Sorry your browser is not supported!

Neophyte how old are you? You seem to be very clever/scentifically literate to me I think we should just stop this topic beacouse Neophyte is right its now a relegious debate and everyone will just keep posting their own points of view and not really get anywhere.

I am not involving myself in this debate either except to observe that Neophyte's point about using all the gospels to construct Mr. JC's Passion is in my respectful submission a bad one. It doesn't take into account either the subjectivity of the original reporters or the factual distortion caused by hearsay.

I'm intimately acquainted with these fascinating topics thanks to my profession. I've yet to be involved in any case where many people have gone to the same meeting and haven't come out of it with radically different recollections as to what was said, by whom, what happened and what was agreed.

Its good news. It keeps me in hats and ties and white collars.

Philip

@-Mr X there are probably no creationists left because they (i think) were a group of moderatly clever people who decided to argue the old testimony to absurd notions against much much much more clever people, but you can beleive in Jesus without being a creationist (personally I being a Christian rank creationists on the same level as the moon hoax and the worldwide ufo conspiracy people)

No, there are creationists left (I'm Christian without being one). I saw them on the history channel a couple months ago.

Because you've turned it into a mudslinging event.

In other words, please tell me how one can be a Christian but not a creationist? I've heard of many Christians believing that God intended for us to evolve.

Mr. X - Mormons no longer support marrying multiple wives. The ones that are extremists are the ones that you hear about in the newspapers.

The Bible was assembled from many gospels at the council of Nicea around the year 1000. As far as I know the information hasn't been changed since then, aside from being translated and versionized (is that a word?) many times. The Roman Catholics have extra books appendixed to the Bible that the majority of Christians read. The Mormons have an extra book, The Book of Mormon, that Joseph Smith apprently found on some leaves a few hundred years ago.

Nothing historical in the Bible has been disproved, and if there has, I'd like to know. Forget about God. I'm talking about past kings, historical figures (like David and Goliath of Gath), and future events talked about in the Revelations and other later books are unravelling in present times. They have even located Noah's Ark on Mount Arrarat.

This historical accuracy is what grabbed me originally when I started investigating "Christianity".

Yes, it is very historically accurate, and a lot of the places in it have been found, though no one knows where King Soloman's mines are...as for the creationist part, read m next post...

I take it back, I don't have to tell you why, though the genesis part I believe was created out of nothing, it's just other things of creationism i don't believe

you can be a Christian and oppose creationists because they did not accept evolution and argued EVERY word of the Old Testimony- personally I think there are quite a few bits in there which are a methaphor of life and NOT intended to be debated about every word like the creationists did

agreed

Creationism is more logically probable, almost everyone would argue, than the current exstance of any higher power. I don't see why you're bashing creationists so much. You know, even the ridiculous Big Bang theory relies on the existance of a primeval egg of compressed gassess and energy that had to come from somewhere. Given that in our human knowledge we can not explain how the space/time continuum and our universe came to be, it makes more sense to believe that some supernatural power created our universe than it does to believe that it somehow just 'came to be', but wasn't created.

I don't believe in a space time continuim theory, because I've nley heard of it in crappy movies, and I believe some of creationism, just not all of it, but that first part of Genesis I do believe it was created out of nothing, but i don't believe all of creationism

What other parts of creationism don't you believe? I don't understand your definition of the word.

some creationists have begun to 'rationalize' everything in the bible.

Please elaborate.

I saw a book like that. It tried to explain the miracles and stuff. One I can remember is The Feeding of The 5000 - what they thought actually happened was that when the young boy gave up his bread the crowd was moved and gave up their food as well. I think water into wine was that they were all drunk and they confused white wine for water. I can't remember exactly.

k: I have heard some of them try to modify the whole bible before (well, MOST of the bible) and put in some stupid stuff about how God didn't really directly do this and that, but used nature for stuff to happen instead of accepting the fact that he just did it himself.

yeah, stuff like that, they try to rationalize EVERYTHING!!! thouhg i hadn't heard abput that one

This might change your mind on it.

nope, couldn't understand all of the big words

@AnDrEy

"The inconsistencies are there because each diciple wrote the events from his own point of view and each part is from what each saw/remembered"

I know. That's why I said:


You asked for any logical inconsistencies and I showed you some. Or did you mean something else when you said:


@Philp

"I am not involving myself in this debate either except to observe that Neophyte's point about using all the gospels to construct Mr. JC's Passion is in my respectful submission a bad one. It doesn't take into account either the subjectivity of the original reporters or the factual distortion caused by hearsay."

