This message was self-deleted by its author

[yallerdawg]

This message was self-deleted by its author (yallerdawg) on Mon Jan 29, 2018, 06:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Voltaire2]

1. Omfg you just proved Zeus exists!

What an original argument. Silly skeptic.

[yallerdawg]

4. We disproved Zeus's existence.

We climbed Olympus and found nothing there.

We expanded our knowledge and our concept of what we have innately contemplated as an intelligent species since we crawled out of the ooze.

[Voltaire2]

14. Literalist.

[Mariana]

30. Speaking of literalists, Charlie H. Campbell is one.

Last edited Sun Jan 28, 2018, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Interpret the Scriptures literally unless you have good reason to believe that they are figurative.

---

Now, why do we believe that interpreting the Word of God literally is actually the way God desires that we interpret it?

There are a couple of reasons. The best reason though is because Jesus consistently interpreted the Word of God literally. Whether it was the Old Testament account of…

– the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6)
– Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27)
– Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41)
– Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15)
– or the account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).

Jesus (and the New Testament authors) consistently interpreted these stories literally as actual historical events. So, if Jesus and the New Testament authors interpreted the Bible literally, then we must also. There were no esoteric, mystical, allegorical, or spiritualized interpretations!!!


Edited to remove the link to Campbell's website, Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, because it supports SPLC-listed hate groups.

[MineralMan]

44. Not surprising at all.

Thanks for finding that.

[Mariana]

67. There's some really hateful stuff on Campbell's site.

There are even links to organizations that are listed as hate groups by the SPLC! Why on earth would someone link to that site, and call that man an authority here, on a website for Democrats?

[MineralMan]

69. I confess that I did not explore that site beyond the little

exercise in illogic that was posted here. I'm not surprised, though. I'm pretty sure that the OP didn't explore it, either. I suspect the article was found through a Google search and immediately copied and pasted. That's how most stuff finds its way to DU, really.

So, Campbell turns out to be a fundamentalist, Bible literalist, probably a creationist and someone who can write in English, but who doesn't reason logically. No surprise there, really.

I assume the OP knew none of that before posting that flawed article. Heck, I NEED to assume that, really. Otherwise, all sorts of things come to mind.

[yallerdawg]

76. There's a real persistent effort to conflate Christian belief...

with rightwing ideology as a way to further demonize faith.

My biggest issue with this is how intolerant and divisive this attitude is, considering how many like-minded people in every other way are ridiculed and vilified for having their beliefs.

The fundamental concept of our shared ideals is the right of the individual to make their own choices regarding a great many things, including freedom of religion.

It doesn't say we only tolerate these beliefs when they are practiced in the privacy of our homes or hidden away so no one knows they exist.

It is very personally offensive to have one's core values and beliefs maliciously attacked and impugned repeatedly.

That is of no matter?

[MineralMan]

79. I suggest you read some of Charlie Campbell's other

writings. I've been doing that this morning. His writings on LGBTQ issues. Or his writings about Noah's Flood, if you want to stick to religious topics.

Read a bunch of his essays. He is a proponent of rightwing ideology, and justifies his ideas biblically.

When you post writings of someone on a site like DU, they really don't stand alone. They link back to other things the person writes, and those things can be examined.

Charlie Campbell is a right-wing fundamentalist. His beliefs about the intersection of religion and politics are completely opposed to what this website represents. You copied and pasted one thing from this author. Despite its illogical structure, it is also a reflection of how that man, whom you call an "authority" on something. I maintain that he is not an "authority," but rather an "authoritarian."

Ideas are challenged frequently here. That will not change. You might find those challenges to be "personally offensive," I suppose, but think about the "personal offense" someone like Charlie Campbell presents in so many other areas.

Do, please, go read what he writes on other subjects.

[yallerdawg]

81. You're now stipulating...

that if one believes in the validity of a particular argument, they now have to believe in everything else that source may have to say on every other subject that person may have commented on. That's a pretty freakin' high bar, isn't it?

Here you are defining each individual's subjective faith.

I don't see anything in Campbell's arguments that can't be disputed for any number of reasons. Isn't that YOUR point?

[Voltaire2]

84. No. If you link to a right wing nutjobs

website and claim he is an authority, his other expert opinions are fair game for evaluating the status of his alleged authority.

Perhaps you should admit that posting this crap was a real bad idea.

[yallerdawg]

87. There is that 'conflation' again.

You want religious belief to be associated with 'rightwing ideology' as a way to demean and vilify faith.

Faith is subjective to each individual. You don't define it for anyone, as much as you would like to.

[Voltaire2]

90. No you linked to a religious nutjobs hate screedsite

and are now attacking everyone pointing that out as religious bigots. This is all on you. Take some responsibility for your actions. I suggest apologizing.

[yallerdawg]

96. No, you are identifying religious believers as "rightwing nutjobs."

You are defining what people have to believe if they believe this one thing to be true.

I find it offensive.

But you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Voltaire2]

103. that is simply a lie.

Again: the site you linked to is filled with rightwing religious bigotry, The person who runs this site, who you claimed is an authority, is a rightwing religious bigot. This religious believer is an obvious rightwing religious bigot. Not all religious believers. This one. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[yallerdawg]

114. Keep on!

Believers are 'rightwing religious bigots.'

Like Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, any Kennedy, Dr. King, etc., etc., etc.

Nice.

