Mac23 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 7:20am:



WHAHAH!  SADLY we explained that we believe in a 'cause', not an 'ultimate cause'.  But people that are scared of definitions and reality will twist  these definitions each and every time.  You are proving me right!





Quote:


Ummm, read above. You can keep lying all you want, but it only shows that you are either too scared or too dumb to understand.

How can we believe this universe was NOT caused, even though there is evidence of a cause and effect relationship.  WE can't; therefore you lie!






Quote:


SADLY, you are proving that you don't know what it means. Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in theism.  Aunicornism is only a lack of beliefs in unicorns; whereas unicornism would be the belief in them.

But notice whether you believe or not..........has nothing to do with how or if they were created, huh? LMAO!  SEE what i mean.  If you don't, then I will question your intelligence.  Don't take it too personally.  Its just that Religious believers are very keen on twisting the definitions of words to promote their agenda, since it can't stand on its own merits!





Quote:


WHAHAHAH!   Ahhhh, now you only want to establish a 'cause', but fail to realize your first posts referred to an 'ultimate cause'.

Suddenly, NOW and according to the statement above, you want to find the nature of the cause, instead of the nature of the 'ultimate cause.'



Quote:


First, if wind caused the tree to grow crooked, this cause of the tree growing crooked has no conscience, right or wrong?  If I am wrong, then prove the wind has a conscience.  If I am right, then the wind does not have to consciously do anything, for the mere presence of the wind can cause the tree not to grow straight.


Quote:


Ummm, that is a part of RANDOM!  Not knowing which physical forces were applied and to what degree, proves the outcome is random when you can't predict with 100% accuracy!





Quote:


We have no evidence of this.  But you can believe in things that have no evidence if you want.  Your choice, but don't get mad when people laugh at your beliefs that you CANT back up with evidence!

The laws of this universe had to be caused, but we don't know WHAT caused them.   Keep being biased by asking WHO created them.  Up to you!


Quote:


A choice was not part of it, but a cause was.  Let's see if you can back up what you believe or will we find out that you have nothing and its complete hogwash!



Quote:


Since we have no evidence of anyone being around and since we have no evidence of anyone CAUSING this universe to come into existence it is ridiculous to claim that someone did.



Quote:


Ahhhh, now you are getting there and hopefully getting away from your biased posts.  SEE, how you now say "As the first effect was caused by SOMETHING......"?????

If someTHING caused it and if this someTHING did not have a conscience, this would lead people to believe that this universe did not come into existence by immaterial conscious thoughts, it came into existence because of physical 'cause and effect'.

Quote:


Due to the amount of power and energy we can further deduce that there is a lot of power and energy.  This energy may be weak, but due to the massive amounts of it, it could appear powerful, cumulatively.





Quote:
.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't deduce that it is above time/space, since nothing alive is above time/space.

If whatever created life is actually alive, then you can't say that God created life, since God is not living!

SEE, you religious believers work yourself into a circle each time!

Quote:


When you reduce things to cause and effect........the effect is the purpose of the cause.




Quote:


In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result


Quote:


WHAHAH!  Just because this world is cause and effect, does not mean that atheists can't admit that this universe was caused by SOMETHING.  But again, until we find evidence of exactly what that cause is............it is ridiculous to reduce it to things you can't back up.

But FEAR will make you do those kinds of things!

So, no we have not invalidated our atheism, you have ONLY twisted (cause and effect)..........to mean that we know it to be caused by a God, of which you have no evidence for!




Quote:


And you ONLY explore the options within a dogmatic paradigm. Closed mindedness!

Ok, but once I prove it, what does it mean when you CANT beleive it.  Will that prove you are not smart enough to understand or too FEARful to understand?????????


Sure you can SAY that I am too stupid or too scared to believe you, but YET I bet you can't find in an atheists book of where it promises to punish me if I don't believe in it.

Read Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc.  Do ANY of them talk about being punished for NOT believing in them?

So, why does your God promise to punish you for not believing in him, then why is it a mystery as to why you CANT believe us????

MajorAtheist wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 11:50am:


Apparently you are opposed to the law of Karma?  Which is a law of physics.  "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In other words we punish ourselves by our actions. If you want to stop punishing yourself, you need guidance on how to stop that.

