The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

On and on it goes, a circlre-jerk of intellectual masturbation ...

Now we're talking! Now here is a person that thinks rationally when it comes to the whole question of the universe's creation. Bravo for the comment that athesits indeed too have "faith" in their beliefs.

Cavemen don't have Internet connections

Ok, you probably are still wrong.

The conclusion is not logical. Where do you get the conclusion "god must necessarily be a temporal/physical being and a part of that universe"? It certainly is not apparent, and there is nothing that points to this. There is no part of creating that necessitates such a thing.

Well, no time does not imply no physical form. It implies no change, as change is the measurement of time. However, I would say that many religions deny the existence of the physical form. As well, changing the world does not imply a physical form, it implies the ability to change the world. A being such as god is usually described as having supernatural powers to alter things. I think that is why you make the first flawed inference, because you do not conceive that something outside of this universe as a creator can have a different nature than the things inside of it, so you presuppose it is inside.

If he is temporal and physical, it can be pretty easy not to have evidence for him. Not all physical, temporal things are easy to find and observe. As I may have pointed out earlier, have you personally seen a neutrino? Those suckers are invisible, and practically incorporeal as well(they can pass through the earth without hitting anything at all).


Well, I think that the solution is flawed because if God's existence is necessary to create the first moment, and thus the universe then he cannot be the universe. He has to be different from the universe, it can be argued that the universe can be a representative branch of him, but he still must be separate.


How, physically, do you do something before physics??? Before the first moment, physics do not exist, nor did temporality. So, creating them is not a question of physics or temporality. Not only that, but you don't have a representative being that both exists and is not a part of the universe to prove that one must be a part of the universe to move a planet. Couldn't an outside being reach in and interfere? You are engaging in unjustified presuppositions.


Why would an extra-temporal entity have no means of influencing the universe? Heck, lets even accept that claim that one has to be within the universe to influence it, but let's also say that all of time is set as well, couldn't a god then pre-set the nature of the universe(rules or some such) to change at given points in time to perform miraculous actions?


Do you mean that he follows logic? The issue is that a non-temporal being cannot become temporal.


Because stupid people are aggravating, especially the ones who do not know they are.

Yes, sometimes I am. Have you ever had to talk to a ret*d person but needed to rush off to do something else? Can be rather difficult as they don't take a hint.


You think too highly of your mental abilities. Also, I think that I have already explained that idiots annoy me. Trust me, I am not angry at every atheist or every theist. Only the ones that seem stupid to me.


Umm.... right, you've been *so* honest in dealing with us.


*sigh* Right. corroonb, stop pretending to be a machine, as I have already argued, given the existence of cognitive biases, everybody is in possession of unjustified beliefs. Also, who says I have contradicted myself? You simply do not know my personal response to the cosmological argument, nor do I plan to give it to someone such as you. I know of some atheist metaphysicists though, so I can come up with some solution. An argument can be valid, in as much as you cannot answer it, and consistently attack it based upon the wrong angle, but still ultimately hold to some flaw.

Who said what I *personally* believe? I could have found a way around it that you do not know about. Hell, I could even consciously hold to a belief you consider "unjustified" or some other crap. I don't have to answer to you.

Essentially yes.

I think outer space would suck. Especially due to the pressure difference inside a spacecraft versus outside. Therefore, most of the universe sucks.

Would that means that god sucks because he created a sucky universe?

Depends if you've ever studied physics, ... so many things can be said, but how many of them are correct? How many strictly physical data are misinterpreted to have metaphysical connotations?

All of them are correct, even if the conclusions make no sense or are logically contradictory.

I turn physical data into metaphysical connotations all of the time. God is pretty cold and empty too.

You claim that all events have to have a cause. Well that is not true.

Quantum physics proves that events can happen with no cause. Given that at the time of the big bang the universe was incredibly concentrated, it is reasonable to assume that the random events that occur on the quantum level could also occur during the big bang. These random, uncaused events invalidate the cosmological argument for gods existence. They suggest that the big bang was just such a random event without a cause. If the precedent of quantum events occurring without cause is accepted, the the Big Bang singularity could potential be just such an uncaused event.

Stating that time can exists without space is idiotic and contrary to physics. There is no time without space and time cannot have any meaning without space.

Existence requires the presence of both time and matter. Without either of these the only state possible is non-existence. There is no time apart from space. The three dimensions are space. The fourth dimension is space-time.

