Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.

The job of the Biden campaign is simple, and Trump is helping.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

The day the sun danced in the sky.

Posted by Dick 
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 06:57PM
Theology/philosophy is mental masturbation. I've been over it for decades. It's way more interesting to contemplate the nature of reality using the best science we have. I don't need to make sense of any weird possibilities. Probabilities drive my beliefs and level of knowledge. Keep your godthings for your own psycho/social need satisfaction. I know gods are not real. Everyone else knows it, too, lol. Just too in love with the idea of gods to let it go. Sad.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 09:17PM
Yes, you've said that several million times now and you've still given no one the first reason to believe that it's true -- especially if the universe, as it now appears, never had a beginning.

It's absolutely true; there is not a more simple explanation.

And no this theory doesn't replace the mainstream concept that the universe had a beginning. It's incomplete. Just like the theory that the universe exists inside a massive black hole is incomplete. We are only discussing a hypothetical 'if the universe is eternal' and no that doesn't imply God does not exist since God can be the fundamental reality of this universe.

What for some reason you can't seem to get (and maybe it's because you've argued for so long that the universe did have a beginning)

It's current scientific understanding and has not been replaced by another theory yet... You argued the same fact dipshit...

that there was never any proof that "all this" (i.e., the universe) had a beginning

Not my term. I use the 'cosmos' for that... My definition of the universe only includes all known reality, what our observations tell us. To me the cosmos is the whole of being, or anything that actually exists not only what is known.

What you also don't get is that it appears there is now reason to believe that the universe did not have a beginning. What has no beginning is in no need of a foundation. As your hero W.L. Craig says "[Only] That which begins to exist, has a cause."

No there is no reason to believe the known universe is eternal, the theory is incomplete. And you are wrong... God is eternal, the universe is a part of Gods being; therefore the universe is eternal. Or the universe is eternal, God is a foundation of the universe; therefore God is eternal. There is no need to assume everything in the universe is eternal, there is no temporal reality, or God isn't a part of this universe. Quit acting like you know all this...

The only argument that makes any sense is the Universe is eternal, God does not exist in this universe; therefore God isn't a foundation of this universe.

If it is your argument now that even things which do not begin to exist also need a cause (or foundation), then explain why an eternal God doesn't need a cause (or foundation)?

My argument has always been it's possible that something can come from nothing ie a void, I've always maintained that I can conceive of objects appearing in a void without cause... Nice try Dick trying to get me to defend WLC good fail... I spent hours arguing this point 2 years ago with another poster... CTD [www.selectsmart.com]

And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2015 09:21PM by tuk22.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 18, 2015 10:23PM
It's all about the faith, 'bout the faith. Tuk wants to be the only person who has no faith yet his level of faith is thru the roof! Here ya go, tuk. I am agreeing the statement "I know gods are impossible to exist in this world" is a statement of "faith". Will that do it for you? hehe
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 11:10AM
Tuk wrote: And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...

All else being equal . . .

faith is required to believe that something exists which obviously doesn't or to believe that something doesn't exist which obviously does.

My belief about god's absence from this world requires no more faith than does my belief about global warming's presence -- even less, in fact.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 11:40AM
Quote
Dick
Tuk wrote: And we are still waiting for you two to acknowledge your faith that we live in a world absent of God...

All else being equal . . .

faith is required to believe that something exists which obviously doesn't or to believe that something doesn't exist which obviously does.

My belief about god's absence from this world requires no more faith than does my belief about global warming's presence -- even less, in fact.

You do get that what one person finds 'obvious' and the other doesn't, when it comes to such topics, is essentially an expression of faith?

EDIT:

On a more positive note, you are at least now admitting that you do harbour a belief, and that it requires faith. That's progress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2015 02:08PM by TheThorn.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 04:39PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Probabilities drive my beliefs and level of knowledge.

