hopefulLandlord:


Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Let's wait for his reply

johnydon22:
Well from biblical stories. The judeo-Christian God is quite the drama queen (It intervenes a lot)

I think DeSepiero is unto something with his point then.

Yeah but he now intervenes in mysterious ways, those ways he's been interfering have gotten more and more mysterious over the years that at present there's no difference between his interference and Random chance

johnydon22:


1. Why are you assuming anyone said anything came out of nothing?

2. How does this still imply or prove God?

3. Would you go a step further and assume God came out of nothing?



Logically contingent depending on the model and system in consideration.

In sunmary: Yes.

Causes and effects as observed in nature does.



Some assumptions are just subject to post hoc

Causes and effects in nature is a proof that a system can exist without a designer in place? If that's the case, can this be extrapolated further to conclude life has no origin?


I asked a question earlier...if Science proves that energy cannot be created or destroyed...then does God have to be created as well?

hopefulLandlord:


Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Tell us if Science has the explanation to everything in the natural realm...

It's interesting to note that even Nobel prize winners like Albert Einstein...or distinguished scientists like Isaac Newton did not arrive at the conclusion on the absence of God despite their contributions to this very same Science you uphold...


What makes their conclusion on their beliefs in God illogical and yet that of atheists valid?

sonofthunder:

like butter flyleo pointed out, I also never got a mention to this thread despite my moniker being rightly spelt. I believe that Se.un and his mods are down to something fishy (as always). I've been observing this for a while. it most likely not a glitch but very intentional.
Awesome writeup big bro.

How do you mean "fishy"?

OkaiCorne:


Tell us if Science has the explanation to everything in the natural realm...

It's interesting to note that even Nobel prize winners like Albert Einstein...or distinguished scientists like Isaac Newton did not arrive at the conclusion on the absence of God despite their contributions to this very same Science you uphold...


What makes their conclusion on their beliefs in God illogical and yet that of atheists valid?

did you just appeal to authority? because I could also list "distinguished scientists" who concluded on absence of "god" too....

OkaiCorne:


Causes and effects in nature is a proof that a system can exist without a designer in place? If that's the case, can this be extrapolated further to conclude life has no origin?


I asked a question earlier...if Science proves that energy cannot be created or destroyed...then does God have to be created as well?

The laws of causality itself testify to action always being caused by an entity.

Nothing just BECOMES or ACTS on it'd own volition. There is always a first cause.

And because scientifically infinite regress has been nullified when it comes to the origins of life and the universe the moment they stipulated that the universe has A BEGINNING, this means that A FIRST CAUSE began the universe and that totally agrees with the law of causality.

Something cannot come from nothing IN THIS OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE.

Whatever caused our known universe to exist acted upon it from OUTSIDE our known universe and since our known universe has a beginning and what acted on it was from outside it, then that means that the FIRST CAUSE ITSELF HAD NO BEGINNING known to us in our known universe.

There is no scientist living or dead who can deny this or contest this.

OkaiCorne:


Causes and effects in nature is a proof that a system can exist without a designer in place? If that's the case, can this be extrapolated further to conclude life has no origin?

Origin is a matter of cause and effect and this is observed in nature.

Bring out your argument.

I asked a question earlier...

Which was not directed at me even though i'll answer.

You keep skipping all my questions above.

Please kindly go back and answer

if Science proves that energy cannot be created or destroyed...then does God have to be created as well?

1.You'd have to first assume there is God in the first place.

johnydon22:
1.You'd have to first assume there is God in the first place.

Aka "Presupposition"

OkaiCorne:


[b]Tell us if Science has the explanation to everything in the natural realm...

How many times would you be pointed back to argumentum ad ignorantum and how it doesn't work?

It's interesting to note that even Nobel prize winners like Albert Einstein...or distinguished scientists like Isaac Newton did not arrive at the conclusion on the absence of God despite their contributions to this very same Science you uphold...


What makes their conclusion on their beliefs in God illogical and yet that of atheists valid?

1. Why do you assume anyone is arguing their belief in God is invalid? Theirs is just as valid as yours. Stop arguing against arguments you make yourself.

2. Appeal to authority? The belief of a scientist is a personal matter, has no place in the lab.

3. Einstein is a spinozoist

4. I'm yet to see your argument though? Do you have any or should we just go round and round? Cus i won't.

If your next reply doesn't bring up an argument for consideration, i will not reply again.

hopefulLandlord:


did you just appeal to authority? because I could also list "distinguished scientists" who concluded on absence of "god" too....

Exactly my point. Both theists and atheists we're distinguished scientists in their field...

Despite their various contributions to Science, yet they differ in their conclusion on the existence of God.

What makes the atheists conclusion valid and that of the theists illogical if Science is your basis to prove the absence of God?

