Atheists "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

[PKT_VOL]

Nothing being created or destroyed.....Oh Crap!!! Here we go again. By the way I've been kicking something around in my head and I'm about to resurrect an old thread.

Haha. Yeah we have discussed the Causal Argument via the First law of Thermodynamics. The old thread will always be there if you want to keep it going. :hi:

Not sure if bamawriter is taking the same angle. I guess I'll wait and see before I respond.

 

[bamawriter]

Please elaborate. You have me intrigued.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. So, something cannot suddenly come out of nothing.

When the Big Bang occurred, the energy had to come from somewhere. The chain reaction that created the known universe had to have a source. And since the laws of thermodynamics rule out the possibility of energy springing from nothingness, the source of the chain reaction must have not been limited by those laws.

Now, whether that source is God is a totally different debate. But the source is, by definition, supernatural.

 

[bamawriter]

Haha. Yeah we have discussed the Causal Argument via the First law of Thermodynamics. The old thread will always be there if you want to keep it going. :hi:

Not sure if bamawriter is taking the same angle. I guess I'll wait and see before I respond.

I guess I wasn't around for that one.

 

[VOLatile]

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. So, something cannot suddenly come out of nothing.

When the Big Bang occurred, the energy had to come from somewhere. The chain reaction that created the known universe had to have a source. And since the laws of thermodynamics rule out the possibility of energy springing from nothingness, the source of the chain reaction must have not been limited by those laws.

Now, whether that source is God is a totally different debate. But the source is, by definition, supernatural.

*In a closed system.

 

[therealUT]

I was hoping to hear your plan directly?
You know since Christianity and its follwers are soo flawed , i would love to hear the gospel of therealut and compare it to the words spoken by Jesus, that you so blatanly trivialized, and see how they stack up since your obviously soo adamant in your dismissal of Jesus Christs plan of Salvation.

please let me know soon, one never knows when their time here is up.

Your laziness is not my problem; your laziness could be partly responsible your failure to trivialize Christianity.

Conduct the search. I have stated where I stand with regard to the supernatural plenty of times on here.

If your time is up it is not my problem.

 

[MUR73]

Whooaa..wait a min..Just what "myth" are these agnostic/atheist/non-believers with an obvious intellectual superiority and being scientificly minded on here are trying to disprove again? Is it the he "myth" of man evolving from apes or the "myth" of man made global warming or maybe the myth of the Big-Bang Theory, i forgot?

myth   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled[mith] Show IPA
noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. .

funny how a "theory" and a "myth" can get all mixed up sometimes depending on the agenda of the one using it.

 

[KiffinKiller]

how do you disprove something that needs to be proved?

 

[KiffinKiller]

I have no problem with people having faith and using religion to help themselves and others...but to act like god's existence speaks for itself and pretend people need to disprove it...that makes me giggle.

 

[therealUT]

how do you disprove something that needs to be proved?

Hey, none of that burden of proof crap here. Save that for a court of law!

 

[golfballs]

it applies to science as well

 

[bamawriter]

*In a closed system.

Mankind has yet to find any point in the universe where the first law isn't true. So, to the best of our knowledge, the universe is one giant closed system.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. So, something cannot suddenly come out of nothing.

When the Big Bang occurred, the energy had to come from somewhere. The chain reaction that created the known universe had to have a source. And since the laws of thermodynamics rule out the possibility of energy springing from nothingness, the source of the chain reaction must have not been limited by those laws.

Now, whether that source is God is a totally different debate. But the source is, by definition, supernatural.

Quote from the aforementioned thread about OS's question concerning the Causal Argument via the First law of Thermodynamics:

To say that everything or anything came from nothing is disingenuous at best. As Hume would say, there are no impressions within our known universe of matter being created or destroyed, only conserved or transferred into energy E=MC2. Therefore, without impressions (sensations) there can be no idea about something being created from nothing. The Conservation of Matter is in agreement with the Big Bang theory. The point of matter in the Big Bang was infinity (loose definition/interpretation for me) massive. The mass was always there, just with way more gravitational pull. A newer theory (one I like better) states that our universe was created from another universe. Much like how new stars and planets are created from old dying stars which eventually collapse in on themselves before exploding violently; thus giving birth to new stars and planets.

I guess I will add to that the energy of the big bang came from the infinitely massive glob of mass at the center of the big bang. E=MC2 tells us that a very small amount of mass can cause a very large release or conversion of energy. Furthermore, we known there was this beautiful super force which was uniform and consistent. This super force consisted of the four known forces of our present universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. At the moment of the Big Bang, the mass began to expand rapidly. The super force was stretched like a rubber band until it broke down into the four forces which we know about today.

To me the better question would be centered around force instead of energy, but I digress. The point is that the notion of the unknown ("uncaused") first cause being proof of a "supernatural" force or being, is not sound logic. Either there is a physical cause (theoretical physics is close to solving this) or there simply isn't. That latter (while intriguing) gets rather messy so I generally dismiss it for sake of practicality.

I guess I wasn't around for that one.

It was the "Question about Christianity" thread. Billy C's most successful troll job in the Political Forum.

 

[bamawriter]

But neither the infinite mass nor multiple universe theories explain how/why anything exists at all. The infinite mass theory really doesn't do the trick for me, since it breaks down to little more than "it just is."

