If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

OK. Are ice cores "evidence"?

Of a god? How would they be?

 

[IBDaMann]

I said nothing about colliding. The movement of electrons, between levels, is not random.

You still don't know what that means. Collisions, which are random, determine the movement of electrons. The more we know about any electron's position, the less we know about its momentum, and the more we know about an electron's momentum, the less we know about its position.

If an engineer were to tell you that his design involved only probabilities about what components it would have and where they might reside, you would rush to impulsively declare the design "well organized and coherent". No randomness there, nope.

 

[IBDaMann]

Of a god? How would they be?

Dial it back. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Does anybody consider ice cores as evidence of anything, ... say, of Climate Change?

 

[ZenMode]

You still don't know what that means. Collisions, which are random, determine the movement of electrons.

Maybe it can, but that doesn't negate the cause of the other movements.

The more we know about any electron's position, the less we know about its momentum, and the more we know about an electron's momentum, the less we know about its position.

Ok.

If an engineer were to tell you that his design involved only probabilities about what components it would have and where they might reside, you would rush to impulsively declare the design "well organized and coherent". No randomness there, nope.

Electrons move from level to level based on energy.

Are you a science guy or not so much?

 

[ZenMode]

Dial it back. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Does anybody consider ice cores as evidence of anything, ... say, of Climate Change?

So, back to ice cores being evidence of a god....

Do you have anything?

 

[IBDaMann]

The cosmic background afterglow has been receding from us for 13.5 billion years.

13.8 billion. I went back in time and verified.

It is the farthest point on our visible cosmic horizon.

Assuming an expanding universe, and assuming cosmological expansion.

All electromagnetic radiation is light.

Yep.

The human eye is evolved to only see a narrow spectrum of that bandwidth.

The visible spectrum, to be specific.

Is the chant "from the red to the violet" really calling for the deaths of all Jews?

 

[IBDaMann]

Maybe it can, but that doesn't negate ...

So we agree that the motion of electrons is random. Do we need to walk through the other particles as well?

Are you a science guy or not so much?

Who's asking?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

FFS.... The age of the Earth. The Bible does not literally say how old it is, but many Christians literally believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. There's entire society committed to it.

I believe it's incorrect, but that's not provable anymore than either of us can prove there isn't an island full of magical rainbow unicorns in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

However, it is still true that the Bible makes claim after claim after claim that flies directly in the face of various scientific areas. Your answer to these impossible things is to justify them with more claims that fly in the face of science.

It's not possible for a human to walk on the surface of water, so your God magically changes the atomic makeup of water to make it possible. And that makes sense to you, despite the fact that the only evidence for your God today is a book written 2000 plus years ago, again, by people who couldn't explain where the sun went at night and used to very dead animals under buildings for good luck and quite literally wrote about thousands of other gods for whom are atheistic in your beliefs..

does might make right?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Again, stopping here because you insist on playing dumb.

I get it. You aren't interested in having a serious conversation. You've made that clear.


No such claim is made in the Bible.

You aren't, Zen...or you would be answering my questions.

Why not?

Is it because you see your position does not truly "hold water?"

Answer my questions, because they are questions EVERY person discussing this issue should be answering in some kind of personal statement. To simply state a descriptor is absurd, because the descriptors mean different things to different people. At this YOU should be giving a personal statement about your position...and you can start with a DEFINITE answer to the questions I have asked of you.

 

[ZenMode]

So we agree that the motion of electrons is random.

No. And you might want to read up on your claim about electrons colliding with other electrons.

Do we need to walk through the other particles as well?

If you're looking to move the goal post, maybe just go back to ice cores.

Who's asking?

 

[ZenMode]

Dial it back. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Does anybody consider ice cores as evidence of anything, ... say, of Climate Change?

 

[ZenMode]

I assume this is the post I missed...

Are you having fun debating with religious people, Zen?

I guess?

A lot easier to do than to debate with folk of an agnostic perspective, isn't it?

It's difficult to debate someone who is agnostic. They generally don't have a position they strongly believe in to a point they'd want to debate.

You can feel that you are "lording" over them.

I have an opinion. Others have an opinion. We are all defending our opinion. No lording going on, IMO.

Two groups...one guessing about REALITY one way...and the other guessing about REALITY in another, incompatible, way.

Be brave, Zen...take on the agnostic perspective.

You can start by telling us what you see as inconsistent about my personal perspective on the question:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

C'mon. Give it a shot.

I agree it's not impossible for a being to exist that created the universe. Given how little we truly understand about why the universe exists and where it all came from, I suspect a lot of things would surprise us.

