What's leads you to believe what you believe?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will you please point out my "faulty premise"? From your comment, I don't think you've read the entire thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is your faulty premise: "Lightening and sneezing are two things that occur within our laws of physics. The creation of the universe did not."

Obviously, lightning was not within the known laws of physics 200 years ago, so by your logic it is supernatural best explained as an act of God. Of course, now we know how lightning works, just like one day we may know the laws of physics applicable to the big bang. Your premise is that the big bang is impossible to ever be explained by science. This is a faulty premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why. Furthermore, a creator would have to come from somewhere beyond our physical dimensions.

As I said in my first post in this thread, there are only two other alternatives to the universe being created by an outside being. The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.

There is no faulty premise here. I never said, nor do I believe, that seemingly supernatural events can only be explained by "acts of God."

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
logically assume

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
log-i-cal: 2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>

as-sume: 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE

[/ QUOTE ]

You should re-read your own definitions you posted. "orderly cogent fashion" and "take as granted" are generally incompatible in reasonable debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
In any problem solving discussion, it is sometimes necessary to make assumptions. Sometimes, those assumptions are logical. Sometimes, they aren't.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

Logical deduction is so much easier when you assume the conclusions.

** Recall your use of the terms: "the universe was created by something from outside dimensions. While most would logically assume our creator to be God" --- how is that a logical assumption from the premise that the universe was created by something? Where is the reasoning? Or am I wrong that this "assumption" jumps straight to the conclusion?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence the reserection happened other than 300 years later someone told someone else that it happened?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to start with the Resurrection because you mentioned this and because another poster requested it.

First of all, do you really believe that the only evidence for the Resurrection surfaced 300 years after it happened. The first century Christian church was organized, the New Testament written, and the Christian faith flourishing within decades of the alleged event.

As far as reasonable evidence is concerned, consider the following points:

1. The discovery of the empty tomb was made by women. At the time, women weren't given standing in society as legal witnesses. If the story was made up, why base it on the testimony of a woman?

2. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. Peter even denied knowing Him three separate times. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

3. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

4. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

5. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph, who Mark describes as "a prominent member of the Council". It would have been destructive for the writers to invent a man of such prominence, name him specifically, and designate the tomb site, since eyewitnesses would have easily discredited the author's fallacious claims.

6. Jewish and Roman sources both testify to an empty tomb. Matthew 28:12 13 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. Opponents of the Resurrection must account for this. If the tomb had not been empty, the preaching of the Apostles would not have lasted one day. All the Jewish authorities needed to do to put an end to Christianity was to produce the body of Jesus.

7. Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse.

8. The Apostles began preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. This is significant since this is the very city in which Jesus was crucified. This was the most hostile city in which to preach. Furthermore, all the evidence was there for everyone to investigate. Legends take root in foreign lands or centuries after the event. Discrediting such legends is difficult since the facts are hard to verify. However, in this case the preaching occurs in the city of the event immediately after it occurred. Every possible fact could have been investigated thoroughly.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. Unbelievable.

A thousand years ago, lightning was simply unexplainable. We didn't know what causes it.

Nuclear fusion scientifically rules out the possibility of the universe having always existed.

Here's the difference: In the future, science might discover something that overturns the concept of nuclear fusion. It would have to do exactly that, however: OVERTURN a known concept rather than just discover a new one. That's the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. Unbelievable.

A thousand years ago, lightning was simply unexplainable. We didn't know what causes it.

Nuclear fusion scientifically rules out the possibility of the universe having always existed.

Here's the difference: In the future, science might discover something that overturns the concept of nuclear fusion. It would have to do exactly that, however: OVERTURN a known concept rather than just discover a new one. That's the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how many "known" concepts were overturned in the 20th century for universal conditions? Oh yeah, just about all of them.

Oh and P.S., the physics inside a black hole or at the start of the big bang are not completely known (and if they were theorized completely, there is no current way to verify them completely, thus they're never "known" completely). Seriously, the more you post, the worse your arguments become. You are saying that the universe couldn't have always existed because there isn't enough hydrogen to burn infinitely. There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.). You may not still believe the world is flat, but you're not that much further along based on your type of reasoning.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]
None of which can be proven. Most of which require more "faith" than believing in a Creator.

EDIT: I take that back. There is a lot we don't know scientifically. One of those theories might be correct. It would still not rule out a Creator if one of those theories was the way it happened. It would just tell us more about God. The key point in all of this is that there is other evidence outside of what is presented in this thread that makes a Creator likely. What is presented in this thread just compliments additional evidence. Additionally, nothing you have said disproves the notion of a Creator.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]
None of which can be proven. Most of which require more "faith" than believing in a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of them claim to be the way, the truth, and the life, nor condemn you to eternal hell if you don't accept them as is.

Point is, you claimed that the universe must have started from an outside "being" using hydrogen fusion as the thrust of your argument. That argument fails on its own as there are plenty of theories which do NOT require your assumption.

[Lestat]

I do see what you're saying. I'll also add that that you're doing an excellent job of wiggling away every time you're backed into a corner. You're good! And I'm sure it will take a better debater than I, to finally nail you down.

The problem is that you're having an incredibly hard time getting past your own 20/20 hindsight.

Put yourself in a time before we knew the causes of sneezing and lightning. The universe and the big bang weren't even concepts yet. So you are unable to use these to explain why God must exist. What would you do?

You would no doubt resort to using whatever unexplained events were available at the time (such as sneezing and lightning), as the same faulty premise for your reasoning of why God must exist.