[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

In the absence of evidence the rational position is the the is no god.

[img] [/img]

yunki. v good.

teamhurtmore - Member

Live and let live tonight at 8pm

The religious can turn on BBC2 and watch Chaplains: Angels of Mercy
The anti (rather than non) religious can turn on BBC4 and watch Inside the Medieval Mind: how the church preached hatred of the felsh and condemned women as the sinful heirs of Eve

I hate the Felsh.
Gits, the lot of them.
I'm never going to Feles again.

how the church preached hatred of the felsh and condemned women as the sinful heirs of Eve

Not really history though, what with the wonderful, inclusive attitudes of the modern day Abrahamic religions.

Badnewz - can you give us one shred of evidence for the existance of any god? In the absence of evidence the rational position is the the is no god.

I don't agree. I still think the issue of Creation (you might realise this is a big thing for me by now!) will not go away. I cannot prove that God exists to anybody else, it is a hugely personal experience. But I know that other people cannot prove that God does not exist until they can show how something comes from nothing without a Creator (who/what is eternal and self-creating).

.....Are scientologists stupid?

Having met a LOT of scientologists (I used to work at Saint Hill Manor regularly) I wouldn't say that they are stupid.

However they do [b]ALL [/b]seem to have switched off the part of their brains that allows them to think rationally about one particular subject.

Everything else works fine. If they were intelligent before Scientology, they still are. If they weren't, they are still not.

But they ignore the massive weight of evidence that their chosen "religion" is a proven scam.

(not a lack of evidence that it's real, but [b] actual documented evidence that it's all made up to make money[/b] )

So I wouldn't say they are stupid, but there is certainly an element of Brain Washing involved (again, that's not wild speculation, I know this from someone who was involved first hand)

I admit I find Genesis the best explanation for Creation.

Day one. Create light. Day four, create light source. Yup, I'm convinced.

But I entered this debate with a question: how does something come from nothing?

That is not what the big bang theory posits. Go do some reading and come back to us.

Incidentally. What do you think was god created from? How can the creator be self-creating and not the universe? You haven't answered the question of creation, you've just moved it somewhere else.

until they can show how something comes from nothing without a Creator

I want to know where all of you damned fool explanationists got the idea that there was ever any nothing..

15d: One girl I converted to the faith (8)

Grilione ?

That is not what the big bang theory posits. Go do some reading and come back to us.

Incidentally. What do you think was god created from?

Please expand upon what the big bang theory posits.

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

But I know that other people cannot prove that God does not exist until they can show how something comes from nothing without a Creator

duh. So your central point is that god exists because we cannot prove that he doesn't?

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

I'm glad we cleared that up

duh. So your central point is that god exists because we cannot prove that he doesn't?

Not at all. My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

I don't pick quarrels with Agnostics, just Atheists, as they have no evidence. And my own faith is personal and I don't enforce it on others.

Please expand upon what the big bang theory posits.

Is google broken?

Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

That's convenient, isn't it. You don't understand the universe, so you invent something upon which you can apply your own made-up rules that don't apply anywhere else in the universe.

My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

Which, as I've already explained here previously, is nonsense. Human understanding is not a prerequisite to physics. There are plenty of things we don't understand, that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we get to make stuff up. If I didn't understand how aeroplanes work that wouldn't mean they're all suddenly going to fall out of the sky.

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

Ah the old, ask for evidence, then when presented with evidence, pretend your an elephant trick.

Not at all. My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

Which means exactly the same thing. You say unless we can prove that the universe wasn't made by god, then god must have made it? Yes?

That's convenient, isn't it. You don't understand the universe, so you invent something upon which you can apply your own made-up rules that don't apply anywhere else in the universe.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

[i]badnewz - Member

I'm a Christian

Ooooh! You kept that quiet, you little monkey!

Again, what is your point? Is this a debate or just (desperate, rather sad) sledging?

But of course I deserve this, because people who believe in God should not be tolerated.[/i]

Sledging?

Sledging?

I've not even had a go at you at all; you're doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

Do carry on, but try to allow for a little humour, a little acceptance that I don't hate you and all you stand for, I just enjoy your attempts at mental gymnastics.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

It implies a moment that we have not been able to explain. Yet.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

No, it implies a moment of creation. Not sure how that's in any way inconvenient. My kettle boiled earlier and created steam, I'm fairly sure it wasn't divine steam.

