Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes you did. Here it is:
That is most certainly you framing it up as a dichotomy. You OBVIOUSLY are stuck in the mindset that it is either one or the other possibility and that no other possibilities exist. You even tried to get me to agree with your sloppy thinking!BilliardsBall said:
We "must?" What crap is this? Ever try the honest response: "I don't know?" Ever try that? No? Why not? Is it possible for you to just "not know?" Yes... yes it is. So fess up to it. Don't just make things up to suit your tastes or ease your mind. That's the coward's way out.
No I don't.
First off, it was a "MACHINE." Try reading next time rather than just skimming through because your mind is stuck wanting to make your next point. Second of all NO ONE MADE IT. Again... GO BACK AND READ. I said it came together through just the right random collisions of matter out in space... nothing but the base-level goings-on of the universe.
The unconscious genies, of course! Via "magic" that, AGAIN, just happens around them.
Why do you assume there was ever a time when there was nothing? In all 3 scenarios, the material of the universe existed without a beginning. Isn't is "just fine" to assume as much? I mean... you do so for your "God", don't you? Since it is fine for you, you have to allow it for me in my hypotheses. You really have no choice.
Why are you so stuck on a "beginning?" You have no idea if there even was such a thing. Nor do I. hence the reason "I don't know" is the only honest response. Hence the reason I believe you to be a very dishonest person.
NO! No, no, no, no, no. Not a dichotomy and I PROVED this to you with my idea of the "life creating machine" that came together through just the right random collisions of matter in outer-space WITHOUT an intelligence or consciousness needing to have preceded it for its crafting. It was crafted accidentally by "the universe." In that scenario, I also said that the matter of the universe has simply always existed. Within this scenario, there is no "infinite regression" at all. Matter of the universe always existed, laws governing matter and energy always existed, and given infinite time, this life-creating machine was accidentally assembled by just the right collisions of matter. Done. There is no need to go back further, and keep going back looking for a "source." There is no such thing in that scenario. Nothing created the universe - it was always here. There was never "nothing" and no intelligent/conscious hand was present in anything. No infinite regression. Are you understanding me here? Do you need me to keep going? I feel like you do, because this is the 2nd or 3rd time you insisted that I had some "infinite regression" problem with each of my hypotheses, and it is simply NOT TRUE. Just use your brain and think. You don't have a dichotomy. You never will when you posit two disparate things like "Intelligence was required" and "Matter came together of its own accord due to the action and interaction of materials of the universe." There is no dichotomy there. If you want, I could very likely come up with other scenarios that do not have infinite regression issues, and involve no intelligence necessary.
What if THERE WAS NEVER "NOTHING?" Can you even wrap your head around that possibility? If you say no, then you have a problem. Precisely because I am about 99.9% confident you would claim that God has "always existed", which BY DEFINITION means there was never "nothing." This is what we call a trap of your own making.
You still don't get it. Earlier you made a dichotomy out of "Abiogenesis" and "Design from intelligence." This is something you are NOT qualified to do. "God" versus "Not God" is as axiomatic a dichotomy as you can get. I can completely agree with the juxtaposition of statements that either God had a hand in the creation of the life, or He didn't. That is pure, unadulterated logic. It appears to me that you simply do not understand how much you have muddied the waters and made an ignoramus of yourself when you posed that either abiogenesis is true or some intelligence had to have had a hand in creating life.
I believe that the universe gets recycled, after a fashion. That, given infinite time and the constant effects of gravity, some large portion of the matter of the universe coalesces, and that there is some "breaking point" at which that mass of matter is forced to explode out again. This belief is based on the cyclical nature of nearly everything we witness in the universe, the fact that gravity is always in play, and the evidence of "The Big Bang" paired with the findings that show not all matter of the universe seems to necessarily conform to the (in my belief - most recent) "Big Bang." However - I recognize this idea as mere belief, and I understand and readily admit that I have little in the way of circumstantial/tangential evidence to bring to the table. The belief does not alter my life, nor compel me to do so in any meaningful way, and this belief will EASILY be discarded in the event that more evidence is brought to my attention that contradicts or proves it wrong.
Okay, let's try this again then. The "abiogenesis" is actually a product of "universe juice." Universe juice is a complex substance that isn't alive or conscious, but has immense power and given two plausibilities, the "universe juice" will make a sort of "choice" between them, seemingly at random. Universe juice has been encountering matter, making these "choices" all throughout the 13+ billion years of our universe's apparent life-span. In these choices were the "decisions" required to get us to the point of life. There. There is an "abiogenesis" that doesn't involve "God" and isn't just about chemicals coming together by themselves. What now genius? And the ultimate point I am trying to make is, until we get to the point that we are investigating things as such a high level of understanding - WE DON'T UNDERSTAND. We don't know. YOU don't know. So stop saying you do, and stop throwing around false dichotomies, or posing them to people as if you have any idea what you're talking about. You don't, and you have an extremely poor imagination on top of that from the looks of things.
This is ridiculous. We see in nature atoms and compounds acting and reacting with one another literally all the time. Are you going to tell me that every single chemical reaction is language and code being played out, and that there is intelligence behind it all? Two Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom come together and now we have a molecule of water. Is the presence of those particular elements in that configuration some building block of "language?" Don't you have to admit that DNA is just more complex and longer strands of elements chained together as molecules? If you're being intellectually honest you do have to do precisely that.
Here are a couple of points that will let you know exactly why I don't care:
And your third process is a "I dunno naturedidit just so story" process. Listen to yourself! Take a deep breath and realize you are helping me prove that God made this universe!
I've already admitted that "God did it" and "God did not do it" are valid logical opposites, AKA a true dichotomy. It's you who apparently still aren't understanding. Your original "dichotomy" (that wasn't one) was "Intelligent design" versus "abiogenesis." If what I have provided isn't good enough to meet your "third alternative" request, then how about this: our definition of "biological" simply isn't wide enough, and as it turns out, "life" is merely the energy found in all things. In fact, "life" is not a different force than any of the forces already present in the universe. The atoms and molecules that come together do so because this energy (that in some forms, we term "life") is simply everywhere, all the time, in all matter. This is akin to the "everything is conscious" idea that some people have come up with, but taking it to a more basic root level. All energy and activity in the universe is automatic, ever-present, and simply takes various forms. Therefore everything is "biology" and thus the term "abiogenesis" is rendered nonsensical.I'll rephrase, since like many skeptics, you have high intelligence, but not the patience to comprehend my points before replying:
1) Either God made a universe that would eventually have "universe juice" or no god made the universe = dichotomy. I've asked for years for atheists to give me the "third alternative" for life and they cannot. Clearly from the above, your "third alternative" is a mysterious process that is, quote, "isn't just about chemicals coming together by themselves," in a beautiful natural process that "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND. We don't know." We don't know because the scientists cannot forcibly, via intelligent design, help the chemicals to come together.
But none of those people "know" for sure. Guaranteed. And so, there could certainly be some break-down of "normal" function of matter and energy once some great portion of the universe's mass has all coalesced into one gigantic ball. No one can know what happens at that point. Perhaps there is such a boon of energy in such a space that it "re-charges" everything before bursting out again. The reality is, we're talking infinite time here - during which any particles attracted to one another have infinitely long to realize the culmination of the draw between them. Gravity doesn't just "stop working" that I know of... and as masses get larger and more attractive to other masses, what's to stop everything from eventually being drawn back in? Seriously... where does it go from the point of multiple HUGE accretions of mass? Why would everything eventually be "evenly distributed" throughout the universe if there exists this constant attraction via gravity?
Nothing more than conjecture. Just like my above paragraph. I have no idea what happens on into infinity. No idea. Which is why I can spitball to my heart's content and there are no consequences for doing so. Except that you, and people like you, want to impose consequences, don't you? You want people to literally change their lives in accordance with your conjecture. Which makes that part of you a bit evil if I am being brutally honest.
A false religion is one that is disingenuous and misrepresentative of its truth-claims.
Scientology
You still don't get it at all. Not at all. It is extremely frustrating. I WAS NOT advocating for the scenario posed in my first paragraph at all. NOT AT ALL. Understand that. I think it about as likely as the idea that God exists... which is to say, basically zero chance. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of your original attempt at a dichotomy (once again), by demonstrating that another possibility exists that isn't the other two. In a true dichotomy, there are only the two options presented, and there can not even be the possibility of a third. I gave you a third, therefore were in error. Failure. Abject and complete. Failure.
I admit I don't know. You don't. That's the difference. And it's a HUGE one.