First of all I wanna apologise for insulting you in the way I did. It was unneccesary and juvenile, and it contributed nothing to the discussion. On the contrary, it retarded the discussion since you haven't been willing to listen to anything I've said since then.
There are a few issues I would like to adress:
That was far from the only response. That's just the beginning of my response to your logic puzzle, where I tried my best to show you that you arrive at a false conclusion when you state that god is the only explanation for the Universe. Out of the three ways you discribed for the Universe to begin existing, I showed you that you could be false about nr. 1, something you plainly denied because it went against your common sense (which in science and the search for truth is useless. Common sense actually works as a retardant for science). I and Hunch also explained to you that your reasoning regarding way nr. 2 is wrong, because time didn't exist before the Big Bang. I re-post the entire response below:MD wrote:Problem #1
The only response you've given to my proof for God's existence is thatTobbe wrote:there may very well be more ways for a Universe to "come about", even though you (or I) can't think of any.
[quote="Tobbe"]
[quote="Mister Dark"]Does God exist eh? I would like to propose my views:
As i see it, there are three ways the Universe came about...
1. Something came from nothing.
2. The Universe was around forever.
3. A First Cause.[/quote]
False trichotomy, there may very well be more ways for a Universe to "come about", even though you (or I) can't think of any.
[quote="MD"]1 is impossible as it goes against science. "Something" from nothing? ridiculous.[/quote]
Not at all. On quantum level (subatomary) purely spontanious events are quite regular. I quote an article by theoretical physicist Paul Davies (because real phyicists tend to be better at explaining scientific principles than amateur cosmologists.
):[quote="Paul Davies"]On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
...
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.[/quote]
So, this might not be so unscientific after all. I strongly advice you to read the entire article, it's a great read, and it's written in a way that every layman can understand.
[quote="MD"]2 is also impossible. If the Universe were always here, then Time must logically go back eternally into the past. If this is the case, however, then, as each moment must logically have a preceding moment, we could never reach the present- that is, NOW.[/quote]
This is correct. But we know that time does not extend eternally into the past, but that it started in the Big Bang. Again, read the article I linked to. Stating that the Universe has existed forever is meaningless, as time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang (it might have been a fourth dimension of space, though), and thus the phrase 'forever' is rendered without meaning. Paul Davies explains this better than me, so I strongly advice you to read the article if you want to present a counter-argument.
Admittedly, some observations indicate that there might have been time before the Big Bang, and this is one of the observations that supports the hypothesis that our Universe was born out of a parent Universe, or after the collapse of a parent Universe. This doesn't really affect the Big Bang theory, though.
[quote="MD"]3: a First Cause?
Atheists (no offence to anyone
) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.[/quote]Even if there is a 'first cause' for the Universe, what makes you jump to the conclusion that this 'first cause' is god? And not just god; the Judeo-Christian god who created the heavens and the earth, and then created humans in his image. Even if your reasoning was without fault, and a god was the only explanation for the existance of the Universe, why would you take that as evidence that Christianity is true? That just doesn't make sense (excuse me if you're not actually Christian, but I seem to recall that you commented that the Bible is historically accurate somewhere in this thread, which would kinda suggest that you are).[/quote]
First: Learn the meaning of the word 'stereotype'. Second: How did I try to forward my viewpoint in this situation? It's pointless to threaten me with hell, since I don't believe in it. This is true for all atheists. I find it rather odd that Christians so often threaten us with eternal damnation. I never called you evil when responding to this, nor did I try to forward my viewpoint, I simply stated that your threats were irrelevant to the discussion (I think, I don't quite remember :p)MD wrote:*How* does that work!? I will say it again: you have used the stereotype of the evil condemning Christian to forward your viewpoint, or at least to brush aside arguments that you can't answer.
All the skulls I've posted are apes, and some of the (the ones named homo <something>) are also humans, although not the same species as modern humans. These skulls fit the predictions of the Theory of Evolution perfectly. As we progress through time the fossils become less ape-like and more human-like (all humans are of course apes, but I'm here using 'ape' to describe the last common ancestor of all the great apes, and 'human' for the species homo sapiens sapiens). And wtf do you mean none of these skulls are halfway between man and ape? Australopithaecus afarensis is just that, and that is why the discovery of Lucy, a specimen of this species, is hailed as a great achievement in the field of paleontology.MD wrote:The fossils you've shown as proof of evolution are questionable, to say the least, easily belonging to ape or man but not something between each. Further more, many of my points you have completely ignored, for an example, the point about the snake with the beginnings of legs, and the verse regarding the “wells of the deep” which has been (like many other verses) proven true in our present day.
And the snakes with the beginnings of legs found in the fossil record do not at all confirm the Bible. Those snakes lived millions of years before biblical times, and if the Bible says snakes used to have legs within the last 6000 years then it's completely wrong. And what's this "wells of the deep" thing? I can't recall you bringing it up.
In any case: If you can find a passage in the Bible that seems to agree with a scientific fact, that does in no way suggest that everything in the Bible is true. In fact, it's full of things we know are wrong. For instance, it claims that the Earth is a flat disc covered by a crystal dome.Really? The entire debate. Unless you count criticism of your superstition to be childish I really have no idea what you're talking about. All of the insults took place before my largest and most important contributions to the debate.MD wrote:Yet not even this is enough for you. If it was just illogic and having to constantly repeat myself I had to deal with, I would have been happy, more than happy, to continue if only it wasn't for the fact that you've been downright childish for the entire debate.
This is getting ridicolous. I have written several pages responding to your claims about evidence for god's existance and evolution being a big fat lie. I've adressed all of your main points in a respectful and objective way. Stop trying to victimise yourself; nobody's falling for it.MD wrote:In short, I won't waste my time with you any longer. However when or if you find a proper answer for my argument beyond "you're full of crap", "you're just condemning me to hell", "you're brainwashed" and "even if I can't think of an answer for your argument it's wrong anyway, and therefore you're wrong" you're perfectly welcome to send me a PM or something and we can continue. Providing, of course, you're prepared to debate respectfully instead of relying on insults and stereotypes to avoid points.
I doubt it. I've reserved the right to bless me for the Flying Spaghetti Monster anyway.MD wrote:May God bless you (I sincerely mean this)
I'm not sure you have.MD wrote:While I'm sure we've all studied evolution
Might take a look at the links you provided later. I've had a quick look at most of them, and I haven't found anything that impresses me very much. I'm going to bed now.