[Mariana]

122. Lying for the Lord.

As long as it's for a good cause, I guess. The ends justify the means, and all that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

100. Personally offensive to have one's core value and beliefs maliciously attacked and impugned

repeatedly.

So true. I get so tired of believers of whatever stripe starting with the premise that nonbelievers are wicked, immoral, not fit to teach their children or run for higher office.

When I see more persons of faith disowning those things, then I'll stop lumping all believers together with the worst of them.

[Mariana]

121. If Charlie H. Campbell and the ABR Ministry

truly represent your core values and beliefs, you really have no standing to cry about intolerance and divisiveness.

[ExciteBike66]

57. This is another way of saying nothing in our religion is constant.

Not a very good position for someone who insists a god has always existed...

[yallerdawg]

62. Is there a difference between a religion and a mythology?

I don't want to upset - what do you call them? - "the Greek God worshippers." That's not even a thing, is it.

As we have experienced our growth in the knowledge of how the universe works and what is real and what is not - like exploring the summit of Mt. Olympus reveals - we gain an understanding of what is real and what is not.

When we stop asking what is real and what is not, it's just as likely at the very least we will find "something" there, not "nothing."

[Voltaire2]

82. So you dont know that ancient Greeks

worshipped their gods and that they practiced a religion?

Or do gods cease to exist once humans stop practicing a religion?

[yallerdawg]

85. I studied Greek mythology in school.

What ancient peoples used to believe was true until they had proof it wasn't.

I have yet to see proof there is no God. Just opinions.

Which explains why they don't teach classes in "Christian mythology" or any of the others.

[Voltaire2]

86. So Zeus existed until people stopped believing

that Zeus existed. Is that a correct restatement if your claim?

[yallerdawg]

89. Wrong.

Proof and evidence. There are no Greek gods.

And no one "believes" there are.

[MineralMan]

94. Not so fast, there.

Hellenic Religious Worship continues today:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/12/greeks-are-suddenly-worshiping-ancient-greek-gods-all-over-again/

Greece has seen a resurgence of the once ancient religion of the Greek gods of mythology, with neo-pagan practitioners gathering at Mt. Olympus to worship.

Adherents of the ancient Greek religion, called Hellenism, gather at Mt. Olympus in July to worship the 12 gods of mythology said to have Olympus as their dwelling, Zeus chief among them, according to an AP report. The pilgrimage to Olympus began in 1996 as part of the re-hellenization movement spearheaded by the Supreme Council of Ethnic Hellenes, a founding member of the European Congress of Ethnic Religions. The movement aims to unseat the influence of the Orthodox Christian church and return Greece to ancient Greek philosophies, ideals, and pagan religion.

“At the core of the movement is the restoration of a lost cultural identity,” said Angelo Nasios in Patheos Pagan. “Reminding the Greek people what their authentic self is. For centuries, the Greek people have been subjugated to Orthodox Christianity, which has been against Hellenism from the beginning.”

Another link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22972610

[Voltaire2]

105. You said "What ancient peoples used to believe was true until they had proof it wasn't"

So Zeus existed, until people stopped believing in Zeus, and then Zeus didn't exist. Or your statement there is wrong.

[yallerdawg]

106. Proof.

You keep ignoring that word.

[Voltaire2]

107. there is no proof zeus doesnt exist, just as there is no proof your gods dont exist.

what is the proof that zeus doesnt exist .

i will eagerly await this proof.

[yallerdawg]

116. Can I show you a picture of the top of Mt. Olympus?

Can I show you lightning with no god holding onto it? Can I show you an ocean with no Poseidon in it?

Certainly you can play dense. Greek mythology was very specific on where gods were and what they did.

Proof. Evidence. No matter how you enjoy playing with words.

[Voltaire2]

123. That is not proof Zeus doesnt exist.

But you know that. Your game here is obvious and quite frankly not very good. This thread starts with you posting nonsense from a right wing religious hate site and spirals downhill from there.

[MineralMan]

91. Here's just such a class:

https://catalog.metu.edu.tr/course.php?course_code=4500327

It includes all religious mythologies, including Judeo-Christian mythology.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

102. I see no proof there is a God.

That burden is on you.

[ExciteBike66]

110. The greek god worshippers would probably respond that the gods are obviously

hiding from you, that is why you cannot see them on Olympus. It's not like that would be beyond their power.

And no, I do not see any difference between religious myths and other myths.

[Angry Dragon]

2. the last premise has no facts or proof

[yallerdawg]

5. Go to the link.

The premises continue.

[MineralMan]

6. The entire thing is designed for use with non-thinking people.

The author supposes that anyone who is encountered will be as clueless as the artificial "skeptic" the author invented, who is easily swayed with sophistry.

The website linked to is an apologetics website, full of equally specious arguments. If you knew nothing, did not understand logic, and were limited in your education, such apologetics might be successful in befuddling the hearer enough to get an agreement.

It's all nonsense, though, and consists of faulty logic pretending to be factual. It's insulting, really.

[Lordquinton]

19. Reading the link the logic chain breaks at point three

where they add in "Something or Someone" thereby changing the premise of the whole thing.

I really don't feel like reading the rest because it all rests on special pleading because the obvious rebuttal is "Where did your god come from? We both agree that something can't come from nothing, therefor your god can't come from nothing." That's why the switch from "Something has always existed" to "Something or Someone has always existed"

and then it's just intellectual dishonesty after that.

[yallerdawg]

20. There's more to the argument.

The idea that we were created by some thing that has no purpose or thought belies what we know of the universe, how things come about over time, and what we as a species seem to recognize intuitively.

Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Cthulhu himself are more someones than somethings. They have anthropomorphic purpose.

[MineralMan]

21. It all stops for me with the God premise.

What God? What evidence for such an entity? Faith, you say? Bye, then...

[MineralMan]

3. More sophistry, compounded by assumptions about the

so-called "skeptic" in the conversation. This is not a real conversation, but an imagined one, with the same person providing both questions and answers, with a very strong bias toward the Christian, who "convinces" the mythological "skeptic" using sophistry.

The website you link to is full of that sort of thing. It's specious, though. The "Skeptic" in that conversation is a figment of the writer's imagination and all too easily accepts the nonsense presented by the "Christian."

That sort of stuff won't play here in this Group. We are not figments of someone's imagination.

[yallerdawg]

7. It's called dialectics.

Been used for millennium.

You know that, MM.

[MineralMan]

8. It's bullshit, yallerdawg.

It's a made up conversation, designed to look successful. It's rank nonsense, all of it.

The author of that website has made a career of this, and speaks here and there. His audiences are all receptive to this sort of sophistry.

And here you are, trying to sell it in this group. It won't work, and I won't play.

[yallerdawg]

9. Logic and reason only apply to the one outcome.

I see.

[MineralMan]

10. No. Logic and reason just are.

Neither is used in what you posted. Sophistry is the pretense of using logic on people who don't recognize logical errors. Are you one such person? If not, then you're contributing to that false logic being used by the author of that fake dialectic.

I'm sorry. I thought you were a serious person.

[yallerdawg]

11. Obviously, this argument has harmed you in some way.

I'll look for your next OP to explain it to me.

And since that is YOUR OP, you are absolutely entitled to YOUR own opinion. Which I will respect.

[MineralMan]

12. How on Earth could something like that harm me?

As for respect, that is earned, through presentation of information that is useful.

I'm done with replying in this thread. I'll be happy to look at other threads you post, and will reply in them. I respect your right to have and express an opinion, even if it is wrong. However, that does not mean that I will not point out that it is wrong. Besides, you did not express your opinion in this opening post. You copied and pasted someone else's opinion. Do I respect the opinion of Charlie Campbell? I do not. He is an example of an apologist of the sort I dislike intensely, because his logic is always flawed, from the initial premise to the end.

It is not your opinion I am arguing against. It is Charlie Campbell's.

[Mariana]

17. This may be news to you

but MineralMan is absolutely entitled to his own opinion in this thread, too. Whether you respect it or not is irrelevant.

[yallerdawg]

18. He dismissed me.

And rather pointedly and with colorful language.

I respect MM plenty!

I can also have my own thoughts and opinions - and some might be in disagreement.

I don't have some compulsive urge to step all over OP's denigrating faith, religion and believers.

?

[MineralMan]

23. I did not. I dismissed the apologetics guy you pasted

into your original post. You didn't say anything about your own opinion, so I did not comment on your opinion.

If you copy and paste some nonsense from some website, without comment, any replies are talking about the material you pasted, not about you.

[yallerdawg]

29. "It's bullshit, yallerdawg."

"It's rank nonsense."

"And here you are, trying to sell it in this group. It won't work, and I won't play."

I'm glad to know I wasn't the target of these comments.

[MineralMan]

31. "It" is the excerpt you posted.

I assume that you posted it here because it seemed correct to you. I can't think of any other reason for the post.

My comments were in regard to the Internet content you posted here. It is, and will remain, nonsense based on faulty logic. It's patently ridiculous. I'm sorry that you were taken in by it, but I can't do anything about that. The fact that such apologetics are used in the attempt to market a religion is sad, at best. That some people believe such faulty logic is also very sad, and speaks to our educational system doing a poor job.

I'm sorry you were offended by my frank comments. Beyond that, I cannot go in apologizing. But, my comments were aimed at Charlie Campbell, not you. You were just the person who posted it here.

[yallerdawg]

35. There it is again.

Logic and reason are only valid when it serves to confirm your bias.

Any kind of validation of faith is "nonsense" and "faulty." By the way, "defense of faith" is not marketing or however else you want to spin it. You expose your "prejudice" - for lack of a better word - repeatedly.

I get it, I really do.

[MineralMan]

38. Oh, dear. Logic and reason are simply ways to examine

things. They have no bias at all. Your source pretends to use logic in his arguments, but doesn't. That's called "sophistry." It appears logical to someone who doesn't understand logic, but is actually illogical and constitutes a false argument.

Sophistry is remarkably successful. Sadly, most people do not understand logic. That makes it easy for people to use sophistry to sell almost anything. And make no mistake. Charlie Campbell is selling something.

I suppose he does OK with it, too. But I'm not in the market for what he's selling.

[Mariana]

25. You didn't post your own thoughts and opinions in the OP.

You posted Charlie H. Campbell's piece. MineralMan criticized Charlie H. Campbell's piece. What is the problem?

[yallerdawg]

32. We share credible sources and commentaries by people who have much more authority on subjects...

than some anonymous blogger on the internet.

We can then have tolerant respectful discussion - or not.

"A closed mind is a bar to any argument."

The dialectic discourse is with a skeptic - not an Atheist. As we can imagine, that conversation would be completely different.

