Mr_Anony:
Here we go again, the brand on a watch doesn't prove that the watch was created, all it proves is that the creator decided to put his brand on it (why is this so difficult for you?).

Mr_Anony:
The evidence for creation for any object is order. The universe is far too orderly and far too intelligent to occur randomly

Mr_Anony:
If there is God and one of the many must be the true God, then consider:
None of the adherents of other gods have made such a claim as this: That God came to the earth in the flesh (not in a time before time but in verifiable time)

Martian:

lol. so your god decided not to put a trademark on his universe?

Deep Sight:
Either that, or you willfully refuse to see the giant trademarks hanging everywhere!

Idehn:

The watchmaker analogy is a common/(not to mention old) argument which has been criticized throughout its history. The way you are using it is particularly abusive, because you are using a complex object that is easily identifiable as being designed(by man particularly) and equivocating it with another complex object(the Universe). After all how many universe factories have you ever heard of? I know several ipad factories in china and in fact the serial number can tell you where and when your ipad was manufactured. You should take a look at the wiki page for the various criticism/rebuttals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy. To your last point answer this. Do you recognize that humans are made of physical material called matter? Do you recognize that ipad are also composed of physical material called matter? Do you recognize that it was one organization of physical matter(human) that caused another organization of physical matter(ipad) to be? If the answer is yes to all then you are in agreement with the Martian.

As to your teleological argument, I am afraid that it is a mess of incoherency. You speak of causality as the motivation for necessitating that there be a first cause(not that I agree on this point). Yet, you then proceed to remove the first cause from a time and space. Surely you must understand that the argument from causation necessitates that all steps be within a time/space framework? For example, the meaning/concept behind the word "cause"(along with every other verb) is entirely informed by a framework of time and space. It is not at all clear what you mean when you say "X" caused/es/ing? "Y" outside of time and space. But, of course that is an incoherent statement because I am talking about X as if it were an "event" that took place within time. By your definition it most certainly did(another word that requires time) not. So using words/concepts like cause/effect/event/does/did/actions are entirely inappropriate considering how you defined first cause.

The trouble I see with your argument it that you are trying to say A=/=B and yet turning around and talking as if A=B. Essentially, you are saying the first cause is outside time/space and then proceeding to "borrow" concepts from time and space to explain it. That does not make any sense. If A is outside of time and space, then it is entirely inappropriate/incoherent/illogical to use things that exist within time and space to explain it. I believe this is what Martian has been trying to tell you all along.

Martian:

And you read all these in your religious book. I can also tell you about Muhammad(who's historicity has been confirmed unlike Iesous) and his holy book. Because apart from the bible, there is no other source for this jesus fellow under than the grasping at straws when apologists start looking for any word that resembles "kristos" in ancient historical texts.You forget that the bible is a compilation of books by different authors



What are these "christian" values people didn't possess until your religion existed? What is the way of christ and what makes it exclusive to christ? At least you still cannot fault His way



My book of Bible stories.



The resurrection only occured in the bible. Again the bible is a compilation by different writers and not an account by one man, and no one of that time contested the testimony of the apostles, it was common knowledge. A miracle yes but these people knew it to be true.


So it seems the bible is your evidence that your god is real. The evidence that my God is real is actually that I exist but i know you can't understand that

Martian: ^^^^^
What makes you think I regard jesus way to be ideal. For all I care, the beatitudes are nothing but inane supernatural platitudes that has contrbuted to the inflated ego of christianity.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
(poverty of mind, wealth,etc is cool as long as you know that sugarcandy Mountain awaits you)

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
(No sh#t!!......maybe the comfort is another allusion to la la land heaven)

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
(The earth that the dragon will fling stars into? I thought the meek are supposed to goto heaven anyway)

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
(platitude that means, "blessed are those who believe in my bullsh#t)


Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
(i guess men didn't know the meaning of mercy before jesus........ a better "beautitude" would have been, "practice mercy when it is prudent"


Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
(bla bla bla god)

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
(bla bla bla...attribute virtue to god)

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
the number 1 platitude that gives christians the motivation to be hardheaded uncompromising ideologues. If you oppose them,even for their own good, theywill think they are being "blessed for being persecuted for the sake of righteousness)

Mr_Anony: May God forgive you. You can move along now.

Mr_Anony: May God forgive you. You can move along now.

logicboy:

Is that all you can say when your source of morals can be debunked

Mr_Anony:

Idehn,

About cause and effect, if you trace it back to a first cause at the beginning, that cause must be uncaused.

Mr_Anony:
Consider the classic chicken and egg scenario. When you trace back to the first egg, it must not be laid by a chicken. Something else must have brought it about or else it came from nothing and we know that nothing comes from nothing.

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps i use a lot of analogies that people get lost in them sometimes. All I have been saying is this if the universe has a definite origin, then whatever it originated from i.e. whatever brought it to be must not be subject to the mechanisms by which the universe operates rather must transcend them.

Mr_Anony:
If you say the big slam was when time, matter, and space came to be - unless you say that the big slam came from nothing - whatever it came from must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. There are only two things we know that fit that description,
1. abstracts such as numbers and forms
2. a personal mind.

Mr_Anony:
Further evidence that the universe is not a random occurrence is evident in the level of order and precision that we can observe in the universe. The high level of precision and detail in the universe points more than anything else to the existence of a designer.

Idehn:

Yes, if you assert that there is a first cause then it by definition must not have a cause. However, in order to be part of a causal chain it must still be within time. Otherwise, you cannot claim it is a cause at all.


Again even the cause of the first egg is still within the framework of time and space. It would be no more logical to conclude that the first cause of the universe is outside time and space, than it would be to conclude that the cause of the first egg(or any other first for that matter) was outside time and space. I must also add that an infinite causal chain also satisfies this criterion that nothing can come from nothing.

Analogies are completely inappropriate because there is nothing like what you are claiming. No physical analogy/description/concept/definition can ever be applied/used to explain something that is not physical. If you are going to say A is nothing like B (A=/=B) then that is fine. But it does not make any sense for you to turn around and proceed to describe/define/conceptualize B entirely in terms of A as if A==B. That is being inconsistent and is making your argument incoherent. You cannot have it both ways.

The big b.ang theory details the expansion of the Universe from a singularity. It assumes that there was a universe already there to expand from and that all the scientific principles that currently apply to the Universe were valid then. No one knows what came before the singularity. For all we know, it could have just been a Universe that had just collapsed into a singularity.

Furthermore, concepts/ideas are still physical objects. They are a specific organization of neurons in the brain. The mind is also contained within the brain although the specifics are still yet to be understood. All the things you are describing are physical components of a nervous system.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that the Universe could have been something else than what it is? If so than how do you know this?

Martian:
There is no need for a manifesto
atheism is true because all concepts of gods and the supernatural are man made.

Martian:

Then let it make sense to you and yours. Atheism is the acknowledgement that there is no fundamental difference betwen yahweh, obatala, zeus and ahura mazda etc. Christianity is the belief that yahweh/jesus aredifferent from the rest.



but the statement is true if the statement it opposes is baseless and has similarities with other baseless statements i.e lies
You say there is a "god", I say prove it, you say its "extraphyscial and can't be explained in physical terms", I say it sounds like the rest of the fairytales, you close your eyes,close your ears, stomp your feet and keep crying about how your God is different but refuse to give a coherent explanantion. I say your god is not different from the other gods you and I both reject.I'm probably right.

Mr_Anony:

You look at a mechanism such as the universe and demand that it's originator must be less complex than it is. You and I know very well that I coined the word "extraphysical" to explain that whatever brought forth the universe i.e the physical must be more complex than the universe hence "extraphysical". feel free to attack my poor use of the english language if that is what makes you feel better.

It amuses me when you say you do not know if the universe has an origin or not but you seem absolutely certain that if it does, the creator of the physical must be physical as well. I wonder how you came to be convinced of this.

Martian:

Why "a God" and not "gods"? Please, please, pretty please show me why your God is true.

I could show you why my God is true but first you have to acknowledge that a God must exist and one of the many proclaimed must be true. Else it is futile talking about it.

logicboy:


Your post had too much nonsense in it for atheists to be bothered.

Enigma: Addendum

See e.g. here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml

While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes.

