Image123: So much fallacy in one fellow. i didn't say either, you are trying to fit me into your preconceived positions. BTW, the Bible says nothing about the universe being spoken into existence some 6000 years. All these pointless fallacious arguments make me facepalm more than necessary. It's not good for my health, lolz.
So what did you say? Remember I'm the umpire, playing devil's advocate for both sides. Biblically God did say things and they happened, and that was about 6000 years ago. See below (by a Christian physicist)
JessicaRabbit: I'm not sure you fully realize the absurdity of comparing a product of billions of years of evolution, to a magic trick. Neuroscience isn't some magician's smoke and mirrors; it's a complex dance of neurotransmitters, electrical impulses, and a lifetime of experiences shaping our perceptions. And please, with all due respect, spare me the Pharaoh's heart nonsense. The Bible is a collection of stories, not a physics textbook. If you want to talk evidence, stick to the realm of science, not ancient mythology.
Einstein was a brilliant mind, no doubt, but even geniuses are susceptible to flawed thinking. To claim that because he pondered determinism, everyone else should bow down to his musings is intellectually arrogant. The scientific method speaks for itself -- it is not based on blind acceptance of authority figures. And just because he grappled with free will doesn't mean he definitively disproved it. It's a complex philosophical question, not a binary switch. Look at you demanding evidence, yet throw around baseless claims about "cosmic beings" manipulating our hearts. The burden of proof lies with the one making extraordinary claims, not the skeptic asking for evidence. And even if we were in a simulation, so what? It wouldn't change the reality of our subjective experience. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "reality is just turtles all the way down, but those turtles are still pretty damn real."
As for the YouTube shorts, I've seen them, and I'm far from impressed. We can't tell for certain, but I'd wager they're more likely demonstrations of well-known psychological principles, cleverly edited to appear more mysterious than they are. If you want to impress me, you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies, not cherry-picked internet clips. I feel I should also remind you -- because it seems you're a having a very fundamental misunderstanding here: Atheism isn't about blind rejection of everything unseen. It's about demanding evidence before accepting extraordinary claims! It's about using reason and critical thinking to navigate the complexities of the universe. So, before you try to control my nonexistent strings or manipulate my heart, you should try backing up your assertions with actual evidence and sound logic -- as is characteristic of any genuine intellectual exchange. Otherwise, you'll just be lost in a self-constructed reality of youtube shorts and ancient fairytales.
Attributing random events to a simulated reality is a classic case of confirmation bias. You see a pattern where none exists, ignoring the vast majority of unremarkable spoon-bending that happens, you know, all the time. As for the speed of light, that's not a glitch, it's a fundamental law of physics, beautifully explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. It has nothing to do with video game limitations and everything to do with the fabric of spacetime itself. Just because we can't outrun a cosmic speed limit doesn't mean we're trapped in a computer program. You're also presenting a false dichotomy: either everything is a simulation or it's pure happenstance. Evolution begs to differ with this myopic distinction. It gives plausible explanations for the complexity of life without invoking invisible programmers or divine interventions. No magic required, just billions of years of natural selection tinkering away.
Finally, if you don't mind, let's keep this a science vs. faith conversation. Bringing in religious creation stories muddies the water and frankly, belongs in a different debate altogether. Thanks.
Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
So you truly believe that the pinpoint laws of the universe are a result of "billions of years of evolution"? As for scientists (that you have so much faith in), you can see what the ultimate scientist (Einstein) thinks about them - they are like little children in a library full of books who can't read! Also Einstein didn't just dabble in determinism, he actually refused to take credit for his works, insisting we all dance to a tune intoned by a mysterious player in the distance.
As for freewill, have you ever pondered where your thoughts come from? Notice your thoughts just appear without your input. How about your dreams? How about prophetic dreams? How come you can't choose what dream to have? (A friend has an entity that comes to have sex with her in her dreams anytime she lags in her Christian faith; another, a straight male friend, has someone try to anally rape him in dream each time he didn't pray). How come there are addictions, why not use freewill and immediately overide them?
