mazaje:

You are making the mistake of assuming that the force behind the universe( thats is if there is any such thing) is the same as described by man made religions. . . . . The fact is that is false. . .there is NO reason to believe that the force behind the universe(if any such thing exist) is anything close to how it is being described or portrayed by man made religions. . . . all man made religions are just baseless assertions that only show the thoughts, expressions, ideas and beliefs of men as to how the think or assume the world or universe should behave based on a set of cultures, ideas and tradition. . .   

haha. I agree with u. I was just trying to do a Tudor impersonation.

The God of religion is as real as Cinderella.

Krayola2:

haha. I agree with u. I was just trying to do a Tudor impersonation.

The God of religion is as real as Cinderella.

Hahaha. . . my man Tudor is really like that . Ride on. . . . .

wheeere Deep Sight don go naah? Is he tired of his own arguments so quickly?

hahah. He's typing his response. I remember when i spent a whole day writing about Genesis for that debate with Noetic. . sitting in the library digging up stuff. . . for Nairaland. HAHAHAHA , WTF WAS I THINKING?!?!?

huxley:

wheeere Deep Sight don go naah? Is he tired of his own arguments so quickly?

He's sleeping with the fishes.

@Deep Sight nice try,
Its refreshing to have some deep logical discussion devoid of curses,insults & innuendos.  

I'll be patiently waiting for your update. . . . . .^{searching for my o'level further maths textbooks}  

illusion2:

@Deep Sight nice try,
Its refreshing to have some deep logical discussion devoid of curses,insults & innuendos.

I'll be patiently waiting for your update. . . . . .[sup[b]]searching for my o'level further maths textbooks [/b] [/sup]

You better go and get it since we have people like william craig that are trying to prove the resurection of jesus christ with mathematical formulars. . . . .

What'd I miss?

Signing in,

The originator of this thread seems to want to broker a discussion anchored on reason with the hope that such an exercise may convince dyed-in-the-wool atheists about the existence of God. Perhaps, he imagines that many of the atheists he is responding to have not yet contemplated the possibility that a God exists. I want to suggest that he may find this to be not just a thankless endeavor but an unproductive one as well.

There are many reasons why I think this is the case, but let me just briefly state a few observations:

1) Many of the atheists that you run into were once theists. Many of them are classically familiar with the teachings and belief systems of various theistic faiths. Their rejection of the faith and ultimately of God is not occasioned by some unfamiliarity with religious or theistic positions.

2) Everyone has something that I would call a skeptical dial inbuilt in us. It is often the case that when we hear certain arguments or statements that we do not personally believe in, we subconciously turn that dial way up. If on the other hand, we start listening to arguments or statements that affirm what we believe, we tend to turn our skeptical dial way down. An Atheist's rejection of God is something done voluntarily--so that in the presence of obvious, commonsensical, intuitive and clearly rational argument for a God hypothesis, you will often find that an atheist has to willfully refuse to accept  such arguments. Indeed he may even be willing to pay a high intellectual cost in any such intellectual encounters by positing the implausible, the non-obvious, the fallacious and even the deeply illogical if by so doing, he will avoid any looming inference to theism.

3) Most atheists that I have discussed with do not have any positive case to make for atheism. It seems to me that if a person cannot conclusively prove God's non-existence, or even intelligently refute sound arguments for a God, such a person should better reclassify him/herself as an agnostics since he/she is taking the position that God's existence is not readily evident or apparent to them. But it does look as if atheism has been redefined by these present day 'New Atheists" to be some convenient lack of belief in a God. But this definition is self-serving. If someone wants to call him/herself an atheist, and deigns to engage in any reasonable discussion or debate on the existence or non-existence of a God, he/she has to provide good and convincing argument why we should think that a God does not exist. After all, that is the same burden that a theist in any such discussions is faced with : namely to provide good and convincing evidence why anyone should think that a God does exist.