Actually, the whole point was the subjectivity of the original reporters and the factual distortion caused by hearsay. AnDrEy wanted inconsistencies so I gave him an example and he appears to accept it(? I don't know for sure though. I'm speculating).

@Jeku

"Because you've turned it into a mudslinging event."

Really? I thought it was because you were too stubborn to admit you were wrong. Else why would you have posted this?:


"In other words, please tell me how one can be a Christian but not a creationist?"

I don't know if that is addressed to me or not, but I've been using the word creationist to mean someone who doesn't believe in evolution and that the variation between the species was caused by God. If by "creationist" you mean someone who believes the world was created by God or some higher power than yes, you would have to be a creationist to be a Christian.

"The Bible was assembled from many gospels at the council of Nicea around the year 1000. As far as I know the information hasn't been changed since then, aside from being translated and versionized (is that a word?) many times."

Its been changed numerous times, but I'm not going to get into that here. That is solely a religous matter and I stay out of religous debates.

"Nothing historical in the Bible has been disproved, and if there has, I'd like to know. Forget about God. I'm talking about past kings, historical figures (like David and Goliath of Gath), and future events talked about in the Revelations and other later books are unravelling in present times."

A lot of things that were historical were disproved or no evidence was found for them. Again, I won't get into that here, but if you really want to know(and I doubt that) you can easily find the information you are looking for on the net.

"They have even located Noah's Ark on Mount Arrarat."

Yet further proof you don't read anything I post. Here it is(again) for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

"This historical accuracy is what grabbed me originally when I started investigating "Christianity"."

And how did you know what you were investigating was historically accurate?

@Mouse

"Creationism is more logically probable, almost everyone would argue, than the current exstance of any higher power."

That didn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that Creationism is more probable than a Higher power? How can that be? Wouldn't you need a creator/higher power in order for things to be created?

"I don't see why you're bashing creationists so much."

That would be becuase you didn't read any of the links I posted. :-P

"You know, even the ridiculous Big Bang theory relies on the existance of a primeval egg of compressed gassess and energy that had to come from somewhere."

False. Read my links before posting. Here it is(again):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

"Given that in our human knowledge we can not explain how the space/time continuum and our universe came to be,"

You obviously aren't up on your quantum physics. :-P Read "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking.

" it makes more sense to believe that some supernatural power created our universe than it does to believe that it somehow just 'came to be', but wasn't created."

I'm breaking my own rule here but...

Belief is not the default state, at least not in someone who is being rational. In order to believe in something rationally you must first have evidence that it exists. Since we don't have evidence that a creator exists, it is irrational to conclude that one does exist just because one feels like it. We don't have evidence that space aliens with purple shoes created the universe, but I don't hear you advocating that do I?

Read my above link before posting. It contains solid refutations to your arguments. Oh and here is a quote from the above link just for fun.

@Neophyte - You're obviously the kind of guy (or girl, whatever) that, no matter what, always has to have a reason to argue, along with a bunch of weblinks you google'd to back up your claims (which I can do, too, but I won't). Nothing of my previous post was directed at you, and yet you want to dissect every sentence.

Pointless, really.

By the way, do you have any relation to Raven?

Neophyte, i think that thing was directed to me, but creationists now seemt o enjoy rationalizing everyhting in the bible and ignore you when you say "But God says...", enough to where they retaliate into saying "But God didn't mean it like that, no, you have it all wrong, you see, the people who translated the Bible mistranslated it." I have heard them say that before. Creationists have rationalized the whole Moses thing into a rediculous pile of sh*t, and then use words that sound scientific to back themselves up, and, if you don't agree with them, ignore everything you say and tell everyone what an idiot you are that yiu can't accept that you're wrong.

You talk as though there's something wrong with that.

@Jeku

"You're obviously the kind of guy (or girl, whatever) that, no matter what, always has to have a reason to argue, "

And you are obviously the kind of guy that can't take being proved wrong very well. Heh, Jeku. I got some advice for ya. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

"(which I can do, too, but I won't). "

Yeah right.

Sell that BS to someone who will buy it. You know I won't. Your all talk and no action Jeku. You know that if you tried something like that I'd be all over the fallacies in it like white on rice. Your claims are baseless and whatever "proof" you can muster will easily be debunked by me.

But if you think you got what it takes then, please, put your money where your mouth is and post those links that you are oh so capable of providing. I won't be holding my breath though.

Your I-can-do-that-I-just-choose-not-to bluff isn't convincing me at all.