"Glitches in the matrix" are very far from "confirmation bias". They are scientifically verified and documented cases of children born with memory of their past lives intact. They are confirmed and video tapped cases of time being reset - things that already happened unhappening or happening again. You can see lots of those on YouTube. As for the shorts, those are not even tip of the iceberg. Stories abound of people's encounter with the divine and the best ones don't make it to YouTube.
Finally, human reasoning and human critical thinking (that atheism relies so much on) have proven woefully inadequate in figuring out the nature of our universe, just as there is so much that science can't even come close to being able to explain. Example, speed of light. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be a speed limit in the universe. It is the kind of constraint imposed by speed of a processor. Our geniuses who say we likely live on a simulation are not saying it based on nothing. And if indeed we live in a world simulated by an external being, atheism falls apart to that extent!
MaxInDHouse: So in what way does Paul's definition differ from what your dictionary says? Hebrews 11:1
Complete trust in someone will make you act on the instructions given by such a person and complete trust in something will make you work towards achieving it therefore FAITH has nothing to do with what happened in the past as you were trying to relate it to how creation began rather it's about your own part in supporting who or what you completely trust!
Same St. Paul also explicitly says that salvation is by grace not works "so no one can boast". But this is not about that. I don't know why you fail to see there are two types of faith: 1) As defined in the dictionary: complete trust or confidence in someone or something; strong belief in doctrines of a religion. (Has nothing to do with anything happening or not happening) 2) As enunciated by St. Paul in Hebrew 11 - complete certainty that what you hope for will happen. (Has nothing to do with trust in someone or belief in religion)
MaxInDHouse: You're lying to your own soul! The word BELIEVE connotes TRUST and before you can trust someone you need a measure of understanding about the person in question. As a Nigerian who has never heard of Israel or whatever their God has said or done Jesus has no business with me but to an Israelite who has heard all the things the God of his ancestors has done in the past and all the promises this God has made it will definitely makes no sense to meet Jesus in person and disbelief that he is the promised Christ.
So how does FAITH come into the picture? Is it simply by saying "i believe"? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. It's by supporting whatever the Christ says so that by the end of the day you will be counted as one of those who worked with the Christ in achieving the purpose for which God sent His Son. John 3:16 If Jesus issues an order and you failed to act in line with his orders definitely you never had faith in him as God's Son. Matthew 7:21-23 So faith on the part of the faithful still means WORKING with what you understood though others may not see the clear picture of what you envisaged! Hebrews 11:1
Your quarrel is with the dictionary. See definition of faith below. Unless you invent your own language
SIRTee15: I never said nothingness exist, U insinuated it and I became curious. Time, space, matter and energy all exist within a physical reality where emptiness cannot exist.
However, U cannot use above to define God or look for him because he exist outside the physical reality. That's the stand of theist. He's the intelligent design that created the physical reality and properties. However in our own physical reality; nothing cannot exist, and something cannot be made out of nothing.
Regarding time always existing, U may want to read more about multiverse and other universe that exist.
In many cosmological theories, including some versions of multiverse theories, it's postulated that other universes may have different physical constants, laws of physics, and even dimensions compared to our own universe.
In some theoretical frameworks, it's conceivable that alternative universes could have entirely different forms of existence, with different fundamental properties governing their structure and behavior.
Well said. Remember I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides.
You did not mention the following:
1) Why the near-nothing that gave rise to the universe couldn't have always existed 2) The nature of God besides existing outside our reality 3) Why God would suddenly start creating man and the universe 13.8 billion years ago (or 6000 years ago as the case may be) 4) If you believe the 13.8 billion years, why God would take that circuitous route instead of having it be as in the Bible. 5) If our earth were shrunk to the size of a mustard seed (see below) our relatively small galaxy would have a diameter of about from here to mars! Yet there are 2 trillion galaxis in the observable universe! Which might as well be infinity. Why is earth so microscopic and almost non-exitent compared to what we can observe, talkless of what we can't?
Time as in NOW will always exist and has always existed, just like HERE!
SIRTee15: Bring scientific evidence that states vacuum energy exist in nothing. because principles quantum mechanics disagree with U. Vacuum energy doesn't exist in a real empty space.
There is no such thing as "empty space", as you ought know. Seemingly empty space is full of activity. But even beyond space, nothingness still does not exist and cannot exist, hence you can't imagine it. Just as time will always exist - there'd always be now and here!
JessicaRabbit: As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.
Oh the evidence we are in some sort of a simulation abound. Besides glitches in the matrix everywhere, the fact that the speed of light can never be exceeded no matter the speed of the light source, is a great tell tale sign of simulation to any computer game designer. I'll post an article on it that I came accross. Of course if this is a simulation, this all can't be happenstance per atheists, nor could it be according to biblical creation story
JessicaRabbit: Comparing our complex consciousness to a carnival magician's parlor trick is a bold move. Unless this cosmic hypnotist is leaving the latest iPhone in my handbag and making me forget my high school crush, I'm not buying it. And if the "best geniuses" already figured it out, shouldn't everyone else have access to their secret decoder ring?
I'm not inclined to agree with your claims about Einstein. He did grapple with determinism, but is it absolutely the same as dealing with the "free will illusion"? And even if our choices are influenced by factors beyond our immediate control, does that make them any less meaningful? We still experience the world, make decisions, and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards). It's like saying a river doesn't choose its course because gravity influences it. As for the simulation theory, it's a fun thought experiment, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where's the evidence? And even if we are in a simulation, wouldn't that just be...reality for us? Are simulated experiences any less real than "real" ones? It's all just turtles all the way down, my dear.
Well, your "complex consciousness" are only complex to you. See these shorts videos below, if a mere human can take control of another person and the person not even know they are under control, how much more a cosmic being. Even in the Bible God said he hardened Pharoah's heart. Likewise you may think it is happenstance you "fell in love" when in reality some being manipulated your heart to do exactly that. As for Einstein, if he could figure out things about reality that we still don't understand, just sitting in his study, we better listen if he comes out with position that freewill is an illusion!
JessicaRabbit: I'm curious, this "personal encounter" you're alluding to here, can it be verifiable by anyone else? Because, you see, subjective experiences are a dime a dozen in human history. From alien abductions to near-death visions, the brain is a marvelous storyteller, often weaving narratives based on emotions and cultural influences. Just because someone feels something deeply doesn't make it objectively true, especially when it aligns perfectly with their pre-existing beliefs. Given the vastness of our universe, we obviously don't have all the answers, yet. But here's the thing: claiming vastness doesn't equate to proving the existence of something specific, like, say, a bearded sky wizard. It's like arguing a teapot orbits the sun just because we haven't explored every square inch of space. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence, my friend.
As for miracles? Let's be honest, the majority of them often have very earthly explanations, from misdiagnosis reversals to psychological phenomena. And testimonies? Confirmation bias is a powerful force, leading people to interpret events in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. Plus, let's not forget the countless testimonies throughout history of Zeus, Thor, and a plethora of other deities – were they all true too? You also mentioned community and purpose. Those things can be found in countless ways beyond religion! Sports teams, book clubs, volunteering etc. Oh, and synchronized chanting and burning incense haven't exactly solved world hunger yet. Morality predates religion by millennia, evolving from empathy and social cooperation. And let's not forget the countless atrocities committed in the name of faith throughout history. As for the robber, his conversion might be genuine, but attributing it solely to religion ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence individual choices. Since I've been there before, I can understand and relate to the appeal of seeking solace and comfort. But attributing it solely to faith ignores the power of human connection, self-reflection, and critical thinking. Plus, relying solely on placebos for well-being is a risky proposition.