4) For many theists, their belief in God is not anchored on just reasoning and argumentation alone. There is sometimes a deep and inward personal experience that affirms their implicit belief in God. It is very much like the inward and personal conviction and experience of the external world which cannot be scientifically or empirically proven. So while argumentation based on sound and logical inferences is good, for a theist that is not the entire gamut of inferences available. One has to presuppose atheism for example, to deny the veridical nature of certain judgments and presuppositions which human beings accept and uphold rationally but which are not amenable to the scientific process.


Having said the foregoing, one hopes that participants in this discussion are informed enough as to discuss or debate these all-important issues. For example, it is strange to find that in 2009, some people who would call themselves atheists, and who undoubtedly would want to claim some affinity for science are still positing that the Universe is eternal. Hello? Are these people familiar with the philosophical as well as scientific position on these matters?

The Universe is not eternal--by which we mean that it began to exist a finite time in the past. For a long time, the view in academia was that the universe is eternal, but that view is no longer currently held by any serious person who has bothered to investigate or read up on the issue. There are sound philosophical as well as scientific reasons to believe that the universe was not infinitely pre-existent, but that it came into being a finite time in the past. The Standard Model of the Big Bang - whose predictions have been confirmed over and over has put a nail in the coffin of speculations to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the history of Cosmology or Astrophysics in the 20th century is a history of hopelessly failed attempts to build or advance a model for this universe that is eternal in the past--in other words, a model that avoids the beginning of the universe. That is, some atheists may reject the traditional and widely received Big Bang standard Model (despite its scientific confirmations) because of the fact that the universe by that model began to exist.  The reason is obvious: If this model is not eternal in the past, there is that uncomfortable and looming inference to Theism.  Unfortunately these alternative models fail at establishing a universe  that is eternal in the past or one that avoids a beginning. Besides they have very little actual scientific evidence or support: in other words, these theories are for want of better words, a curious dabbling into some form of metaphysics since they are not based on any actual currently known physics (testable experimental verification). They have had to be discarded or at best ignored at least, until the physicists proposing them furnish us evidence that corroborates some of these fantastic claims.

So what have we seen in 20th century cosmology? No other theory of the Origin of the Universe has been as mathematically consistent and been confirmed by the evidence as the Big Bang Model. We have seen the steady-state model, the oscillating model, the vacuum fluctuation model, the chaotic inflationary model,  the  much speculative Hartle-Hawking model,  and the cyclic/ekpyrotic model - some of them cannot be scientifically verified or proven; some collapse under the weight of their own scientific inconsistencies; they may propose an eternal future, but altogether they fail hopelessly at establishing a model that is eternal in the past.

Signing in,

The originator of this thread seems to want to broker a discussion anchored on reason with the hope that such an exercise may convince dyed-in-the-wool atheists about the existence of God. Perhaps, he imagines that many of the atheists he is responding to have not yet contemplated the possibility that a God exists. I want to suggest that he may find this to be not just a thankless endeavor but an unproductive one as well.

There are many reasons why I think this is the case, but let me just briefly state a few observations:

1) Many of the atheists that you run into were once theists. Many of them are classically familiar with the teachings and belief systems of various theistic faiths. Their rejection of the faith and ultimately of God is not occasioned by some unfamiliarity with religious or theistic positions.

2) Everyone has something that I would call a skeptical dial inbuilt in us. It is often the case that when we hear certain arguments or statements that we do not personally believe in, we subconciously turn that dial way up. If on the other hand, we start listening to arguments or statements that affirm what we believe, we tend to turn our skeptical dial way down. An Atheist's rejection of God is something done voluntarily--so that in the presence of obvious, commonsensical, intuitive and clearly rational argument for a God hypothesis, you will often find that an atheist has to willfully refuse to accept  such arguments. Indeed he may even be willing to pay a high intellectual cost in any such intellectual encounters by positing the implausible, the non-obvious, the fallacious and even the deeply illogical if by so doing, he will avoid any looming inference to theism.

