RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 6:14:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Ad hoc rationalizations aren't a valid way of dealing with those pesky passages, they are a diversion from facing up to the reality that some of the stuff in their is obviously untrue.

Please explain how interpreting various passages non-literally, which implicity acknowledges that they can't be interpreted literally, avoids facing fact that they can't be interpreted literally.

Take your time.

Your response had nothing to do with my position. Please take your advice about noticing what people are saying and read more carefully.



Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 8:01:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Your response had nothing to do with my position. Please take your advice about noticing what people are saying and read more carefully.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were responding to my post and characterizing it as "ad hoc rationalizations". Well, I mean, you were responding to my post, of course. But if that's not what you were referring to, what (or who) are you talking about?

K.



kittinSol -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 9:14:59 PM)

It's not that God didn't create anything. It's that science shows that there is no need for a God to have created anything.

It looks as though a creator is unnecessary for life to have exited. Doesn't mean there IS no God, but then again... no Bible basher can get that far.

It's truly scary how the idea of God can make some people mentally stunted.



GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 10:11:12 PM)

Here's my point again:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
However, when they work to find newly invented positions in the old text, it isn't a matter of a more enlightened approach but of wishful thinking.


Here's a good example of the ad hoc rationalizations I'm referring to: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2749264/mpage_1/tm.htm
 
Here theists claim that Matthew 5:17-20 means the exact opposite of what it says. I particularly enjoyed this by Arpig:
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
That has got to be the biggest pile of  sophistry I have ever come across. What a twisted pile of crap. If your Gospels don't make sense, (and they don't) then please don't insult my intelligence with apologist crap like this.



luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 4:56:29 AM)

He still thinks finding a contradiction in Christianity has anything at all to do with the existance or not of God.

And he pretends to be operating from logic.




luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 5:04:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nope, third party claims there is a god with certain properties.
third party is first of all, third party (we have a strawman and red herring already).
third party is second of all unable to substantiate or give certainly repeatable (use that as one word, certainly repeatable) aspects of this existence and/or properties.
ergo, id est:
this god, with these properties, does not exist (exist being something we can exploit in this plane)
for, if there is a material object that 'exists' that moves in excess of the speed of light (for example), it is not something that we can interact with, and therefore does not exist, period.



ex·ist  
/ɪgˈzɪst/  
–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.






Origin:
1595–1605; < L ex ( s ) istere  to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex- ex-1 + sistere  to stand
Having no sensual aspect of 'being' to affix ourselves to and relate to, it does not exist. It is like the cancer cure that nobody has, di minimous, useless, fughazi, bullshit, and so on, waste of time.

god damn!  all those aligns to remove. 



Wow that sure is a lot of writing to admit I am 100% correct. Some of the Dim Dems might not notice that you changed terms.

But most folks can. This thread is about the existance of God. Not the existance of a Literal Christian God, existing as the Bible says.

Also I guess a Dim Dem won't notice you posted a definition, then make up your own to use.

Apperantly Dim Dem logic is very differant than actual logic.





Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 10:20:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
They're all around you on Earth and in space..We just haven't been able to "verify" it quite yet.

Until you do your claims are unjustified.





I don't need to verify it. My belief is observational and on faith. I can't at the moment prove the link between God and the planets in a physical sense but I don't need to.

You can't prove there isn't one so all of this going back and forth is nothing more than posturing. If you need proof to believe or not believe from man then your going to wait a while. Maybe if you got on your knees and asked for it in a sincere way you just might get it.

Of course, you'd have to humble yourself in order to do that.



NorthernGent -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 1:56:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

It's not that God didn't create anything. It's that science shows that there is no need for a God to have created anything.

It looks as though a creator is unnecessary for life to have exited. Doesn't mean there IS no God, but then again... no Bible basher can get that far.

It's truly scary how the idea of God can make some people mentally stunted.



'Science' has proposed certain theories.....but at no point has it proven that there is no need for a God to have created anything....were that the case...then it would mean....in effect....that the god debate is over.

God doesn't make people mentally stunted.....rationality encompasses a few forms....

There is reason.....the idea that given certain truths then what else is likely to be true...and how likely.....it seems God would be improbable here....

And then there is rational choice.....given certain desires..what should we believe to achieve those desires.....and in this sense the belief in a god certainly is a rational choice....assuming you consider peace of mind to be advantageous....



CruelNUnsual -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 3:16:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

were that the case...then it would mean....in effect....that the god debate is over.



incorrect. Build a truth table.



NorthernGent -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 3:17:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

were that the case...then it would mean....in effect....that the god debate is over.



incorrect. Build a truth table.



You need to explain for the simple minded here.....



CruelNUnsual -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 3:21:22 PM)

***



mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 4:15:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nope, third party claims there is a god with certain properties.
third party is first of all, third party (we have a strawman and red herring already).
third party is second of all unable to substantiate or give certainly repeatable (use that as one word, certainly repeatable) aspects of this existence and/or properties.
ergo, id est:
this god, with these properties, does not exist (exist being something we can exploit in this plane)
for, if there is a material object that 'exists' that moves in excess of the speed of light (for example), it is not something that we can interact with, and therefore does not exist, period.



ex·ist  
/ɪgˈzɪst/  
–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.