I've not even had a go at you at all; you're doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

Do carry on, but try to allow for a little humour, a little acceptance that I don't hate you and all you stand for, I just enjoy your attempts at mental gymnastics.

Please point out these gymnastics. I stand by my original point: until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

My kettle boiled earlier and created steam, I'm fairly sure it wasn't divine steam.

But you turned the kettle on right>?

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

Yes, completely. A literal reading of the Bible doesn't work. It is a work of poetry and metaphor. But still in my opinion revealing of the divine will.

Look badnewz I applaud your efforts but can you stop emailing me requesting your "stw Big Hitter" certificate.

Your Forum History only goes to 20 pages, it's simply not enough yet.

But you turned the kettle on right>?

I knew I'd set myself up for a fall there as soon as I'd hit 'send', I was hoping you wouldn't notice. (-:

Point I'm trying to make is, "creation" does not implicitly imply "creator." If god can create himself, why can't the universe? Who created god?

[i]I stand by my original point: until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.[/i]

Ah, so you are taking on the responsibilty for defining Atheism are you?

Atheists don't need to be defined, thanks. We're quite happy not being characterised by people who think differently to us.

At least you've stopped trolling.

Who created god?

Established that earlier, "magic"

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing,then an atheists cannot explain it, that is all. It does not prove the existence of god. It proves that we don't understand it yet.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

I've already pointed out that no-one (other than you) is claiming that something came from nothing. You can stand by your point all you like, your original premise that you're asking us to explain is incorrect.

Right chaps I'm really quite confused now! As with you I mean no ill will. I still think there is a debate to be had here. But the last few comments are frankly ridiculous and not worthy of answering.
So I will sign off now. Thank you for a good debate however - and I'm sure there will be another time!
Best wishes
Stephen

man up, running away is just proof you are beaten.

man up, running away is just proof you are beaten.

I disagree. I'm a) bored with your silly, convoluted attempts at being clever and b) want to have my tea.

Tara Chaps - but we will talk again!

convoluted attempts at being clever

I understand why you would become bored with what you cannot understand, it makes sense that the easier explaination for you is God.

I lean towards A.J. Ayer and the idea that statements are either verifiable or meaningless.

God's existance or otherwise is unverifiable and so any discussion about it is literally meaningless. Fun though.

Tara Chaps

izzatt a porn star ❓

Fun though.

Absolutely.

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that AJ Ayer had confided to him: "I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my books and opinions."

Then again like me he did support Spurs so I wouldnt trust his judgement.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Big bang theory, evolution - two credible theories with evidence to support them that explain how we got here

teamhurtmore - Member

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

So we are back to the pick and mix theory of religion are we? chose which bits to believe in? Ignore the bits that are inconvenient.

how do you stand on the virgin birth? Metaphor?

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that AJ Ayer had confided to him: "I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my books and opinions."

I note that you've selected the part of that article that supports your view and neglected the later part where the reliability of the doctor's quote is questioned. Fortunately it's there for anyone else with access to Wikipedia to look up and decide for themselves.

The viability of Ayer's work doesn't hinge on his later comments.

Big bang theory, evolution - two credible theories with evidence to support them that explain how we got here

I don't think they do. There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Stephen Hawking says Gravity could have created the Big Bang, but as John Lennox has replied, what created Gravity?

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

The viability of Ayer's work doesn't hinge on his later comments.

I agree. Ayer is interesting, more subtle than Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins. And overall I would agree with the quote you featured above.

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

Please explain how, exactly?

Not at all TJ, indeed never argued for pick and mix. I do not agree with many issues supported by many orthodox religions but can still respect the reasons why they argue for them.

Actually the poetry idea came from some poorly educated, indoctrinated child incapable of independent thought (apparently) 😉

Edit: It would be a bit narrow minded to critique something without considering different interpretations and the context in which they were written

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

I'd suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

I'd suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

This is a good point. I stand corrected.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

You keep saying this like it's something anyone believes. It's not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

You keep saying this like it's something anyone believes. It's not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

I have old chap. And it still doesn't explain how something came from nothing.

We are in a cycle which is no longer virtuous. Goodnite and God Bless.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Your argument is essentially that of infinite regress.

Whatever explanation is provided for the origins of the universe you can say 'but what was before that' or 'What caused that'

To my mind this is only a fruitful line of reasoning if you continue to inquire into those causes. Slotting god in as a cause is a cop out as it removes the need for any further inquiry.