[MineralMan]

34. Authority, eh?

Appeal to authority is yet another logical error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Charlie Campbell. Is he an authority on something? In his own mind, perhaps. But, he is an illogical sort of authority, I'm afraid.

[yallerdawg]

40. No logic, no reason, no authority.

No nothing.

I believe we call this nihilism, don't we?

Everybody believes in something!

[MineralMan]

41. ?

[yallerdawg]

45. You are arguing that one cannot use logic, reason, authority...

to support any kind of conclusion regarding the validity of faith.

It's all nonsense. And you are saying logic, reason and authority do net serve to make any other valid conclusion. "They just are."

This sounds like nihilism - "extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

That's not what you believe?

[MineralMan]

47. I'm done with this thread.

It is going nowhere.

No. I'm not a nihilist.

[yallerdawg]

51. "Going nowhere."

You devil, you.

[PJMcK]

74. You made good points, MineralMan

Have you ever heard Lawrence Krauss's lecture, "A Universe From Nothing?" You might find it fascinating.

[MineralMan]

75. I'll put that on my watch list. Thanks.

[Mariana]

43. And we can disagree on whether Charlie H. Campbell is a credible authority.

He's certainly promoting some very intolerant and disrespectful viewpoints on that site.

Have you ever tried to have this conversation in real life with a real skeptic?

[yallerdawg]

50. I don't get to use logic.

I don't get to use reason.

I don't get to use authorities on the subject.

Any other restrictions I should know about before presenting any argument in support of the vast majority of humanity dismissed as nonsensical and faulty?

[Mariana]

52. You're lying again. No one said that. You made it up. nt.

[yallerdawg]

54. Calling me a liar again.

You sure know how to end a conversation.

[longship]

13. Arguing against a straw man version of a skeptic.

Pitiful, actually.

[yallerdawg]

15. Applying philosophical argument, logic and reason in support of faith...

is "pitiful?"

I get it - it can only be used to disprove and attack faith!

[longship]

16. Faith is believing in something that ain't so.

So one has that going for you.

And only delusional people would characterize the argument in the OP to be logical. It is clearly a straw man of logic. But that's the only way for apologetics. It's their sole technique.

[edhopper]

22. No I don't agree something can't come from nothing

and neither do Scientists.

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3



It's ony religious apologist that try to argue in such simplistic terms

This is a bit sad. It's like something from a clueless Fundy website.

[MineralMan]

24. Lacking definitions of "nothing" and "something,"

it's difficult to even address what that Christian apologist said in his conversation with a non-existent second party.

The reality is that Charlie Campbell made up the other person. There was nobody there to answer his questions, except some figment of his imagination. He created something out of nothing to act as his straw man.

He didn't ask me those questions. I would have provided completely different answers that would have required Mr. Campbell to go into a bit more detail before I could possibly answer what he was asking. But, he did not ask a real person. He invented a person to act as his straight man in his comedy bit.

Sadly, the world is full of people who don't know what questions to ask people like Charlie Campbell. So, they accept his sophistry as logical. It's very unfortunate, really, that it is so. I don't know of any way to educate everyone in critical thinking. So, we will continue to hear from people who believe that tautologies are logical.

[edhopper]

132. So true

if i had the time or inclination i would rewrite the dialog and make the christian look like a fool.

It would be quite easy.

[samnsara]

26. its like that nagging Null Hypothesis

..damn grad school anyway

[itsrobert]

27. If you believe nothing comes from nothing you believe

God does not exist because he cannot come from nothing.

[Thunderbeast]

28. I do not have the means to understand how it all began

.......therefore.......

Must be a bearded white guy on a chair with Jeebus at his side sitting in the clouds telling me not to masturbate.

[Skittles]

97. OH NO YOU DIDN'T

[Voltaire2]

104. shh that unsupported leap is "cleverly" hidden in the babble.

[marylandblue]

33. Something comes from nothing all the time

Subatomic particles pop in and out of existence throughout all of space. They are called virtual particles, but they do really exist, if only for a brief time. So the premise that something can't come from nothing, while intuitively appealing, is false.

[MineralMan]

36. Charlie Campbell is counting on his audience to know nothing

about all that. He's also counting on a complete lack of critical thinking from his audience. Sadly, he has a large audience that has those characteristics. More's the pity.

[yallerdawg]

37. Is this theory or hypothesis?

Or just something you choose to believe?

[marylandblue]

39. Theory

Explains many observed phenomena in particle physics. Also forms the basis of Stephen Hawkins contribution to the study of radiation from black holes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[yallerdawg]

42. I don't know what you reference as "nothing."

However, all particles were created at some point and will eventually be destroyed in some processes.

Created.

[marylandblue]

46. According to the theory, created from nothing

"Created" does not imply a Creator. We just don't have a word in English for such a phenomenon, perhaps because of the theological or anthropomorphic preconceptions of language. But the phenomenon is real and no Creator is required to make it happen.

[yallerdawg]

53. And yet all these "theories" ultimately require a "creator."

The argument for an ultimate creator lies in this!

Some thing has to be there prior to "creation."

You can't wrap your head around it and there are no words to describe it?

That is a pretty spot-on definition of God as most people understand it!

[marylandblue]

56. Can't wrap my head around quantum physics either

As one physicist said, "If it doesn't bother you, you don't understand it." Yet the science shows it is so, therefore I believe it. Similarly, it's hard to believe in creation without a Creator, yet the science so far points that way, even if we can't say exactly how (yet). Scientific theories do not require a creator.