3) Most atheists that I have discussed with do not have any positive case to make for atheism. It seems to me that if a person cannot conclusively prove God's non-existence, or even intelligently refute sound arguments for a God, such a person should better reclassify him/herself as an agnostics since he/she is taking the position that God's existence is not readily evident or apparent to them. But it does look as if atheism has been redefined by these present day 'New Atheists" to be some convenient lack of belief in a God. But this definition is self-serving. If someone wants to call him/herself an atheist, and deigns to engage in any reasonable discussion or debate on the existence or non-existence of a God, he/she has to provide good and convincing argument why we should think that a God does not exist. After all, that is the same burden that a theist in any such discussions is faced with : namely to provide good and convincing evidence why anyone should think that a God does exist.

4) For many theists, their belief in God is not anchored on just reasoning and argumentation alone. There is sometimes a deep and inward personal experience that affirms their implicit belief in God. It is very much like the inward and personal conviction and experience of the external world which cannot be scientifically or empirically proven. So while argumentation based on sound and logical inferences is good, for a theist that is not the entire gamut of inferences available. One has to presuppose atheism for example, to deny the veridical nature of certain judgments and presuppositions which human beings accept and uphold rationally but which are not amenable to the scientific process.


Having said the foregoing, one hopes the calibre of participants invited to this discussion are informed enough as to discuss or debate these all-important issues. For example, it is strange to find that in 2009, some people who would call themselves atheists, and who undoubtedly would want to claim some affinity for science are still positing that the Universe is eternal. Hello? Are these people familiar with the philosophical as well as scientific position on these matters?

The Universe is not eternal--by which we mean that it began to exist a finite time in the past. For a long time, the view in academia was that the universe is eternal, but that view is no longer currently held by any serious person who has bothered to investigate or read up on the issue. There are sound philosophical as well as scientific reasons to believe that the universe was not infinitely pre-existent, but that it came into being a finite time in the past. The Standard Model of the Big Bang - whose predictions have been confirmed over and over has put a nail in the coffin of speculations to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the history of Cosmology or Astrophysics in the 20th century is a history of hopelessly failed attempts to build or advance a model for this universe that is eternal in the past--in other words, a model that avoids the beginning of the universe. That is, some atheists may reject the traditional and widely received Big Bang standard Model (despite its scientific confirmations) because of the fact that the universe by that model began to exist.  The reason is obvious: If this model is not eternal in the past, there is that uncomfortable and looming inference to Theism.  Unfortunately these alternative models fail at establishing a universe  that is eternal in the past or one that avoids a beginning. Besides they have very little actual scientific evidence or support: in other words, these theories are for want of better words, a curious dabbling into some form of metaphysics since they are not based on any actual currently known physics (testable experimental verification). They have had to be discarded or at best ignored at least, until the physicists proposing them furnish us evidence that corroborates some of these fantastic claims.

So what have we seen in 20th century cosmology? No other theory of the Origin of the Universe has been as mathematically consistent and been confirmed by the evidence as the Big Bang Model. We have seen the steady-state model, the oscillating model, the vacuum fluctuation model, the chaotic inflationary model,  the  much speculative Hartle-Hawking model,  and the cyclic/ekpyrotic model - some of them cannot be scientifically verified or proven; some collapse under the weight of their own scientific inconsistencies; they may propose an eternal future, but altogether they fail hopelessly at establishing a model that is eternal in the past.

Deep Sight:

@ Tudor, Mazaje - Very good!

We are now breaking out of the first level of the discussion. Let me just add for emphasis before going forward that the reason it was important to accept that 0 + 0 = 0 in all circumstances is so that we appreciate that once we have an element ("1" or anything that exists at all in any form., then it could not have come out of the zero quatity. There must be the intervention of a substantive element to move from zero to something ("1".

Therefore: 0 + 1 = 1. Agreed?

If you accept the above equation, you accept that the world, universe, existence, whatever you call it - came not from the zero element, but from something. There needed to be an intervention in the zero element by 1 (That is to say: 0 + 1 = 1).

Thus the premise is; something caused the universe. Agreed?

