|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 18:00:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 21, 2007 11:48:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 21, 2007 14:05:32 GMT -5
It appears Antony Flew is at a crossroads within his own mind. Maybe he is basing his conclusion on feelings versus any specific evidence. Which may not mean much to people that think everything is and can be reasoned by physical evidence alone.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 21, 2007 14:33:44 GMT -5
I find this part interesting: "The point more relevant here was that it can be entirely rational for believers and negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same scientific developments. ...I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds."You've been posting all over this forum that anyone who believes in God, a god, a deity, etc. is basically a nutcase. I know that Antony Flew is not saying there is a deity but he's reached a point where, based on everything he's seen, he must keep it as an option on the table and it's my understanding that he's going to see where the evidence leads in that respect. So, are you going to assert that you've a greater grasp and understanding than Antony Flew and can say for certain that it is not possible for there to be a deity?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 21, 2007 16:39:00 GMT -5
Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist. He seems to have opened up to a wishy-washy Deism by the very old Aristotelian first cause argument. I read a lot of popular science and from what I understand we don't need a first cause and time started with the big bang. All the newer sciences like Chaos and Complexity theory along with a lot of Quantum Mechanics can account for the Universe without any cause. It's counter-intuitive, but I 'm not aware of science going in the direction Flew claims. Maybe he had a stroke and lost his mind . Also the first cause (Cosmological) argument has obvious problems. What caused the first cause?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 21, 2007 17:20:10 GMT -5
In response to your question, I'll ask you a question. Where did the elementary particles come from? Have they always existed?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 21, 2007 17:46:15 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out which came first -- the chicken or the egg.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 11:26:35 GMT -5
In response to your question, I'll ask you a question. Where did the elementary particles come from? Have they always existed? This is all theoretical. But based in evidence: There was nothing before. It's a meaningless question. Time started with the big band. Also things can pop in and out of existence. Sub atomic particle act very strange. Assuming the universe used to be very small the laws of quantum mechanics would apply. Maybe something even stranger. Also I've heard that there is something about the nature of nothingness that it must become something. All very confusing but it beats the heck out of the "magic man did it" hypothesis. Science has an answer to the uncaused cause problem. Religion just offers circular rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 11:27:08 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out which came first -- the chicken or the egg. The egg.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 22, 2007 13:05:15 GMT -5
All very confusing but it beats the heck out of the "magic man did it" hypothesis. ........Religion just offers circular rhetoric. You are a bitter, hateful, little man. Anyway, it's again plainly obvious that you aren't interested in having an open, honest debate. I've said this several times before but I'll say again. I have no problem with you being an Atheist. I do have a problem with your divisiveness and the hatred you have for those that disagree with you. It really speaks volumes about where your beliefs have led you. Back to the subject at hand. Since you like to jump on things like this I'll return the favor. You said that "Time started with the big band." Obviously, you must have meant to phrase that differently and I'm not talking about the typo. Actually, they don't. I've yet to hear any answer to this. You're talking about billions upon billions of circumstances coming together in just the right way to just cause the Big Bang, not including everything that had to happen for the said results of the Big Bang. The total mathematical improbability would force you to at least consider some other force was at work. To not do so would be just plain stupid. That's what Antony Flew has realized. Based on what we know and everything we've discovered, in order to be intellectually honest he has to at least consider the possibility. I know you'll keep fighting this because you are desperate not to believe in any type of divine entity because you fear the results of such a revelation.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 13:38:28 GMT -5
Back to the subject at hand. Since you like to jump on things like this I'll return the favor. You said that "Time started with the big band." Obviously, you must have meant to phrase that differently and I'm not talking about the typo. Time started with the Big Band baby, can you dig it? Time started with the big bang. Fact. "With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang." www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/ I've yet to hear any answer to this. Try listening to physicists. They're the one who know about this stuff. You're talking about billions upon billions of circumstances coming together in just the right way to just cause the Big Bang, not including everything that had to happen for the said results of the Big Bang. The total mathematical improbability would force you to at least consider some other force was at work. Besides the fact that you're starting with humanity and yourself as the reason for the universe and working backward it's impossible to get statistics about the odds of what is here now. I've said it a million times: Everything is a statistical impossibility. But even if this was a valid argument the chances of a supernatural man coming into existence and creating everything by magic is infinitely more improbable. Also nonsensical. I may rag on theists a lot but I'm dumbfounded that you guys keep bringing up these old arguments. I know you'll keep fighting this because you are desperate not to believe in any type of divine entity because you fear the results of such a revelation. Is that why you reject Allah?
