Nope. You neglect timelessness, you neglect the impossibility of causality and you neglect that things behave the way they behave because that's how they behave. If you don't understand, that's fine but do understand that your argument relied on counters to those three premises which are, necessarily, logical making your argument illogical.
There is a remote possibility that all universes follow a cycle. E.g. One universe is formed then dies and implodes causing an immense amount of energy around the centrem, this could then convert into matter if there was enough energy, but there would be no force pushing it apart, so eventually enormous pressure would form a new universe.
Hey. I really do have good grammer. Look at some of my other posts. I admit that I have terrible grammer in my most recent posts. That is what anger can do one's self. I have become increasingly lazy ever sense I joined FH. It is tacky that I use "u"s and "r"s and I apologize. I will not apoligize however for any of my behavior. Those who think I am intolerant- you are right on the money. Those who think I am against non-Christians- wrong. Those who think I am against those who hate Christianity- right. Those who think I have been prejudice once in this thread besides against prejudice- wrong. Those who think I have been politically incorrect and illogical- right on but one or two cases ( makeisup pointed out one of them). Those who think I am uneducated- wrong. Quote me on any prejudice besides the hate of Christianity and I will gladly reply. Being prejudice against prejudice is not wrong. One more thing: I believe that Nitrous dislikes and is prejudice against Christians not just Christianity. This is supported by his recent statement. So, that is why I am taking his case as a personal attack. I can deeply understand how one thinks Christianity is nothing but a false belief to make people give money, follow strict morals, and or give people a reason to live. However, I do not understand why there exist a number of people strictly prejudice against Christianity or any religion because of their "gullibility" or "stupidity". This "stupidity" doesn't affect them so therefore shouldn't be disliked or hated.
Yep, I hate my girlfriend, all my friends and my family. How did you guess? And, no, I never said anything about gullibility. Like I said, I'm anti-stupid. There are stupid atheists and stupid theists and its my opinion that 45% of Christians are stupid (creationists). I'm also of the opinion that those who believe the bible is means for condemnation even after reading everything Jesus had ever said are stupid so the figure may be higher.
Let's put it this way. This pastor guy who heads the biggest church called New Hope in my state, he preaches on TV and I'm assuming in his chapel sessions about how we should be following Christ's Way of Life (capitalized due to the obvious importance) by sharing kindness and wealth with others less fortunate than us. Then he lives in this condominium complex. His condominium type is sold at about $1.6 million. Actually, he owns several.
Good point. I hope you didn't spend too long thinking of how to counter my informative tidbit because I'm pretty sure I don't give a damn.
Good diss. I hope you didn't come up with that off the top of your head, or I'm going to have to congratulate with all of my congratulatory power.
You've been warned and you've been asked and now you've told. Don't post here if you have no interest in debating. (FFS: It's prejudiced)
Who have I been warned by sir? Who created this thread? I don't remember ScarecrowXavier being a moderator. I don't think ScarecrowXavier is the creator of this thread. Nitrous and any moderator are the only legit "warners" of this thread. So, keep your nose out of things that don't apply to you.
You're really a complete idiot. I don't even care about your beliefs or whatnot, I'm going by the fact that you took an argument made against you and said, "Nice story". Get the **** out of this thread. If you aren't going to take an argument against you seriously, and actually respond to it, then you have no business in the debate forum. And don't tell Scarecrow to "keep his nose out of things that don't apply to you." You're in this debate, that makes everything you say apply to everyone else involved, which makes anyone a valid "warner" (nice word btw). And when someone is being an idiot and not debating correctly, it's up to everyone else in the thread to correct them. And there is a lot of things I, or someone else, could say to you right now, but telling you would be like yelling into a solid brick wall. Either learn to debate, or get out of this section.
So... anyway... is there a debate here or not? I was recently re-reading a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's a great book, and I recommend it to people with faith and without. But I wanted to add something to this debate and hopefully get you kids back on track. Dawkins discusses a theory held by mathematician Blaise Pascal, which Dawkins refers to as Pascal's Wager. Pascal reasoned that however unlikely it is for God to exist, there is such a great penalty for not believing in him that you should just believe anyway. If you are wrong, you risk eternal damnation. But if there is no God, it doesn't matter. But Dawkins goes on to point out that believing is not something you can decide to do. You can decide to go to church and read the bible, and you can even swear that you believe it all, but if God is really omniscient then he'll recognize the deception. And why is God so concerned that we just believe in him? Wouldn't he just as likely reward kindness, generosity, or humility? Or honesty? Wouldn't God prefer an honest skeptic to a lying con (who is just playing the safe bet)? Discuss.
Quick comment here. You described Pascal's Wager concisely. +rep Anyway, one of the verses of the Bible says "be lukewarm and I will spew you out of my mouth." Its basically saying, don't pretend to be a Christian (Pascal's wager). God would rather have you on one side than the middle. reference: Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Ok guys lets keep this civil no more personal insults take your fight to private messages not the public forums, no more flaming or infractions will be handed out consider this your one and only warning.
I have thought that many times before. However I simply cannot lie to myself and sit idly (spelling?) by and watch something like that (not trying to offend anyone) be widely believed by humanity. True faith requires FULL dedication to a theory or doctrine. That means that every aspect of your life would be affected by something that you don't really even believe in. In the end, if I burn in hell for not believing, atleast I know I was honest.
Deprogramming, Behaviour modification, and now we define belief. If you're changed to believe something do you actually believe? Can we make choices towards our viewpoints against your intellectual will? I think (I am a believer) therefore I am (a believer)? Can you honestly think that a tiny switch in your soul flips when you change faith? The materialist in me is repulsed by the fact that we are talking about beliefs as though they aren't just memories of ideals we think we have made of electrons located in the brain.
I don't see why religions are more open. When someone wants to switch religions, they have to go through a whole song and dance before being initiated in. It's like we're making secret clubs instead of communities. And like Scarecrow said, just because you think you're part of something doesn't necessarily mean you are. And come on, we've seen the differing beliefs of atheists and theists. BUT, we've also seen different beliefs within those groups. So if everyone has differing beliefs, I don't see the need for such great separation.
I did a little more reading back and it appears that you guys were talking about the big bang theory. What's interesting is that when human knowledge falls short of explaining something unknown, like the beginning of our universe, theists say "it's God, don't even try to uncover the truth, just believe." But scientists see a question and try to answer it. We may never know with absolute certainty how the universe was created. But the fact that we don't understand it does not mean that it is beyond our understanding eventually. And it certainly doesn't mean that there is a God. Religious people see a gap in our knowledge and put God there. They are content with that. Educated people see a gap in our knowledge and strive to fill it. Where would we be today if every scientist had been content to leave God in the gaps?