However, what you're describing isn't the god of the Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or The Iliad or The Odyssey or any of the 3000 gods that man has claimed exist. You're talking about something very different. A being that is likely incomprehensible for mankind.

I'm talking about the "gods" that people worship and structure their lives around. In this case, primarily the god of the Bible.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LONG before Islam or Judaism or Christianity there were people an cultures across Asia and Africa, the Pacific, North and South America, who had their own religious beliefs. Some put them in text, others passed down by word and ritual. Some were mono-theists, others weren't. Since they weren't attached to imperialism or colonialism (for most), they're more open to review. Buddhism throws a wrench into the whole religious thing. Me, I'll stick with being an agnostic.

 

[Cypress]

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

No I'm not. That's the question I have been asking atheists and those who are convinced that energy and matter were created by strictly inanimate physical reasons.

Photons must have a source. What is that source?

What is the source of that light?

Wrong question. The question comes from ignorance and misunderstanding of physics.
Any gas, solid, or plasma heated to high temperature is going to emit photons, aka light. The earliest universe was a super-heated plasma, only fractions of a second after the big bang. That's your source of photons.

The correct question is what caused the energy fields and physical laws to pop into existence in the first place.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

No I'm not. That's the question I have been asking atheists and those who are convinced that energy and matter were created by strictly inanimate physical reasons.

Wrong question. The question comes from ignorance and misunderstanding of physics.
Any gas, solid, or plasma heated to high temperature is going to emit photons, aka light. The earliest universe was a super-heated plasma, only fractions of a second after the big bang. That's your source of photons.

The correct question is what caused the energy fields and physical laws to pop into existence in the first place.

big bang theory pseudopscience.


you don't understand the answer or the question or intelligence or thought.

 

[Cypress]

Cosmic rays are not light. Cosmic rays have no frequency!

Changing the subject? I specifically have been referencing the cosmic microwave radiation background.

Even in high school physics, children learn that microwaves are a frequency range on the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[gfm7175]

If you know a house has been in a family for "3 generations" you can make a reasonable estimate regarding how long the house has been in the family.

If you know that same family was the original owner, and the house has been in the family for 3 generations, you can make a reasonable estimate on how old the house is.

This will now be dubbed ZENMODE SEQUENCE #2

 

[gfm7175]

The evidence is either a) from ~2000 years ago

There are currently over two billion self-identified Christians in the world today. That evidence is from TODAY, not 2,000 years ago.

Now, this is the part of the performance where you belittle this evidence as "weak" (and otherwise execute ZENMODE SEQUENCE #1). Fine, that's your opinion. You don't have to be convinced to believe anything just because some evidence for it exists, but that evidence DOES exist.

or b) only evidence of you already believe in a god.

... and just like that ... execution of ZENMODE SEQUENCE #1.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I assume this is the post I missed...


I guess?

It's difficult to debate someone who is agnostic. They generally don't have a position they strongly believe in to a point they'd want to debate.

I have a VERY STRONG OPINION. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY GODS EXIST...OR WHETHER IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT AT LEAST ONE EXISTS OR THAT NONE EXIST.

How can you suppose that is not a strong opinion?

I have an opinion. Others have an opinion. We are all defending our opinion. No lording going on, IMO.

You lord over the theists with your twaddle about their opinions being just guesses...and yours being motivated by science and logic.

You and your opponents are motivated by just guesses, Zen. Mine is not.

I agree it's not impossible for a being to exist that created the universe. Given how little we truly understand about why the universe exists and where it all came from, I suspect a lot of things would surprise us.

Correct.

Which is why I wonder why you will not answer my questions...since we agree on that.

However, what you're describing isn't the god of the Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or The Iliad or The Odyssey or any of the 3000 gods that man has claimed exist. You're talking about something very different. A being that is likely incomprehensible for mankind.

I am talking about gods...and I have explained explicitly at least 3 times to YOU that by god or gods...I mean mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

If that is incomprehensible to you...you should not be in this discussion.

I'm talking about the "gods" that people worship and structure their lives around. In this case, primarily the god of the Bible.

You are talking about being an atheist...a so-called weak atheist or, as you like to structure it, an implicit atheist. You are essentially saying that you do not "believe" in any gods. Your personal choice of using "atheist" (a word that means different things to different people) you claim is because you lack a "belief" in a god.

If you want to contest that...ANSWER MY TWO QUESTIONS.

Here they are again:

1) Do you "believe" there are no gods?

2) Do you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Cosmic rays are not light. Cosmic rays have no frequency.

would you like to phone a friend?