As they do with virtually everybody. Agnostics, however, are willing to acknowledge that there are some questions the answers to which are underdetermined. For such questions, agnostics have the ability to withhold judgment. These are the questions for which probabilities are meaningless since there is insufficient information to calculate a meaningful probability. There are, it appears, people who seem genuinely unable to withhold their judgement in these instances, especially when there is something at stake for them emotionally. Hard core theists and hard core atheists, from my experience, are good examples of this.

It's during the process of forming such beliefs that the human capacity to rationalize really shines! winking smiley
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 04:50PM
thumbs up, Isle.

Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 05:47PM
As though "withholding judgment" is not a result of some emotional need but good try, Isle! And by the looks of all the sore navals around here there's an awful lot of constant friction between judging and withholding, lol. Perhaps you agnostics just don't have the skills or confidence in your skills to make good judgments? You seem to think we need to know a number to figure what's more likely than not to be true or false. We don't. We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 05:58PM
Quote
Sam
We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science.

Everyone agrees on this.

The disagreement is over whether we have enough, or indeed any info at all, on which to base that judgement.
Sam
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 06:28PM
What makes it so difficult for you to discern what is most likely true or most likely false?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 06:43PM
Quote
Sam
What makes it so difficult for you to discern what is most likely true or most likely false?

A complete and total lack of evidence?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 07:33PM
You're confusing belief and rational belief. Those are not the same thing.

A simple belief is merely a cognitive acceptance that a proposition is probably true or probably false. This belief has nothing to do with rational belief much less with knowledge. One needs extremely little information about propositions before such beliefs form (and form without our conscious awareness of their being formed). Simple beliefs such as these are formed based on hunch, emotion, intuition, peer pressure, personal bias, psychological baggage, prior knowledge of the subject, etc.

It's ridiculous to even suggest that virtually anyone in this country, one of the most religious countries on Earth, has not formed a subconscious belief about the existence or nonexistence of God because he does not have enough information on the subject. Please. Practically everyone in the US either believes or disbelieves that God exists at a simple cognitive belief level whether or not he chooses to publicly voice his belief.

Forming a rational belief on the matter, OTOH, is always a conscious, largely non-intuitive exercise.

You may not have a rational belief about the existence or nonexistence of God, but you have a belief. If you're too embarrassed or too confused to state what you believe, well, that's a different issue.

It's true that you may not have even a simple belief on subjects about which you are wholly ignorant (although ignorance, as we all know, isn't a necessary barrier to belief) and you may not have even a simple belief on subjects on which the available evidence truly is just about 50-50 (for example, is there an even or odd number of fish in the Pacific?); but the question of God's existence doesn't fall into either one of those categories. To try to artificially force it into one of them says more about your emotions and psychological state in voicing your belief about the existence of God than it says about the actual state of the evidence and argument on the subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2015 07:56PM by Dick.
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 08:03PM
Quote
Sam Wrote:
Perhaps you agnostics just don't have the skills or confidence in your skills to make good judgments? You seem to think we need to know a number to figure what's more likely than not to be true or false. We don't. We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science.

You answered your own question Sam, but probably didn't realize it when you said "We just need enough info that determines one claim is more likely than another. It's not rocket science, just science." And when the likelihood of a claim, hypotheses, theory, etc, is underdetermined, that is, when the information available at a specific time is insufficient to determine what one should believe, as I've been saying, we agnostics "withhold our judgment".

Here's an example, I'm going to give you some info and you tell me what you believe is the most likely outcome. We have an empty 55 gal drum. we have a basket that is filled with 30 lbs of lemons and limes. We put the entire 30 lb content of the basket into the barrel (all the lemons and limes). We blindfold you and tell you to pick one fruit out of the barrel. Which piece of fruit do you believe you will pick out of the barrel, a lemon or a lime?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 08:39PM
Who'd have guessed that simple BELIEF -- not knowledge, not rational belief, not judgment -- would be an impossible concept for crypto-theists to comprehend?
Re: The day the sun danced in the sky.
February 19, 2015 08:41PM
Everyone understands what a belief is. Not everyone agrees that it is mandatory to form one.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!