Every point where a creator was assumed was eventually explained by science. Newton believed that God started the planets in motion. Science later showed that was not necessary. 18th century science assumed life was designed. 19th century Darwin showed that was not so.

There is no one word for "creation without a creator," but we can express the thought in those 4 words.

[yallerdawg]

58. But there is no evidence or proof...

that there is no "creator" behind it all.

Atheism is merely an opinion. A choice.

[marylandblue]

61. There is no evidence there is a creator

Again, you are creating a special category of "things people believe in without evidence." The category contains one item - a Creator. Why does anyone believe in a Creator without any evidence for it, yet don't believe in Zeus, Marduk, leprecauns, unicorns or phlogiston?

[yallerdawg]

63. You're dismissing the argument without looking at it.

I understand. It's unnerving, especially if you believe something else entirely.

[marylandblue]

65. I've looked at it literally for decades

And that's the conclusion I came to. Nobody believes that anything real exists without evidence. In many cases, that evidence is non-scientific or pseudoscientific, nonetheless it is a type of evidence. Often the evidence is "I read it in the Bible," or "Most people believe in God," or "I can't imagine creation without a Creator," or "the universe appears to be designed," etc. But evidence it is. None of that evidence is convincing to me.

For me, God is a scientific hypothesis (because it is a thing said to exist), such that, we should be able to predict what a universe with God looks like vs. a universe without one and test it. So far, nobody has come up with an appropriate testable definition of God or developed a test. Hence, I am an agnostic.

Also, I'll note that the definition of God has changed to make it an untestable hypothesis. In the past, people believed disease could be cured by prayer. A testable hypothesis. We have since found medicine that actually cures previously incurable diseases and prayer makes no difference except by placebo effect. So, no longer is the power of prayer a proven fact as it once was, but an act of faith.

[yallerdawg]

70. People of faith experience a reality...

the faithless refuse to acknowledge.

Agnosticism - "I don't know" - is the true rational default position.

That tiny little mustard seed of faith out of a Roman backwater changed the entire world.

Just on its own, that is pretty remarkable!

[marylandblue]

77. I acknowledge they experience a reality

but it is an entirely subjective one. It has no bearing on objective reality. Feelings are real, but they are not proof that the felt thing exists. When I go into a beautiful house of worship, I feel spiritual, but it doesn't mean the god worshipped there is a real god.

Also, coming from a backwater is no bar to historical significance. Mohammed came from an even deeper backwater. Ghenghis Khan, an orphan who grew up in a Mongolian forest took over most of Asia. Martin Luther was an ordinary German monk who wasn't even trying to change the world.

[Voltaire2]

127. Tests to measure the effectiveness of prayer

found at best “no effect” and if people knew they were being prayed for, a slightly negative effect.

[marylandblue]

129. Why would prayer have a negative effect?

Maybe because when someone says, "I'll pray for you," it means, "You are really not doing well."

[Voltaire2]

130. The Templeton Foundation lost interest

after the initial results. One theory was that the knowledge increased stress and anxiety, the subjects didn’t want to let their helpers down.

But no follow up, so no real data on why.

[randr]

48. Utter nonsense

[CrispyQ]

49. I'm amused that people can

believe that some thing has always existed, but they can't imagine some thing deriving from nothing. In my daily experience of the universe, both seem equally fantastical.

[mr_lebowski]

55. Do the physicists say that all MATTER in the universe is 15B old ...

Or do they say 'the version of the universe as we see it now is the result of an event that took place 15B years ago'?

AFAIK they're not specifically asserting that the 'matter' that it is made up of ... has not always existed.

And I know 'always' is a difficult concept to grab because we are so keenly aware of the concept of 'time' on our planet, seems like nothing could've existed FOREVER ... but when I process all the possibilities implicit in the set of questions in the OP, I'm inevitably led to that conclusion. In one form or another all the matter of the universe ... has simply ALWAYS EXISTED. There was no real beginning ...

Similarly, I believe that the universe does not have an outer boundary. There might be boundary beyond which no actual 'matter' populates the space, but the space itself does not, and cannot ... 'end'.

There may be some kind of cycle where the matter expands out into space for billions of years, but then gets drawn back to the center, somehow 'reconstituted', and then eventually another 'big bang' happens, and that's why we see evidence that the universe is a certain 'age'. This is a particular 'generation' of the universe that we're living in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. That's a pretty lame "proof" - but here's the thing I don't get:

Why does anybody argue about whether there is or isn't a god? Believers can't prove there is one, and for all their arguments about the lack of evidence, non-believers can't definitively prove there isn't one. The whole basis of religion is faith, which is the belief in something that isn't necessarily provable. The dictionary definition of faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Non-believers will get nowhere arguing there's no proof of god's existence because by the very definition of faith, proof is not necessary - take it or leave it. So you can argue that it's dumb or superstitious to believe in something whose existence can't be proved, but that just takes you in a circle back to the definition of faith. Conversely, believers as in the OP won't get anywhere trying to "prove" through some hole-filled argument that god exists (in this case arguing that god exists because something outside the universe had to create the universe - the basic premise is faulty).

The point is, believers will believe because faith doesn't require proof. Non-believers won't believe because they require proof and none exists. Neither will persuade the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Massive non sequitur at the end

and there are options left out of the middle.

