As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?Who created this deity you invented? Remember, you can't cheat by waving your hand and dismissing the question by claiming the deity always existed. My friend and your enemy, Occam, would side with me and allow an infinite universe over an infinite deity that then created the universe because it was bored and lonely. The illogical factors that the inclusion of a deity injects into the story are obvious and avoidable... so get rid of it and marvel at the awesomely cool and, most importantly, scientifically valid set if ideas remaining.
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?Who created this deity you invented? Remember, you can't cheat by waving your hand and dismissing the question by claiming the deity always existed. My friend and your enemy, Occam, would side with me and allow an infinite universe over an infinite deity that then created the universe because it was bored and lonely. The illogical factors that the inclusion of a deity injects into the story are obvious and avoidable... so get rid of it and marvel at the awesomely cool and, most importantly, scientifically valid set if ideas remaining. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?Who created this deity you invented? Remember, you can't cheat by waving your hand and dismissing the question by claiming the deity always existed. My friend and your enemy, Occam, would side with me and allow an infinite universe over an infinite deity that then created the universe because it was bored and lonely. The illogical factors that the inclusion of a deity injects into the story are obvious and avoidable... so get rid of it and marvel at the awesomely cool and, most importantly, scientifically valid set if ideas remaining. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalismWell, I read the first line and see your problem. "STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN)." Ummm... this supposed "Law of Existence" contains the statement "The Law of Existence is true", meaning that it is supposedly true on the grounds that it is a law and within the law it states that the law is true. Have you heard of circular reasoning? If you want the hands-down, knock-it-out-of-the-park, best example I have ever seen, read the first line on the following web site... http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism I honestly think you are falling for a Poe website. It's so incredibly bad, I can't believe it's legit. Almost every sentence is a nightmare of wrongness. **Can you PM me and let me know if YOU are a Poe? The things you say you believe and the sources you use are seriously messing with my mind.**
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?Who created this deity you invented? Remember, you can't cheat by waving your hand and dismissing the question by claiming the deity always existed. My friend and your enemy, Occam, would side with me and allow an infinite universe over an infinite deity that then created the universe because it was bored and lonely. The illogical factors that the inclusion of a deity injects into the story are obvious and avoidable... so get rid of it and marvel at the awesomely cool and, most importantly, scientifically valid set if ideas remaining. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalismWell, I read the first line and see your problem. "STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN)." Ummm... this supposed "Law of Existence" contains the statement "The Law of Existence is true", meaning that it is supposedly true on the grounds that it is a law and within the law it states that the law is true. Have you heard of circular reasoning? If you want the hands-down, knock-it-out-of-the-park, best example I have ever seen, read the first line on the following web site... http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism I honestly think you are falling for a Poe website. It's so incredibly bad, I can't believe it's legit. Almost every sentence is a nightmare of wrongness. **Can you PM me and let me know if YOU are a Poe? The things you say you believe and the sources you use are seriously messing with my mind.** ok. keep reading.....
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?Who created this deity you invented? Remember, you can't cheat by waving your hand and dismissing the question by claiming the deity always existed. My friend and your enemy, Occam, would side with me and allow an infinite universe over an infinite deity that then created the universe because it was bored and lonely. The illogical factors that the inclusion of a deity injects into the story are obvious and avoidable... so get rid of it and marvel at the awesomely cool and, most importantly, scientifically valid set if ideas remaining. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalismWell, I read the first line and see your problem. "STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN)." Ummm... this supposed "Law of Existence" contains the statement "The Law of Existence is true", meaning that it is supposedly true on the grounds that it is a law and within the law it states that the law is true. Have you heard of circular reasoning? If you want the hands-down, knock-it-out-of-the-park, best example I have ever seen, read the first line on the following web site... http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism I honestly think you are falling for a Poe website. It's so incredibly bad, I can't believe it's legit. Almost every sentence is a nightmare of wrongness. **Can you PM me and let me know if YOU are a Poe? The things you say you believe and the sources you use are seriously messing with my mind.** ok. keep reading..... Does nothing I said make an impression on you? Do you seriously not know that "circular reasoning" is a name given to completely NONreasonable arguments, and that it makes the argument utterly useless? The reason the steps on the web page you keep forcing on us are the "5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism", is because they don't concern themselves with being logical or correct. Anyone can make-up 'easy' steps for something if they don't care if they work! Obviously you're here to preach and you couldn't care less what we say, but I'm not one to give up, even if it's only because someone else might come here and learn something. So I'll tell you of a website that explains many of the logical fallacies you and your pet website are committing, knowing you'll ignore it, but with the hope that someone else might find it useful. Go to http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html for a basic list of common fallacies made. It's not an eye-catching website, but it is short and easy to read. If you want a longer or flashier site, feel free to search for "Baloney Detection Kit" on the internet for thousands of sites that give the same info.
Obviously you're here to preach and you couldn't care less what we say, but I'm not one to give up, even if it's only because someone else might come here and learn something. So I'll tell you of a website that explains many of the logical fallacies you and your pet website are committing, knowing you'll ignore it, but with the hope that someone else might find it useful. Go to http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html for a basic list of common fallacies made. It's not an eye-catching website, but it is short and easy to read. If you want a longer or flashier site, feel free to search for "Baloney Detection Kit" on the internet for thousands of sites that give the same info.Just ignoring the points made does not help your case.
Hmmm, something came from absolutely nothing. Yeah, I guess so. Supposedly, quantum particles emerge from and recede into nothingness all of the time. “Nothing” is theoretically unstable, hence, “something” is inevitable, apparently even a universe.
So perhaps “nothing” is the eternal but unstable “designer” of the universe.
