"God" is a tyrant.

[ding]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

Are you kidding me? We are all the pinnacle of creation. We are the product of 14 billion years of evolution. We are the rarest thing in the universe. We are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the most complex thing in the universe. We came from the energy that was created when space and time was created. Everything that happened before us was required for our existence.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

You see, Ding thinks he has done something unique, and special by presenting his teleological argument. He hasn't. The thing is, to my knowledge, very few cosmology scholars make this argument. They almost all, invariably, at Christian, or Muslim. This is because there are a few glaring flaws with the teleological argument.

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

 

[ding]

4) The final problem with the teleological argument is one that no one has thought to ask Ding. Why? Why did God go to all of the trouble of creating this vast, complicated universe? What was its purpose? What was its goal? I rather suspect that, if asked, we would be surprised to learn just how arrogant, and egotistical his answer would be.

Because it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. I don't even know if He had a choice in the matter.

So, you are suggesting that the entire purpose of the whole universe is us?

No. I am claiming the purpose of the universe is what comes after consciousness makes the next evolutionary leap.

What the fuck is that supposed to even mean?

It means that every evolutionary phase before it made a leap to the next phase and all followed a similar pattern before the leap was made. In fact, we can see the same process at work in the technology cycle. Consciousness will be no exception.

 

[Czernobog]

1) It employs an logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance occurs when debater (A) claims that his opponent (B) doesn’t know the answer but (A) claims to know the answer, therefore A is right. In this case, scientists do not know what occurred prior to the Big Bang, Christians claim that God made it happen, so Christians are "right". It sounds great, but it's based on flawed logic. To demonstrate the flaw of the logic, replace God with anything you like, from Invisible Space monkeys, to the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the formula still works. Thus, while it sounds good, it is a useless argument.Now, this would be a good time to mention that just because there are aspects of natural law that we do not yet understand, "God did it" is never a sufficient response. That is relying on a concept known as "The God of the Gaps". We no longer need Apollo to explain why the Sun moves across the sky, or Demeter to explain the seasons. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder. The "God of the Gaps" is asymptotically approaching zero.

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

Are you kidding me? We are all the pinnacle of creation. We are the product of 14 billion years of evolution. We are the rarest thing in the universe. We are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the most complex thing in the universe. We came from the energy that was created when space and time was created. Everything that happened before us was required for our existence.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

So, your God is also a wasteful God? Billions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems - each of those solar systems with hundreds of thousands of planets. hundreds of billions of stars exploding, and dying, and forming throughout the universe, all of that energy, and matter wasted, all so that one puny little race, could, in a cosmic blink of an eye, evolve on one insignificant rock in the ass-end of the universe?

Your God may be All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present, but he's kind of an engineering disaster, isn't he?

 

[Czernobog]

You see, Ding thinks he has done something unique, and special by presenting his teleological argument. He hasn't. The thing is, to my knowledge, very few cosmology scholars make this argument. They almost all, invariably, at Christian, or Muslim. This is because there are a few glaring flaws with the teleological argument.

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

 

[ding]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

I do ascribe it to God. God is existence; truth; intelligence; reality; consciousness. God is more like a verb than a noun.

Which leads us right back around to your argument from ignorance. I ascribe it to Invisible Space Monkeys. Or The Giant Spaghetti Monster. There is just as much evidence of either of those being responsible.

This is why the teleological argument always falls apart. It relies on logical fallacies for its foundations.

Your problem is that everything I have written I have already proven using science, facts and reason. It's all in black and white for anyone to read. All you have done is fling poo at it. You have not made any logical arguments. You have not presented any facts. You have not presented any reason. All you have done is use rhetoric. I'm pretty happy how this conversation has played out.

 

[Czernobog]

Now, some of these problems - particularly point three - Ding will attempt to overcome by pointing out that God doesn't have to follow the rules that the universe does, because the universe is bound by the physical laws of nature, but God is supernatural, and beyond such limitations. But, do you see the problem there? He just spent all of this time pretending to employ "science" to "prove" the existence of a thing that he fully admits exists in a realm that is utterly beyond the ability of science to even recognise, let alone accurately test, confirm, and prove.

Hence the utter demise of Ding's argument.

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

I do ascribe it to God. God is existence; truth; intelligence; reality; consciousness. God is more like a verb than a noun.

Which leads us right back around to your argument from ignorance. I ascribe it to Invisible Space Monkeys. Or The Giant Spaghetti Monster. There is just as much evidence of either of those being responsible.

This is why the teleological argument always falls apart. It relies on logical fallacies for its foundations.

Your problem is that everything I have written I have already proven using science, facts and reason. It's all in black and white for anyone to read. All you have done is fling poo at it. You have not made any logical arguments. You have not presented any facts. You have not presented any reason. All you have done is use rhetoric. I'm pretty happy how this conversation has played out.

