Two Gods or One

Quote: FrGamble

Here again absolutely no logic, not even a little bit.

Why not? Why can we not start with the axiom 'the universe has always been here'. It's what you then do with that, and see if it falls apart. It's not an abscence of logic to make that statement.

He starts with, "there is no God" and that is not logical. In fact even if the Universe was somehow made of eternal material things it would not follow that there is no God.

Quote: FrGamble

He starts with, "there is no God" and that is not logical. In fact even if the Universe was somehow made of eternal material things it would not follow that there is no God.

The only logical arguments I care about
are the obvious ones. If there is a god,
where the hell is he? I don't see him, I
don't hear him, I don't see him answering
prayers, I don't see his works. It like he
doesn't exist, because, well, he doesn't
exist. There's an anguished treatise penned
by someone who later become a saint.
In it he cried out in anguish for just the
slightest proof of gods existence. He never
got it and became a saint because he
remained faithful anyway.

Brainwashing at it's best..

Quote: TheCesspit

Why not? Why can we not start with the axiom 'the universe has always been here'.

Use the logic that FrG uses with Xtionity,
there are over 2 billion Xtions, how can
they all be wrong. Add up all the Hindu's
and Buddhists, there are lots of them too,
how can they all be wrong about the
universe being here forever. Faulty logic
at it's finest.

Quote: FrGamble

He starts with, "there is no God" and that is not logical. In fact even if the Universe was somehow made of eternal material things it would not follow that there is no God.

Incorrect. A single statement like that is NOT illogical. It may be something you disagree with. That doesn't make it illogical.

Most logical arguments start with one of more axioms that if are not true, the whole argument falters. But you can't say 'God exists' and the prove his existence by starting with that axiom. You can 'merely' show that God's existence given the other statements you make is not inconsistent with the other axioms and facts you establish.

So hence, there's nothing illogical about the state, in and off itself, that Bob made.

God is not required by either a steady state or big bang universe.
God is not eliminated by a steady state or big bang universe.

(Prime Mover = God is rather unsatisfying, given the other claims you make). God is unproven given these facts. I am sure you can claim others required.

As for the evolution dialogue, I think those who feel Evolution is purely random chance fail to understand the power of the Theory.

Quote: TheCesspit

As for the evolution dialogue, I think those who feel Evolution is purely random chance fail to understand the power of the Theory.

The only real part I'm concerned about is the initial life. If it started with a plan then it was not random. But you would have to be able to show that plan and where it comes from.

If you mean forms of life have varying degrees of initiative outside of doing random things, I'd agree. In that way evolution doesn't go bumping around randomly.

Quote: FrGamble

So are you saying that really bad coffee can make really good coffee?

For someone who worships a book filled with metaphors, and who rests his belief in an argument by analogy, you really don't do well when presented with metaphors and analogies.

Let's talk about shoddy design. Why is there a blind spot right in the middle of your eye? Eyes are so lousy at capturing the world around them, as opposed to a camera, that you need massive amounts of brain power to process the data they produce. The eyes relay data, the brain is what you actually see with. And even then, the brain's hardwired in such a way that it's easy prey to optical illusions.

That's lousy design. If there is a designer, we should sue for malpractice.

Quote:

Philosophy means love of wisdom so I guess I can see why you think it is wretched. Sorry, that was a low blow:)

Have you considered taking a course in reading comprehension? You have a definition of one term, philosophizing, which is quite separate from a different term, philosophy, yet to you they are synonymous.

Quote:

You really take disagreement hard, don't you?

How is relating a true fact a sign of disagreement??

Quote: FrGamble

I'd like to read about these simulations because everything I have ever read or seen shows that any small change to any of these forces makes anything remotely close to the universe we know impossible.

Have you read that people only use 10% of their brain?

Look up the old issue archives in Scientific American.

Quote: TheCesspit

As for the evolution dialogue, I think those who feel Evolution is purely random chance fail to understand the power of the Theory.

Mutations are largely random, but obviously based on available genetic structures.

That is to say, a cat may be born with a mutation that gives it, say, somewhat better daytime visual acuity; but a cat won't be born with fully functional gills in addition to lungs, an insulated skin, and a liking for swimming in salt water.

Quote: rxwine

The only real part I'm concerned about is the initial life. If it started with a plan then it was not random. But you would have to be able to show that plan and where it comes from.

If you mean forms of life have varying degrees of initiative outside of doing random things, I'd agree. In that way evolution doesn't go bumping around randomly.

The creation of life may well have been random chemical soup, but it's persistence is not random chance. As the conditions which create self sustaining and replicating molecules mean that the replicating molecules will continue and make up more of the soup. Once we hit that ratchet level, it's less likely to fall back down to random chemical soup again.

The idea of life/humans being a slow climb up, not one big sudden magical jump is key here.

Individual mutations may be random (within certain bounds), but the overall genetic evolution is not completely random.