Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The Blaatschapen]

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

No.

It's a how to guide as well.

A good scientific paper describes the methods in which the scientists undertook the experiment. Which means that you can redo the experiment yourself(although getting some of the more expensive instruments might be a challenge). And thus you can prove if the science is correct (or occasionally, utter bollocks).

[Ifreann]

You have got to learn how to put all these responses together into one post, Australian rePublic.

[Australian rePublic]

No it doesn't. It posits a topologically-disconnected universe.

Pointless pedantry. Each universe is a self contained system meaning all other universes exist beyond the realm of each other universe. Calling the multiverses the universe doesn’t support your argument it just requires us to come up with a new term for the universe, and insert where appropriate.

For example, we’ll call this universe the Bobverse. God transcends the Bobverse.

Wouldn't God exist somewhere the multiple universes. If the multiverse theory is true, then I reacon they would be dummy universes for God to test things

Yes, it is. In particular, it is evidence of non-existence to exactly the same degree that the ability to observe is evidence of existence. This is a trivial result of basic statistics.

And? We’re not talking statistics we’re talking metaphysics. God as we determine, cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, no proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Further, no proof of existence is only evidence of non-existence in a vacuum. This is only achieved by narrowing the parameters of what you consider acceptable evidence. There is plenty evidence of God’s existence, but nothing you’ve as of yet considered valid.

Except that there is. Much of it has been mentioned here, in fact. You've ignored it, every time. Let's start with the whole flood thing: it simply never happened, at all.

That’s evidence the flood never happened, not evidence God doesn’t exist.
(And to clarify I don’t believe in a literal flood. Yet still believe in God)

[/quote]
I don't believe in a literal flood either

[The New California Republic]

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

No.

It's a how to guide as well.

A good scientific paper describes the methods in which the scientists undertook the experiment. Which means that you can redo the experiment yourself(although getting some of the more expensive instruments might be a challenge). And thus you can prove if the science is correct (or occasionally, utter bollocks).

Way ahead of you:

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

Science is extensively peer-reviewed, and any methodology and results need to be repeatable, and a causal link firmly established. So no, categorising science as "just a bunch of writings from strangers" is extremely off-beam.

[The Blaatschapen]

No.

It's a how to guide as well.

A good scientific paper describes the methods in which the scientists undertook the experiment. Which means that you can redo the experiment yourself(although getting some of the more expensive instruments might be a challenge). And thus you can prove if the science is correct (or occasionally, utter bollocks).

Way ahead of you:

Science is extensively peer-reviewed, and any methodology and results need to be repeatable, and a causal link firmly established. So no, categorising science as "just a bunch of writings from strangers" is extremely off-beam.

I was re-doing your experiment

[The New California Republic]

Way ahead of you

I was re-doing your experiment

Ah. Testing reproducibility. Gotcha.

[Immoren]

If I don't believe in myself then who does?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Which means that you can redo the experiment yourself(although getting some of the more expensive instruments might be a challenge).

As Andrew Schafly no doubt discovered to his detriment, also knowledge in how to handling possibly pathogenic microorganisms and other hazardous materials you choose to work with.

[Godular]

Two things:

Outside the universe = doesn’t exist.

So then, the multiverse theory is bullshit?

Until such time as we actually find another universe? There is no reason for us to treat it as anything else.

You have no basis to ascribe traits to anything that we cannot observe quite simply BECAUSE they cannot be observed.

NO, but if it physically explains what is, then those traits can be applied

Incorrect for the exact same reason you're trying to respond to.

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

Rather literally, there is no functional difference between your saying ‘God did it’ and ‘The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it’. Heck, ya might even try claiming that’s the point, but that’s just more grasping at straws trying to hide behind a veneer of logic.

How so?

Going the Aquinas route and just saying 'We call this God' is a good example. It's rather literally taking some random phenomenon and trying to tack a brand name to it without basis to do so. Aquinas went so far as to invent his own random phenomena just for the purposes of slapping said brand name on them. Dude really did not like the idea of infinite regression.

[Thuzbekistan]

Isn't the bible?

Yes

You understand the scientific method and how it can be trusted, right?

You have got to learn how to put all these responses together into one post, Australian rePublic.

it can be hard on mobile. on a comp, there's no excuse.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, there is. Not to mention that all of this is utterly irrelevant: the claim was "a triangle is a triangle". That is true for any definition of "triangle".