Origin:
1595–1605; < L ex ( s ) istere  to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex- ex-1 + sistere  to stand
Having no sensual aspect of 'being' to affix ourselves to and relate to, it does not exist. It is like the cancer cure that nobody has, di minimous, useless, fughazi, bullshit, and so on, waste of time.

god damn!  all those aligns to remove. 



Wow that sure is a lot of writing to admit I am 100% correct. Some of the Dim Dems might not notice that you changed terms.

But most folks can. This thread is about the existance of God. Not the existance of a Literal Christian God, existing as the Bible says.

Also I guess a Dim Dem won't notice you posted a definition, then make up your own to use.

Apperantly Dim Dem logic is very differant than actual logic.





No, I said you haven't the brains to pour piss out of a boot.

No more, no less.  I find it amazing that when someone points out that you haven't got the basic brain to do reptilian shit, you say, see? everyone agrees.

Maybe, you should quit wasting the worlds oxygen. Do yourself a favor, nobody else cares.     



mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 4:27:23 PM)

But most folks can. This thread is about the existance of God. Not the existance of a Literal Christian God, existing as the Bible says.


Look, ucky.  exist has a pretty specific meaning. it's one of those words that has necessary and sufficient conditions to EXIST in a sentence. I don't give a good goddamn fuck if your god is  unlutheran, unliteral, unchristian, unbible, I am uncaring, the fucking thing don't goddamn exist.........     bring the son of a bitch to me..........


game over.   Have the fuckhead do something, it is gonna be about as brilliant as the shit you peddle.

So, tell me turd peddler, what does this OTHER god do for a living?

DUDE, I FIND YOU FUNNY and shit court jester or whatever, but really, you havent said nothing, and never will say nothing of interest to even the most retarded.......take a nap or something, you are really out of your league. 



Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 11:45:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

As Kirata (I think) said, even if we cannot observe god, we still should be able to observe his effects if there are any. (If the effects themselves are unobservable then it is irrelevant whether there is a god or not.) Millions of people have been looking for those effects for thousands of years, with no verifiable observation of those effects.

Without re-reading the thread, I think that was samboct. But I don't disagree. If the universe arose from some intelligent conscious source, we would certainly expect it to reflect some evidence of those qualities. And as you note, people have been looking for thousands of years for evidence of intelligence and consciousness in the universe, to no verifiable result.

[:D]

K.



Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/26/2010 11:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(exist being something we can exploit in this plane)

Using that specific meaning for "exist," I am prepared to stipulate that Deity does not "exist," has never "existed," and will never "exist." But I still think that the issue of whether or not there may be something real in what we subsume, albeit inadquately, under our various concepts of Deity remains an open question. What people call "God" may turn out to be currently unrealized potentials of our own human consciousness, I don't know. But I do not share the confidence I see in some quarters that we are in possession of the final answer on this one.

K.



Rule -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/27/2010 1:08:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
As Kirata (I think) said, even if we cannot observe god, we still should be able to observe his effects if there are any. (If the effects themselves are unobservable then it is irrelevant whether there is a god or not.) Millions of people have been looking for those effects for thousands of years, with no verifiable observation of those effects.

I have experienced many of such effects, often not pleasant at all.

I have a problem with the acceleration of my bicycle. When switching between positions 5 and 6, the chain does not switch from teeth 5 to teeth 6, but drops in between. I have to stop and manually lift the chain onto the teeth 6 position, dirtying my fingers with chain lubrication. I was on the lookout for some kind of metal hook, so that I might lift the chain into position without touching it with my fingers. Yesterday I made such a small hook from a piece of metal from a bicycle light that did not function properly. I would rather have something larger, though. I lost the hook too yesterday.
This morning, walking back from the grocery, I found a broken of and distorted metal hook from a clothes hanger on the ground. It has precisely the desired size and shape: an ideal chain lifter. Coincidence? Or did I notice it because I was aware of my needs? I think that it was more than coincidence, though it helped being aware and taking advantage of the opportunity.



ResidentSadist -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/27/2010 1:41:39 AM)

I was an atheist when I started reading this thread but by page 6 I found myself praying to God it would end!



Rule -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/27/2010 2:32:22 AM)

lol. Will your wish be granted?

I skipped most of them pages.



GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/27/2010 6:03:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The "definition" of Deity isn't up to Icarys, either.

Icarys asked me a question, what he meant by that question is certainly up to him and most certainly is not up to you.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
 And my impression is that your only purpose for soliciting such a "definition" is to subject it to reason and find it wanting. Now you may care to argue the value of reason, which I certainly wouldn't dispute, but the issue is whether or not it is the right tool in this context, or whether taking that approach would constitute a category mistake.

That would depend entirely on his definition which I'm still waiting for....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
God is private...

Incidentally, why do you get to define god and Icarys doesn't?



Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/27/2010 7:22:16 AM)

I have the same "definition" as Kirata and saw what you were doing as well...That's why I chose not to answer, originally.



Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875