[img] [/img]

And it still doesn't explain how something came from nothing.

Something did not come from nothing.

To my mind this is only a fruitful line of reasoning if you continue to inquire into those causes. Slotting god in as a cause is a cop out as it removes the need for any further inquiry.

Nobody said God was simple. Theologians who accept that God was the starting point are happy to dedicate their lives to inquiry.

As for Infinite Regress, too much Star Trek?

I have old chap. And it still doesn't explain how something came from nothing.

Try this:
[img] [/img]

Something did not come from nothing.

You sound very certain. Please explain.

Nobody said God was simple. Theologians who accept that God was the starting point are happy to dedicate their lives to inquiry.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your suggestion seems to be that we follow scientific enquiry to a point and then accept that it can take us no further in explaining the universe and instead devote our time to exploring the mysteries of god?

Cheers Rusty, I've read Krauss. I've also read Hitchens and Dawkins (who I have talked to a couple of times at Oxford during my student days - when they let in believing morons). I still find John Lennox to be the most persuasive speaker I have heard at numerous believer vs atheist debates.

teamhurtmore - Member

Not at all TJ, indeed never argued for pick and mix.

So to you the bible is the literal word of god? the earth was created in 8 days.

Either it is the word of god and is true in its entirety including the earth being created in 8 days and Homosexuals being an abomination to be killed or you are simply choosing which bits to beleive. which is it?

Badness is your point that you believe that god is eternal but it is impossible for time and the universe to be eternal ? Can the universe not exist outside of linear time just as your concept of god does . Time is but one of the 10 dimensions.

If an atheist needs to explain how something came from nothing then a theist needs to explain where god came from and who created him or her . And why god kept quiet for so long in human history but then revealed him self to one obscure people in one location .

It would also be handy if you could explain why he chose to reveal himself by causing a heart problem in an athlete arranging for a member of a not unusual profession to be in a rather large crowd and then for the athlete to recover via a medical intervention . Surely a talking burning penalty spot or a rain of frogs on the crowd would be less open to debate?

Correct me if I'm wrong but your suggestion seems to be that we follow scientific enquiry to a point and then accept that it can take us no further in explaining the universe and instead devote our time to exploring the mysteries of god?

Yes, you are wrong so I will happily correct you.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry. Newton dedicated his works to God. As did Galileo. As does John Lennox.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry.

Really. Evolution? directly in conflict with the bible

Badness is your point that you believe that god is eternal but it is impossible for time and the universe to be eternal ? Can the universe not exist outside of linear time just as your concept of god does . Time is but one of the 10 dimensions.

The other dimensions outside of time and space have not been proved. They are still science fiction. Yes God is eternal, time and space and the universe itself is limited and by nature not eternal.

 

Yes God is eternal,

Evidence?

time and space and the universe itself is limited and by nature not eternal.

The Tandem

Really. Evolution? directly in conflict with the bible

Not necessarily. Plenty of Christians subscribe to evolution. McGrath, Lennox, are quite prominent Christian evolutionists.

If an atheist needs to explain how something came from nothing then a theist needs to explain where god came from and who created him or her . And why god kept quiet for so long in human history but then revealed him self to one obscure people in one location .

I agree with the first statement. Again I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just pointing out the limitations of atheism.

For the second question, I think you need to educate yourself about the Christian tradition. God revealed himself continually throughout Jewish history. He then became flesh as Jesus, and revealed himself to many people.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry. Newton dedicated his works to God. As did Galileo. As does John Lennox.

I don't believe this answers my question.

If there is no dis-junction between science and theology you do seem to be suggesting that one can field can inform the other which is frankly ludicrous.

The fact that some scientists believed in god in no way suggests congruity between the fields.

It would also be handy if you could explain why he chose to reveal himself by causing a heart problem in an athlete arranging for a member of a not unusual profession to be in a rather large crowd and then for the athlete to recover via a medical intervention . Surely a talking burning penalty spot or a rain of frogs on the crowd would be less open to debate?

Again, what on earth would I know about this incident! What do you know about it!? All we know is his own testimony and he said God saved his life.

badnewz

Ah - so we are back to pick and mix belief then. You can chose which bits of the bible you believe to be true.

If there is no dis-junction between science and theology you do seem to be suggesting that one can field can inform the other which is frankly ludicrous.

The fact that some scientists believed in god in no way suggests congruity between the fields.