In the middle, premise 3 is not inevitable from premises 1 and 2. It assumes that the 'something' must have been produced by something. The alternative is that something has existed which had no cause - it was not produced, it was not created. It does not have to have existed for ever.

But the real failure of logic and argument is that last quote sentence - it you are talking about "something has always existed", then you can't say it's "outside of the universe" - what is "outside the universe?" But if you are going to posit existence outside the universe, then how can you say it lives inside this universe? If your cause is inside this universe so that it can 'live', but also outside, and 'before' this universe (so that it can cause it), then clearly you've drawn the boundaries of the universe incorrectly - for the purpose of srestricting what you think the universe is so that you can claim something 'caused' it.

Actually, this 'explanation' was pretty common. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps that's why the hypothetical skeptic hasn't heard it before - people are giving up using it.

[yallerdawg]

64. In our universe, everything comes from something.

We know the universe has not always existed. It had a start. It came from something.

The question remains - where did this something come from? This is what had to always be. Something never comes from nothing. There has to be "some thing" else which is outside of a universe which has not always existed.

Most people choose to call this God.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. You're making a lot of assumptions there

You claim the universe claim from something. That is an assumption. It does not follow from "everything in our universe came from something".

What does "always" mean "outside this universe"? It implies time, and time is a property of this universe.

Once you've assumed that time exists outside this universe, and that this universe has to have a cause, why should that cause be something that "had to always be"? Why should it not have a beginning too? Maybe a cause?

And, as I said, if "God" is outside the universe, then it doesn't exist in this universe. Most people think God is in this universe. They claim 'He' speaks to people here, and many claim he had a human life here too. How can the universe affect things outside it?

[yallerdawg]

68. How can God be in something that doesn't exist?

What does it say in the first sentence of Genesis?

This isn't all that difficult. Even the Ancients could conceive of it!

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. Well, yes, that's the point - this isn't about logic, it's about thinking an anonymous writer

over 2,000 years ago wrote a sentence you find so beautiful that you don't care if it makes any sense.

[yallerdawg]

72. It's not me.

It's billions of people.

It's an early acknowledgement that this all came from something and has a purpose. Found worldwide, in every culture and every people.

Most people don't even question their faith. It is their unquestionable reality with proof and evidence displayed daily.

Bellowing "You're all wrong!" from the outside with some kind of authoritarian knowledge that doesn't actually exist is really the stranger position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. "Most people don't even question their faith"

There's the problem. And when you say "It's an early acknowledgement that this all came from something and has a purpose", we see that includes you. The "authoritarian knowledge that doesn't actually exist" is shown by saying things like "It's an early acknowledgement that this all came from something and has a purpose".

It seems very strange to start a thread titled "How do you Know?", and then to give up and say "most people don't even question their faith - the existence of their living god is the unquestionable reality with proof and evidence displayed daily". And to say that because billions of people think that, disagreeing it "authoritarian".

It is, frankly, laughable.

[yallerdawg]

92. Do you know people of faith?

Do you question them, ridicule them and consider them laughable - or is it just this internet thing?

If you were to mediate between Sunni and Shiite, or Jew and Muslim, how would that conversation begin? "First, let's establish you are both fundamentally irrational and laughable."

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Yes, and if they try to argue by saying "most people don't question their faith"

and call it " unquestionable reality with proof and evidence displayed daily", I do laugh. A short "ha!" would be typical. If they called me "authoritarian" my reply would be "you've got to be kidding me".

[PJMcK]

73. This is not a logical presentation

It's full of ignorance.

In fact, the Universe was made from nothing, but "nothing" isn't what you think it is. Nothingness is a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop into and out of existence so quickly that they cannot be seen. However, their mass can be measured and they explain, on a sub-atomic level, how matter is formed.

I suggest you watch this excellent speech by Dr. Lawrence Krauss. It's titled "A Universe From Nothing" and it's based on fascinating book he wrote:

If you want to have faith, fine. You just cannot make a logical argument for the existence of things you cannot see, touch or actually experience.

[yallerdawg]

78. You lost me with "nothingness is..."

Words are tricky.

[PJMcK]

125. Gosh, that's meaningless

What do you mean?

The point of the lecture I linked to is that our concept of "nothing" is wrong. What Physics shows us is that there is no such thing as nothing.

Accordingly, the content of the hypothetical discussion between "Skeptic" and "Christian" is ill-informed, ignorant and meaningless.

Once again, I respect anyone's right to their personal faith. But there isn't any empirical evidence for the existence of any god.

[Skittles]

80. it is amazing what people will make themselves believe

[yallerdawg]

83. Do you believe in nothing?

That would require quite an effort.

[Skittles]

95. I believe in reality

[DetlefK]

93. Premise 2 is wrong: Something can come from nothing.

Quantum-fluctuations, uncertainty-principle, virtual particles, whatever you prefer to call it.

The vaccum is filled with virtual particles, e.g. virtual photons:
- Perturbation by virtual photons is the reason why a quantummechanical system is capable of leaving a stable state of high energy and entering a stable state of low energy.
- Virtual photons are the reason why the scattering-cross-section of electrons changes at small distances.
- Virtual particles have to be taken into account for calculating the reactions between real particles.
- Most of our mass (weight) is not the mass of elementary particles we consist of, but the E=mc² mass of the potential energy between the quarks and the gluons and virtual quarks we can find therein.