"Nothing of my previous post was directed at you, and yet you want to dissect every sentence."

Your previous post was "please elaborate". I didn't touch that cause it was obviously not directed at me. I also didn't touch "What other parts of creationism don't you believe? I don't understand your definition of the word." because that wasn't directed at me either. However, I did touch your post where the first sentance you wrote was: "Because you've turned it into a mudslinging event." which was aimed DIRECTLY at ME. So I don't know what BS you are spinning here, but I've only dealt with posts that were aimed at me by you.

"By the way, do you have any relation to Raven?"

Ouch. Can't win the argument so you're resorting to low-blows eh Jeku? But No. The difference between me and Raven is that I back up what I say with proof and address any counter points while Raven just continue's to rant regardless.

I'd say the only one who is "related" to Raven is you. You haven't backed up anything you've said in this entire thread and you've addressed next to none of my counter points. You also haven't read any of my links or you read them but choose to ignore everything in them in favor of your fantasies. Yep, sounds like Raven to me.

@HZence

"You talk as though there's something wrong with that."

Yes, apparently, research is only a good thing if it agrees with him.

Anyway, sorry about hijacking your thread but given your past track record with threads like these it was going to happen eventually.

That attitude is genuine Raven. When I asked about your relation to him, I was referring to the fact that no matter what I would post that you disagree on, you'll jump on it. There's really no point with people like you.

Wow, thanks for the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. I've only been pointed out that same link by everybody else I've had this discussion with. If you didn't notice, that article is about the Sun Pictures' Noah's Ark hoax., not about disproving that the Ark exists

There are *MANY* other groups and people that have seen the ark and taken pictures of it nonetheless.

My links on that topic, some of which you may not even consider because they're Christian:

http://anchorstone.com/number8.html - Dig around on this page for pictures
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/ark.htm - Another man's account of the ark

And another link on the evolution discussion:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/apemen.asp - the problem with apemen

And who said anything about not reading your links? Because I don't "agree" with that big bang argument? Get over yourself.

So do you believe that evolution exists but just that humans didn't come from apes?

I find it hard to believe that the world is only 6000 years old (what the bible dates it) when every other dating method (carbon, argon, plutonium, tree rings, rock layers....) makes it much older.

I find it no harder to believe that the big bang was always there than that god was always there. Both are inter-dimensional.

I also think that Noah's Ark seems pretty ridculous.



I don't think so - it seems to be about how feasable noah's ark would be.

dude... men have niples, that means something

maybe thats becouse the 23rd Y chromosone in not a complete switch off but doesnt switch off some of the female genes or something else... (p.s. Neophyte dont go off on google looking for reasons to disagree with this small thing, you dont have to disagree with everything any1 says)

hmm... AnDrEy that goes for and against what i was argueing

lol

Neophyte

You're very confused... I'm not arguing for the existance of a christian god. I'm arguing the liklihood of creation. Any kind of creation. Not just christian creation.



I'll take the last part of your paragraph for reference later.



Not a single one of them have offered a bit of evidence as to a theory of where it all came from. We cannot comprehend nor explain nothing, just as we cannot truly comprehend the definition of infinity. We as humans have no way of explaining how something would come from nothing.



Sigh. I'm afraid both you and the person who wrote that rather petty article really don't get it... some of you athiests live a sad life, really. Straight from the article:



Vacuum fluctuation? You know, those things can't happen if there is no vacuum. Where did that vacuum come from? What caused the fluctuation? This argument can be applied to every last possible cause the creator of that article brings up. It has to start somewhere, and 'rationally' we have no methods of explaining it-- therefore and so, it is logically probable that some supernatural or at least 'inexplicable' power created the universe, something we can not rationally explain.



Same arguments apply. By the way, I believe Hawking has allowed the rationally of some types of creationism, correct me if I'm wrong.



I'll dissect this sadly atypical athiest argument piece by piece.



You really think you can explain everything by being rational, don't you? Rest assured you're missing a lot when the stars are bright at night or there's a particularly beautiful sunset. But, what the hell, I'll argue on your ground.



Visions, words spoken by a god, miracles; all of these you may not have seen or expirienced, but have converted millions of others to religion. You simply like to say it's not evidence because you haven't expirienced it, but the fact is, you have no way of determining whether they were being truly rational or not unless you can actually know what they expirienced.



False premise #1. I have already logically concluded above that rationally, we must believe some supernatural power created the universe. Evidence.



Final proof you just don't get it. But I'll go on.

I'm skipping the first part because it is a conclusion based on a false premise and thus must be logically invalid and ignored...

Have you seen space aliens with purple shoes? Have you had visions of them? Have they talked to you in your dreams? Granted you things when you prayed to them? All of this is concrete evidence for members of religion, and simply because you haven't expirienced it dosen't mean they haven't. You can try to rationalize around it all you want, but the fact is you can't argue something they feel and you don't. It's impossible, and it highlights what you're missing out on.

... which leads to the question where this supernatural creator came from, and makes that theory as "silly" as the Big Bang theory.

@Mouse - Wow, you are much more skilled than I am at getting your points across

@Empty - Well I see much more logical evidence that there is some kind of supreme being that had a desire to create life than everything appearing from nothing.

Think about it this way: Imagine there is a supreme being and let's pretend that everyone knew it, then it's entirely logical that he is more powerful than us, since he created human beings, right?

In this case, it would be logical that our brains can't comprehend the things that he has control of, like space and time, because he invented our brains, right?

In our brains, we can't comprehend something that doesn't have an origin. Human beings, and almost every creature alike all have a mother and a father, and that has been going on for all of time, logically speaking, correct? But *if* this supreme being created life as we know it, and our knowledge consists of only things we have learned from ours and other "brains", so to speak, then it is entirely possible that this supreme being doesn't need to have come from anywhere.

You are saying that there's no evidence for creation just because we can't understand things outside of the scope and context of our own little brains. I don't exactly know how to explain things as good as Mouse, but I'm trying here

If I have a bucket of sea-monkeys, they have no knowledge of me. They can't comprehend that I can just dump them out and kill them. They can't comprehend that I go to university or program software on computers, because they don't have computers--- see the comparison? But to them, I don't exist. I pretty much see it as if we're like the sea-monkeys (not literally of course haha).

Well, maybe posting the poem was a bad idea............do any of you guys remember the poem? yes t.h.e p.o.e.m you know the thing that started this thread. I think everyone should chill out

@Jeku


It's obvious that we can't comprehend the origin of life and all (yet). But I fail to see why that makes creation more probable than evolution (or the Big Bang for that matter).

Our (as in mankind's) knowledge of the universe is rather limited so how can we exclude the possibility of the Big Bang while at the same time we accept that we can't understand how a supernatural power came to existance to create us?

And while we're at religion, what makes the christian's, muslim's etc explanation more likely than, let's say, the one of any old African tribe or the one of the ancient Celts or whatever?

@Jeku

"That attitude is genuine Raven. When I asked about your relation to him, I was referring to the fact that no matter what I would post that you disagree on, you'll jump on it."

You've never argued with Raven have you? Raven doesn't argue any point just for the sake of it. He only argues if you disagree with him explicitly on something. Even then using the term "argue" is a bit streching it. Its more like he rants in your general direction oblivous to what you say. At least I address your counter points.

"There's really no point with people like you."

And yet you continue.

"If you didn't notice, that article is about the Sun Pictures' Noah's Ark hoax., not about disproving that the Ark exists"

Uhh...yeah, actually, it IS about disproving that the ark ever existed. I even did a CRTL-F Find with "Sun Pictures'" with and without the apostrophe and It didn't turn up anything.

"There are *MANY* other groups and people that have seen the ark and taken pictures of it nonetheless."

Yes, MANY con men.

"http://anchorstone.com/number8.html - Dig around on this page for pictures"

Dude, that's a scam. Notice the advert at the bottom for "Noah's Ark Surprising Discoveries # 1". They're baiting gullible people into thinking they found the ark when in reality all they have is a bunch of pictures of a dirt mound.

And for further proof that this guy is a scam artist click here:
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
This site is a Christian one so I'm sure that you'll at least consider a little bit before dismissing it out of hand.

"http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/ark.htm - Another man's account of the ark"

This one is another guy peddling the exact same hoax. Here is another resouce, a creationist one no less that thinks this guy is a fraud as well.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot/plimer_verdict.asp


"http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/apemen.asp - the problem with apemen"

Yet more creationist scientific illiteracy. Some of the excuses they come up with are hilarious. Vitamin D deficiencies explain huge bone
differencies? Give me a break.

I'll go through each one at time though just to make sure you get just how wrong this really is.

For "Australopithecines."


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_canals.html

Read the rest of the link above for a more thorough debunking.