If god exists in any conventional manner, then he must be subject to both time and space. Otherwise talk of his existence is meaningless. How can change take place without something to change?

Do you really think that a quantum cosmologist like Steven Hawking knows less about the origins of our universe than AwesomelyGlorious whose only claim to knowledge is the reading of philosophy and "theology"? Who is more likely to be correct?


I find this constant reiteration of my status as an "idiot" further evidence that AG has been reasoning with his emotions. Why would he be so angry if this was not so? Why is the presence of a contrary opinion a source of anger?

You seem angry too.

What is a supernatural power? If such a power exists it is necessarily natural. Why supernatural?

So, you are going to argue that the big bang happened acausally? Ok, small question though, how did all of the matter comprising the universe exist timelessly? And if matter cannot exist timelessly, then how can something come from nothing.


How is that contrary to physics? I was not aware that physics had copyrighted the term "time" to describe all instances where the term could possibly be used. Time is not a physical thing so much as it is a sequential thing, even if matter did not exist, if non-material things have sequences, then time can exist.


No, existence doesn't. Existence requires the property of existing, an ontology. It does not demand time and matter. You are presupposing the qualities for existing within this universe as being properties of all of existence. Time can also exist without space, time is merely a sequencing measure between events and there is no reason to say that sequences of events is dependent upon matter given that one can theoretically support the existence of a non-material thing.


And existing in a conventional matter is being within the universe. If a being pre-exists the universe, then it does not have to exist in a conventional manner. Time and space are not the only things to exist if something can be argued to exist contingently.


Is Steven Hawkings a metaphysicist? Not only that, but you aren't Steven Hawking either.

Ok, go find it however you want, I don't care. Everybody reasons with their emotions anyway, so stop pretending that you are some mystical being who does not use their emotions. Heck, if you were a mystical being without emotions, you wouldn't care whether or not I was reasoning with my emotions or not. Not only that, but it isn't your opinions, and I have reiterated that a number of times, and other people have come to negative conclusions about you. Are you going to argue that the reason why they all seem to dislike you is because they are *so emotional*?

Let's take a simple look at this:

1) AG and a number of people react emotionally to you
2) AG and these other people do not react so stridently to other individuals, even those who disagree
3) Based upon 1 and 2, we know that it isn't a reaction to your position
4) Based upon 1-3 we know it is a reaction to you, specifically
5) Based upon 4, there must be a property about you that aggravates people
6) Ergo, you are aggravating

It is pretty damned simple, and the logical inference to get to that conclusion is not so difficult. The fact that you did not reach it independently seems to lead me to think you are reasoning emotionally.

1) People who reason emotionally tend to systemically ignore, or not see easy to find other solutions
2) The conclusion that you are aggravating is an easy solution to come to
3) Therefore you are reasoning emotionally, or are a moron.

A supernatural power would be a power unlike the normal ordering of reality. If a power exists, it is necessarily natural is more a matter of following your personal definitions than it is of coming to a substantive understanding of other positions.

Again with the equivocation and tautologies.

Time cannot exist without matter. Time is a measure of change. Only something (matter) can change. You can not have change without matter and thus time apart from matter has no meaning.



You have repeatedly questioned the use of rational argument and you appear to regard your emotional response as proof of something other than the existence of these emotional response. I try not to reason with emotion. You do not even try. This is why we cannot have a civil discussion. You lack the maturity required to refrain from wanton ad hominem attacks. Characterising those who disagree with you as foolish, ret*d, stupid, etc.

I have to ask a simple question. What are you doing and why are you doing it?

I seek to increase my knowledge through discussion. You wish to impose your views on others as if they are demonstrably true. And as the coup de gras, you have the insanity to argue a cosmological argument and you admit you do not belief. If that is not insanity, it is the very definition of dishonesty.

You = atheist

Atheists deny the existence of god.

You argue for the existence of god.

Therefore you are either not an atheist or you do not believe in god.

Atheist cannot by definition make an argument for the existence of god.

I can only conclude that you are either deluded or dishonest. I suspect the latter. The fact that you have no apparent rationale for your atheism (won't share it with the likes of me) and you argue for the existence of god seems to prove that you are dishonest and not a rational person at all.

And please feel free not to share any more of your "wisdom" with me or anyone else. I think you have shown yourself to be dishonest by claiming to be an atheist and arguing for the existence of god.