We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → ''God did it'' = trolling?
| 51 | 6516 |
I have no objection to theism, but the provision of opinion as fact in an area designed specfically for rational argument backed up by empirical evidence is no place for baseless assertions.
Saying that ''god exists'' without proving god exists is trolling. Of course the obvious counter argument is that people who say that ''god doesn't exist'' are also trolls. Not so. The fact that god cannot be proven/disproven has been hammered on again and again in so many threads it's absurd. To blithely state ''god did it because god'' is so far beyond the realm of logic the only reasoining left is trolling. Unless we're willing to admit religious folk are irrational? Because irrationality would also explain such comments. Therefore the theist who has made the choice to post his ''god did it because god'' statement must choose. They are either irrational or a troll. The way I see it, calling them a troll is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Because the alternative is that they really are irrational.
This may be perceived to be too harsh or unproductive, as it would label so many users as trolls. However all they need to do to escape this title is to prove their statements are true. These forums are so full of statements of ''fact'' it is absurd.
I think that if there was a change in user consciousness to the point where baseless assertions were considered either trolling or irrational, the WEPR forums would be far more conducive to good quality threads.
Discuss.
- 51 Replies
OK, some quotations from your link:
The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion (...) The idea is absurd.
No it isn't. Because of the gravity particles congregate --> planets etc.
If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center
No --> Chaos Theory.
The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform.
You can imagine that the universe is a forest. If you stand in the forest, every direction looks different. But if you look at it from above it seems to be uniform.
[N]o astronomers would ever think of the big bang as the creation event of Genesis.
So who is rather right? People who lived thousands of years ago and had no idea about the universe? People who thought that the sun would rotate arround the Earth? Or the people who study the universe now with accurate instruments?
As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire universe, including the earth with its various âkindsâ of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). The big bang theory postulates eons of time.
The Bible says that the Earth is about 6ooo years old. But it's proven that this isn't right.
like zues throwing lightning because we know what lightning is
Yet when the Cristian god does it, it is compleatly logical?
Basically you are saying "I think god did it because science can not yet tell us everything, even if god has no proof while the scientifical theories have some"...
oh, and there was one very interesting quotation from your link:
[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void . . . the earth and humanity, are not conscious creations but an accident. . . . [I]t is not sufficient merely to say, âYou canât get something from nothing.â While everyday experience and common sense seem to support this principle, if there is anything that we have learned from twentieth-century physics, it is this: Common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality (1987, 26-27).
The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion (...) The idea is absurd.
As I stated before it wasn't really an explosion. So some of your "evidence" was already thrown out before you even presented it.
Also non of this is evidence for God. If you did manage to disprove the Big Bang theory you haven't proven God. You've only disproven the current theory. You would still have to offer evidence that God existed.
Also non of this is evidence for God. If you did manage to disprove the Big Bang theory you haven't proven God. You've only disproven the current theory. You would still have to offer evidence that God existed.
i cannot prove god exists as i have admitted to that earlier, but there is no "fore sure answer" that is my point, idc if you believe in god or not, don't say I'm wrong that is my point, saying the big bang theory is definitely what happened pisses me off because it is such a large guess, and still doesn't explain where the matter the was used to make this "bang" in any form came from. So believing in that seems to be as logical to me as a God creating it all.
and whoever said that the bible was 100% right is wrong, the bible is to be taken as a guide to Christianity, as it being written by humans it is bound to have flaws, i take the bible as a guide, not the explanation to everything. When people said God made lightning bolts they where making an explanation but the difference is that even in the bible that Lightning comes from God isn't something that is taught.But in mythology people who believe in zues also still believe that he throws lightning bolts the bible isn't accurate for many reasons but the messages are what is to be taken seriously as a christian. I'm not arguing that my faith is so right and scientist are stupid, I'm saying that we don't know for sure the answer and that to "me" God is the explanation, don't tell me I'm wrong and not have an answer yourself. One that is For sure, not a logical guess.
i cannot prove god exists as i have admitted to that earlier, but there is no "fore sure answer"
As I have said. If there is not evidence for something we have to assume it doesn't exist. To believe something exists with no evidence is irrational. To claim the thing that has no evidence is equal or better then the thing that has evidence is ignorance or stupidity.
idc if you believe in god or not, don't say I'm wrong that is my point,
If we can't provide evidence for something claiming to know what the cause was is dishonest and irrational. If we don't know something the honest answer is "we don't know".
saying the big bang theory is definitely what happened pisses me off because it is such a large guess,
We aren't saying it's the definitively the answer, it could be proven wrong tomorrow. It's also not just a guess. As stated before there is evidence backing up the claim. There's a reason why we think this is what happened.
What reason do you have to think there is a God?
but the messages are what is to be taken seriously as a christian.
As I pointed out using "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as an example in two threads, to pull good messages from the Bible you have to cherry pick heavily. So why use a book that contradicts it's own messages?
Thread is locked!