1/ If you don't want to be lied to, stop lying to yourself and to others.

2/If you don't want physical pain, stop beating other people.

3/ If you want peace love and understanding, start being an example of that.

4/ If you want respect, be respectful.

5/ If you want love, be loving.

6/ If you want compassion, be compassionate.

7/ If you want the truth, then seek that instead of your f**ked up beliefs and projecting those on the world.

8/ If you want to be free, be free and stop taking on other people's beliefs, and allowing them to own you.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:



Apparently you are not aware of the effect of fear and the role it plays in controlling your beliefs!

If you want to be free, lose your fear......especially your fear of God! But until you lose those fears, you will always be controlled by them!

GoodScienceForYou, I understand perfectly why some of your points have a tint of frustration in them. I give you kudos for keeping up with people with strange faiths, I enjoy what you have to teach me, I will be skeptical but open minded but my aim is to learn as much as I can and process it and analyze it from every point that I can think of. I have already seen trough the flaws of evolution and for many of the things I do believe I accept and understand that they are faith. This I did in primary school. I have also experienced the power of brainwashing first hand, I broke free from it after a period of 10 years of depression, gave me time to think. I can only surmise after my discussions with various atheists that they often do not think of the consequences or the implications of their faith. Many do not even realize that noted atheistic philosophers have already admitted to the fact that atheism is a religion just like any other religion. One quick look at the dictionary is evident of that, oh I must press on the fact that you CANNOT cherry pick your definitions. (Directed to the atheists we are discussing these things with.)

One atheist I spoke with (on youtube) said that it is impossible to understand evolution unless you had some education in it. He himself had no education in it and thus had accepted it on blind faith. That is exactly the point I was trying to make, yet he then made an appeal to authority, you know how it goes. "Every scientists in every field agree with evolution" if I can point out one scientist his premise is proven false. Another turned the discussion around and started questioning me about what he called absurdity of the great Deluge. I asked all atheists that believe in evolution (Newsflash not all Atheists accept evolution, some have actually thought about it for awhile ) if they had any evidence of Macro Evolution, we ended up calling it "SuperMacroEvolution" just to differ from what we can observe to what they conjecture into the fossil records, walking whales to killer whales etc etc. I have yet to meet an evolutionist who really understand why they believe what they believe, or to realize that it is nothing but conjectures.

So then, I do not mean to be patronizing or intend to insult anyone, perhaps it is true that I have misunderstood something? If so I apologize I just have not seen any good arguments against my own faith and I'm open to every possibility.

According to Websters dictionary atheism is either the disbelief of gods (weak atheism) or the doctrine that there is no god (strong atheism) it is thus either a blind faith that there is no god, or the claim that there is no god (this claim must be proven). As I have said several times over and over again.

I do believe in God because of Cause and Effect, is it a wrong conclusion of the facts we observe? If so, why? The atheist is convinced that the first cause was caused, I would have to disagree with them. Even those we talk with here, Major Atheist and RealScience, express in not so many words that the first cause can be unaware or not thinking, but then the question will arise what caused it? You need an outside power to influence an object in stasis, if you do not have an outside power it will never ever move. So the Big Bang must have been caused by an outside power, but perhaps my brain capacity is extremely limited?

Now if this outside power is material, how then could it affect material matters if ALL material matters were at one singularity? That would mean that the Material that did affect the singularity was the singularity and thus it caused itself? But that as we know is impossible, as we DO need an outside power.

So according to observations, the outside power cannot be physical or part of this universe or part of any universe that has been created or caused by the Big Bang or any similar event that happened x amount of time in the past. No object can create itself. Einstein spake about the time-space, so then the conclusion is that before the Big Bang time did not exist as space did not exist, they speculate that time stands still at black holes due to gravity and density, how much higher must it be then if ALL matter in the entire universe were condensed into a DOT? How did matter suddenly escape this tremendous amount of gravitational pull, where did the energy come from? Did it cause itself? If the cause was material how much power must it have had to withstand not being pulled into the singularity and conform to it?

Is it then hard to believe or to conclude then that the power that affected the material is also outside time? Then we have a power that is Immaterial and Timeless, it further had to be aware of what the power was doing, thus it had to be Conscious. Else we end up at infinite regression again. Does any of what I'm saying make any sense to any of you?

Perhaps we should prescribe a 10 year thinking break for every atheist in the world? =)

Anyway, sorry for writing a book here..

God bless you guys =)

Oh I don't find these debates to be stupid, just frustrating when they end up in circles.

"Maybe it was... but maybe that outside power had no cause."

This statement of yours I agree with. The outside power had no cause. Infinite regression is a logical fallacy you will always come to the point where something had to exist forever. This something had to have the ability to manipulate matter, even create matter from energy. As the law goes Energy cannot be created or destroyed as far as we as humans have observed.

Just a question for you, how would you explain or state your lack of belief in a god? Would you say I don't believe in god? Would you argue that you know there is no god or would you argue you don't know there is no god? Perhaps atheism is rather they don't care about the existence of god or gods at all? Do you believe your statement that you don't believe in gods? The way I see it and the way I understand it is that you have made up your mind in the event that you don't believe in god and that you do believe the statement to be true based on a lack of evidence for the existence and even the non existence of god, you make no claim to have the evidence thus you simply don't know and thus based on the fact that you do not know you make the personal statement of belief that your observation skills are sufficient enough to determine that there is no god. As soon as you put in belief in any statement you make means it is a religious statement. Thus you make a religious statement that there is no gods based on your lack of knowledge. It is an honest statement but it is and will remain a religious statement. Thus we can say you have a blind faith in your belief that there is no god. Anyway, this is the last I will say about this, I could be wrong of course, I don't have a blind faith in my statement about this, I keep it open. Disbelief or belief is not a scientific statement, you don't believe it to be true does not mean it is false for example, it may just mean you are arguing out of ignorance. Thus if you do argue out of ignorance you do have a blind faith, as faith is defined as a belief based on evidence. Since we do not know all the pieces of evidence we have to make a statement other than "I don't know" is a non scientific statement. I hope you understand what I'm saying? You should dwell a little on what the term "disbelief" means.

Much of what you stated in your post I simply do not agree with because it is based on wrong premises. Such as the mentioned randomness that is believed by many evolutionists to be true, I'm sure many theists also believes this. A few years back I pondered the thought and I saw that not even in math does random exist, it may exist as an abstract term but as soon as you pen it down on paper and add parameters to it it is no longer random. A computer could never for example explain what random is as you assign parameters to it.

Even if we don't know what causes an event to happen does not mean it is not caused. No event can create itself. No event can be non caused.

Your statement "Who created God" is a logical fallacy. As God is defined as the First Cause.

To state that the First Cause was caused is a logical fallacy. To say the First event was not caused is equally  logical fallacy.

To even say that something random happened that caused the first event is also a logical fallacy. To state that the laws of the universe have always existed may not be a logical fallacy if your a theist but it most assuredly is if your an atheist. For it begs the question why are they there if the universe did not exist, what reason do they exist for random reasons is no reason at all. Intention and purpose. The Laws you state are a Cause to Effects, but Laws cannot manipulate something that does not exist.

I agree with your statement that because of the accelerating universe the Big Crunch is unlikely. We just need to work on the statement that the First cause could be random or unaware.

There is by the way no difference between the First Cause and the Ultimate Cause. So if you believe the First Event was caused then you do believe in a First Cause or an Ultimate Cause. The First cause cannot be caused either for that means the first event was not the first event and infinite regression.. why is it difficult for you guys to admit or see that there had to be an Uncaused Cause to the First Event?


QM is not a proven science it is highly theoretical. Are you a QM scientist? If not you should perhaps use the defining therm of "Them" and "They" instead of we.

Anyway, cheers guys.

Keep up the good work GSFY!

Mac23 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 6:41am:


What about the possibilities that would get you punished?

For example:
If you believed 2+2=5 and I proved 2+2=4, then you could believe me without hesitation.  Changing your beliefs is how you learn.

But, let's pretend you believe 2+2=5 and if you don't, a God will punish you.   So, if I prove you wrong, then could you believe me at all?  In this case, believing the truth(2+2=4) would get you punished by your own God.

So, you may have an open mind when it comes to exploring your beliefs that have nothing to do with your God, but when it comes to exploring your beliefs within the realm of your God, there is no way you can have an open mind.  There is punishment for not believing in him.