As for their claims about Lucy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

For a rebutall to their Homo Habilis argument:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_habilis.html

For Homo erectus:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html

For their hilarious take on Neanderthal Man:


If you didn't laugh at this the first time you saw it you have no sense of humor my friend. I mean, Vitamin D deficiency? Someone is really pulling your leg on this one.

But even riduculous arguments need rebuttals so here is a thorough one for your viewing pleasure:
[href] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html[/href]


" And who said anything about not reading your links? "

This is only funnier given the fact that you complian about one of my links not being about the topic at hand when in actually it blatantly is.

@Mouse

"You're very confused... I'm not arguing for the existance of a christian god. I'm arguing the liklihood of creation. Any kind of creation. Not just christian creation."

Alright. That wasn't exactly clear in your original post.

"Not a single one of them have offered a bit of evidence as to a theory of where it all came from. "

If you read my original link thoroughly you would have known that this wasn't necessary. Here it is again for you:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
Go to the section called "The Traditional First-Cause Argument" and start reading from there.

"We as humans have no way of explaining how something would come from nothing."

Read the above link. Or better yet, buy a book on quantum physics. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'd also like to point out that if we humans have no way of explaining how something would come from nothing then wouldn't that beg the question of who created the Creator? Ignoring for a moment the obvious fallacy that just because we don't understand something it can't exist, if something can't come from nothing then where did the creator come from? Something must have created him because obviously since we can't conceive of something coming from nothing he had to come from somewhere, right?

And don't say that he wasn't created because you said yourself that we can't concieve of something coming from nothing. Therefore if he wasn't created we couldn't have concieved him, and if we couldn't concieve of him how could we be having this discussion? Isn't it necessary to first be able to concieve of something to argue about? If we can't wrap our minds around the possiblity or something coming from nothing than how can we discusse it? We must have some kind of conceptual stand point somewhere on it in order to have this debate.

"Vacuum fluctuation? You know, those things can't happen if there is no vacuum. "

::sigh::

A vacuum IS nothing Mouse. Vacuum fluctations DO NOT have a cause. This is in rebuttal to the first tenet of the First Cause Argument that everything has a cause.

" Where did that vacuum come from? What caused the fluctuation? "

If you had read the link instead of skimming it, you would have saw your answer to those questons.


"It has to start somewhere, "

No it doesn't. He demonstrated this rather thoroughly, your repeated denials not withstanding. Particles produced with vacuum fluctations HAVE NO CAUSE. Read the Above quote.

"and 'rationally' we have no methods of explaining it"

::sigh::

Yes we do. Read up on modern physics mouse. We do have explainations. Rational ones based on empirical evidence.

"By the way, I believe Hawking has allowed the rationally of some types of creationism, correct me if I'm wrong."

Sure.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ten.html


" Rest assured you're missing a lot when the stars are bright at night or there's a particularly beautiful sunset."

All of these things can be rationally explained mouse. I have no idea why you are using them.

"Visions, words spoken by a god, miracles; all of these you may not have seen or expirienced, but have converted millions of others to religion."

Argumentum Ad Populum mouse? Just because a lot of people believe something doens't make it true. A lot of people believe in evolution mouse. Does that make it true?

"You simply like to say it's not evidence because you haven't expirienced it,"

I never said this. Quit building straw men. If you have a quote from me saying this then by all means post it. I said that you need evidence to believe in something rationally. NOT that things need to be directly experienced 1st hand.

" but the fact is, you have no way of determining whether they were being truly rational or not unless you can actually know what they expirienced."

Irrelevant. Whether they are being rational or not is not the point. In order to rationally accept something you have to have evidence for it. Hearsay, even by rational people, just doesn't cut it. I think Philip would agree with me when I say that people's testimony can be wildly inaccurate.

"False premise #1. I have already logically concluded above that rationally, we must believe some supernatural power created the universe. Evidence."

Saying it is so don't make it so. You haven't rationally concluded that there is a creator. You've merely stated that we must believe that there is some supernatural power that created the universe since the universe can't come from nothing. I've demonstrated otherwise that we have ample of evidence of things coming from nothing. You haven't demonstrated at all why a creator IS THE ONLY OPTION even if everything we know about quantum phyics is false. Using your conclusion to justify you argument is circular reasoning mouse.

"Final proof you just don't get it."

I'd say the same for you.

"I'm skipping the first part because it is a conclusion based on a false premise and thus must be logically invalid and ignored..."

Translation: I can't argue with it so I'll pretend it is invalid!

"Have you seen space aliens with purple shoes? Have you had visions of them? Have they talked to you in your dreams? Granted you things when you prayed to them? All of this is concrete evidence for members of religion, "

No it isn't. None of these things have been proven to happen by the will of a God.

"and simply because you haven't expirienced it dosen't mean they haven't."

Correct. But it also doesn't mean that they have actually experienced them either.

" You can try to rationalize around it all you want, but the fact is you can't argue something they feel and you don't. "

Que? I don't get what you mean here. I'm not arguing what they felt is valid or not, I'm arguing that in order to believe in something rationally one has to have evidence that it occured. You've dodged this point constantly throughout the discussion instead relying on strawmen you built to make yourself appear to be the victor. Address my points mouse not the ones you make up for me.

@Jeku

"If I have a bucket of sea-monkeys, they have no knowledge of me. They can't comprehend that I can just dump them out and kill them. They can't comprehend that I go to university or program software on computers, because they don't have computers--- see the comparison? But to them, I don't exist. I pretty much see it as if we're like the sea-monkeys (not literally of course haha)."

I won't argue with you on this, because I know you'll get pissed with me for addressing one of your points when it wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to point out that in the above example it is perfectly rational for the sea monkeys to conclude that you don't exist. Rationality is not a one way ticket to instant knowledge. There is no such thing and I would like point out that I'm not claiming such before people go accusing me of these things.

It is, however, the best process he have for determining whether something exists or not. The seamonkeys may not believe in you even though you do exist, but they also don't believe in your evil twin Ukej which doesn't exist.

@SuperMonkey

"............do any of you guys remember the poem? "

Yes, I do. It was a good poem. But debating is more fun than poems.

dudes stop with the long posts, please keep am down to a size we can be bothered to read

@Froogle

"dudes stop with the long posts, please keep am down to a size we can be bothered to read"

Sorry man, but the post are going to be long as all points need to be addressed in an argument. Otherwise someone will harp on one's lack of coverage on any one point and that is just going to lead to longer posts in response.

It is ultimately quicker to address them all now instead of having to go back to them later.

Neophte, gaaah, you still don't understand. And I do wish you'd take less time getting your point across when it's really this single basic issue you can't comprehend. I'll start with a quote from that article.

The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false.

The entire point that a god or something supernatural must have been the first cause if that we can not understand or comprehend it, so unlike everything explained rationally, it may not have had a cause.

'I'd also like to point out that if we humans have no way of explaining how something would come from nothing then wouldn't that beg the question of who created the Creator?'

You're running in circles. Read above.

'Ignoring for a moment the obvious fallacy that just because we don't understand something it can't exist, if something can't come from nothing then where did the creator come from?'

Read above.

'Something must have created him because obviously since we can't conceive of something coming from nothing he had to come from somewhere, right?'

I'm not sure if you intentionally said that because you can't understand something it can't exist, but it's an amusing error and I think it shows why you're having a problem understanding this.

'And don't say that he wasn't created because you said yourself that we can't concieve of something coming from nothing.'

WE not IT a SUPERNATURAL being.

'Therefore if he wasn't created we couldn't have concieved him, and if we couldn't concieve of him how could we be having this discussion? Isn't it necessary to first be able to concieve of something to argue about? If we can't wrap our minds around the possiblity or something coming from nothing than how can we discusse it? We must have some kind of conceptual stand point somewhere on it in order to have this debate.'

*sigh* read above. If you really believe that nothing you cannot understand exists-- in other words, you believe you are so supreme that you can comprehend everything in the universe-- then you're right, we can't have a logical debate.

'A vacuum IS nothing Mouse. Vacuum fluctations DO NOT have a cause. This is in rebuttal to the first tenet of the First Cause Argument that everything has a cause.'

Vacuum is the lack of matter that has mass. It is a physical lack of physical mass. It is something contained completely within the concept of our universe. Physics, math, logic, quantum fluxuations, and vacuum are all contained within the universe, and without the universe there is none of it. Are you getting my point yet?

'If you had read the link instead of skimming it, you would have saw your answer to those questons.'

It dosen't answer them, it skids around them. And whoever wrote that has the same problem you do with comprehending something that does not have rational boundries.

'Yes we do. Read up on modern physics mouse. We do have explainations. Rational ones based on empirical evidence.'

Sigh. Same argument.

"By the way, I believe Hawking has allowed the rationally of some types of creationism, correct me if I'm wrong."



I said... "Hawking has allowed the rationally of some types of creationism"

Your source... "nd both have stated point blank that it as likely as not that there is no intelligent creator."

See that 'likely as not' part?