 

[therealUT]

Some of Rumi's thoughts on the divine:

Look inside and find where a person
loves from. That's the reality,
not what they say.
_____Hypocrites
give attention to form, the right
and wrong ways of professing belief.
Grow instead in universal light.

When that revealed itself, God gave it
a thousand different names, the least
of those sweet-breathing names being,
the one who is not in need of anyone.



Lovers think they're looking for each other,
but there's only one search: wandering
this world is wandering that,
_________both inside one
transparent sky. In here there is
no dogma and no heresy.

The miracle of Jesus is himself, not what he said
or did about the future. Forget the future.
I'd worship someone who could do that.




If you want what visible reality can give,
you're an employee.

If you want the unseen world,
you're not living in truth.

Both wishes are foolish,
but you'll be forgiven for forgetting
that what you really want is
love's confusing joy.





Notice how
the stars vanish as the sun comes up





___A more rational man gives advice,
"You'll regret doing this. You're so far

from the water that by the time you get down
to gather walnuts, the water will have

carried them away." He replies, "I'm not
here for walnuts, I want the music

they make when they hit."







Which is worth more, a crowd of thousands,
or your own genuine solitude?
Freedom, or power over an entire nation?

A little while alone in your room
will prove more valuable than anything else
that could ever be given you.





Pale sunlight,
pale the wall.

Love moves away.
The light changes.

I need more grace
than I thought.

I need more grace;
then, I thought.

 

[PKT_VOL]

But neither the infinite mass nor multiple universe theories explain how/why anything exists at all. The infinite mass theory really doesn't do the trick for me, since it breaks down to little more than "it just is."

You can say that about anything within our physical universe. Not sure how physical existence in and of itself lends support for a supernatural power.

 

[KiffinKiller]

. Descartes' own reason for god's existence is the fact that he could picture a god in his mind (and what else could have inspired that than God himself?)

What Descartes forgets to mention is that he was catholic and was taught about the existence and fear of God during his childhood. Bias is bias.

 

[bamawriter]

You can say that about anything within our physical universe. Not sure how physical existence in and of itself lends support for a supernatural power.

From a purely scientific perspective, I think it's lazy to accept that certain laws governing the universe are true, but then be willing to stop at a certain point because going any further might give credence to the supernatural.

Understand, I'm not the kind of believer that is going to beat someone over the head with it. I simply think it's no less an act of faith to come to the conclusion that everything is because it is. Existence simply isn't an explanation for existence.

 

[bamawriter]

. Descartes' own reason for god's existence is the fact that he could picture a god in his mind (and what else could have inspired that than God himself?)

That's not exactly Descartes' theory.

He theorized that if God is the greatest thing we are capable of imagining, then God must exist, because something that exists is greater than something that does not.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Not sure I'm following you're wording correctly. So he meant God must exist because he can imagine God? What about imagining something that you were taught exists proves existence?

 

[MUR73]

Your laziness is not my problem; U]your laziness could be partly responsible your failure to trivialize Christianity[/U].

Conduct the search. I have stated where I stand with regard to the supernatural plenty of times on here.

If your time is up it is not my problem.

Hmm...Is Laziness why you chose to do it?

I have read many of your hollow post and see no answers only long winded assertations about how flawed Christianity is without a single coherent real alternative.

btw...Your acknowledgement concerning mytime here not being your "problem" is a relief, so instead i will lean not on your words for comfort but upon the one you mock for that instead.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not sure I'm following you're wording correctly. So he meant God must exist because he can imagine God? What about imagining something that you were taught exists proves existence?

So if Adam didn't imagine God, but God indeed told Adam he existed, does that mean God doesn't exist because he wasn't imagined? Descartes is confusing as a mofo.

 

[bamawriter]

Not sure I'm following you're wording correctly. So he meant God must exist because he can imagine God? What about imagining something that you were taught exists proves existence?

I'm not agreeing with the proposition.

However, the point isn't that God exists because we can imagine God. Even if no one ever thought up their own personal idea of God, God would still exist because God is the greatest thing that could possibly be imagined. Existence is greater than non-existence, so the greatest thing must exist whether or not it ever gets imagined.

I'm not really that great at clarifying philosophy.

 

[theFallGuy]

why has the politics forum turned into the religious debate forum

 

[PKT_VOL]

From a purely scientific perspective, I simply think it's lazy to accept that certain laws governing the universe are true, but then be willing to stop at a certain point because going any further might give credence to the supernatural.

False. Scientists stop at the point where there is no testable scientific theory or factual evidence to support their theory. It has nothing to do with the possibility of there being supernatural forces. This is not to say that theoretical physics and religious ideas are completely incompatible. They are actually converging in some areas rather than diverging. However, the process of getting there is not the same. They follow the evidence and see where it leads them instead of start with a preconceived notion and attempt to cherry pick various things to giver their preconceive notion scientific credence.

Understand, I'm not the kind of believer that is going to beat someone over the head with it. I simply think it's no less an act of faith to come to the conclusion that everything is because it is. Existence simply isn't an explanation for existence.

Existence (outside of strict idealism) is based on empirical knowledge. The "why?" is an abstract notion within our minds. To conjure a supernatural force from pure existence just does not follow unless you have refined premises; from which you are basing your argument of "faith" upon. I do not have such (faulty IMO) refined premises.

 

[n_huffhines]

why has the politics forum turned into the religious debate forum

Don't condescend me, man. I'll ****in' kill ya, man.