Science implies a rational, order universe. There is plenty of room for a rational creator.

I'm not a theology expert TJ but know enough to understand that there are lots of interpretations of how religious books eg The Bible are meant to be read. I think the idea of the creation story as a poem has more credibility than the idea of it as a literal explanation of how the world came into existence. I cannot see why a Christian wouldn't think the same.

V narrow minded to think otherwise. Take a simple example, the concept of 40 days and nights in the wilderness. Would a Christian's belief be valid/invalid if they didn't think that Jesus spent literally 40 days alone in the wilderness?

(ps as usual your personification of this means that you are barking up the wrong tree again!)

Theistic evolution?

You sound very certain. Please explain.

I'm sorry. According to the theory of The Big Bang, which is what I thought you were arguing against, something did not come from nothing.

If your belief that "something came from nothing" stems from your religious beliefs, you'll need to take that up with your own religion. Seems to me you're trying to find a solution for a non-existent problem if that's the case though.

Plenty of Christians subscribe to evolution.

This much is true. Many Christians have eschewed creationism as the nonsense it evidently is. But then, we're back to pick 'n' mix Christianity.

[img] [/img]

I'm sorry. According to the theory of The Big Bang, which is what I thought you were arguing against, something did not come from nothing.

If your belief that "something came from nothing" stems from your religious beliefs, you'll need to take that up with your own religion. Seems to me you're trying to find a solution for a non-existent problem if that's the case though.

You completely misunderstood my point.

The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation. When something was made from nothing. It arguably undermines a lot of atheistic reasoning from the nineteenth century, when everyone thought the Universe was eternal.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing

This is not in the sphere of athiesm other than by association.

It is in the sphere of physics and there are theories around that attempt to explain just what you suggest particularly quantuum vacuum fluctuations.

Who knows perhaps some of the physicists working on this are not even athiests?

So teamhurtmore - the bible to you is not the literal word of god - you chose which bits to believe depending on what is convenient?

Nice GIF CFH 🙂

know enough to understand that there are lots of interpretations of how religious books eg The Bible are meant to be read.

Can't help but think, if it was the word of god, he'd have been a little less vague.

's true though. It's difficult to translate text from a largely dead language. With that in mind though, it's also difficult to see why anyone would invest a lifestyle belief system in something we're not really all that sure about.

There is plenty of room for a rational creator.

I accept the theoretical possibility of this as anyone who aims for a rational world view logically must.

I would qualify it though by suggesting that if there is a rational god it is unlikely to be the 'jealous god' of the judeo-christian tradition.

The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation. When something was made from nothing

Ah, I see now what you're getting at.

No, it doesn't. The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation, where something we recognise now as 'the universe' was created out of something that wasn't.

You're suggesting that 'creation' implies a creation of matter, but that's not what we're saying (not least because it would contradict accepted science). A potter may create a pot, but he starts with clay. Moreover (and removing this pesky 'creator' analogy), A block of ice at room temperature creates water. Doesn't mean we're creating water out of nothing.

Regardless. However you argue semantics, the BBT does not posit to create something out of nothing. Transform might be a better word perhaps.

Not the person to ask as I am no expert on the matter TJ. But FWIW, highly unlikely that the current versions of any Bible or other religious script that has been through multiple translations and edits should be taken at face value.

Hence the simple illustration of 40 days and nights. To a modern reader (ok perhaps not Theresa April) that may mean 40 calendar days. To a Jewish reader it can equally mean merely a long time.

Poetry (Genesis?), symbolism, songs (Psalms?) can be interpreted in lots of ways.

But ask a priest or a vicar about the other stuff.

Cougar, perhaps that's why theology is still taught at universities. Theologians still have lots to understand if they want to move beyond a monochrome world of black and white!

No, it doesn't. The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation, where something we recognise now as 'the universe' was created out of something that wasn't.

You're suggesting that 'creation' implies a creation of matter, but that's not what we're saying (not least because it would contradict accepted science). A potter may create a pot, but he starts with clay. Moreover (and removing this pesky 'creator' analogy), A block of ice at room temperature creates water. Doesn't mean we're creating water out of nothing.

Who is "We" exactly? Are you all typing from the same keyboard?

Your comment makes no sense. The big bang theory implies that Matter, Space and Time was suddenly created.

Your clay analogy, with the potter (where did the clay come from btw), is ridiculous for supporting an Atheistic position.