- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Will or can Scientology be destroyed.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
well what is the plausible explanation for the reason of existence of the universe if doesn't involve God?
1
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:51 am to RickySauwce
quote:
well what is the plausible explanation for the reason of existence of the universe if doesn't involve God?
I don't know, which is just as good as the answer you provide.
It's a great thing that we advance and learn more each day, despite the numerous attempts of religion to squash that.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 11:56 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Think of what the universe is all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what religions view God to be.
So now back to you, "Idk" isn't a plausible explanation. What I gave is a plausible explanation.
So now back to you, "Idk" isn't a plausible explanation. What I gave is a plausible explanation.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:03 pm to RickySauwce
Your issue is that you fall into the same trap that the religious always fall into. You assume we already have enough knowledge to make such a determination. We don't. Recent history is littered with examples of this, and nearly as many examples of those determinations being proven incorrect.
It's more than interesting that the claims coming from religion have degraded as we've gained knowledge. We are living in a specific period of time that is infinitesimally small compared to the life span of the universe, and right now, you're trying to explain things based on incomplete information. It isn't your fault, you just don't know any better.
"I don't know" is just as plausible as a magic man in the sky.
It's more than interesting that the claims coming from religion have degraded as we've gained knowledge. We are living in a specific period of time that is infinitesimally small compared to the life span of the universe, and right now, you're trying to explain things based on incomplete information. It isn't your fault, you just don't know any better.
"I don't know" is just as plausible as a magic man in the sky.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
aren't you assuming the same thing ?
your second paragraph would apply to every scientific theory man has came up with.
And I am not saying science and religion are antagonist to each other. I think they are perfectly cohesive with one another.
your second paragraph would apply to every scientific theory man has came up with.
And I am not saying science and religion are antagonist to each other. I think they are perfectly cohesive with one another.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:34 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
aren't you assuming the same thing ?
Not at all. Quite the opposite, actually. I even stated as much when I answered "I don't know."
quote:
your second paragraph would apply to every scientific theory man has came up with.
That's what's great about science.
quote:
And I am not saying science and religion are antagonist to each other. I think they are perfectly cohesive with one another.
This is less true every day.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:43 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
It's more true, the big bang necessitates that their was a point of singularity. Something had to set that bomb off.
One would find it plausible that this scientific theory is still pointing to an all powerful being.
One would find it plausible that this scientific theory is still pointing to an all powerful being.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:45 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
the big bang necessitates that their was a point of singularity
Right, but only limited to the Big Bang.
quote:
Something had to set that bomb off.
Indeed, and you don't know any more than I do what that was.
quote:
One would find it plausible that this scientific theory is still pointing to an all powerful being.
Sure, but that doesn't give it exclusivity to that claim.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:48 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
And you say religious arguments are getting weaker.
I have given numerous explanations and sound arguments and all you can come up with is unbased statements of resent and "Idk" and say that it's better.
I have given numerous explanations and sound arguments and all you can come up with is unbased statements of resent and "Idk" and say that it's better.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:54 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
And you say religious arguments are getting weaker.
Which is demonstrably correct.
quote:
I have given numerous explanations and sound arguments and all you can come up with is unbased statements of resent and "Idk" and say that it's better.
I haven't said that. I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that your god is the only answer is not true. "I don't know" isn't really any better or worse than "God did it."
Posted on 1/11/17 at 12:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Demonstrate to me that the I don't know is of the same equivalency.
Also demonstrate that religious arguments are becoming weaker. I feel that you have failed to refute the legitimacy of my arguments but on the contrary can't confirm the legitimacy of your own.
Also demonstrate that religious arguments are becoming weaker. I feel that you have failed to refute the legitimacy of my arguments but on the contrary can't confirm the legitimacy of your own.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:01 pm to RickySauwce
You have yet to demonstrate that your god is the only answer. Do that, or admit you were wrong.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Not in the context of the argument that I gave you. whoever, whatever, however created the universe is God.
If the first three premises are true then the conclusion is also true.
I understand what your saying but in the context of the argument, God, is the only answer.
If the first three premises are true then the conclusion is also true.
I understand what your saying but in the context of the argument, God, is the only answer.
This post was edited on 1/11/17 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:11 pm to RickySauwce
When you make "God" anything, of course. That's why "I don't know" is correct for all of us, not just me.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:13 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
yes that's exactly what god is the agent responsible for the creation of the universe.
Idk didn't create the universe.
Idk didn't create the universe.
This post was edited on 1/11/17 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:15 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
yes that's exactly what god is the agent responsible for the creation of the universe.
Then "God" could literally be an explanation for anything, and that doesn't fly.
quote:
Idk didn't create the universe.
Something did, and your concept is no more true than anything else.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:18 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Your almost there lol.
Idk still implies that an agent did create the universe. Well that agent is God. That is the answer. Your hung up on God as in relating in the christian sense of the word.
Idk still implies that an agent did create the universe. Well that agent is God. That is the answer. Your hung up on God as in relating in the christian sense of the word.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:23 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
Your almost there lol.
Don't try that. You're further behind than you realize, and you only insult yourself with this nonsense.
quote:
Idk still implies that an agent did create the universe. Well that agent is God. That is the answer. Your hung up on God as in relating in the christian sense of the word.
You're backpedaling. You earlier claimed that it had to be some sort of supernatural being. That doesn't jive with the direction you're trying to push this, so now that's apparently off the table.
quote:
Your hung up on God as in relating in the christian sense of the word.
Not at all, and I've intentionally avoided that because I know exactly which god my audience adheres to.
By the way, it's "you're."
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:37 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I'm just trying to funnel you to the light by explaining the error of "idk" even if it was possibly a valid answer. You have failed to logically demonstrate that it is a valid answer.
Posted on 1/11/17 at 1:41 pm to RickySauwce
There is no error in "I don't know" and, in fact, it should be encouraged.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News