Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

@Doombreed

When you are done trying to make my argument look ridiculous you can explain why it can't first. Physicists think they might have. Anything you can provide as evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence to support your claims.

Just because it's illogical does not mean it's impossible.

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.

What I am saying, is that at least the theory above, makes sense, unlike yours, and asked where you base yours on. I didn't mean I agree with your denial of this theory.

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.

if said being exists, I doubt it keeps being actively involved in the Universe. It seems much more probable that God, even Christianity's god, would "jumpstart" the Universe (possibly not even create it, just put in motion some of the events), became actively involved for a bit to show the way when mankind was still a younger species, but gradually withdraw. See how we fare on our own. If you believe in such things, judgement has to necessarily take place after death, but it is on a more individual basis. We wouldn't be judged as a species.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Is that not faith?

There is no evidence to support your claims.

Yes, because my position is simply that physicists think it is possible. Not definite, simply possible. I don't need to prove anything. Unless you mean prove that physicists think so, in which case, refer to my first post. On the contrary, it is you who keeps saying that it is impossible, so, as it stands, it's you who need to prove your case. Not the other way around.

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.

Wrong. Logic, as you define it, follows our perception of the laws of the physical world. This is vastly different than the laws themselves, which function often differently than we perceive them. That leads to some crazy stuff happening, often on the realm of unimaginable (what happens to time according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a good example. There's a lot more in Quantum physics).

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.

I am not refuting yours. I am asking where you base it on. As for where I base this one on, it's not my theory. It's just one I associate more with. Why? because it's simpler, more refined, easier to believe than some vengeful, vindictive, paranoid psychopath obsessed with worship creating the Universe. Because it does not have anywhere near as many holes in the reasoning. Take your pick.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Whereas yours is obviously based on a ton of evidence that you haven't presented ever since the start of this discussion. Boofuss is right. That's why it's called "faith". It's about believing. It's not proven. It cannot be proven. It's a deeply personal and spiritual matter. That's why the notion of proof of God's existence is utter rubbish.

@Boofuss

Is that not faith?

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.

Yes, because my position is simply that physicists think it is possible.

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

I am not refuting yours. I am asking where you base it on. As for where I base this one on, it's not my theory. It's just one I associate more with. Why? because it's simpler, more refined, easier to believe than some vengeful, vindictive, paranoid psychopath obsessed with worship creating the Universe. Because it does not have anywhere near as many holes in the reasoning. Take your pick.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.

Whereas yours is obviously based on a ton of evidence that you haven't presented ever since the start of this discussion. Boofuss is right. That's why it's called "faith". It's about believing. It's not proven. It cannot be proven. It's a deeply personal and spiritual matter. That's why the notion of proof of God's existence is utter rubbish.

I disagree heartily.

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

Since it is quite liberal, it does not state much more than we already knew. That it may or may not be possible to have that. Which is how it has been from the beginning. Hence why it is you who needs to prove why it is impossible.

Also Argument from Ignorance. You are assuming your position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.

Ok let's see

Thought-Terminating Cliche
Argumentum Ad Lapidem (so much of that one)
Red Herring as you didn't give me the basis of your own spiritual theory.

I think that about sums up the basic things that are wrong with this

I disagree heartily.

Why is that?

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.

Which reason is that? Evidence based scientific claims are not "blind following".

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

Something being a theory doesn't make it not true.

I disagree heartily.

Faith is believing in something without evidence or proof. You have no proof beyond personal feeling that your God exists. If you do have proof, you can present that, like scientists do with their theories, which are backed up with their evidence as far as they can see it, based in math and their respective sciences, following on from what has already been discovered and which is known as true as far as can be determined.

Exactly what I was pointing out.

And I'm addressing the fact that we are pondering why God does things, which means we agree that He exists.

We owe Him because He created us. We do what He tells us to, and He is not that controlling.

In other words, paradise is for those who merit it.

How?

If we did not have free will and use it to merit heaven, we would not be fit for heaven for we were coerced into that path of life.

Which is proof that it did not create what it used.

He tests us. He does not make it impossible to attain heaven, or He would just put us in hell anyway.

lol. Explain how they "spontaneously [magically popped just like that] ... to existence."

According to you, something can just pop right into existance where it was not before.

Good. You're beginning to understand!

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.

@Fishpreferred

So, given that you apparently concur that the universe doesn't need to be created, there's no need for God.

I mean that the universe was created.

No, it doesn't. Think about it: Where and how would that line of argument ever work?

If we are wondering about God's attributes, we necessarily must acknowledge His existance.

"Do this or I will make you suffer eternal ****ation!" isn't just a friendly suggestion.

