View Single Post
Old 04-08-2007, 09:21 PM   #97
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 21 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
Now whose bitching about semantics?
Way to miss the side of the barn.

Yeah, you basically argued that if the big bang had been 0.0000000000000000000000000001% different then the universe would lack the capacity for life. My point with the butterfly effect is that even the most seemingly trivial events can, over time, have profound effects. So the idea that the universe is the way it is is evidence of design and purspose--simply because it could have been different--is specious. More directly put: Yeah, and if my Aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.
Right, so, enter string theory's proposition that we are part of an infinite series of multiverses which spawn other universes. We've covered this territory already.

Cut the crap and hold the mustard, you are a making a false dichotomy when you say the that the "only alternative" to your god hypothesis is that the universe was an "accident."
OH really? Perhaps you'd care to propose an alternative? God as the creator is the ONLY option that allows the universe to have intrinsic, rather than ascribed, purpose.

How are there similarities remarkable and what are the implications of such similarities?
I'm sorry but this could be a whole other thread. Brush up on your religious studies. It's not my job to educate you.

Here you are saying that according to natural law, no effect can occur without a cause. But, if there is a "finite point" within the universe, as you say, then that "finite point," being within the universe, must also have a natural cause.
In this case, the "finite point" is the very beginning of the universe itself. So whatever triggered this event was not within the universe itself -- because there was no universe.

Yes it does.
Well, that was convincing. Here's my rebuttal to that amazingly perceptive response: No, it doesn't.

I don't know. (Man, that felt good. You should try it.)
Funny because a) they didn't, and b) agnostic skepticism has been a core tenant of everything I've argued; at no point have I asserted to have irrefutable knowledge of these things. The fact that you continually accuse me of making definitive statements of fact demonstrates your complete inability to grasp the fundamental concepts of my argument.

Only if the universe is infinite--truly infinite--are all events inevitable. Besides that, things which occur in our universe may be bound to laws, but they certainly show no evidence of intent.
On the first point, that's nonsensical and you didn't support the argument in any way, so I'll assume you were (again) grasping at straws. On the second point, how do you define intent? How do you decide that the universe has no design?

What makes you assume that there must be any it all?
Because there is no natural cause, or infinite string of causality, to explain the origin of the universe. This goes back to the very fact that we exist being such powerful evidence for God's existence.

As opposed to what? Anything which doesn't defeat itself is going to be ordered to some degree.
See above.

Natural laws don't change, period; and it's order ultimately says nothing toward a creator.
How does an ordered system arise of nothing?

What's to confuse?
Probability is our ability to predict the likelihood of one event happening as opposed to another. Randomness is lacking any reason or purpose.

The problem, of course, is that your boundary of science is arbitrary.
Actually, it's a fact of physics.

The only reason science is bound to the natural world is because there isn't any evidence of anything beyond it. To declare that science is "intrinsically" bound to the natural world is just another unfortunate side effect of your NOMA doctrine.
That's not really an argument, just a weak attack that avoids addressing the point: that science itself acknowledges boundaries to the natural world. However, there are also numerous realities that indicate the existence of a greater reality.

Again, I recommend Deepak Chopra's "How to know God". But who am I kidding, thinking you'd actually watch something like that. It's easier for you to read atheist literature and continue making ignorant assumptions about theism.

Anyway, if you really believed that then you shouldn't care about what Hawking thinks about what occured before the Big Bang because he'd have to forefit his authority.
Hawking doesn't presume to know what happened before the big bang. If you watched Rod Liddle's special, the physicists he interviews profess no knowledge of what happened prior to the big bang. Hawking only asserts that all things were at a point of infinite density, which is the simple result of calculations made to predict the expansion of the universe after the bang.

I pale in comparison to you; redifining God to make your theology seem more sophisticated when in fact its just as faith-based as any other. Using logic and science to boast your claims yet slow to have it examined scientifically or logically is especially a neat touch.
I've not redefined God; It's twits like Dawkins who redefine God into a straw man they can shoot down with hackneyed positivism. Science and logic do show us evidence of design, evidence of order, evidence of higher realities -- ultimately, evidence of creative intelligence.

No, Mike, there isn't. Either something is logical or illogical--ther is no middle ground.
You continue to miss the side of the barn.

So the supernatural is a logical necissity, and the first cause is a necessity of physics, but your god isn't? Please.
Please what? First cause is a necessity of physics. However, that cause, that trigger, though it need be supernatural, need not be a God. Perhaps we are part of the infinite string of spawning multiverses. The point is that our universe cannot create itself. Where did everything come from Nic? Where did space, time, matter and energy come from? Why did the universe come into existence at all? There's nothing, then POW!, there it is. Again, I ask you: If there is no creative intelligence, no God, how does an ordered system arise from nothing?

This, of course, is just another instance that I've perfectly represented your argument where you've said I haven't.
What's it like being so delusional?

You are wrong. It is belief--not merely faith--in something infinitely more elagant than your imaginary friend.
What is more elegant that a Creator?
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-08-2007 at 09:29 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote