I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments [wikipedia.org].
>>You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
There's logic and valid arguments on both sides, as well as a bunch of emotivism and bad arguments. I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides. He goes into pretty comprehensive detail breaking down the arguments for and against on both sides.
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had t
"Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)"
Kalam's argument is stupid on many levels.
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
If you try to apply an argument that God is infinite and
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday July 26, 2010 @05:00PM (#33036660)
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
I fail to see the problem. This is a very likely possibility. We deal quite regularly with infinite series in mathematics, where the correct outcome relies on the infinite nature of the series.
Here's a few more fundamental questions that you should consider.
Will there ever be an "end of time" or "end of existence"? What comes after that? Nothing? Anything? Was there ever a "beginning of time" or "beginning of existence"? What came before that? Nothing? Anything?
What with the law of conservation of energy and all, it certainly seems that everything we can observe is infinite. Not infinitely stuck in the present state, but infinite nonetheless. You can't create or destroy matter or energy; you can only change its state. They are infinite.
So why not an infinite chain of gods? An infinite chain of creators. We create things all the time. We're figuring out how to create more and more things as time goes on, in fact. If we create something capable of creating, isn't that exactly the same concept? How about children? So far as science has observed, by DIRECT observation, there has never been a human being created without a mother and father.
Isn't it logical to theorize, then, that it's very possible that we're part of an infinite chain?
You yourself argued that Kalam's argument requires an infinite chain "ad infinitum". This would mean that our creator could potentially be involved in creating other creators, since the chain before our creator is infinite, so why stop with ours.
Perhaps we're the next iteration.
An explanation which relies on infinity seems far more logical to me than one which relies on things being finite, both time and existence. Not only that, but an infinite explanation is more in harmony with the law of conservation of energy and matter.
"I fail to see the problem. This is a very likely possibility. We deal quite regularly with infinite series in mathematics, where the correct outcome relies on the infinite nature of the series."
It's more like infinite number of cardinals. Which poses a problem, because there's going to be the strict hierarchy of gods.
"Will there ever be an "end of time" or "end of existence"? What comes after that? Nothing? Anything? Was there ever a "beginning of time" or "beginning of existence"? What came before that? N
In any problem, if you find yourself doing an infinite amount of work,
the answer may be obtained by inspection.
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:1)
You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>You should realize that atheists bring actual arguments and use logic, not a bunch of stupid excuses that have no chance of being considered logical arguments.
There's logic and valid arguments on both sides, as well as a bunch of emotivism and bad arguments. I'd recommend reading Peter Kreeft's list of arguments on both sides. He goes into pretty comprehensive detail breaking down the arguments for and against on both sides.
Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)"
Kalam's argument is stupid on many levels.
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
If you try to apply an argument that God is infinite and
Re:Still doing that? (Score:0)
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
I fail to see the problem. This is a very likely possibility. We deal quite regularly with infinite series in mathematics, where the correct outcome relies on the infinite nature of the series.
Here's a few more fundamental questions that you should consider.
Will there ever be an "end of time" or "end of existence"? What comes after that? Nothing? Anything? Was there ever a "beginning of time" or "beginning of existence"? What came before that? Nothing? Anything?
What with the law of conservation of energy and all, it certainly seems that everything we can observe is infinite. Not infinitely stuck in the present state, but infinite nonetheless.
You can't create or destroy matter or energy; you can only change its state. They are infinite.
So why not an infinite chain of gods? An infinite chain of creators. We create things all the time. We're figuring out how to create more and more things as time goes on, in fact.
If we create something capable of creating, isn't that exactly the same concept? How about children? So far as science has observed, by DIRECT observation, there has never been a human being created without a mother and father.
Isn't it logical to theorize, then, that it's very possible that we're part of an infinite chain?
You yourself argued that Kalam's argument requires an infinite chain "ad infinitum". This would mean that our creator could potentially be involved in creating other creators, since the chain before our creator is infinite, so why stop with ours.
Perhaps we're the next iteration.
An explanation which relies on infinity seems far more logical to me than one which relies on things being finite, both time and existence. Not only that, but an infinite explanation is more in harmony with the law of conservation of energy and matter.
Re: (Score:2)
"I fail to see the problem. This is a very likely possibility. We deal quite regularly with infinite series in mathematics, where the correct outcome relies on the infinite nature of the series."
It's more like infinite number of cardinals. Which poses a problem, because there's going to be the strict hierarchy of gods.
"Will there ever be an "end of time" or "end of existence"? What comes after that? Nothing? Anything? Was there ever a "beginning of time" or "beginning of existence"? What came before that? N