You're welcomed to try and prove that, though I'd think you'd just try to use a flawed verbal argument rather than any form of actual scientific inquiry.

There is a tight correlation between the platypus and the universe. Again, in due time...

It's questionable whether it is even possible for us to have a complete set of the facts or whether anyone could recognize it as that. We all have incomplete sets of evidence going through life and all we can do is to continue to interpret it to the best of our abilities. That's what you've done with every last thing you've interpreted to be true. As such, you should hold those things to be true until you find out that you've misinterpreted something, at which point you should correct your belief. Perhaps many of the things you currently believe will later be proven wrong, but that doesn't mean that you should stop believing anything to be true, just that you should try to be careful about how you interpret evidence. No matter how careful we are we we no doubt continue to make mistakes, but that's all part of the learning process.

I see nothing wrong with saying that X is true to the best of my knowledge, so I will continue to believe it is true until the evidence shows that something else is more likely to be true. To the best of our scientific and philosophical knowledge, the universe had a beginning, so we should consider the implications of that until our knowledge shows otherwise.

Maybe in the far future someone will have a complete set of evidence along with a correct interpretation of it, but if a certain religion is true, then that has important implications on how we should live our lives today. Maybe knowledge of how the universe was created can help us to better understand the universe. Maybe it leads to the wrong conclusion, but being wrong is part of life.

It is illogical for something to come from non-being because non-being has no causal power to cause something to exist. If it had causal power, then it would be something rather than non-being. It is not part of our experience that things pop in and out of being with no cause. It seems to me that if you're open to the absurd idea that something can come from non-being, then you should also be open to the idea that God could exist, and that the existence of God has much more explanatory power.

You are extremely good at sidestepping an issue, but thank you for agreeing with me.

I'm not opposed to the idea of deities. The muslim-judeo-christian one(s) doesn't exist for certain, but the concept of gods themselves is always on the table should sufficient evidence present itself.

I'm not sure why you call it absurd though except for being biased towards your own beliefs. It's only absurd to be opposed to the possibility of anything. Then once you examine it thoroughly you can decide whether it's reasonable or not. You're not that type of person as demonstrated by your rejection of my questions in the past, but I appreciate it when other people are such. :)

Yes - though I suspect I'll need to do some research into the culture/context/language etc to fully understand the whys and whatnots. I didn't say it was all easy to grasp. Be wary of the part where repentance must be genuine - and you never know when the proverbial bus will hit you. 2 reasons to repent now, not later. Er, nope. My point is that extreme measures are justified under extreme circumstances, but some measures are only justifiable by God (actually by God, not just 'in his name').
(Also, some parts of the Old Testament are merely descriptions of what happened - Solomon building his palace for example - not all are commands from God - for those, see the prophets).

Some things look harsh and unjustified at first glance but need to be understood in context.
Take Abraham and Isaac (for a well known example). Abraham waited a long time and thought he'd never have a son as his wife couldn't conceive. Eventually God blessed him with a son. Then God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son. As we know, this was a test of faith, but lets look at it 'if God hadn't stopped Abraham' -> who would suffer here? Not Isaac, who goes straight to heaven. Abraham and his wife, who lost their son. Nonetheless, Abraham showed complete faith in God by his willingness to do this and he was rewarded for it.
Why? Why do this test? Surely God already knew that Abraham would pass? Well, yes, but Abraham needed to go through it to be ready for the task ahead.
(Just trying to clarify what I meant - I know that's not from Leviticus)

Surely, being tied to a rock and slashed open by dad constitutes suffering.

edit:
Nevermind. It's not important.

Why do you think so? It is absurd because it's illogical. Common sense tells us that nothing comes from nothing, so we have little reason to deny it. The law of conservation of energy fits perfectly with it, and science has not shown a single example of anything coming from nothing. It's one of the oldest principles of philosophy that still hold true today and has been held by countless people with a wide variety of beliefs.