Blows your mind, doesn’t it?
Hmmm, something came from absolutely nothing. Yeah, I guess so. Supposedly, quantum particles emerge from and recede into nothingness all of the time. "Nothing" is theoretically unstable, hence, "something" is inevitable, apparently even a universe. So perhaps "nothing" is the eternal but unstable "designer" of the universe. Blows your mind, doesn't it?no, i recognize it as utter nonsense. Nothing is the absence of anything. But of course, if you redifine what nothing means, it can mean anything. and virtual particles do not arise from absolutely nohting.
Hmmm, something came from absolutely nothing. Yeah, I guess so. Supposedly, quantum particles emerge from and recede into nothingness all of the time. "Nothing" is theoretically unstable, hence, "something" is inevitable, apparently even a universe. So perhaps "nothing" is the eternal but unstable "designer" of the universe. Blows your mind, doesn't it?no, i recognize it as utter nonsense. Nothing is the absence of anything. But of course, if you redifine what nothing means, it can mean anything. and virtual particles do not arise from absolutely nohting. So how could a Creator arise from absolutely nothing? Edit: Science is at its best when redefining things.
Hmmm, something came from absolutely nothing. Yeah, I guess so. Supposedly, quantum particles emerge from and recede into nothingness all of the time. "Nothing" is theoretically unstable, hence, "something" is inevitable, apparently even a universe. So perhaps "nothing" is the eternal but unstable "designer" of the universe. Blows your mind, doesn't it?Mike will never open his mind enough to consider that possibility.
So how could a Creator arise from absolutely nothing? Edit: Science is at its best when redefining things.http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god
Hmmm, something came from absolutely nothing. Yeah, I guess so. Supposedly, quantum particles emerge from and recede into nothingness all of the time. "Nothing" is theoretically unstable, hence, "something" is inevitable, apparently even a universe. So perhaps "nothing" is the eternal but unstable "designer" of the universe. Blows your mind, doesn't it?Mike will never open his mind enough to consider that possibility. Probably not. I admit to speculation (based on what some really smart theoretical physicists have speculated). Mike does not admit to speculation. Yet he seems happy to speculate that there is an eternal God. And to speculate that "nothing" is actually what he conceives it to be. He must desperately need an ultimate answer.
It gives Ygrette’s declaration (in GOT) a whole new meaning: “You know ‘nothing’, Jon Snow.”
So how could a Creator arise from absolutely nothing? Edit: Science is at its best when redefining things.http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god Bullshit. That's saying "We don't know and we don't want to think about it." If the Creator can be eternal then so can the universe. Here is a challenge for you: define the Creator without resorting to logical fallacies.
Here is a challenge for you: define the Creator without resorting to logical fallacies.Every question posed to him has the same answer... "Just read http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god." I expect the same here, since I honestly don't think he knows what he thinks. He believes certain things to be true, but has no idea WHY they're true... they just are and he has a website that 'proves' it because the website says that it proves it. It's not his fault he's like this - I bet early indoctrination and/or a failed education system are the major reason he doesn't see the mistakes he's making. The damage is done and we can only do our best to help, but the fact that he is here preaching, although annoying, might get him thinking.
3point14rat, What’s a Poe?
Obviously you're here to preach and you couldn't care less what we say, but I'm not one to give up, even if it's only because someone else might come here and learn something. So I'll tell you of a website that explains many of the logical fallacies you and your pet website are committing, knowing you'll ignore it, but with the hope that someone else might find it useful. Go to http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html for a basic list of common fallacies made. It's not an eye-catching website, but it is short and easy to read. If you want a longer or flashier site, feel free to search for "Baloney Detection Kit" on the internet for thousands of sites that give the same info..
So how could a Creator arise from absolutely nothing? Edit: Science is at its best when redefining things.http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god Bullshit. That's saying "We don't know and we don't want to think about it." If the Creator can be eternal then so can the universe. Here is a challenge for you: define the Creator without resorting to logical fallacies. if the universe were eternal, we would be in a state of heath death upon the second law. The universe most probably had a beginning http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probabaly-had-a-beginning The argument that the universe is not eternal (from a discussion between William Lane Craig and cosmologist Sean Carroll on the beginning of the universe and the Kalam Cosmological Argument) 1. Carroll pointed out that the Borde Guth Vilenkin (or BVG) theorem that the universe had a beginning only works within relativity but does not take quantum effects into account. Given a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity, he argued that Craig can not claim that the universe began to exist. 2. This is partly true. One thing known for certain about quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter or any amount (1/2 complete) of its surface area or any related measurement (radius, diameter). The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface. 3. Another thing that it tells us is that the entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact, not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy or disorder, destruction i.o.w change, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time. 4. However, if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy, at the beginning of the creation. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound. 5. The universe is not eternal but created. 6. By the way this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre-existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence. 7. One other point of Carroll’s was his view that regardless of the physics discovered, the sort of supernatural explanation Craig gave could no longer be considered valid. Carroll, being a physicist, naturally believes that whatever the final answer is it will come in physical terms. After all it is not every day that scientists speak of God or supernatural agents. Instead they expect explanations to come in material terms with equations. 8. But Carroll may be ruling something out too quickly. A holographic universe entails a world made of information. And information requires a mind to know it. Information never just floats, information is of a mind, who knows it. 9. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is a matrix of all matter." – Max Planck 10. God exists.
Good job of ignoring my question about the Creator, and no one is impressed with your religious nonsense website.
Good job of ignoring my question about the Creator, and no one is impressed with your religious nonsense website.i have no scientific answer to your question, but a philosophical / theological one: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1481-who-is-god-attributes-of-god neither have u presented so far a solid case for naturalism