OkaiCorne:


Exactly my point. Both theists and atheists we're distinguished scientists in their field...

Despite their various contributions to Science, yet they differ in their conclusion on the existence of God.

What makes the atheists conclusion valid and that of the theists illogical if Science is your basis to prove the absence of God?

The bolded is sorely your assumption. I have not said that, neither has Hopefullandlord.

Where did you get that from?

Do you alwaya assume up the position of your opponent in an argument and then argue against this your assumption that have not even appeared in your opponents argument?

.

OkaiCorne:


Exactly my point. Both theists and atheists we're distinguished scientists in their field...

Despite their various contributions to Science, yet they differ in their conclusion on the existence of God.

What makes the atheists conclusion valid and that of the theists illogical if Science is your basis to prove the absence of God?

Very good observation here.

Science or scientists themselves have their individual PERSONAL reasons why they do what they do.

For some its so they can prove or show how awesome nature or the universe is under the hand or shadow of God while for others its so they can use their DISCOVERIES to undermine the existence of God.

Based on these two separate personal positions, science is then effectively nullified as an avenue to either prove or disprove God.

It can however, be used to point at greater mysteries yet unknown to man and expose man to her frailties which in a sense shows a need for dependency by man on something or someone higher, greater, stronger and more knowledgeable than us. (Its like the entire scientific world and the whole universe was put here simply to show us how limited we are )

Lol. Butterfly shaa.

johnydon22:
How many times would you be pointed back to argumentum ad ignorantum and how it doesn't work?



1. Why do you assume anyone is arguing their belief in God is invalid? Theirs is just as valid as yours. Stop arguing against arguments you make yourself.

2. Appeal to authority? The belief of a scientist is a personal matter, has no place in the lab.

3. Einstein is a spinozoist

4. I'm yet to here your argument

And does a Spinozoist believe in the absence of God?

I also learnt Einstein had leanings towards Pantheism...

Bottom line, Einstein is not an atheist.

johnydon22:
Lol. Butterfly shaa.

johnydon22:


The bolded is sorely your assumption. I have not said that, neither has Hopefullandlord.

Where did you get that from?

Do you alwaya assume up the position of your opponent in an argument and then argue against this your assumption that have not even appeared in your opponents argument?

Oh...so are you now advocating that theists belief in the existence of God is logical?

Butterflyleo:


The laws of causality itself testify to action always being caused by an entity.

Nothing just BECOMES or ACTS on it'd own volition. There is always a first cause.

And because scientifically infinite regress has been nullified when it comes to the origins of life and the universe the moment they stipulated that the universe has A BEGINNING, this means that A FIRST CAUSE began the universe and that totally agrees with the law of causality.

Something cannot come from nothing IN THIS OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE.

Whatever caused our known universe to exist acted upon it from OUTSIDE our known universe and since our known universe has a beginning and what acted on it was from outside it, then that means that the FIRST CAUSE ITSELF HAD NO BEGINNING known to us in our known universe.

There is no scientist living or dead who can deny this or contest this.

is the first cause not an exception to the law of cause and effect?

OkaiCorne:


Oh...so are you now advocating that theists belief in the existence of God is logical?

still arguing from your own assumption?

1.My position have always been, the existence of God is logically contingent. Is not necessarily true neither can it be disproved. Arguments can be made for and against it within the logical purview.

2. Disbelief in a concept is not same as saying it is logically improbable. You seem to be confusing the two.


What is your argument again?

OkaiCorne:


And does a Spinozoist believe in the absence of God?

I also learnt Einstein had leanings towards Pantheism...

Bottom line, Einstein is not an atheist.

Spinozist is pantheism in essence. I do hope you know what Pantheism means.

And I'm sure i made several other points apart from Einstein's personal belief, why do you ignore them and focus on this one that actually is not relevant to the subject at hand?

johnydon22:
still arguing from your own assumption?

1.My position have always been, the existence of God is logically contingent. Is not necessarily true neither can it be disproved. Arguments can be made for and against it within the logical purview.

2. Disbelief in a concept is not same as saying it is logically improbable. You seem to be confusing the two.


What is your argument again?

Going by your first point on the existence or otherwise of God... Are you agnostic or an atheist?

OkaiCorne:


Going by your first point on the existence or otherwise of God... Are you agnostic or an atheist?

What is the importance of label on this discussion? I do not believe in God or Gods but i am otherwise open to the possibility of one or many.

I think every possibility should be explored

Gggg102:


is the first cause not an exception to the law of cause and effect?

Exactly! If you read my comment again you would clearly see I said THIS FIRST CAUSE ACTED ON OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE FROM OUTSIDE IT.

