why is the existance of God so absurd

Way to much giberish in this thread...

Either you believe in a God/Creator or you dont.

No amount of typing words on a forum will ever change that.

All this so called "debate" is just informal name calling and mockery.

 

Then why are you posting? You honestly think you are going to be any more successful at getting us to stop debating than we are going to be at changing each other's minds?

BTW, debates like these played a very large roll in my coming to atheism.

 

You can believe in a God that is not a cretor or you can believe in a creator that is not a god.. Yet another false dichotomy.

Besides, what you call gibberish was merely an elucidation of how many people make mistakes when thinking about randomness and calculating odds, and this is true of no one more than cintelligent design proponentsists.

 

By the way, yardmeat, I take back the thing about "an error in your thinking." Your calculation is correct, but it applies to a specific case that I don't think was specified.

 

If you think you are the only one that reads these posts, you are wrong.

 

No, I definitely should have been more clear about it. I had a point in there somewhere about his dice analogy for creationism vs the big bang theory, but I ended up traveling off-course.

 

It's simply that the bizarre idea of chance-driven creation does not of itself imply an equally bizarre creator-driven one.

I’ll give you this…the intervention of a creator does satisfy the requirements of the limitations of human perception. After all [and apologies to Carl Sagan], the presence of the watch implies a watchmaker. [For every complex phenomenon, there's a simple explaination...that's probably wrong.]

Religion, as practiced, does not require rigorous proof…feelings, tradition, and sensory perception are sufficient foundations upon which to base reality through the lens of religion.

 

The reason why this is wrong is not obvious. ID'ers like to imply that they are doing nothing stranger than is attemped by SETI, but this is not true. The key thing about SETI is that they are looking for life enough like ours for us to be able to tell it's life

Deducing a watchmaker from a watch is only possible because we already know about watches and watchmakers. This is where the claim that ID and SETI are similar fails.

Not only is there no reason to limit a miraculous God to the kinds of mechanisms that we might conceivably identify, we are often told that God's ways are so mysterious that we could not possibly understand them if we wanted to.

 

Atheists walk with their heads stuck in their rectrums. It is called the state of denial.

 

Thanks for the expression of your feelings. How am I?

This is what I have been pointing to.

You could at least ask for a link to Aristotle, not academia. You could at least google Aristotle text one ruler. You could at least google “Demiurge”, “Aristotle unmoved mover”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
But you didn’t and you never will. You have been trained not to.

It does go against what atheists know about physics. Anyone who can see that any movement is initiated in this or that way can also see that no reality can convince atheists. What can I do?

The UM argument may appeal to the belief that a body is in state of rest or moving with an uniform velocity unless a(n outside) force is applied, but it does not have to. How is your statement related to my words you quoted?

3 times. Am I correct?

Oh… always the same…
how is about addressing my statement as I stated it? Like I did above.
Something like this:
“Yes Newton was A Xn theologian.
Yes he believed in the Bible and was a Xn. Yes the Bible describes G-d as the UM. But Newton went against the Bible here and here link to Newton.’ Atheists always argue to chimeras of their own minds.

How? Where is absolute silliness in Newton?

A few exerts from the text of laws of motion:
“This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.
….
This Being governs all things….
… God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God, not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God;….

….He is Eternal and Infinite, …. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal and Infinite; he is not Duration and Space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is every where present; and, by existing always and every where, he constitutes Duration and Space.
….He is omnipresent, not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him b [3] are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.

….As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, not touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not.

….Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing."

I am sorry, I misread as absolute silliness. Why if there is no such thing as absolute rest, then there is no need for a UM? What is the difference between ABSOLUTE stillness and absolute rest? Has The UM to be a thing (physical body) moving among other bodies, has he to be in motion in order to set things in motion?

I can show a body at rest: ∑F=0 (=a body in uniform motion) as I already did. I can show Absolute space and Absolute time, http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/newton.htm but indeed there is no such thing as absolute stillness, at least in laws of motion. May be it can be found at 0K, but I am not sure if your stillness will be satisfied.

However many frames you can imagine for mathematical purposes looking at no frames you are looking at no frames. Whatever frame you pick, moving or "in absolute silliness" laws of physics remain the same, at least according to Einstein.

 

See at first I found myself agreeing with you, because the majority of atheists become that way due to the negative stereotypes of theists. Then you went into your own stereotypical rant making you an ass. you assume because some 'nerdy hippy' goes on a rant depicting his beliefs that his life is miserable? I am agnostic (leanining towards atheism) and I have to say my life is not miserable. My Atheists friends lives are not miserable. And you sir are simply enforcing the stereotype that all theists are asshats and sit there smug on a pedestal thinking they have the right to condemn another person.

 

Maybe you mean those who follow the rules of modern experimental science (physics, etc.) not atheists.

Presumably, atheists could become convinced of the existence of a god by any of the methods of persuasion or independent study.

It just wouldn't involve using the methods of science, which is based on observation.

 

...

Necro thread

 

Well, there are 10 trillion galaxies and our own galaxy has 100 billion stars and the universe has been trucking along for nearly 14 billion years.

You have to admit that is a LOT of lab time.

Coupled with that is the fact that there are a good number of significant laws of physics that keep the experimentation of the universe under reasonable control, so it can be surprising, but it's not totally random.

I'm pretty darn convinced that the best answer we have concerning the origin of the universe is "I don't know", since it's hard to look back to "before" the big bang.

 

So, where did god come from?
The invention of god just transfers the problem.
What made god?
I do not mock - I once fell for it also, then I saw the light.

 

Depends on which ridiculous god you are talking about. The abrahamic god is the most prevalent and is a worthless monster.

I would thank an indifferent creator, but I would despise one that claims to love all his creation, while favoring some over others.

 

The concept and all concepts outside of what we can deal with in our universe, the only example of a universe we have to work with, is anyone can make any claims about these concepts outside this universe - deities, if there was time, any megaverse aka multiverse or anything else! Seriously why waste time on these things until they can be realistically dealt with. Seriously there is no multiple universes until we manage to verify they exist for real and we can't claim anything about the odds of life and order unless we can study more than one universe - ours - it happened that is all we can say is the natural laws allowed for the order in place not rarity of it.

As for god is it absurd we don't know there could be a whole plane with trillions of them each universe getting a share, but its also likely there are not, we can't say and neither can theists they are guessing.