed? 

Then you could have answered what I gave already....

 

If a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm not sure regurgitated word salad is the best approach here, @Johnny.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

15 hours ago, Johnny said:

Then you could have answered what I gave already....

 

If a supernatural creator created the natural realm, then that supernatural creator who created the natural realm with its natural laws has then become also bound by those natural laws the supernatural creator created. So explain why a supernatural creator is also bound by the laws the supernatural creator created.

 

Yeah, I don't follow that either, but it gave me a thought:

 

If I can be a supervirtual creator who creates a virtual realm, then why would I be bound by the virtual laws I created? As a supervirtual creator, I am not bound by the rules of my creation.  Taking it a step a step further, as a being entirely removed from my virtual realm of which I was the supervirtual creator, I am bound by different rules and it is entirely possible my virtual realm will outlive me.  A caretaker-less realm left to drift into oblivion.

 

Something to consider. ((this is the moment where you start to point to some ancient text as "proof" of . . . well? . . . unverifiable hearsay upon hearsay))