No, it isn't. It's a fact. Points don't have sides, and the properties of a set are not dependent on the way in which you specify that set, providing its elements coincide.



No, it absolutely is not.

I get the feeling we’re arguing about different things. All the definitions are man-made, are they not?

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that "a triangle is a triangle" is a theorem of any logical system that can express the statement.

[Salandriagado]

Two things:

Outside the universe = doesn’t exist.

So then, the multiverse theory is bullshit?

No. Well, probably, but that's besides the point. The point is that, as has been explained to you repeatedly, you're entirely mis-stating it.

You have no basis to ascribe traits to anything that we cannot observe quite simply BECAUSE they cannot be observed.

NO, but if it physically explains what is, then those traits can be applied

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

No. You are attempting to make factual claims about something that you haven't observed, can't observe, and can't possibly gather any data about.

Rather literally, there is no functional difference between your saying ‘God did it’ and ‘The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it’. Heck, ya might even try claiming that’s the point, but that’s just more grasping at straws trying to hide behind a veneer of logic.

How so?

Can you name a difference?

[Salandriagado]

To continue the analogy, the issue is that God isn’t the viewer of the movie. He’s the director, writer, and producer.

Okay. The director hires a whole bunch of idiots to play in his movie. The director has a script, but the actors disobey the script and mostly do whatever they want. The director could intervene and stop them from acting like idiots, and sometimes he does, mostly he doesn't. He could also fire the entire cast and start again, abd sometimes he commits mass firings, other times, he just lets the movie takes it course. The director watches the end product 10, knowing full well what will happen, and knowing that he could have prevented it

Which would be universally agreed to be the director's fault. Because when you take authority over a thing, you also take responsibility for it.

[Godular]

I get the feeling we’re arguing about different things. All the definitions are man-made, are they not?

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that "a triangle is a triangle" is a theorem of any logical system that can express the statement.

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

[Alvecia]

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that "a triangle is a triangle" is a theorem of any logical system that can express the statement.

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

I feel like that just a contextual rewording of the "if a tree falls in a forest...?" question. These things will still exist, even if there's no-one around to observe or communicate them.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

I feel like that just a contextual rewording of the "if a tree falls in a forest...?" question. These things will still exist, even if there's no-one around to observe or communicate them.

What if things in the universe are just are, and we humans constructed everything to describe the current state of affairs?

[Godular]

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

I feel like that just a contextual rewording of the "if a tree falls in a forest...?" question. These things will still exist, even if there's no-one around to observe or communicate them.

I'm thinking it's more along the lines of 'If there's words on a sign, and there's nobody to read them, do they mean anything?'

[The Archregimancy]

Blame unicode for not having any character encoding for hieratic in the first place.

It's just considered a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

But honestly, does look like ?

No wonder kids today can't tell Atum from either Amun or Amun-Ra - or Amun-Ra from Ra, for that matter.

The tech geeks are working on it. I'm sure.

Unicode still has some space left for hieroglyphs, it's only a matter of time. We can always sacrifice the poop smiley.

Of course, not all fonts will implement it, but that is not unicodes fault

Ah; a minor misunderstanding.

Egyptian hieroglyphs are already in unicode; here's how to have your hieroglyph fun.

It's hieratic that's not in unicode, apparently because some philistine (perhaps even a Philistine, indeed) decided that it was functionally a sub-font of hieroglyphs. Bah, humbug.


As to why I'm persisting with this minor though entertaining thread diversion (though it did stem from a valid point on omnipotent deities within polytheistic belief systems), it's to distract me from what an embarrassingly poor job Australian rePublic is doing of defending Christianity. The thread's devolved into atheists making mincemeat of one of the worst Christian apologists (using the latter word in the traditional sense) in the history of NSG. Really, it's cringe-inducing.

[Space Captain Brian Surgeon]

So why didn't you respond to this, Australian rePublic?

Because I don't spend every second of my life in this thread

Or are you just ignoring the posts that are difficult or where you lose the point being contested.

[Page]

No, we call these christians. The norm for a group is what it does in reality, not what a text says they should be ideally.

Many Christians have comitted evil. That doesn't mean that Christianity in and of itself is evil. It's like arguing that atheism in and of itself is evil because many atheists have comitted evil

Atheism is not an organization nor an ideology nor a doctrine, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. Religious organizations however can be held accountable as institutions.

[Australian rePublic]

the world wouldn’t exist without God, so no. Incorrect.