So, to answer your question, no, I don't believe the claims presented here are inherently true. They rely on subjective experiences, logical fallacies, and selective interpretations of evidence. As an atheist, I find wonder and meaning in the vastness of the universe we can explore, guided by reason, curiosity, and a 10kg bag of salt. 😉
Thanks for your erudite and well-thought out response. Well, since we don't know the true nature of existence, everything we know is by preponderance of circumstantial evidence (see last Thursday theory below). The only reason we believe lots of things is NOT because we have first-hand knowledge, but because a bunch of people (call them scientists if you wish) say it is so. So if a bunch of people say they have encountered a tea pot orbiting the sun, you don’t start your doubting of a bunch of people there, you should start by doubting those first bunch of people ("scientists" that told you everything you believe. Like I said, atheists can never say they encountered God who told them he does not exist. But bunch of religionists have had personal encounters with God in various ways that confirmed to them that God exists and is anthropomorphical. If you think they could have been hallucinating, well, so could those "scientists" that told you everything you believe. If you doubt it, see Lastthursdayism below
DeepSight: This is crap, sorry, and not worthy of a response. When you write something worthy you know I will respond.
Maybe time for QED . There's clearly all sorts of thinking going on in a dream, and while "I" is unconscious or possessed, or even dead (as narrated by people who came back), who is doing the thinking? As with many things about existence, we don't know the true nature of thinking. QED
SIRTee15: Is energy physical? can it be perceived and controlled within out own realm of physical dimension?
We don't know the ultimate nature of vacuum energy, but whatever it is, we know it is possible it has always been there - especially since it is the energy in "nothing"!
DeepSight: Any experience requires an experiencer and that is not a statement that requires proof unless you are not a serious discussant - perhaps the sort of discussant who will demand proof that breathing requires air.
As to your obsession with the sequence of the sentence - the fact that it starts with "I" - that only shows how pedantic your thinking is, Because it can easily be re-phrased as "Thinking exists, and thinking requires a thinker."
I am NOT the person who set the parameters. Descartes did in his book. He said he'd doubt anything he could remotely doubt. Disregarding that the statement is faulty in itself, Here's the logical sequence of events: 1) There is thinking (this we are fairly sure about) 2) Therefore there must be a thinker (we have no way of knowing this unless we claim we know the true nature of existence, which we don't! Also, the only describable attribute of the thinker is thinking - thinking is the thinker!) 3) That thinker must be "I" (obviously not true)
MaxInDHouse: That is not faith this is what most of you need to learn but instead of humbly listening you will start arguing blindly.
Faith has nothing to do with what has happened in the past because you have no say or power or part to play in what has happened in the past rather: faith is the assured expectation of what we hope for the evident demonstration of reality even though we have not seen it yet! Hebrews 11:1
So if you're talking about FAITH it should involve the faithful as in the part he is playing when nobody can see what he is working towards.
For instance the Wright Brothers had FAITH that it's possible for people to travel through the air and they started working towards it until it was achieved so if you want to talk about faith remember people like that who worked towards what no one has ever seen before their act of doing so is called FAITH not what has happened in the past that involves none of us living today!
You are conflating two types of faith - faith needed to achieve and faith needed to believe. It took faith for a contemporary of Lord Jesus to believe he was the Son of God, though they could see clearly he was a carpenter with neither money nor high connections
coming into means to succeed and precede some other cases at once
precede YA YA YA(what happens after u come) but succeed NA NA NA(what happens b4 u come)
a case now referring to a chance of either this or that .
Bottom line, if one basic element can be self-existing, so can another. No matter how you slice and dice the language. Quantum particles appear out of " nothing" all the time, then disappear
DeepSight: And I answered that. I even gave you an analogy of the sun, trying to show you that a thing needn't change to have consequences of its existence.
What is this for heaven sake its simple: a thought requires an experiencer no matter how you slice it or dice it.
And I showed you that your sun analogy is faulty - that an eternal unchanging self-existing sun or anything will not wake up one day and suddenly START creating
What proof do you have that a thought requires an experiencer. Describe the experiencer. In that case it can be anything: "I walk, therefore I am" since walking requires a walker". Which is why cigito starts with the assumption that "I" already exists. I will even go further and say that cogito doesn't prove that thought exists because that may actually NOT be thought. It proves that something exists but we can't be sure what it is exactly
FRANCISTOWN: I've not read your main post, but this kinda caught my attention.
Since you decided to play the devil's advocate, we might be looking at a very long thread ahead of us.