No, you haven't. That's the point. The best you do is get to a place where you ask the scientist, "Then what happened,?", and his answer is, "I don't know". At no point do you ever get to a point where you present verifiable, measurable evidence of a creator.

 

[ding]

Actually all I stated was that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Beyond that is a philosophical argument that all scientists acknowledge. Towards that I have defined the attributes of what was responsible for creating the laws of nature which brought time and space into existence. Those attributes are; eternal and constant. The only solution I have found is consciousness; intelligence. And since it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and since we know from the laws of nature that the universe has become self aware and produced consciousness, it is entirely reasonable to believe that consciousness begot consciousness. How is this a useless argument? How is this an unreasonable argument? Do you have a better argument for why the universe became self aware?

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

Are you kidding me? We are all the pinnacle of creation. We are the product of 14 billion years of evolution. We are the rarest thing in the universe. We are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the most complex thing in the universe. We came from the energy that was created when space and time was created. Everything that happened before us was required for our existence.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

So, your God is also a wasteful God? Billions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems - each of those solar systems with hundreds of thousands of planets. hundreds of billions of stars exploding, and dying, and forming throughout the universe, all of that energy, and matter wasted, all so that one puny little race, could, in a cosmic blink of an eye, evolve on one insignificant rock in the ass-end of the universe?

Your God may be All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present, but he's kind of an engineering disaster, isn't he?

I see. So now you want to attack God because I have proven you wrong. If that is how you want to see it, please do be my guest. The reality is that everything that has unfolded since space and time were created were necessary for consciousness to exist. So what you see as waste, I see as glorious proof of God's existence and the purpose of Creation.

You might be the first person to ever claim that nature is an engineering disaster. That statement right there proves you cannot be objective.

Engineering Marvels: Tools and Machines Inspired by Nature

Biomimicry and Sustainable Design - Nature Is an Engineering Marvel - Lesson

"Modern Marvels" Nature's Engineers (TV Episode 2004) - IMDb

Lessons From the Reverse Engineering of Nature

The Tiny Hummingbird: A Flying Marvel - Nature and Environment - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

Pulmonary surfactant: an engineering marvel - IEEE Xplore Document

 

[Czernobog]

I would first ask you to prove that the universe is self-aware. Not that humans are self-aware, but that the entire universe is self-aware. That seems like a pretty big presumption.

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

Are you kidding me? We are all the pinnacle of creation. We are the product of 14 billion years of evolution. We are the rarest thing in the universe. We are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the most complex thing in the universe. We came from the energy that was created when space and time was created. Everything that happened before us was required for our existence.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

So, your God is also a wasteful God? Billions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems - each of those solar systems with hundreds of thousands of planets. hundreds of billions of stars exploding, and dying, and forming throughout the universe, all of that energy, and matter wasted, all so that one puny little race, could, in a cosmic blink of an eye, evolve on one insignificant rock in the ass-end of the universe?

Your God may be All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present, but he's kind of an engineering disaster, isn't he?

I see. So now you want to attack God because I have proven you wrong. If that is how you want to see it, please do be my guest. The reality is that everything that has unfolded since space and time were created were necessary for consciousness to exist. So what you see as waste, I see as glorious proof of God's existence and the purpose of Creation.

You might be the first person to ever claim that nature is an engineering disaster. That statement right there proves you cannot be objective.

Engineering Marvels: Tools and Machines Inspired by Nature

Biomimicry and Sustainable Design - Nature Is an Engineering Marvel - Lesson

"Modern Marvels" Nature's Engineers (TV Episode 2004) - IMDb

Lessons From the Reverse Engineering of Nature

The Tiny Hummingbird: A Flying Marvel - Nature and Environment - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

Pulmonary surfactant: an engineering marvel - IEEE Xplore Document

Yeah, and apparently it to this paragon of perfection billions, and billions of abject failed attempts to get it right. How else do you explain all of the other billions of wasted galaxies out there. That isn't engineering genius. That is a colossal failure who, apparently got amazingly lucky - once.

 

[ding]

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

Everything which is possible to exist existed before space and time were created. It was waiting in eternity and then time for it to be discovered. It existed as potential. If it were not possible to existed then there would be no potential for it to exist. That game that you think proves your point actually proves my point because the potential for that game to be played also existed before space and time were created because it was possible for that game to be played. All potentialities will be realized given enough time and the right conditions. In this regard it is very much like quantum mechanics.

 

[ding]

Can you show me one cosmologist or physicist who stated that the laws of nature were NOT in place before space and time were created? Because I have yet to find one.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

 

[ding]

Other than to state the attributes which must exist for the first cause, I don't believe I have done any such thing. But what you HAVE just proven is the idiocracy of your position to demand proof of the supernatural.