Again, you assume your conclusion.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...

[Dogmeat]

Again, you assume your conclusion.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...

No.

This always seems to happen with - in particular - bad apologists. At some point they realize that their arguments are flimsy, so they try to inflict them on the other side. Rather then being proud of their faith, or believing themselves justified by their faith, they resort to, "oh yeah, well you guys have faith too!"

[Alvecia]

Many Christians have comitted evil. That doesn't mean that Christianity in and of itself is evil. It's like arguing that atheism in and of itself is evil because many atheists have comitted evil

Atheism is not an organization nor an ideology nor a doctrine, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. Religious organizations however can be held accountable as institutions.

Which isn't to say there's no atheist community. Rather the opposite in fact, there's quite the active one.

[Neutraligon]

Atheism is not an organization nor an ideology nor a doctrine, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity. Religious organizations however can be held accountable as institutions.

Which isn't to say there's no atheist community. Rather the opposite in fact, there's quite the active one.

It's just that what holds them together tends to be trying to protect secularism.

[Australian rePublic]

We would argue that it wasn't rigged. We were free to choose whichever we wanted.

However, interestingly, this is where Aquinas and Augustine's argument gets very confusing.

They propose the idea that, because time is a property of the universe, and God is outside the universe, that God observes the entire universe at once. That is, that, for God, time is not linear and all events happen "simultaneously." (they actually back this up pretty well with scripture).

Free to choose? A lot of people are using the idea of free will to explain why God allows evil things to happen, but I don't believe that the bible provides a case for free will. As for the bit about us failing at the beginning, the Soft Theological Determinism tab is best suited.

1. Imagine you are abstract, objective, and all knowing. You know everything that has been, is, and will be, but you cannot change a single thing. You would see every individual actor go from A (birth) to Z (death) and all the choices, big and small, that happened in between. You would see all this, and nothing could possibly change. All events would happen in an unbreakable chronological design. These events will happen, and there's nothing anyone can do that can stop it. The only way to for those predetermined footsteps to change would be through classic time travel shenanigans. And even then, the event leading to the creation of time travel were predetermined, unalterable, and inevitable. Casual Determinism argues that the inevitability of action means that free will cannot exist, I agree with that.

Even if Casual Determinism is somehow wrong, the bible ITSELF doesn't do a convincing job of establishing free will as absolute. There are two kinds of religious determinism: Soft and Hard.

2. Soft Determinism is best described as the belief that God plays with dominoes. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. That means that everything that has happened, was known by God to happen, allowed by God to happen, and empowered by God to happen. Take the fall of man for instance.

• God created Lucifer
• God did this knowing that Lucifer had a prideful streak
• God did this knowing that character trait of his would lead him to the fall
• God created the heavens and the earth
• God created Adam and Eve
• God created Adam and Eve with knowledge that if they were tempted, they'd disobey him
• God also knew that Satan would tempt them
• God knew that an angel guarding the garden BEFORE Satan got there would preemptively take care of that mess
• God chose not to guard the garden
• God allowed the snake to talk to Eve
• God allowed Eve to bite the fruit
• God knew (with his omniscience)that due to the character traits he gave the originating actors (Lucifer, Adam,Eve) that those events (he could've prevented with his omnipotence and omnipresence) would never have happened.
• Therefore, the fall of man was obviously a part of God's plan
• Therefore, sin, and as a a result, evil, were planned by God.

For example, it is through this kind of planning that he was able to predict the crucifixion of the Christ. He didn't FORCE the soldiers to cast lots for his clothes, but because of the domino affect and because he was able to put the pieces into play at the beginning, that the action perpetrated by the soldiers and by the Jews were 100% predictable, they were ordained, unavoidable, predetermined, NO FREE WILL.

3. Hard Determinism is best described as the belief that God plays with puppets. This is less prevalent than Soft Determinism, but works side by side IMO.

For example, God hardened Pharaoh's heart multiple times. Also, if at anytime an unaccountable God can force you to think thoughts and do things you wouldn't otherwise do, than I gotta say that there is NO FREE WILL.

Then there's also Biological Determinism, and since supposedly God created us, was also planned by God. But I don't feel like going into it.

BUT WAIT! Wouldn't that mean God orchestrated evil? Doesn't that contradict the character trait of his supposed benevolence?

Yes. And wouldn't that contradiction hint to the possibility he doesn't exist?

God's just a passive observer