From the same link (on Humanism)

It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

hisblud: hi martian, i like your answers, but why use the word 'probably' to your assertion? I tot all atheist are 100% sure of God's non existence? Kindly clarify the use of that word 'probably'

hisblud: hmm, looking at the bolded, i believe atheist have faith, the origin of the big b@ng, for thousands of years, have not been known, thus the plausible option is to accept the unknown 'supernatural' caused the big b@ng. therefore man made abi

hisblud:
Martian it looks you are trying to mix 2 things at the same time. a God and gods, what i believe anon wants you to accept first is, is there an unknown supernatural entity

hisblud:
if yes, then anon would now show WHO this entity is (a God) and then go ahead to differentiate between the two (a God and gods). Anon, I hope i am right! So martian is that a flow of what you wish to know!

Enigma: Absence of belief as with a dog, a cow and a monkey!
Absence of belief or the claimed absence of belief?
Absence of belief (passive) or actual disbelief (active)?
Who's fooling who?
Or are the evangelical atheist mumus just fooling themselves?

jayriginal:
Well, well !

Mr_Anony:

Now Causality does not refer to time as time actually is. Causality refers to time as a sequence (where time can go on infinitely) and hence we have a before and after.

Mr_Anony:
Time on the other hand is a dimension by which we describe our universe. For instance we know that it takes 8 minutes for light to get from the sun to the earth so the sun we see now is as it was 8 minutes ago. Now assuming we had some means other means of communicating faster than light, "time" would be faster and we would see the "future" hence time is an illusion we use to make sense of sequences.

Mr_Anony:
For all we know, the universe might as well be described as an infinite* number of frames on a static plane and light runs this frames so that we have a sequence. (this is a very simple way of looking at it but I'm sure you get the idea) How can one say that time started with the big bang without acknowledging that there must exist something outside the confines of time

Mr_Anony:
Again my argument here for dimensions beyond the confines universe. If you say that the big bang is an expansion, Into what space is it expanding? The theory is more or less that there was a compressed ball of very high energy which went kaboom! and then as it expanded, started cooling. what caused this cataclysmic event? What held this ball of energy together in the first place? How did it cool in very definite and precise chunks of matter, How does it come to support life when it is overwhelmingly more likely that it shouldn't?

Mr_Anony:
When I said a mind, I didn't mean like a human mind rather I was referring to an intelligence. Besides, the mind is not and cannot be simply defined by an arrangement of neurons, it is far more complex than that. "You cannot simply look at the brain and say "Remove neuron A, B and C and Idehn and Mr Anony will not think of the color red again".

Mr_Anony:
A mind to the brain is much like software running on a computer. The computer as no value without the software. The true personality of the computer depends on the software. Yes if the hardware is damaged, the software won't function but that doesn't mean we explain the software based on hardware. In much the same way as we use computer hardware to access it's software, so do we access our minds using our brains. The mind is by no means physical.

Mr_Anony:
What I was saying is this. There is a pattern to the universe which we can recognize. This is a strong indication that there is an intelligence. If before the big bang was a singularity, then there are many different ways it could have turned out apart from as it is today unless the universe was was not a singularity but a minuscule complex universe that has simply expanded, if this was the case, then we would notice an expansion of it's particles such as expanding planets rather than just an increase in the spaces between them.

Mr_Anony:
Lastly, I give you this parable*. This an attempt by me to explain why it is possible to have an intelligent designer who doesn't require a physical explanation.

If for instance We create a complex virtual world much like ours and run it on the intelligence of a supercomputer.

Mr_Anony:
The characters in this virtual world would not be able to explain "physicality" because they do not experience it in their world of "virtuality". they might even trace back their existence to the date their world was began (in our case the day we launched the software. Mind you, what time means for them may not necessarily be the same for us. we can make it such that a minute to us is a century to them if we like. we can do the same tweaks with space and distance and heat e.t.c.) If we decide, we can tweak the events in their world so that random strange "miracles" happen that you can only fully understand if you were physical and not virtual.

(a).Now some of these our virtual people might say; there is nothing beyond "virtuality". They would be wrong
(b).Some might say; we know that our world has a starting point, we know that nothing starts from nothing. but yet we say there cannot be a "physical". They would be foolish
(c).Others might say might say; if our virtual world started at some point, we don't know, but what could have started it? They would be wise
(d).Others might also say; If something caused our virtual world to exist, then there must be a world beyond the virtual. They would be right
(e).And yet some others might also say; I know the physical, I know what runs this world of ours. For these ones, it is either the physical has been revealed to them or they are simply lying.

