Tried to recover old self from memory, but all I can remember is macaroni art at VBS. I need more RAM. Sorry.
Atheism is no sort of logical position, it's the complete opposite. Atheism is giving up looking for the answer, usually from people who rebel against the ills of organized religion which are many but not a good enough reason to take the easy way out. I do not not know who god is, but I know god exists because we exist, the computer in front of you exists, the air you're breathing exists. If it doesn't exist, then there's no point to this conversation. But if you accept that there is, instead of there isn't, then that which exists originates from somewhere. That somewhere is god, whatever form god takes
The basic tenants of the big bang are very well supported. You know about the doppler effect, right? That's when for example a speeding car approaches you. The sound waves compress as it approaches then expand as it goes farther away, leading to the unmistakable shift in frequency you can hear. The same principle applies to light. When an object emitting light moves away from you, the frequency shifts and the object is actually slightly more red. This is called red shifting. Astronomers can measure this red shift and calculate exactly where and how fast celestial objects like galaxies are travelling. When you plot the paths of all the galaxies, you quickly learn that everything is expanding outwards, and everything used to be in the same 1 spot. That origin is surmised to be where a "big bang" happened and the universe was first formed
You can spin this but if I'm not mistaken geological records prove a universal flood in the stratification of the earth and in the fossils that are found. The Bible says there was a universal flood. If the Bible was right about a flood then there's a good chance it was right about a man named Jesus who died on a cross.
Why? There is no logic in that at all. "Gee, it got one thing right, that must mean everything in the whole book is right." That's ridiculous.
Of course there's sound logic in that. Why is that so ridiculus? I don't understand all the mysteries of God but I believe the Bible is true ... I think it has stood the test of time. There's absolutely no other book like it in the history of the world!!!!
So if someone writes a book about the 2009 Super Bowl, claims the Jets won, and correctly identifies the players that means they must have been right about them winning the game?
It's the exact same thing. You are saying that just because a book says there was a flood and there was, that everything else in that book is automatically true. That's absurd. Getting one thing right doesn't validate other, unrelated claims.
Not even in the ballpark of being close to what I said. If the Jets had actually won the Superbowl in 2009 and then listed the players on the roster then you might have an argument.
You're an idiot. Your reasoning for the bible being correct about Jesus is that it was right about a flood. That's the same thing as saying a book is right about the Jets winning the Super Bowl because they named the roster. The two things (the flood and Jesus) are completely unrelated, so just because one is true it doesn't mean the other one is.
no, it isn't pointless, and that is why your position isn't based on science at all but pseudo-science, because what actual science is showing us, and the logical projection of that science, is that there is more to physical reality than what we can just see, test and observe. our inability to observe and test does not reflect the reality that we are attempting to understand. true science is based first and foremost on conceptual thinking which continues to question and search. and not arbitrarily or fantastically. the fact that you have to go to such a fantastical extreme reveals the inherent weakness of your argument. I have already addressed this; if you can find comparable examples of those things that make those concepts plausible, even as just a projection, than you have an argument. otherwise you are doing nothing more than creating a strawman. not my concern whether you believe or not. my concern is whether your argument is due to the sound, logical scientific perspective you are claiming it to be, and it isn't. it is your personal belief, and no more scientific or valid than anyone who believes in God. that isn't what I am saying at all. I am challenging the framework of your argument, which is flawed, and your attempt to project that onto elements it cannot possibly apply to. again, your attempt to dismiss or minimize my scenario above as a hypothetical runs contrary to the accepted cosmological theory of the course of the universe -- that one day the night sky will be absent of nearly every galaxy in the universe outside of our local cluster of galaxies which will not appear to be expanding (again, this is accepted scientific theory, and any attempt to dispute or minimize it is the equivalent or attempting to dispute evolution or the big bang itself); the existence of all other galaxies will be unknown, and along with them the evidence of what we are able to deduce from their existence that reveals to us the nature of the universe, such as the fact that they are moving away from us and the universe is expanding. without that evidence, anyone in that time frame will have no idea about the expansion of the universe, and thus what they will be able to observe and test will reveal a completely false picture of the universe. that is hypothetical, but a logical hypothetical based on accepted cosmological theory of the fate of the universe. it is a thought exercise, one that requires you to project logically, and it reveals that your dependence solely on the ability to test and observe as the only logical and meaningful practices is flawed because it can lead to false conclusions based on our lack of ability. to defend that practice, you have to champion that it is reasonable to come to the wrong conclusion as long as you will never know better, as if that is the goal of science to be wrong as long as you never know otherwise. observation and testing is limited based on our abilities. you ask what is the point of believing something that can't be tested and observed, even if it is a logical projection of something that is known to exist, and yet you have to claim it is more reasonable to accept the results of a test and observation that is wrong even if you know it is wrong (this is the thought exercise I wrote above, where you separate yourself from the person in the scenario and are the person that knows they are wrong. but don't be scared, logic allows you to do so, so you can't weasel out of it by claiming it has no merit.) this is the point you have to dispute, and which you have avoided. I have shown, in a logical example based on accepted science, that the factors you depend on will not lead to an accurate answer, and thus you have to admit that testing and observation is limited in what it can actually reveal to us, so it is not unreasonable to claim that there is more to the universe than what can be observed and tested. whether God is real or not is irrelevant, the question is is it reasonable to believe something can exist in the universe that can neither be tested or observed. the answer is clearly and logically yes. the question becomes is there anything comparable to that belief that would lend it credence? that is why your extreme example above has no merit, because it ignores that requirement and goes straight for the ridiculous. let's take the example that Michio Kaku, a pretty well renowned cosmologist, discusses in regards to the opposition to the theory of relativity, but I think it applies to your argument: just replace relativity with the championing of testing and observation as the only devices that create meaningful conclusions, and you have the following position: our ability to observe and test evolved in a highly unusual, obscure part of the universe, Earth. it is not surprising that our ability to observe and test the universe fails to reveal the actuality of the universe. the problem lies not in the universe but in assuming that our ability to observe and test represents reality. do you believe in evolution? if so, you believe that we evolved based solely on the environmental challenges of our little rock, and that our brain must have done so as well. and if our brain is only hard wired to grasp the challenges of this rock, which is the projection of evolution, it is completely dishonest to project that onto an ability to actually grasp the vast universe that is so completely different from this planet which is what it is evolved to handle.
Ok, when you provide some evidence as to why the bible is right about Jesus that doesn't involve blind faith (based on the bible itself) or the idea that something unrelated may be right we can talk. Until then, you're just repeating your idiocy an I'm done wasting my time with it.