Once again you fail to understand... yes, they can be rationally explained. That's why your entire... your entire standpoint is so sad.



But because you don't believe in it, that means they are all insane? Or just idiots?



I keep giving you evidence which you are dodging around...



Point taken, but I've already given rational evidence for my point.



3 points.

1- Read above and see if you finally understand my argument.
2- I never said it was the only option; I have said that rationally, it is more likely that there is a supernatural creator.
3- Even in that paragraph you mention you circular reasoning. Not that it isn't already a mute point.



Right back atcha.



If you were actually reading my posts you'd realise I have already logically and rationally proven my point.



Not for you, but if has been proven for other people, and that is evidence for you which you are purposfuly ignoring in your quest to only believe the mainstream scientific doctrine and bible.



Talk to a few creationists without being condescending and you'll gain some insight on this matter...



Read above, all those points debunked/explained

So do you not believe in evolution, Mouse?

I'm not arguing evolution right now am I . Neophyte brought some pretty good evidence up on that one which I'm still working through and finding arguments against.

OK. Can you quickly post me the best anti evolution page you know. I never really saw any real flaws in evolution.

Grief. I am beginning to doubt the existance of moderators and the power to "lock" threads after all this...

Quick, someone bung in the idea that Blitz 3D invented the 3D hobby programming universe. That will probably do it.

Cheers

From rock and gas to fully reproductive mamals, with our P4 computers and our pop-tarts

I may accept some form of evolution, but not the whole rock & gas -> single cell thingies -> reproductive animals -> P4's & pop-tarts.

But thats my opinion.

OK: Evolutionary Flaws: ME. Anyways, Mouse, Neophyte: You're both good at argueing. Jeku, ypu and me arwe good with agreeing and disagreeing, but we don't get evidence. Neophyte, I read only SOME of your info/links becuase I'm sure that all of them are siiliar

@Mouse

"The entire point that a god or something supernatural must have been the first cause if that we can not understand or comprehend it, so unlike everything explained rationally, it may not have had a cause."

Now let me see if I can clarify things. Your argument is that something must have a cause. Correct? I'm basing this on things that you've said previously like

You've also stated that the big bang must have had a cause. Your reason for this I presume, is that everything must start somewhere. Or that is at least as much as I could gleam.

Following these two lines of thinking you've come to the conclusion that the Big Bang must have a cause since "It has to start somewhere". This leads you to the conclusion their must be a creator that is the "cause" necessary for the Big Bang to occur correct?

Now my rebuttal in response this has been up to this point who created the creator? According to your line of thinking since everything has to have a first cause so would the creator. Now you've stated that the creator is not bound by the rules of logic(although how you know this you haven't stated yet) and as such doesn't need to have a cause.

Now it is perfectly possible that if a supernatural being exists then he isn't bound by the rules of logic. It doesn't have to have a first cause. However, the begs a very important question and that question is if a supernatural being can exist without a cause, why can't the Big Bang exist without a cause as well?

You seem to be suggesting(and correct me if I got the wrong impression) that this creator isn't bound by the laws of cause and effect because of its mystical or supernatural properity. Since the Big Bang is neither mystical or supernatural then it is still bound by the laws of cause and effect according to you, correct?

But I'd like to counter saying that mystical and supernatural properties aren't required for something to not be bound by the laws of cause and effect. This has already been demonstrated in the previous link. Particles that spring from a vacuum fluction are WITHOUT CAUSE. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about them. In fact, the link even stated that particles created by vacuum flucations are quite common and occur all the time in quantum mechanics.

The question I pose to you is, if natural phenomena like particles from vacuum flucations can occur without cause, then why can't other natural phenomena like the Big Bang be without cause?

"You're running in circles."

Yes I know that. I was parodying your line of thinking by taking it to the extreme.

"I'm not sure if you intentionally said that because you can't understand something it can't exist, but it's an amusing error and I think it shows why you're having a problem understanding this."

::sigh::

That was the point mouse. I was parodying your line of thought. Geeesh.

"WE not IT a SUPERNATURAL being."

What? I was pointing out the fact that if we can't concieve of a supernatural being we can't really talk about it. It can't exist in our minds if we can't conceive it, ergo we can't talk about it. Clearer? Since we are clearly talking about it, then we can concieve of it. Even Clearer? This was all in rebuttal to your claim that we can't concieve of it. If that helps to put things into context.

" If you really believe that nothing you cannot understand exists-- in other words, you believe you are so supreme that you can comprehend everything in the universe-- then you're right, we can't have a logical debate.