I've said it countless times on this forum that none of the supposed god characters fit into what can be called a God. Especially the anthropomorphic stance. I think that was my first thread when I came back to NL, that it's impossible for Yahweh and Allah to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or omnipresent. Just the book of Genesis and those attributes were effortlessly refuted.
If you got less busy, you can check the link down here.
When I have time I'll read the thread you referenced. But what do you say to the overwhelming, preponderance of circumstantial evidence that someone or something set this up? And the countless personal encounters of a higher power that so many people have had through the ages?
DeepSight: You didnt explain jack. I just got tired.
I did. Here again: 1) There is no reason why a self-existing, unchanging will suddenly CHANGE and start creating unless compelled by a something outside itself or a change within itself
DeepSight: I already explained to Lordreed in the other thread you created and you were following. So I neednt repeat myself. There is logic enough to infer the existence of God.
However it is not just logic. I have long described myself as a rational and intuitive deist. So, beyond logic, there is also intuition.
And I patiently explained to you why your logic is flawed, just as I explained why cogito is flawed. I thought those are amicably settled issues
isan: That boy in slum is also based on something, like working hard or going to school to land a life changing job ...
Nope, based on nothing observable in the present circumstances - that is pure faith. Being 100% sure of something for no reason. Just like a miracle is NOT based on logic
Image123: i did not actually say that, i referred to your worship of logic. There are many ways into Lagos.
So are you reverting to religion being logical? If so, how? Note that I said it is OK to believe the universe was spoken into existence some 6000 years ago because it says so in the Bible, just don't say it is logical
isan: Pure faith is when a pastor tell his followers he he drank tea with God and they all believed him .... I personally think it's just delusional
How can that be pure faith when it is based on something? Pure faith is a boy in the slum with no money for food or school being certain he'll one day be a millionaire
Aemmyjah: PoliteActivist God is acknowledged or referenced as the Cause or Creator of all things Atheists say all things came into existence by itself without any cause
How's that possible? That's the major foundation of such arguments Thank you
Well, atheists reply that if God can come into existence by himself, so can vacuum energy which gave rise to big bang and the universe
MaxInDHouse: This is exactly what i often tell you guys, the way you've been indoctrinated in false religions makes you think the highlighted is how to define faith whereas you're wrong. That has nothing to do with REAL faith!
So tell us how you define faith. By faith one can believe an entity spoke the universe into existence some 6000 years ago. It is NOT at all wrong to believe so, but tell us how it is logical
Aemmyjah: If I give you a cheque of 1 million naira, you have not seen the 1 million naira but you are sure you will get it as that cheque is the evidence I don't have a wire connection from my phone to anywhere but I am sure that I can call someone in another part of the globe. That is made possible by radio waves. These are examples of faith
God did not just say something. He created all things. Have you seen a contractor that built a house without saying something? Science tells us that the universe has a beginning. The universe cannot be its own cause Critical thinking
Lol, I'm sure you can do better than this. Cheques have nothing to do with faith. Cheques have abundant precedents - they are cashed everyday and have been for a long time. Pure faith is based on nothing - yet there is 100% certitude.
Created the universe by speaking it into existence. Isn't that your position? If not, how? Science also tell us the universe began from vacuum energy, which can be its own cause
Image123: Is life arrived at logically? Who makes logic superior and who defines logic? Is it logical for the many 1st class graduates to be jobless or slave away for people with lesser or no degrees? This logic worship ehn, i no think say e follow.
So we at least arrive at one agreement: Religion is NOT logical Though some religionists are still debating that it is
Aemmyjah: To illustrate It's like a Chelsea fan referring a champions league final game against Manchester united
Like the OP, your comments are unfittig
In this my umpire role I'm nobody's fan at all. I am simply playing devil's advocate for both sides. By the end, if am a good umpire, both sides will see me as biased against them! I don't know how you can say it is logical to say an entity says something and it happens - and that's how the universe was created some 6000 years ago. It is NOT wrong to believe so, but saying it is logical is another issue altogether!
Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Debate Religionists * by PoliteActivist(op): 1:53pm On Feb 22, 2024
that told you everything you believe. 
. 