No. He is saying "Do this and I will give you eternal life!"

So, why does God favour the gullible?

God favors the faithful.

Now, this is clearly a different point altogether. Previously, you stated that He never gives someone more than they can handle. I would argue that this is contradicted by every depression-related suicide ever.

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.

Well, you see, this magic man waved his mighty hands and there it was...
Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, that's your stance on the subject. How silly of me to confuse quantum field theory with magic.

No. I state that God is a self-existing Creature that was the First Mover.

Yes, because that's part of a reasonably well-founded cosmological model to which he ascribes. I don't agree with it, but, then I'm not required to.

How is it reasonable for something to just pop into existance? Surely something had to put it in motion.

Well, if we're playing that game, you'll have to refute the teapot before anything else.

I refute the teapot simply by pointing out that my thesis is based on motion, and the fact that everything has been moved by something else. The teapot is basically a unsupported claim that a teapot exists in the outer reaches of our solar system. It has no proofs whatsoever.

What are you talking about? It's an inference about the world. Yes it's speculative; it says so right off the bat. What lack of evidence are you suggesting this to be based on?

A judge cannot judge in the "what if," neither can you pronounce a "theory" based on a speculative scenario.

Faith is based on credulity, as you have demonstrated.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.

Than so is gravity.

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.

If someone could handle it, they wouldn't "give up". Suicide isn't "giving up", it's the recourse of someone who feels that there is no other way out of a situation or a mindset. It's not something done lightly in the vast majority of cases.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.

It isn't, it's based on belief without proof. As it says in the Bible - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

What are those demonstrable truths?

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.

That just &quotroves" that the world exists, which is also subject to question in some circles, there's the whole "are we a simulation" thing.

"The world exists" isn't proof of God, God is a theory for why the world exists and it isn't something which is proved or able to be proved in any way beyond faith which as we've found is still "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

@Ntech

1. To make this clear once and for all: We are not claiming to prove anything regarding the Big Bang. So please stop acting as if we did.

2. Your claims are reasonable but only under two assumptions:
a) that causality is always true and linear;
b) that God exists.
Assumption a) is reasonable but not proven, as causality might be different or missing on the quantum level. Quantum entanglement implies instantaneous transmission of information independent of distance, which is contrary to conventional physics including causality. A kind of backwards causation might even be possible.
Assumption b) cannot be proven.

3. A claim being reasonable does not make it automatically true.

4. Spiritual faith is based on dogmas, not reason. I think you confuse it with trust, which is based on experience.

@Boofuss

If someone could handle it, they wouldn't "give up".

Sometimes people turn back just before they reach the end of their journey. It's called despair.

It isn't, it's based on belief without proof. As it says in the Bible - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

What are those demonstrable truths?

I can demonstrate that God exists. Look at my previous post where I outlined my theory.

That just &quotroves" that the world exists, which is also subject to question in some circles, there's the whole "are we a simulation" thing.

"The world exists" isn't proof of God, God is a theory for why the world exists and it isn't something which is proved or able to be proved in any way beyond faith which as we've found is still "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

There you go. Nobody can prove that it wasn't God, and nobody can prove it was the Big Bang. You have faith too!

@Hahiha
Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?

Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?

If we are wondering about God's attributes, we necessarily must acknowledge His existance.

No. He is saying "Do this and I will give you eternal life!"

God favors the faithful.

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.

No. I state that God is a self-existing Creature that was the First Mover.

How is it reasonable for something to just pop into existance? Surely something had to put it in motion.

The teapot is basically a unsupported claim that a teapot exists in the outer reaches of our solar system. It has no proofs whatsoever.

A judge cannot judge in the "what if," neither can you pronounce a "theory" based on a speculative scenario.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.

I can demonstrate that God exists. Look at my previous post where I outlined my theory.

There you go. Nobody can prove that it wasn't God, and nobody can prove it was the Big Bang.

Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?

Sometimes people turn back just before they reach the end of their journey. It's called despair.

If they turn back, then they haven't "given up" have they?

There you go. Nobody can prove that it wasn't God, and nobody can prove it was the Big Bang. You have faith too!

No. That's not what that is.

There is scientific backing for the Big Bang.

There is no backing for God existing beyond religious faith which = "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

So, nothing there at all.

Supporting science for the Big Bang? Loads.

@Boofuss

If they turn back, then they haven't "given up" have they?

Yes, they have.

There is no backing for God existing beyond religious faith which = "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
4) A first cause must exist.
5) That first cause did not have a cause - it caused itself.
6) That cause is God.

@Boofuss, that is my argument. Study it closely.