Have you considered the possibility that this "intervention" might just be an unknown law of the physical universe perhaps visible and obtainable in other galaxies that we have yet to discover?. . . .

Hmmm,

Signing in,

The originator of this thread seems to want to broker a discussion anchored on reason with the hope that such an exercise may convince dyed-in-the-wool atheists about the existence of God. Perhaps, he imagines that many of the atheists he is responding to have not yet contemplated the possibility that a God exists. I want to suggest that he may find this to be not just a thankless endeavor but an unproductive one as well.

There are many reasons why I think this is the case, but let me just briefly state a few observations:

1) Many of the atheists that you run into were once theists. Many of them are classically familiar with the teachings and belief systems of various theistic faiths. Their rejection of the faith and ultimately of God is not occasioned by some unfamiliarity with religious or theistic positions.

2) Everyone has something that I would call a skeptical dial inbuilt in us. It is often the case that when we hear certain arguments or statements that we do not personally believe in, we subconciously turn that dial way up. If on the other hand, we start listening to arguments or statements that affirm what we believe, we tend to turn our skeptical dial way down. An Atheist's rejection of God is something done voluntarily--so that in the presence of obvious, commonsensical, intuitive and clearly rational argument for a God hypothesis, you will often find that an atheist has to willfully refuse to accept  such arguments. Indeed he may even be willing to pay a high intellectual cost in any such intellectual encounters by positing the implausible, the non-obvious, the fallacious and even the deeply illogical if by so doing, he will avoid any looming inference to theism.

3) Most atheists that I have discussed with do not have any positive case to make for atheism. It seems to me that if a person cannot conclusively prove God's non-existence, or even intelligently refute sound arguments for a God, such a person should better reclassify him/herself as an agnostics since he/she is taking the position that God's existence is not readily evident or apparent to him/her. But it does look as if atheism has been redefined by these present day 'New Atheists" to be some convenient lack of belief in a God. But this definition is self-serving. If someone wants to call him/herself an atheist, and deigns to engage in any reasonable discussion or debate on the existence or non-existence of a God, he/she has to provide good and convincing argument why we should think that a God does not exist. After all, that is the same burden that a theist in any such discussions is faced with : namely to provide good and convincing evidence why anyone should think that a God does exist.

4) For many theists, their belief in God is not anchored on just reasoning and argumentation alone. There is sometimes a deep and inward personal experience that affirms their implicit belief in God. It is very much like the inward and personal conviction and experience of the external world which cannot be scientifically or empirically proven. So while argumentation based on sound and logical inferences is good, for a theist that is not the entire gamut of inferences available. One has to presuppose atheism for example, to deny the veridical nature of certain judgments and presuppositions which human beings accept and uphold rationally but which are not amenable to the scientific process.


Having said the foregoing, one hopes the calibre of participants invited to this discussion are informed enough as to discuss or debate these all-important issues. For example, it is strange to find that in 2009, some people who would call themselves atheists, and who undoubtedly would want to claim some affinity for science are still positing that the Universe is eternal. Hello? Are these people familiar with the philosophical as well as scientific position on these matters?

The Universe is not eternal--by which we mean that it began to exist a finite time in the past. For a long time, the view in academia was that the universe is eternal, but that view is no longer currently held by any serious person who has bothered to investigate or read up on the issue. There are sound philosophical as well as scientific reasons to believe that the universe was not infinitely pre-existent, but that it came into being a finite time in the past. The Standard Model of the Big Bang - whose predictions have been confirmed over and over has put a nail in the coffin of speculations to the contrary.