Don't discuss cosmology if you don't know shit about cosmology.

[DetlefK]

98. That's the biggest pile of pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit I have ever seen.

1. Premise 1 does not define what "existence" even is.

2. Premise 2 is full of loopholes and incorrect in this formulation. (see my prior post.)

3. Premise 3 does not define what "time" is.

4. Premise 4 is the only one that is factually correct, because it's based on empirical fact, not theoretical speculation.

5. Even if we accept the proof that "something" has always existed, that is still not proof that this "something" is God.




Conclusion:
It's a God-of-the-gaps argument. "We don't know, therefore God."

[yallerdawg]

101. Are you suggesting that philosophical argument has no merit?

That every argument can be rationally critiqued and dismissed?

That reason and logic can be disputed?

How, then, can reason and logic be used to disprove the existence of God? Every argument is disputable!

[Voltaire2]

108. who here has claimed they can prove your stupid gods dont exist?

[yallerdawg]

109. After a great deal of persuasion, convincing, logic and reason...

maybe y'all have come to your senses and stopped peddling that proposition?

[Voltaire2]

111. please provide a link that supports your claim

that people here have stated that they can prove the nonexistence of gods. other than you of course, you claimed you can prove zeus doesnt exist.

[yallerdawg]

112. You now agree Atheism is the belief there are no deities...

in the absence of proof?

That is exactly the point I have been making all along!

[MineralMan]

120. This is silliness, yallerdawg.

I think you've overstepped your ability to understand.

[Voltaire2]

124. Yes you win the internets.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, lack of belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence is not equivalent to belief in something for which there is no evidence. We all understand this with the case of “Santa Claus” but some of us get confused when the subject “Yahweh”.

Most of the time the “confusion” is deliberate and the person making the claim of equivalency is being deliberately dishonest.

[opiate69]

126. ...

[Mariana]

128. It's become hard to distinguish whether what's going on here

is dishonesty or pathology. Seriously, this thread has turned Twilight-Zone level weird. Rod Serling is going to jump out of the woodwork any second now.

[MineralMan]

113. I have never seen anyone here claim they can disprove the existence

of deities. Proving a negative like that isn't possible, of course. If you have seen such a claim, please link to it.

There is no need to prove non-existence, in the first place. The burden is on those who claim that something exists to prove that. If something exists, proof should be available of that.

But, yes, every supposedly logical argument can be disputed. If errors are found in the logic, then the argument is falsified.

Anyone's argument that is based on logical processes can be analyzed for error.

In the instant case, a number of errors exist in the argument posted at the beginning of the thread. It is a false argument.

[yallerdawg]

115. So you don't know?

Wouldn't that make you agnostic at worst?

I do believe I am winning over some Atheists to a more rational skepticism, and from that tiny seed great things may sprout!

[MineralMan]

117. Those are your words.

I do not believe that any supernatural entities, such as deities, exist. I am an atheist. I don't know that they don't, because such knowledge is impossible. I do not believe that they do. I cannot believe that they do. There is no evidence that they do, and there are rational explanations for things that are attributed to them.

I am not an agnostic. I was at one time, but am no longer. I am extremely confident that my disbelief is well-founded. Beyond that, I have no need for supernatural explanations of anything at all.

Do not vaunt your understanding, because it is incorrect.

[DetlefK]

134. If you want to win over someone to rational skepticism, you have to use rational logic first.

I'll give you an example: Kurt Goedel's proof for the existence of God.

Kurt Goedel was a brilliant mathematician and a contemporary and friend of Albert Einstein. He's hailed as one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

Kurt Goedel formulated a mathematical proof that God (defined as the "best possible thing&quot must exist. In 2014 (or so) for the first time it was possible to prove that Kurt Goedel's proof was correct.

However, that does not mean that this proof is more than a curiosity. Because the premises that Goedel's proof rests on are utterly unrealistic and contradict what we can see every day in real life, e.g. that the world can be clear-cut divided into good and evil. And that good only begets good and evil only begets evil.

Goedel has proven the existence of a hypothetical god who exists in a hypothetical universe where these hypothetical premises happen to be true.
And to your argument and your unrealistic premises exactly the same applies.

[DetlefK]

133. It's not even an argument because the premises are undefined and meaningless hogwash.

"Can we agree that something exists?"
Well, how do you define existence? How do you tell the existent apart from the non-existent?
Does it exist if there's empirical fact?
Does it exist if there's empirical fact but I refuse to admit that there's empirical fact?
Does it exist if I believe that it exists?

"Can we agree that nothing does not produce something?"
Well, the fact that there are virtual particles complicates that premise. They are neither nothing nor something and yet connected to both.
And "produce" is also not defined.

"...then can we agree that something must have always existed?"
Here the character presumes that there is a version of time that transcends our universe and the Big Bang, our understanding of space-time. There is no proof whatsoever that "always" exists. You admit to using the conventional definition of time by refering to the finite age of the universe.
I have once heard an astronomist talking about endless time. Once. He made a wild theory to end his talk on the death of our universe on a positive note.

And even if we accept the whole argument up to this point, there is still no proof in it whatsoever that this eternal something is a person.
That's like saying: "We have just proven that cars are faster than bicycles. And that's why we have to lower taxes on the petroleum-industry." It's just not connected to anything that was said before.

[yallerdawg]

118. THIS LOGICAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD HAS BEEN A WINNER!

The admission of a number of those who repeatedly denounce faith and religion as merely a choice they make in the absence of proof and evidence (the very definition of faith!) to the contrary is so revealing!

AND THIS IS JUST ONE ARGUMENT!

MORE TO COME!!!

[MineralMan]

119. Save your energy.

You aren't winning, despite your belief that you are.

Your viewpoint is far too narrow, I'm afraid. I haven't seen anyone "denounce" anything here. I've seen lots of people who simply don't believe in religious explanations of things that have perfectly good rational explanations. The stuff that doesn't is being studied, though.

Your celebration is way premature, and isn't going to be better justified. Sorry.

[edhopper]

131. If something can't come from nothing

where did God come from?

If God id the exception of something that can come from nothing, then the premis that something can't come from nothing is wrong.

If something there fore can come from nothing, then the Universe could come from nothing.

You are onl;y moving one step back to agree something can come from nothing.

[Lordquinton]

136. Sagan said it best

"why not save a step and say the universe has always existed?"

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Nothingness is unstable. Absolute, true nothingness, not even quantum foam, is unstable.

The best mathematical models we have today show that absolute dead zero space isn't stable and must MUST give rise to the conditions that produce a universe.

Part of why there may be many, many, even uncountable universes in many dimensions.

Your Christian character is clever rhetorically, but lacks an even basic understanding of cosmology or physics.

[Heddi]

137. I like how you linked to a bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, anti-catholic, islamophobic website

just because they also dig at atheists and skeptics, too

I guess lie down with dogs, er, dawgs...

Here's some of the links on the left hand side, just in case one was interested in the other "thought experiments" promoted on this website that you seem so invested in:

https://www.alwaysbeready.com/evolution

"Ten Major Flaws of Evolution" by Randy Alcorn

"No Bones About It! There's No Evidence Humans Evolved" by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D

One of the "Helpful Websites" they point others to, to get information to learn about evolution:...
https://answersingenesis.org/ -- our old friend Ken Ham!

What do they say about Abortion, I wonder??

Gregg Cunningham of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says, "Abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. Until abortion is seen, it will never be understood." Pro-abortion columnist Naomi Wolf observes, "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy."

"We Know They Are Killing Children — All of Us Know" by John Piper

"Abortion and Human Rights" by Gregory Koukl

"How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less" by Scott Klusendorf

"The Hard Cases Objection: Does Rape Justify Abortion?" by Scott Klusendorf

41 Quotes from Medical Textbooks Regarding Human Life Beginning at Conception

"Miracle at Planned Parenthood" by Charles Colson

VIDEOS & PHOTOGRAPHS OF ABORTED BABIES:

The Undercover Planned Parenthood Videos Everyone is Talking About in 2015

More Video (very graphic)

Photos of Aborted Babies

Why I Am Pro-Life by Jay Watts (a presentation before high school students)
-----

GOsh, maybe they're a bit more evolved on the subject of gay rights and transgender issues...

Do you need help talking with homosexual (or transgender) friends and family about a relationship with God? Do you need help answering some of the questions and criticisms that people have raised concerning the Bible's teaching on homosexual activity? Below are some articles, audio teachings, and books that we trust will be a great help to you. These resources not only discuss what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, they also talk about the hope, freedom, and forgiveness that homosexuals can have by embracing Jesus.

ARTICLES:

"Homosexuality: Know the Truth and Speak It with Compassion" by Alan Shlemon

"The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality" by the Family Research Council

"God and the Gay Christian?: A Response to Matthew Vines" (An excellent free PDF e-book) with chapters written by Albert Mohler, Denny Burk, and others

"The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims" by Darrell Bock

"Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong"
by Ryan T. Anderson

"Homosexuality: A Christian Response to the Arguments of the Gay Rights Movement"
by Joe Dallas

"Homosexuality and Same Sex Relationships" by Timothy Keller

"Old Testament Law and the Charge of Inconsistency" by Timothy Keller (Do Christians ignore Old Testament texts about not eating raw meat or pork, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on, only to then inconsistently condemn homosexuality?)

"Freedom to Change Your Life: Why the Government Shouldn’t Ban “Reparative Therapy"" by Walt Heyer

"Invited to a Same-Sex "Wedding?" As a Follower of Jesus, What Do You Do?" by Doug McClean

"Confronting Cries of Bigotry" by Summit Ministries
Is same-sex marriage about civil rights? Are Christians bigots for opposing SSM?

"Children Fare Better in Traditional Mom-Dad Families"
by The Washington Times (June 10, 2012)

"Memo to the Washington Post: The Bible Does Reject Transgender Behavior" by Robert Gagnon

"A Sincere Question For Those Who Identify as Transgender" by Michael Brown

"Why Jonathan Merritt is Wrong on Conservative Christians and the Transgender Debate" by Michael Brown-
-------
Hmmm not much better....

----------

So tell me why this filth is allowed to be posted here again> And why you're so vehemently defending it?

Don't worry. I alerted the administrators. I hope others will, too. I am surprised it didn't get hidden on an alert, but most juries don't click links and we can't do jury comments anymore, so I understand. But seriously, you should be ashamed not only posting this rubbish here but defending it again, and again, and again, like it's a joke, or it's cute, or it's okay. It's not okay. And i'm ashamed for you, because you're clearly not ashamed enough to do the decent thing and self-delete your OP