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 22, 2007 14:31:06 GMT -5
All very confusing but it beats the heck out of the "magic man did it" hypothesis. ........Religion just offers circular rhetoric. You are a bitter, hateful, little man. Anyway, it's again plainly obvious that you aren't interested in having an open, honest debate. I've said this several times before but I'll say again. I have no problem with you being an Atheist. I do have a problem with your divisiveness and the hatred you have for those that disagree with you. It really speaks volumes about where your beliefs have led you. Huh,...........sounds like you're speaking more of yourself here than blondie!? Question? Who's the 'Biggest Idiot' here, the one who maintains he/she is Godless and likes their position,.....or the one who 'claims' to be enlightened, and continues to argue and badger and 'INSULT' blondie, and feels comfortable that in so doing, he is being a shining example!All I'm seeing in the periphery of this foolishness is 2 Godless people displaying IGNORANCE and irrelevance!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 22, 2007 15:35:33 GMT -5
Huh,...........sounds like you're speaking more of yourself here than blondie!? Question? Who's the 'Biggest Idiot' here, the one who maintains he/she is Godless and likes their position,.....or the one who 'claims' to be enlightened, and continues to argue and badger and 'INSULT' blondie, and feels comfortable that in so doing, he is being a shining example!All I'm seeing in the periphery of this foolishness is 2 Godless people displaying IGNORANCE and irrelevance!
|
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 22, 2007 15:43:52 GMT -5
Thanks for enforcing AND PROVING MY POINT, MORON!
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 22, 2007 15:45:40 GMT -5
I maintain....blondie is far more respectable than some 'Clowns' who post here! When 'goobers' are nailed between the eyes with the TRUTH...they can't counter with ANY persuasive response, so, like a child....they 'attack' with silly pictures.....trying to demean and insult like a 'CHILD!' --- Mommie, mommie.....What do I do now?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 22, 2007 15:48:27 GMT -5
I maintain....all of my posts amount to this: I think that's what you meant to post.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 22:00:42 GMT -5
C'mon people, pictures are funny! Laughter is the best medicine (thus saith Readers' Digest)! Seriously, lawman -- and I'm not trying to attack you in any way so don't respond with one of your posts pretending that you are offended -- but why DID you feel it was necessary to jump in the fray between blondie and zoomixer? From my time on the board now, I've seen that they can both handle their own battles. This goes back to the fact that you do often act like a troll Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. Show me how your intervention in this case does not fit the above? I must say, for the most part, this forum is much classier than many of the threads I see on Google Groups (which is just Usenet). And people on here don't really insult each other often. They may attack statements buts its uncommon that they start insulting one another. The one exception is you lawman. Again, this is not meant as an attack (though you'll likely take it as one) on you, but a plea to stop with the insults. I'm sure you do have some things you can debate and impart that are worthwhile, so why don't you focus on those things? I don't like being a jerk, but I'll admit that I goad you on sometimes because its just funny. I can almost picture you spitting and sputtering on the other side of the computer screen. This is just a forum, just words on a screen. Nobody really knows who you are. So don't take "insults" so seriously. You know who you are and you know the value you have amongst your friends and family. Take these meaningless words in stride. So instead, I encourage you to use your life experiences and knowledge to teach us. Nobody is the same and we can all learn from one another. But we can't if all we do is type insults back and forth. Insults mean nothing while intelligent debate can change minds and impart valuable knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 22, 2007 23:45:54 GMT -5
I maintain....blondie is far more respectable than some 'Clowns' who post here! When 'goobers' are nailed between the eyes with the TRUTH...they can't counter with ANY persuasive response, so, like a child....they 'attack' with silly pictures.....trying to demean and insult like a 'CHILD!' --- Mommie, mommie.....What do I do now? Hey, I just noticed that you came back and drastically changed your post! What's wrong, lawman? Could you not come up with "ANY persuasive response, so, like a child...." you had to completely alter your first response?!?!?!?! LOL!!!! Talk about clowns......
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 23, 2007 0:35:20 GMT -5
I maintain....blondie is far more respectable than some 'Clowns' who post here! When 'goobers' are nailed between the eyes with the TRUTH...they can't counter with ANY persuasive response, so, like a child....they 'attack' with silly pictures.....trying to demean and insult like a 'CHILD!' --- Mommie, mommie.....What do I do now? Hey, I just noticed that you came back and drastically changed your post! What's wrong, lawman? Could you not come up with "ANY persuasive response, so, like a child...." you had to completely alter your first response?!?!?!?! LOL!!!! Talk about clowns...... More 'wis-dumb' from the zoo!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 23, 2007 8:21:55 GMT -5
More 'wis-dumb' from the zoo! LOL!!!! Nice try, lawman. I know you're really disappointed that you can't give me negative karma points anymore. You were getting a big kick out of that, weren't ya? Hey, have you gotten that job with Taco Bell yet?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 23, 2007 13:00:46 GMT -5
People, your government prefers Atheism. That's what it promotes (although it will never admit it.)
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 13:27:43 GMT -5
People, your government prefers Atheism. That's what it promotes (although it will never admit it.) Yeah that's why the president, all of congress and the entire supreme court are Atheists. Unbelievable. Hey, I've got you capitalizing it now.
|
|