Unfortunately, the history of Cosmology or Astrophysics in the 20th century is a history of hopelessly failed attempts to build or advance a model for this universe that is eternal in the past--in other words, a model that avoids the beginning of the universe. That is, some atheists may reject the traditional and widely received Big Bang standard Model (despite its scientific confirmations) because of the fact that the universe by that model began to exist.  The reason is obvious: If this model is not eternal in the past, there is that uncomfortable and looming inference to Theism.  Unfortunately these alternative models fail at establishing a universe  that is eternal in the past or one that avoids a beginning. Besides they have very little actual scientific evidence or support: in other words, these theories are for want of better words, a curious dabbling into some form of metaphysics since they are not based on any actual currently known physics (testable experimental verification). They have had to be discarded or at best ignored at least, until the physicists proposing them furnish us evidence that corroborates some of these fantastic claims.

So what have we seen in 20th century cosmology? No other theory of the Origin of the Universe has been as mathematically consistent and been confirmed by the evidence as the Big Bang Model. We have seen the steady-state model, the oscillating model, the vacuum fluctuation model, the chaotic inflationary model,  the  much speculative Hartle-Hawking model,  and the cyclic/ekpyrotic model - some of them cannot be scientifically verified or proven; some collapse under the weight of their own scientific inconsistencies; they may propose an eternal future, but altogether they fail hopelessly at establishing a model that is eternal in the past.

Krayola2:

haha. I agree with u. I was just trying to do a Tudor impersonation.

The God of religion is as real as Cinderella.

Dude you're On Your Own ooo. . . .

Tudór:

Dude you're On Your Own ooo. . . .

haha. No problem. When all else fails, I have my prayer points and anointing oil!!

Prizm:


3) Most atheists that I have discussed with do not have any positive case to make for atheism. It seems to me that if a person cannot conclusively prove God's non-existence, or even intelligently refute sound arguments for a God, such a person should better reclassify him/herself as an agnostics since he/she is taking the position that God's existence is not readily evident or apparent to him/her. But it does look as if atheism has been redefined by these present day 'New Atheists" to be some convenient lack of belief in a God. But this definition is self-serving. If someone wants to call him/herself an atheist, and deigns to engage in any reasonable discussion or debate on the existence or non-existence of a God, he/she has to provide good and convincing argument why we should think that a God does not exist. After all, that is the same burden that a theist in any such discussions is faced with : namely to provide good and convincing evidence why anyone should think that a God does exist.

Here is one positive case for atheism if there is a god then pls show us where he is. . . . . unsubstatianed claims and hypothesis WILL NOT do. . . if you claim that there is a god then let us know where he is and we will forever be quite. . . if there is a god you will not be here telling us about his existence he will do it himself if he truly wants people to know about his existence. . no deity that truly want people to know about his existence will leave it unto other people to keep on throwing unsubstatiated and ridiculous theories about him/her. The deity will end the chase and do it him/herself because humans have completedly failed in that regard. . . . .

4) For many theists, their belief in God is not anchored on just reasoning and argumentation alone. There is sometimes a deep and inward personal experience that affirms their implicit belief in God. It is very much like the inward and personal conviction and experience of the external world which cannot be scientifically or empirically proven. So while argumentation based on sound and logical inferences is good, for a theist that is not the entire gamut of inferences available. One has to presuppose atheism for example, to deny the veridical nature of certain judgments and presuppositions which human beings accept and uphold rationally but which are not amenable to the scientific process.

The question now is whose theism is right? There are different types of theism and all are mutually exclusive and very different from each other. . . . personal experience does not mean anything what makes the christian personal experience better or more real than that of a moslem who claims like christians to hear the voice of allah or see some islamic gin? what makes the christian personal experience better or more real that that of the hindu magician who uses his hindu books to "cast" spells?

The Universe is not eternal--by which we mean that it began to exist a finite time in the past. For a long time, the view in academia was that the universe is eternal, but that view is no longer currently held by any serious person who has bothered to investigate or read up on the issue. There are sound philosophical as well as scientific reasons to believe that the universe was not infinitely pre-existent, but that it came into being a finite time in the past. The Standard Model of the Big Bang - whose predictions have been confirmed over and over has put a nail in the coffin of speculations to the contrary.

