Zone1 have you been baptized?

[RetiredGySgt]

Science makes no assumptions

Scientists do.

Do you not see that all this "logic" talked about results in nothing but making up a definition of what god is then using that definition to prove that god's existence?

LOL all science is is assumptions and guesses based on observed events and materials. And that is the same as what he said about God.

 

[Blues Man]

LOL all science is is assumptions and guesses based on observed events and materials. And that is the same as what he said about God.

And who makes those assumptions?

Scientists

Sometimes those assumptions are proven to hold up and sometimes they are [proven not to hold up.

That process of verification is science

 

[ding]

And how does that prove that "spirit" is the first cause?

Because you assume there are no other alternatives to matter and energy

How does that prove that this "spirit" is the god you worship?

Because you assume that spirit is the only alternative to matter and energy and that "spirit" is what god is

You basically just made up a definition of what god is and used that as proof of the existence of that god Oh and you know there can only be one of those gods too.

I can't even begin to discuss that logic until you acknowledge the first three conditions of the first cause.

 

[Blues Man]

I can't even begin to discuss that logic until you acknowledge the first three conditions of the first cause.

And I won't acknowledge your first assumption until you prove the only alternative to matter and energy is "spirit" and that this "spirit" is eternal and unchanging.

 

[ding]

And who makes those assumptions?

Scientists

Sometimes those assumptions are proven to hold up and sometimes they are [proven not to hold up.

That process of verification is science

Anyone can. Einstein was a patent clerk if I recall.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Anyone can and should do that.

 

[ding]

And I won't acknowledge your first assumption until you prove the only alternative to matter and energy is "spirit" and that this "spirit" is eternal and unchanging.

That's up to you but there is no logic that you have shared which has disproven the first three conditions of a first cause.

1. It must be eternal.
2. It must be unchanging.
3. It cannot be matter and energy because energy and matter are not unchanging and cannot be eternal sources of creating universes. According to the big bang theory our universe was not created from pre-existing matter. It was created through paired particle production.

 

[Blues Man]

Anyone can. Einstein was a patent clerk if I recall.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Anyone can and should do that.

His job was that of a patent clerk that does not mean he was not also a scientist.

Science is the process of verification of hypotheses

 

[ding]

His job was that of a patent clerk that does not mean he was not also a scientist.

Science is the process of verification of hypotheses

Was he? Or was he a patent clerk? Anyone can make observations. Anyone can use logic. It's amazing that you would argue against that.

 

[Blues Man]

That's up to you but there is no logic that you have shared which has disproven the first three conditions of a first cause.

1. It must be eternal.
2. It must be unchanging.
3. It cannot be matter and energy because energy and matter are not unchanging and cannot be eternal sources of creating universes. According to the big bang theory our universe was not created from pre-existing matter. It was created through paired particle production.

There you go again

it MUST be this or that

These are the assumptions you are basing your entire argument on.

I do not agree with those assumptions. We cannot KNOW that a cause of anything mut be eternal. All you can do is ASSUME that.

All you are doing is making up a definition of what you think god is and using the definition as proof of that gods existence.

Until you prove absolutely that "spirit" whatever that is is the only other thing that can exist beside matter and energy your entire argument is nothing but supposition that can neither be proven nor disproven

 

[Blues Man]

Was he? Or was he a patent clerk? Anyone can make observations. Anyone can use logic. It's amazing that you would argue against that.

So you think a person IS his job?

Gregor Mendel was a monk so I guess he couldn't've been a monk and a scientist right?

And anyone can make up a set of conditions and use "logic" come to a predetermined conclusion like you did

 

[ding]

There you go again

it MUST be this or that

These are the assumptions you are basing your entire argument on.

I do not agree with those assumptions. We cannot KNOW that a cause of anything mut be eternal. All you can do is ASSUME that.

All you are doing is making up a definition of what you think god is and using the definition as proof of that gods existence.

Until you prove absolutely that "spirit" whatever that is is the only other thing that can exist beside matter and energy your entire argument is nothing but supposition that can neither be proven nor disproven

All you have to do is post my logic and then post your counter argument on a point by point basis which you have yet top do.

 

[ding]

So you think a person IS his job?

Gregor Mendel was a monk so I guess he couldn't've been a monk and a scientist right?

And anyone can make up a set of conditions and use "logic" come to a predetermined conclusion like you did

I think you are getting desperate because you can't make a logical argument that supports your beliefs. Apparently you believe that the first cause cannot even be pondered because you are too stupid to ponder it. I however, am not.

 

[Crepitus]

simple question

As an episcopalian. My parents were part of that cult when I was growing up.

They have since been deprogrammed.

 

[Blues Man]

All you have to do is post my logic and then post your counter argument on a point by point basis which you have yet top do.

If I disagree with your primary assumptions why should I say I agree with them?

Your "logic" is based on your assumptions that only matter energy and "spirit" exist.

Why do I have to agree with that?

 

[ding]

As an episcopalian. My parents were part of that cult when I was growing up.

They have since been deprogrammed.

Good for them. I wish them happiness in their pursuit of satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses.

 

[Blues Man]

Good for them. I wish them happiness in their pursuit of satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses.

Yeah that's not condescending assholery at all

 

[ding]

If I disagree with your primary assumptions why should I say I agree with them?

Your "logic" is based on your assumptions that only matter energy and "spirit" exist.

Why do I have to agree with that?

You should use logic to address each point explaining why. It's pretty idiotic of you to not recognize the first cause must be eternal and unchanging. Which is probably why you have not proffered any logic to support your rejection of those two conditions.

 

[ding]

Yeah that's not condescending assholery at all

Not at all. A heart felt wishing of luck for the earthly endeavors of purely material beings.

If you divorce yourself from your spirituality all you have left is the satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts.

 

[Blues Man]

You should use logic to address each point explaining why. It's pretty idiotic of you to not recognize the first cause must be eternal and unchanging. Which is probably why you have not proffered any logic to support your rejection of those two conditions.

I did,

You cannot prove your first premise that "spirit" is the only alternative to matter and energy.

You want me to accept that statement as a fact and I don't. Therefore I cannot accept the conclusions of your argument that god must exist because god is "spirit" and nothing but "spirit " matter and energy can exist.

 

[ding]

Why would an atheist get upset at being called a material being or basing their existence on the satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts?