The End of Religious Debates

[The Kilted Heathen]

U are wrong at definition of anti matter
Anti matter exists and in laboratory they produced some of it. But it's so expensive

I think it's definition is quite clear in it's name "anti-matter". An antihydrogen atom, for instance, is essentially non-existence for a hydrogen atom.

However this is all quite distracting from the crux of this discussion, and that is the ability to prove the existence of your god as the only god. Infinity need not be so heavily understood for such evidences to be put forward, if there can be any. But, like I said back in Post #35, the most we can do is strongly convince someone of our beliefs; proof for them does not exist.

 

[sayak83]

Actually to be honest I tried to understand but I think I should ask some questions

We are talking about two or more existents that created each other right??

No, we were talking about your example of B running when A is running and vice versa. In that case, both A and B running side by side eternally without beginning or end is completely logical. Do you accept this?

To understand easily let's imagine they are two existents.

My assumption is that if A has created B it's impossible that B could create A.

If B created A it's impossible that A could create B.

If both simultaneously created each other this is impossible too
Because when A wants to created B the A itself wasn't created yet because its existence depends on B.

A creating B and B creating A is inconsistent unless we are talking about different copies of A and B. So the series .....ABABABAB.... is possible and can extend to infinity in both past and future.

 

[Shad]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

Most of these beliefs do no such thing from other points of view.

 

[psychoslice]

Whatever for? It is far more freeing to know that there is absolutely, positively, without a doubt NOTHING to fear about death - because literally nothing happens. What's sad about it? That I don't somehow expect to exist forever? I couldn't even pretend the amount of conceit it must take to feel that the universe somehow "owes" a person that.

But you are wanting the universe to owe you something, life after death, don't be greedy, enjoy the one you have and you wont have time to worry about another.

 

[Milton Platt]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

But religions have and still do cause harm.

 

[Milton Platt]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

I agree that no one can prove or disprove that any gods exist in the absolute sense. But is absolute proof really required? I am sure gods do not exist with the same conviction that a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter, or pink unicorns don't exist. Both might be true, but without sufficient evidence, there is no reason to believe in either. Absence of evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence.

Should one believe all things he is told until those things are shown to be unfounded, or should one reserve judgement until evidence is offered which reasonably supports the thing being asserted?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But religions have and still do cause harm.

So does Atheism, or more specifically anti-theism. Try as some might to refute it, we have historical instances of this. For what harm extremists might do, religions also do much good for the individual and their community. Such observations are thus fairly impotent.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree that no one can prove or disprove that any gods exist in the absolute sense. But is absolute proof really required? I am sure gods do not exist with the same conviction that a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter, or pink unicorns don't exist. Both might be true, but without sufficient evidence, there is no reason to believe in either. Absence of evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence.

While there is sense in this approach from a practical standpoint, I have trouble with this sort of argument because it shows a poor understanding of theology and theism. Precisely what gods are varies across cultures. Additionally, in the case of the prevailing god-concept of Western culture (aka, classical monotheism), this framing doesn't make sense because we are talking about a transcendent numinous omnimax that is hardly the equivalent of a physical/tangible object or entity like a teapot. It's something that inherently defies empirical measurement, and if it could be measured as such, it would no longer be what those theologies posit. Some numinous transcendent intangible eternal omnimax thing can't be stuck on a scale to measure its mass or taken a yardstick to... that's not what that god-concept is. Yes?

 

[Milton Platt]

I agree that no one can prove or disprove that any gods exist in the absolute sense. But is absolute proof really required? I am sure gods do not exist with the same conviction that a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter, or pink unicorns don't exist. Both might be true, but without sufficient evidence, there is no reason to believe in either. Absence of evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence.

So does Atheism, or more specifically anti-theism. Try as some might to refute it, we have historical instances of this. For what harm extremists might do, religions also do much good for the individual and their community. Such observations are thus fairly impotent.

Nobody ever killed in the name of atheism...they have and still are killing in the name of religion. You are referring to communism, fascism, etc. Name something religion does to better the lot of humanity that cannot be done with secular means.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nobody ever killed in the name of atheism... You are referring to communism, fascism, etc.

More than that, I'm referring to the actions of people like Pol Pot and Stalin, who did kill in the name of atheism; specifically again, anti-theism. It's somewhat hard to call it anything else when you claim there is no god, and then kill anyone who believe in a god or worships a god.

Name something religion does to better the lot of humanity that cannot be done with secular means.

The point is not "what can religion do that secularism can't?" but rather that religion does good. It provides community, culture, and meaning to life. It satisfies human curiosity of the unknowable - even if it's with mythology and belief. And, for those who need it, it enforces moral behavior through emulation or damnation. While there are extremists, these are good things.

 

[Milton Platt]

Apparently, you ain't looking hard enough. I've said this many times before, it's not a matter of lack, but rather an apprehension to accept, meaning it's more psychological than evidential. Atheists and the like just don't want to believe.

But can you answer neo's question?

 

[interminable]

I think it's definition is quite clear in it's name "anti-matter". An antihydrogen atom, for instance, is essentially non-existence for a hydrogen atom.

However this is all quite distracting from the crux of this discussion, and that is the ability to prove the existence of your god as the only god. Infinity need not be so heavily understood for such evidences to be put forward, if there can be any. But, like I said back in Post #35, the most we can do is strongly convince someone of our beliefs; proof for them does not exist.

U made this example
Let's back to our discussion before anti matter
OK?

 

[interminable]

No, we were talking about your example of B running when A is running and vice versa. In that case, both A and B running side by side eternally without beginning or end is completely logical. Do you accept this?

I said they decide to run. U changed my example. U say they are running.

A creating B and B creating A is inconsistent unless we are talking about different copies of A and B. So the series .....ABABABAB.... is possible and can extend to infinity in both past and future.

This chain should depend on something out of chain. Otherwise as I proved they can't create each other.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

U made this example

Indeed I did. As I full well admitted to.

Let's back to our discussion before anti matter OK?

...Well? In the very post that you've quoted, I link back to the beginning, which was intended to be your ability to prove your god's existence as the one and only god, contrary to my claim that there can be no such proof. The ball is back in your court, interminable.

 

[interminable]

Indeed I did. As I full well admitted to.



...Well? In the very post that you've quoted, I link back to the beginning, which was intended to be your ability to prove your god's existence as the one and only god, contrary to my claim that there can be no such proof. The ball is back in your court, interminable.

U changed the discussion otherwise I'm on my claim

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I really didn't. You're the one who leapt right into proving infinity first. If we're to return to proving god, it's all on you.

 

[sayak83]

I said they decide to run. U changed my example. U say they are running.

That was only a simplification. The correct terminology is
1) A runs if and only if B runs
2) B runs if and only if A runs.

It's obvious that in such a case either A and B are at rest for eternity or A and B have been running for eternity. Both are equally possible.

This chain should depend on something out of chain. Otherwise as I proved they can't create each other.

No. The chain.... ABABABABAB ... is self sustaining and beginnigless. It requires nothing outside of itself.

 

[interminable]

That was only a simplification. The correct terminology is
1) A runs if and only if B runs
2) B runs if and only if A runs.

It's obvious that in such a case either A and B are at rest for eternity or A and B have been running for eternity. Both are equally possible.

Please explain in a simple way how they have been running for eternity?!!!!!

No. The chain.... ABABABABAB ... is self sustaining and beginnigless. It requires nothing outside of itself.

We know everything has begun after big bang so if we wanna consider the reality this chain isn't beginningless. It has beginning and time has started after it.

So u should consider something out of chain to bring them into existence.

 

[sayak83]

Please explain in a simple way how they have been running for eternity?!!!!!

At each and every moment of time from the beginningless past to the endless future, A sees that B is running at that moment and hence he runs at that moment as well. Similarly at each and every moment of time from the beginningless past to the endless future B sees that A is running at that moment and hence he also runs at that moment.
Thus at each and every moment of time from the beginninless past to the endless future both A and B runs at each and every moment.

Simple.

We know everything has begun after big bang so if we wanna consider the reality this chain isn't beginningless. It has beginning and time has started after it.

It's a common misconception and false. At best the Big Bang was the beginning point of this local universe in which we happen to reside. Before this universe there was a preexisting state which cosmologists are trying to investigate currently. So the idea of an absolute beginning has no evidence in cosmology.
I can provide detailed videos of cosmologists clarifying this if you are interested.

 

[interminable]

At each and every moment of time from the beginningless past to the endless future, A sees that B is running at that moment and hence he runs at that moment as well. Similarly at each and every moment of time from the beginningless past to the endless future B sees that A is running at that moment and hence he also runs at that moment.
Thus at each and every moment of time from the beginninless past to the endless future both A and B runs at each and every moment.

Simple.

U don't get my point. Actually impossibility of infinite regress is so clear that doesn't need any further arguments. But for u I'm trying to say u consider A and B beginningless. This isn't our assumption. Your mistake is that u consider all the chain as necessary existents. In this case all of these existents have no beginning and no ending and actually they haven't created each other so discussing about A created B and vice versa is senseless.

This needs other arguments.

Right now we assume that these existents created each other. In this assumption can u say they are beginningless????

It's senseless to consider A created B while A itself was created by B. This is impossible. Right?????

It's a common misconception and false. At best the Big Bang was the beginning point of this local universe in which we happen to reside. Before this universe there was a preexisting state which cosmologists are trying to investigate currently. So the idea of an absolute beginning has no evidence in cosmology.
I can provide detailed videos of cosmologists clarifying this if you are interested.

I don't know
I watched and read about big bang and I know that they can't see the very early after big bang because they can't see the light of that time.