The God topic

[LoathedVermin72]

And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.

This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.

Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.

[nyquillyn]

Also, saying that something has always existed (infinity) is a lot different than saying someone or something is the cause of our existence (prime mover/god). Those are not "interchangeable" ideas.

[pnjguy]

And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.

This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.

Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.

I'm not abandoning anything. Logic and common sense are bound by science, which has limits itself. If you want to equate 'God' to an invisible rabbit, i don't have a problem with it. Waiting for the evidence to come in and not asking why questions doesn't seem that progressive to me. Atheists must hate theoretical physicists.

[LoathedVermin72]

And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.

This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.

Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.

I'm not abandoning anything. Logic and common sense are bound by science, which has limits itself. If you want to equate 'God' to an invisible rabbit, i don't have a problem with it. Waiting for the evidence to come in and not asking why questions doesn't seem that progressive to me. Atheists must hate theoretical physicists.

Oh boy, here come the blanket atheist statements.

Theoretical physics are based in scientific thought and theory. They are also attempting to answer the how, not the why. “Why” is a vain, egotistical, desperate question that, again (as t2b and Orpheus have already put nicely), comes from human fears, insecurities, and an inability to emotionally accept what we know intellectually. We’ve already been over this.

[BurtReynolds]

random question: Could an "all-knowing" God be capable of learning? What is there to learn? And could that entity be said to be intelligent if it can't learn?

Also I have a non God question: Is there an edge of galaxies? Like if I travelled from one galaxy to the next, would I eventually loop around, or what? I get that space is expanding between galaxies, and I get that the universe isn't this convenient 3D bubble and there is no edge, i... i dunno.

[LoathedVermin72]

random question: Could an "all-knowing" God be capable of learning? What is there to learn? And could that entity be said to be intelligent if it can't learn?

Also I have a non God question: Is there an edge of galaxies? Like if I travelled from one galaxy to the next, would I eventually loop around, or what? I get that space is expanding between galaxies, and I get that the universe isn't this convenient 3D bubble and there is no edge, i... i dunno.

[Biff Pocoroba]

My dad kept trying to get me to read the book:

Alex Malarkey, 'The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,' Admits He Made It All Up


A bestselling Christian book that claims to detail a boy's trip to heaven and his return to Earth is being pulled from stores after one of its co-authors admitted he made the whole thing up.

The 2010 memoir, "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven," was written by Alex Malarkey and his father, Kevin Malarkey, a Christian therapist in Ohio.

In 2004, when Alex was 6, the two were badly injured in an automobile accident. Alex ended up in a coma for two months, and the book claims to tell the story of his trips to heaven during that time.

Malarkey described a heaven with a "hole in outer heaven" that goes to hell. He detailed his conversations with Jesus Christ and meetings with the devil, who at one point blamed him for the accident.

But on Tuesday, the boy, who was left a quadriplegic in the accident, took it all back. The Pulpit & Pen website published "An Open Letter to Lifeway and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven,” written by Alex.

"I did not die. I did not go to Heaven," Alex wrote in the open letter, adding:

"I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible."

Tyndale House, the book's publisher, told NPR that it would take the book "and all ancillary products" out of print.

Beth Malarkey, Alex's mother and caregiver, is divorced from Kevin Malarkey. She told the Patheos website that she was troubled by the book, and pointed to a blog post she wrote about it last April.

"It is both puzzling and painful to watch the book 'The Boy who Came Back from Heaven' to not only continue to sell, but to continue, for the most part, to not be questioned," Beth Malarkey wrote at the time. She said her son had not benefitted financially from the book.

Kevin Malarkey has not publicly commented on his son's statement. His blog hasn't been updated in more than four years, and his public Facebook page hasn't featured a new public post since October.

[tommymtcom]

What a shocker.

[malice]

What a shocker.

that should be your custom title with that avatar, tom

[Norah]

I received communion today for the first time in 15 years.

[tommymtcom]

I received communion today for the first time in 15 years.

How do you feel?

[Norah]

I received communion today for the first time in 15 years.

How do you feel?

The same.

[pnjguy]

And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.

This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.

Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.

I'm not abandoning anything. Logic and common sense are bound by science, which has limits itself. If you want to equate 'God' to an invisible rabbit, i don't have a problem with it. Waiting for the evidence to come in and not asking why questions doesn't seem that progressive to me. Atheists must hate theoretical physicists.

Oh boy, here come the blanket atheist statements.

Theoretical physics are based in scientific thought and theory. They are also attempting to answer the how, not the why. “Why” is a vain, egotistical, desperate question that, again (as t2b and Orpheus have already put nicely), comes from human fears, insecurities, and an inability to emotionally accept what we know intellectually. We’ve already been over this.

Yeah, we can go round and round about this. You have your rules and guidelines by which you live by which I respect, but it doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not trying to change your mind, i just like the discussion. It interests me. You're protected by science, which is limited. Human nature is limited, our scientific instruments are limited. So it's fine to be bound by science, but realize where that is on the spectrum for our understanding of the universe. It's not far along, not in the slightest. I know you don't like this argument, but its the truth. You don't know, i don't know. And yeah, Santa may be real.

I will say that the "why" questions are a lot of times vain, egoistical, desperate and inherited. But they're also human. Science is also human, thus atheism is human. Human nature doesn't prove that intelligent design doesn't exist. It just proves humans believe in many different things, like Atheism.

[pnjguy]

I think this whole line of metaphysical thinking is similar to the “We can’t really know” thing that came up earlier in this thread. The whole endeavor strikes me as quasi-deep and, ultimately, pointless. The fact that “we can’t really know” shouldn’t prevent us from accepting the fundamental nature of our existence (that being that we are physical organisms that exist on a physical planet in an almost incomprehensibly vast universe). That’s not really a worldview; it’s scientifically provable information. As humans, we might want to delude ourselves into believing otherwise for the sake of our own comfort, vanity, fear, and desire to mean something more, but that would be a denial of reality. That’s where the difference in what you call “worldviews” comes in: one is predicated upon an acceptance of reality, the other a denial of it.

It's quasi-deep and ultimately pointless because you don't have an answer for it. So instead of saying "i don't know" it instead is "pointless." I'm not into that in any sort of discussion.

[pnjguy]

This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?

No, because all the evidence points to there not being a "why."

Another way of saying, "i really don't have a clue."

[pnjguy]

This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?

Again. This is not a valid argument. You are trying to add something to the equation that's unknowable. It's your job to provide the evidence.

See the Russell's Teapot link that Jorge posted earlier in this thread.

Again, your game, your rules. I'm not proving God exists. Yet, you try to prove God doesn't exists based on no evidence.

[Self]

Yet, you try to prove God doesn't exists based on no evidence.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!

[Norah]

Howdy, neighbor.

[Self]

Hey, Pete. Tell me all of your thoughts on god.

[pnjguy]

Hey, Pete. Tell me all of your thoughts on god.

Cause i really want to meet her.