Even if we are to believe that the universe began with the big bang you are yet to show that the deity you subscribed to is the force behind the bigbang. . . you have to provide evidence for this, unsubstantiated claims will not do. . . scientist have explained the big bang and your god or any other deity DOES NOT HAVE A ROLE to play in their any of their explanations at all. . . .

what is happening to my posts on this thread? They appear to be being disabled.

@ huxley, i think its the spam bot.

Krayola2:

@ huxley, i think its the spam bot.

is the spambot also attacking you?

@prizm

huxley:

is the spambot also attacking you?

It has before.

I read your post though, so it did show up briefly. u responded to 3 and 4 of prism's post. It sucks when u type that much stuff and it just disappears

There seems to be a problem whenever I respond to Prizm's post by quoting his post.  This is my last response to his post:


Does familiarity with a belief systems or point of view necessarily mean that such beliefs or views could never be wrong or false?


Exactly -  "An Atheist's rejection of God is something done voluntarily", how else could it be done?  Under duress?  Under hypnosis?   As a theism, did you accept the God hypothesis involuntarily or under duress?

Exactly - you will often find that an atheist has to willfully refuse to accept  such arguments.  How else should one act to accept a proposition?  Unwillfully?


The onus is on the proposer of a claim to demonstrate that his claim is true and not the other way round.   If I accuse you of a crime, it is my responsibility to demonstrate that you have committed the crime.  You may not be obligated to demonstrate that you are innocent of the crime.   Such is the way most (if not all ) legal systems work.

[size=16pt]It is the responsibility of the theist to demonstrate that there is an entity called god.  Firstly, they will have to provide an ontology of god, which task you have proven incapable of doing.
[/size]

Which of the over 30,000 gods that theists past and present who have had experiences with these gods are you talking about?

Whymake yourself hostage of the fortunes of science.  Supposing it was to be demonstrated unequivocably that there exist multiple universes or some such, wouldn't your argument fall to pieces?

Yes, our current state of science confirms that this form (ie the inflationary and expanded form) of the universe is not eternal.  But how does that imply a personal god with whom you have experience and communicate?  You have not demonstrated that.


(Let's see if the spambot gets it)

@huxley. . .
Check you recent posts it should be there. . .
Try copy half post it then copy and post the remaining. . . . In that way you have two relatively shorter posts immune from the spam bot. . .

@krayola
LOL. . .
Is it the same anointing barca used last season?

Krayola2:

It has before.

I read your post though, so it did show up briefly. u responded to 3 and 4 of prism's post. It sucks when u type that much stuff and it just disappears

You can still see them if you click on my username (huxley) and click of the "Show last posts of this user" link at the bottom of the page.     But how does it know to disable some and leave some ok?

Tudór:

@huxley. . .
Check you recent posts it should be there. . .
Try copy half post it then copy and post the remaining. . . . In that way you have two relatively shorter posts immune from the spam bot. . .

@krayola
LOL. . .
Is it the same anointing barca used last season?

Tudor, thanks. I have done that, but it still disabled it. It was not even a long post, just about 15 - 20 sentences, about a tenth of Prizm post, yet his was not disabled.

Tudór:


@krayola
LOL. . .
Is it the same anointing barca used last season?

U betta recognize!! We have some more for this season

That spam bot is one crazy SOB. . . .

@krayola. .
Keep dreaming, na una papa get am?

Oh dear. This thread promised soo much and delivered so little. Nothing in fact. 0 plus 0 equals 0, to be precise, and no more. What happened to the fatal blows we were looking forward to. shame.

Just one thing I feel the need to say, although you might not find it relevant, for me it is a real sticking point. And that is that Mathematics and Physics are totally different subjects. Yes physics relies heavily on mathematics but they are still very different. Physics is the study of the world, the physical world and the laws of how it operates. Mathematics uses abstractions and studies the laws of how these abstract items interact. Mathematical discoveries do not need to be evidenced in nature.
I'm bringing this up because of the question of whether 0 plus 0 equals 0 is true everywhere in the universe. Zero, the number, is an abstraction and does not exist in the physical universe. Capisce?