Mr_Anony: The truth is this, one can only truly know God by revelation.

Idehn:

Your teleological argument just does not give any clear,meaningful, and coherent definition for God. Without such a definition, it is pointless to talk about God this and God that.

Deep Sight:

Lol, when will you tire of saying this. This remains your constant refrain whenever God is discussed. You keep repeating that there is no definition and as such, no discussion can hold. Magnifient escapism if you ask me. Enjoy it if it makes you feel dandy.

No serious discussant can claim that there exists no general idea of what the word "God" refers to in Theological Discourses

I guess this will be the next word you will assist us to delete from human language, seeing as it has no definition - not even in dictionaries!

Kay 17:
in a theist+atheist discussion, it can't be taken for granted.

Idehn:

Asking what space the universe is expanding into is not a meaningful question. Space is the metric by which we measure the size of the universe(in this case volume).

It is not at all clear what you mean when you say "create/design" a Universe.

Especially when you appeal to things that exist outside the conceptual framework of time/space which informs every aspect of the meaning of the words create and design.

Again your parable is completely in appropriate. It would be like trying to design virtual Universe outside the framework of space and time. How do you possibly do such a thing when every single thing we know/do is tied to the concepts of space and time? The concepts would invariably permeate the design whether you wanted it to or not.

Deep Sight:

Lol, when will you tire of saying this. This remains your constant refrain whenever God is discussed. You keep repeating that there is no definition and as such, no discussion can hold. Magnifient escapism if you ask me. Enjoy it if it makes you feel dandy.

No serious discussant can claim that there exists no general idea of what the word "God" refers to in Theological Discourses

I guess this will be the next word you will assist us to delete from human language, seeing as it has no definition - not even in dictionaries!

Deep Sight:
I just need to make a few further comments to show what I mean by tiresome definition games and running around in meaningless circles.

Deep Sight:
This is just classic escapism. Aside from this, it does not task itself in the least. The questions states - into what is space expanding - and as such it remains a perfectly valid question save for the escapist materialist or the intellectually lazy. Note carefully "into what" - does not necessarily suggest that the space that we scientifically define is the same thing as the "what" being quesried here.

Deep Sight:
Here is another tiresome example of definition games and deliberate attempts to obsfucate simple words. Especially as it is followed with -

Especially when you appeal to things that exist outside the conceptual framework of time/space which informs every aspect of the meaning of the words create and design.

Deep Sight:
This is exactly what makes the question relevant - If we consider that things only exist within the construct of space and time - as scientifically defined - then we wonder how it is possible for the universe to expand at all. Into what is it expanding? ? ?

Idehn: Oh, Deepsight I knew you just could not resist.

If you do not accept that the definition of God varies from person to person than you are welcome to that opinion. Pretending like everyone can read each others minds when the matter of God comes up is just silly. It is almost as silly as assuming everyone has the same definition for natural wouldn't you say . Let this gentlemen present his notion of what God is instead of putting words into his mouth.

Reason you grow weary because cannot even get your own definitions straight. Look back at our discussion about natural. My definition was clear,coherent, and meaningful. Every query you threw at it did nothing to change this. However, at the end of the day you did nothing more than throw a tantrum and complain to the tune of "it just ain't right". What you really were doing was trying to give you personal preferences super powers by claiming that they were based on something objective (nature). If you want to put the cart before the horse than fine. But do not expect me to even pretend like that is how it is supposed to work.

Again you are under the presumption that "space" is a physical object that exist outside of the brain. That is simply wrong. It is no more meaningful than claiming that the borders of Nigeria represent something that physically exist outside of the ink on maps and globes. Unless of course the border actually corresponds to something physical like a river or mountain. Otherwise it does not exist beyond a concept stored in the brain. If you cannot be bothered to clarify the fundamentals of a dialectic, then my friend it is you who is intellectually lazy.

Like him you are making the same mistake. Space/time are concepts that exist in the brain. They are not same as other physical objects like balloons/bags that you can fill with air(or in this case the universe).

Furthermore, think for a moment about what you are saying. If the Universe had to expand into something else then it would not be the Universe. It would be the Universe minus the thing everything else has to expand into.

In which case you would have to ask more absurd questions like, what is the something(what you call space) expanding into?