Oh, then I apologise. I then argue with nothing you have said - with the possibility that the laws of nature existed before the universe. I have not heard that, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. But, the rest is exactly what has happened. So long as you do not try to ascribe any of that to some imaginary God, then we are on the same page.

I do ascribe it to God. God is existence; truth; intelligence; reality; consciousness. God is more like a verb than a noun.

Which leads us right back around to your argument from ignorance. I ascribe it to Invisible Space Monkeys. Or The Giant Spaghetti Monster. There is just as much evidence of either of those being responsible.

This is why the teleological argument always falls apart. It relies on logical fallacies for its foundations.

Your problem is that everything I have written I have already proven using science, facts and reason. It's all in black and white for anyone to read. All you have done is fling poo at it. You have not made any logical arguments. You have not presented any facts. You have not presented any reason. All you have done is use rhetoric. I'm pretty happy how this conversation has played out.

No, you haven't. That's the point. The best you do is get to a place where you ask the scientist, "Then what happened,?", and his answer is, "I don't know". At no point do you ever get to a point where you present verifiable, measurable evidence of a creator.

Then you have just proven that your flinging poo is illogical and you have just proven that your incessant demand for proof of God is illogical.

I on the other hand have proven using science and reason that through the laws of nature which existed before space and time that all potentialities which existed before space and time have been realized due to the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

The entire universe does not need to be self aware for the universe to become self aware. Just like any other process on earth, the final product is not the sum of the raw material. In fact, we can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which proves that for every transfer between mass and energy there will be a loss of usable energy. So it would be illogical for you to assume every single piece of matter and energy must be self aware before you admit the self evident fact that the universe has become self aware. The fact we are having this conversation in the first place should be all the proof you need. You do realize that the energy and matter that make up who we are was created over 14 billion years ago, right? Since that time it has only changed form until the point that we are sitting at our computers typing these replies.

No, it isn't. You do not represent the universe, whatever your overinflated ego might tell you. You are one insignificant speck of instantaneous dust winking into, and out of existence, in an insignificant little corner of the universe that no one will ever even realise was there, once you have winked out of existence. You give yourself, and even all of humanity way too much significance. Our achieving self-awareness in no way suggests "the universe" is self-aware. That is hubris of the worst kind.

Are you kidding me? We are all the pinnacle of creation. We are the product of 14 billion years of evolution. We are the rarest thing in the universe. We are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the most complex thing in the universe. We came from the energy that was created when space and time was created. Everything that happened before us was required for our existence.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

So, your God is also a wasteful God? Billions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems - each of those solar systems with hundreds of thousands of planets. hundreds of billions of stars exploding, and dying, and forming throughout the universe, all of that energy, and matter wasted, all so that one puny little race, could, in a cosmic blink of an eye, evolve on one insignificant rock in the ass-end of the universe?

Your God may be All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present, but he's kind of an engineering disaster, isn't he?

I see. So now you want to attack God because I have proven you wrong. If that is how you want to see it, please do be my guest. The reality is that everything that has unfolded since space and time were created were necessary for consciousness to exist. So what you see as waste, I see as glorious proof of God's existence and the purpose of Creation.

You might be the first person to ever claim that nature is an engineering disaster. That statement right there proves you cannot be objective.

Engineering Marvels: Tools and Machines Inspired by Nature

Biomimicry and Sustainable Design - Nature Is an Engineering Marvel - Lesson

"Modern Marvels" Nature's Engineers (TV Episode 2004) - IMDb

Lessons From the Reverse Engineering of Nature

The Tiny Hummingbird: A Flying Marvel - Nature and Environment - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

Pulmonary surfactant: an engineering marvel - IEEE Xplore Document

Yeah, and apparently it to this paragon of perfection billions, and billions of abject failed attempts to get it right. How else do you explain all of the other billions of wasted galaxies out there. That isn't engineering genius. That is a colossal failure who, apparently got amazingly lucky - once.

Now you are scoffing at failures? You are proving yet again your lack of objectivity.

“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” - Robert F. Kennedy

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas A. Edison

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

“Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.” - Winston Churchill

“Failures are finger posts on the road to achievement.” - C.S. Lewis


3 Reasons Why Failure is the Key to Success

Why Failure Is Good for Success

Why Success Always Starts With Failure

http://betterthansuccess.com/5-reasons-why-failure-leads-to-success/

3 Big Reasons Why Failure Breeds Success | Nerd Fitness

 

[Czernobog]

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

Everything which is possible to exist existed before space and time were created. It was waiting in eternity and then time for it to be discovered. It existed as potential. If it were not possible to existed then there would be no potential for it to exist. That game that you think proves your point actually proves my point because the potential for that game to be played also existed before space and time were created because it was possible for that game to be played. All potentialities will be realized given enough time and the right conditions. In this regard it is very much like quantum mechanics.