Since we know nothing about anywhere outside of our known universe, this then means that the law of causality is only applicable to our known universe based on scientific observations carried out from WITHIN our known universe which made us arrive on the conclusion of cause and effect.

Anything that acted on our known universe FROM OUTSIDE IT most likely does not subscribe to the laws governing our known universe because it also originated those laws at the point of causality in order to keep our known universe moving the way it is and thus nullifies infinite regress.

johnydon22:


What is the importance of label on this discussion? I do not believe in God but i am otherwise open to the possibility of one.

And by God...are we referring to the Judeo-Christian God here?

I am asking because you mentioned you were open to the possibility of acknowledging one...

OkaiCorne:



And by God...are we referring to the Judeo-Christian God here?

Nope. I think Judeo-Christian God is a limited conception but God can still be anything including a deistic conceptualization

I am asking because you mentioned you were open to the possibility of acknowledging one...

Labels confine you to a fine line you must walk. Take instance: Throughout the discussion here, you kept assuming a position your opponent must take.

That is the effect of labels, people presuppose a position you must take even if it's wrong and argue against their presupposition instead of arguing against your points

Butterflyleo:


Exactly! If you read my comment again you would clearly see I said THIS FIRST CAUSE ACTED ON OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE FROM OUTSIDE IT.

Since we know nothing about anywhere outside of our known universe, this then means that the law of causality is only applicable to our known universe based on scientific observations carried out from WITHIN our known universe which made us arrive on the conclusion of cause and effect.

Anything that acted on our known universe FROM OUTSIDE IT most likely does not subscribe to the laws governing our known universe because it also originated those laws at the point of causality in order to keep our known universe moving the way it is and thus nullifies infinite regress.

this is what I was pointing out in your other thread.

if outside the universe does not subscribe to the law of cause and effect, then it does not have to subscribe to something must come from something law. something could therefore come from nothing outside the universe. any assumptions outside the universe can be made and each would be equally valid.

if there can be an exception to one logical law, there could be exception to any logical law.

johnydon22:
Nope. I think Judeo-Christian God is a limited conception but God can still be anything including a deistic conceptualization

Labels confine you to a fine line you must walk. Take instance: Throughout the discussion here, you kept assuming a position your opponent must take.

That is the effect of labels, people presuppose a position you must take even if it's wrong and argue against their presupposition instead of arguing against your points

I clearly understand your position on labels...

However, without labels a lot of things may be vague and ambiguous. Labels can confine, but you cannot take out the advantage of clarity it offers...

Gggg102:



this is what I was pointing out in your other thread.

if outside the universe does not subscribe to the law of cause and effect, then it does not have to subscribe to something must come from something law. something could therefore come from nothing outside the universe. any assumptions outside the universe can be made and each would be equally valid.

if there can be an exception to one logical law, there could be exception to any logical law.

In case you didn't notice, we are saying the same thing.

You and I can only speak about our known universe and even it did not come from nothing. It was CAUSED into effect. Even science agrees to this.

Anything beyond that is simply information not available to the scientific world and can never be due to our limitation to our known universe.

You want to be fixated on "outside the universe" when the only information you have available to you scientifically is limited to INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.

I am not about to discuss pseudoscience with you because its totally unscientific based on my position.

And this is what I was also trying to tell you on that thread.

You can speculate but I do not wish to speculate. I would only present scientific information available which shows that our known universe did not come from NOTHING. It came from a singularity (according to them)

This singularity is yet unknown and indeed cannot be known but it is on record that there is nothing known beyond this singularity so your speculation is totally off the mark.

Logical laws apply to ONLY OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE because WE DISCOVERED THEM AND CALLED THEM LAWS based on repeated observation carried out FROM WITHIN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE AND NOT OUTSIDE IT.

There cannot be an exception to any logical law WITHIN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE.

Outside our known universe then YES!

case closed

johnydon22:
Well from biblical stories. The judeo-Christian God is quite the drama queen (It intervenes a lot)

I think DeSepiero is unto something with his point then.

In the Old testament yes. The Level of intervention reduces in the New testament. Are the levels of intervention decided or will we agree that it's varied different periods of human history?

Butterflyleo:


Exactly! If you read my comment again you would clearly see I said THIS FIRST CAUSE ACTED ON OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE FROM OUTSIDE IT.

Since we know nothing about anywhere outside of our known universe, this then means that the law of causality is only applicable to our known universe based on scientific observations carried out from WITHIN our known universe which made us arrive on the conclusion of cause and effect.

Anything that acted on our known universe FROM OUTSIDE IT most likely does not subscribe to the laws governing our known universe because it also originated those laws at the point of causality in order to keep our known universe moving the way it is and thus nullifies infinite regress.

Since cause and effect works only inside the universe, how did this "OUTSIDE CAUSE" cause this universe from outside.