I DON'T!


"Physics, math, logic, quantum fluxuations, and vacuum are all contained within the universe, and without the universe there is none of it. "

Got any evidence for that assertion?

"It dosen't answer them, it skids around them."

Yes, it does. Vacuum flucations are UNCAUSED. You kept asking for where they came from blithly missing the point that they didn't come from any where. They are UNCAUSED! They don't come from anywhere! The link explained this.

"See that 'likely as not' part?"

Yes, I did. See the part about how that doesn't support Creationist's opinions?

"Once again you fail to understand... yes, they can be rationally explained. That's why your entire... your entire standpoint is so sad."

There is nothing "sad" about it. Even if there was, so what? What relevances does this have to the topic at hand? Just becuase something is "sad" doesn't mean that it isn't true. Its a fact of life mouse. Get over it.

"But because you don't believe in it, that means they are all insane? Or just idiots?"

Straw men again mouse. Address my arguments not the ones you create. What I do or do not believe has no reflection on what they are. Stop taking my disbelief so personally.

"I keep giving you evidence which you are dodging around..."

Like WHAT? Point out your so called evidence mouse. All you've made so far are a bunch of assertions without anything to back them up.

"1- Read above and see if you finally understand my argument."

Read above and understand my rebuttal.

"2- I never said it was the only option; I have said that rationally, it is more likely that there is a supernatural creator."

And you haven't supported this assertion at all. You need to evidence to go with assertions to create logical arguments. All you've done so far is say that it is rational to believe in a creator. You haven't provided any evidence to back up this assertion, and no repeating it over and over doesn't count as evidence. I've provided evidence for my arguments i.e. Particles from Vacuum flucations are UNCAUSED. What have you provided?

"- Even in that paragraph you mention you circular reasoning. Not that it isn't already a mute point."

Where?

"If you were actually reading my posts you'd realise I have already logically and rationally proven my point."

No you haven't. You've justed stated over and over again that they are rational without any evidence at all. If you think that that is "rational" or "logical" you don't know what those words mean.

"Not for you, but if has been proven for other people, and that is evidence for you which you are purposfuly ignoring in your quest to only believe the mainstream scientific doctrine and bible."

Argumentum Ad Populum again mouse. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. A lot of people had the world "proven" to be flat to them, but that doens't make the world flat.

"Talk to a few creationists without being condescending and you'll gain some insight on this matter..."

I really doubt that.

"Read above, all those points debunked/explained'

Think again.

I don't think listening to creationists convinces anyone void of suckers.

I like reading the posts here

You still don't get it, and in your most recent post you've apparently forgotten all the ground I've already covered too. I'm not even going to reply... if you read over my logic again, maybe you'll understand the argument. Until you know what I'm saying, this can't progress .

@Mouse

"You still don't get it, and in your most recent post you've apparently forgotten all the ground I've already covered too."

What ground? Do you mean your evidence? I haven't seen any at all. If you have some than disprove me and post a direct quote of you stating evidence.

"I'm not even going to reply... if you read over my logic again, maybe you'll understand the argument."

I do understand your argument, and of the flaws in it. A quick recap here:


This is your argument as I understand it so far including my rebuttals. If I misrepresented your argument than please correct me and we can work from there. But I'm pretty sure I've got your argument down pat, and my rebuttals are bullet proof.

" Until you know what I'm saying, this can't progress "

I can't know what you are saying if you don't tell me. If you think you've got a good argument than please outline it like this crude example or something similar/simple:

Premise 1: The Universe was formed by the Big Bang
Evidence : Various observations of the universe using modern day instruments.( We don't really disagree about this paticular point so I won't waste my time and post links, however, if you want I will just to complete this argument).
Premise 2: Phenonmena that are natural can exist without cause
Evidence : Vacuum Fluctations that produces particles without cause.
Premise 3: The Big Bang is a natural phenomena
Evidence : We don't disagree on this either so I won't waste time with links but can if you like.
Conclusion: It is possible for the Big Bang to be uncaused.

Natural phenonmena have been shown to be without cause and the Big Bang is a natural phenonmena. This doesn't mean that the Big Bang is necessarily without cause just that it is possible. I could go into greater detail if you like, but that is the sum of what I've been saying for most of this discussion.

This lays things out quite easily for anyone to understand and it isn't too difficult to construct. If you want you could easily form your argument to follow that from(or even something simpler as long as it states both evidence and premises).

I think this would make things a lot easier to be understood between the two of us.