That's philosophical sophistry, not scientifically provable fact. If you choose to believe that, fine. But, please do not pretend that that is a scientific hypothesis that can, in any way be tested.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. Are you talking about the philosophical Laws of nature, or the physical laws of science?

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

 

[ding]

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

Everything which is possible to exist existed before space and time were created. It was waiting in eternity and then time for it to be discovered. It existed as potential. If it were not possible to existed then there would be no potential for it to exist. That game that you think proves your point actually proves my point because the potential for that game to be played also existed before space and time were created because it was possible for that game to be played. All potentialities will be realized given enough time and the right conditions. In this regard it is very much like quantum mechanics.

That's philosophical crap, not scientifically provable fact. If you choose to believe that, fine. But, please do not pretend that that is a scientific hypothesis that can, in any way be tested.

It is a scientific argument based upon reason and logic. The laws of nature existed before space and time. The laws of nature controlled how matter evolved. Everything which exists today or has existed since space and time were created were possible to exist before space and time. Otherwise they would not have been realized.

 

[ding]

The physical laws of nature and the moral laws of nature. Both existed before space and time were created. Just like music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. They were waiting in eternity to be discovered after the universe became self aware.

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

 

[Czernobog]

No. I don't concede that, and I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that.

So you don't believe scientists, musicians and mathematicians when they say they did not create anything? Because they believe they discovered it. That it was waiting in time to be discovered.

Scientists, & mathematicians sure. But just because it was waiting to be discovered, doesn't mean that it existed before the universe. Unless those scientists were around before the universe searching for those discoveries, and couldn't find them...

As far as musicians go, you clearly do not understand the nature of music, or you would understand what musicians say when they say that. Did you know that Chess masters do not play games - they discover them?

I didn't say musicians, mathematicians and scientists, I said, music, mathematics and science existed before space and time were created. But since you bring it up, the potential for people with talent for music, mathematics and science existed before space and time too. Therefore, we can say that it was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time to discover music, mathematics and science.

Still philosophical sophistry, not science.

See post #316. Can you explain using science how I am wrong? Can you explain using logic how I am wrong? Or is your argument limited to rhetoric like philosophical sophistry? Can you prove me wrong? Or just fling poo?

Oh the irony! You are using meaningless rhetoric, and logical fallacies to make your argument! Guess what? You're back to "Since we cannot observe anything prior to be beginning of the universe, I get to make whatever claims I want about what did, and did not exist there, and I am right". Refer back to post #278. That is an argument of ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. If your argument relies on flawed logic in order to work, then. It. Fails. Again, replace Mathematics, Music, Laws of Nature, or God, with whatever you want.

I insist that invisible space monkeys existed before the universe. Use science, yo prove me wrong. I insist that The Great Mystical Teapot existed before the universe. Using science, prove me wrong. See how that works? You can make whatever ridiculous claim you want, when the answer of the scientist is "I don't know". That doesn't make you right.

 

[ding]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

Oh! What you believe, and what your claims support are two very different things. You may well be a theist - a Christian, even. However, your "First Cause" model of creator is a far cry from a theistic model of God.

According to you, but what do you know?

Not just according to me. Also according to Austin Cline, who said so in their article Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God . I'm sorry your argument falls short of the mark.

Austin Cline is a militant atheist like yourself. I can see why you admire him.

Instead, the goal is to reveal how oppression depends on religious beliefs which should be dispensed with anyway.
Austin Cline

"Liberation from theism and religion are necessary for social and political liberation." Austin Cline

 

[ding]

2) Aside from the logical flaw, there is a problem of the nature of God. You'll notice that Ding likes to refer to the "Primary Mover", or the "First Cause". At best, this is an argument for deism , not theism. It argues for an intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. There is nothing in the "First Cause" argument that demonstrates any sort of continued interest in humanity.

You are free to label it anyway you want, but it is a misstatement to say that I believe that intelligence that created the universe, set it in motion, then toddled on off, and left the universe to do what it does. Far from it. Consciousness is evolving because there are natural moral laws just like there are natural physical laws. We are being pruned. Cause and effect, behavior and consequence all play a part in this process.

Oh! What you believe, and what your claims support are two very different things. You may well be a theist - a Christian, even. However, your "First Cause" model of creator is a far cry from a theistic model of God.

According to you, but what do you know?

Not just according to me. Also according to Austin Cline, who said so in their article Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God . I'm sorry your argument falls short of the mark.

I didn't make those arguments which is why you or Austin Cline have no response to my arguments. Can you show me how my arguments fall short of the mark?