Question for believers in ID.

You're grasping at straws, working out of a fallacious notion of what the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to.

Theists tend to mean that the "everything" in "everything must have a beginning" is referring to 'everything that we usually see, hear, touch, smell, taste and think, has a beginning, a source.' Which is generally not considered controversial by atheists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I found the answer to the Beginning of the Universe, as of a few days ago. I had help, but I already knew the idea had to be true. It was just a matter of obtaining the math.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the prooh that you have found The Answer is that you are posting about it on an internet forum!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and it has already been posted in this thread. See my next to previous post, no more than a page back. It has a link.

The finding of the reason for the Universe is not all that is revealed, for it is the Theory of Everything. It is simple, as one would already expect, and the proof is complete, which is a necessity, and it was already down to two opposing positions (or their mixture), which are Something Forever vs Something From Nothing.

Since the TOE was already in hand as being one of the two, it proved best to look more deeply into each option, to find the true answer; otherwise, both of the options might have been shoved off or ignored, since each one seems to be a paradox in itself; however, since there are no true paradoxes, this means that we were obviously missing something, for one has to give, and that is the power of logic.

The answer even accounts for the number of particles in the universe, plus why the electron and the proton are the only two stable matter particles in free space (and their anti-particles). It is that there are only two ways to make them.

It also unifies all the forces.

The math is elementary trigonometry.

The religious forums will no longer be as necessary, but that was not the intent, it being just a fall out. For completeness, though, the notion of ‘God’ is disproved all on its own, separately. The search was for the truth, wherever it may have led.

I also have the future, as well as all that lies between.

 

no more than the sun is simply part of the sunlight
:shrug:

 

It doesn't matter if theists think the rules should apply to God or not. Their own argument demands that it does.

No they don't. They're also talking about the stuff we can't see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or think. It's dark matter and quantum mechanics and space itself. Are you even paying attention?

 

Not true. If G:shrug:d is created then G:shrug:d is a creation in and of itself, and only "special" from our limited perspective. From the perspective of its own creator--and from the infinite line of creators to come before it--God would be decidedly mundane.

:shrug:

 

No, it's your fallacious interpretation of their argument that demands that.

 

gmilam.

Why?

There is no need for you to posit ''the universe just is'', because you don't believe
in God. And the God you express disbelieve in ''just is''.

It makes me wonder why you feel you have to match the claim to try and make a point.

Existence isn't the problem, belief is.
It's stupid to use the universe as an alternative to God, in this case.
It sound desparate.

Oh but you're prepared to say stupid things like the universe just is, eternal, part of a multiverse, or any shit as long ''we don't allow
a divine foot in the door'' because matter is absolute.


jan.

 

LOL!!

Is this the length and breadth of you argument against an intelligent creator.

Running from you? :roflmao:

Go learn something about God, religion, or spirituality, and even if you're in the right ball-park, I'll run from you as kind-hearted gesture.


jan.

 

James R,

I'm using it in a general sense.
We see a building, we assume it has been created from intelligence.

I don't even regard it as an argument, it's just common sense.

I haven't leapt to that, that is my conclusion.

If all things don't have a cause then the assumption would fail, but as far as we can see all things do have a cause.
And if something doesn't appear to have a cause, it would be illogical to assume that it didn't have a cause.

As for number 4, it follows that if the universe came into being, then something must have caused that to happen.
This thing had to be, prior to the creation of the universe, at which point 'time' was created.
This thing must therefore not be affected by time, and as such does not come into, or go out of being.

Having read the scriptures, I believe that this thing is God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Are you suggesting that philosophical disagreement with "ID" arguments causes pain and suffering to those who are somehow psychologically reliant on those arguments?

"ID" proponents are perfectly free to address their own argument to the general public, and particularly to those who don't already share their religious faith?

Their design-arguments are apparently intended to be strong and definitive. The suggestion seems to be that they should be accepted by everyone, at least in the absence of persuasive counter-argument.

But now, in your view at least, any expression of disagreement with their views is being ruled out, because disagreement might cause them pain and suffering, and represents some kind of atheistic psychological violence against them?

That kind of privileged position with its immunity from any disagreement and its guaranteed rhetorical victory would be awfully convenient for the theists, wouldn't it?

 

James R,

I'm not familiar with bridges being created, never saw one as I was growing up.
I've never seen a statue, watch, battery, bulb, or teabag being created. But you know what, they look created
and by jingo, they are. The universe looks created or caused by something with intelligence.
You may not think so because it collides with you belief system, but I'm cool with it.

So you have to see something being created to accept it's created?

Nice try JR.

The primary definition of ''thing'' is ''a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.''

Here is a definition of Gods' nature from Bhagavad Gita.


Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

Of course there's no prior, as far as you're concerned, there is as far as I'm concerned.
Now if you know for a scientific fact that there was no prior to time...spill.

Oh! I forgot, there is no modern science before the creation of the universe!

I'm not interested in your need to introduce God into any picture.
The multiverse hypothesis is just a way of keeping the divine foot out of the door. because materialism is absolute.
The thing is, I believe there are multiple universe, and it is explained this in some scriptures.

The multiverse itself (if it exists) would seem to satisfy that criterion adequately.

And the criterion is to satisfy modern atheists?

Becuse some editions have pretty pictures in the centre pages.

jan.

 

Yazata,

They do, but they tend to have comedians on the opposite side derailing their dialogue.
And though some ID'ists may be religious, the ID isn't.

jan.

 

now go back to the explanation of god existing simultaneously with potencies (much like the sun existing simultaneously with sunlight) and explain why you think you have a point ...

:shrug:

 

No, the pain caused by blanket disagreement with ID is caused to the disagreers, ie. the atheists and skeptics.

I mean that you are the one who is suffering in some way or another when you disagree with IDers.

I don't know if IDers are suffering when people disagree with them; and this was never my suggestion. I am baffled as to how you came to interpret my post that way.


Like I said, I mean that you are the one who is suffering in some way or another when you disagree with IDers.
But by this I am not suggesting that you should agree with the IDers - that would be a kind of Stockholm Syndrome solution to a philosophical problem, and I don't think such a solution is viable.
If disagreeing with someone causes one suffering in one form or another (and while philosophical suffering tends to be very subtle, it can be extremely potent), then I think it is wise to look into one's intentions behind the disagreement.

If one really believes that the IDers are simply wrong, why not shoo them away with an idle hand gesture? Why the mental and emotional (and physical etc.) involvement?
And if one believes that the IDers are simply wrong and if one is concerned about the social or economical or political power that IDers may have, is it really the most productive way to approach them on the philosophical front?

 

Try reading them once you're really clean and sober - you'll see the effect they have.

 

The ID argument is simply a weak argument.