"But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause." - David Hume

If you think it is reasonable to think that something can come from nothing, then please explain how. I have said before that I think it is possible for me to be wrong about everything I have interpreted to be true. Everything that is logical is possible, but the idea that something can come from nothing is not logical, so it is not possible. I'm sorry, I've lost track of all the people I've responded to in this thread. Which questions are you referring to?



I'm sorry, what do you think I've sidestepped?

To 'We don't have enough information to know' you have basically said 'Yes, we don't, so we have to assume based on what we do know!' in far more words. Well, ok, thank you for agreeing me, you have a tendency to sidetrack and use an awful lot of words to say that :-P

...And a cosmic being that defies all logic is the most logical possibility? Cute, but you're just being obviously biased here. The "common sense" and "logic" statements that you're using synonymously are your way of sidestepping having a topic with responding instead of answering.

Common sense is keeping your hand away from the fire. You instead view it as anything that you already believe and accept, because you do view yourself as a logical and sensible person after all. Forget about culture, beliefs, upbringing, education, era...any type of variables that could influence one person's common sense from another's. Lets make it universal so that anyone who does not fit your own lacks logic and common sense!

So I really have to question your logic and common sense if you're abusing it as the basis for rejecting an unsentient, godless ex-nihilo as a possibility. You might not like it being a theist and it might not fit in with your "everything has a cause and reason" outlook, but that doesn't invalidate it as one of the options. And if you'd like an explanation on the details you can study the appropriate scientific fields. The same way people can look up the many flawed and fewer not-so-flawed arguments for God. You were happy with your Christianized version of one question on how you don't understand Jews and Judaism at all. The other one was just a Christian stumper used to demonstrate the first point and one of the major flaws in modern Christianity. The idea of gods has always been an interesting concept. I don't see why it should be ruled out. Do you rule out the possibility of other gods?

Please do show where this being deifies all logic. Nothing comes from nothing stands or falls on its own grounds. I quoted Hume as saying that is absurd that anything might arise without a cause, so it's not a principle I hold because I like it. In fact, I don't think there's a single professional philosopher who has argued that something can come from nothing. Common sense tells us that when we hear a loud noise that something caused it. Or when we can't find our car keys, common sense tells us that they have been misplaced rather than that they disappeared into non-existence. I've never heard anyone say that common sense tells us that something can arise from nothing. That would be incoherent. Nothing is a total absence of potentiality and actuality, otherwise it would be something. So saying something can come from nothing violates the law of noncontradiction. Contrary to your assumption, I say it's illogical not because I don't like it, but because it is illogical. There are lots of things I don't like that I consider possible, but I don't consider anything that is illogical be possible. I have never claimed that everything has a cause. Scientific claims of things coming from nothing are little more than equivocation because they're mislabeling something as nothing and then saying something came from it. Science only supports the claim that nothing comes from non-being.

I'll ask you again how it was reasonable to think that something can come from nothing. The events in the New Testament changed the course of history over the past 2000 years, so I couldn't even begin to speculate about what religion I would be if it had never happened, where I'd be born, or if I'd even exist, let alone what my religious goals would be, so I have no way to answer that question in a meaningful way. Your second question was loaded with untrue assumptions, so I replied instead by saying it would be be great if you would stop presuming to know everything I think, but your reply was just more untrue assumptions. You continued to make untrue assumptions about me in your last two posts, so clearly I'm not going to be able to stop you from doing that and I have nothing to prove to you in this regard. It it possible I could have misinterpreted which gods exist. However, I meant to ask you why you thought that the muslim-judeo-christian one(s) doesn't exist for certain.

This is so fun thread to take look in every now and then ;)

Interestingly enough, "both sides" seem to mostly rely on the idea that "god(s) is some kind of being with mind and purpose. That is sort of restricted idea in my view - but then again, most...or pretty much all religions tend to personify god and write book upon book of His and His best pals deeds so suppose its understandable.

God, is merely a meek attempt by human beings to reconcile with the fragile nature of their existence. I can see why the idea (even though lacking any semblance of logic) is appealing to some since it grants us a certain degree of solace that everything in life has a certain meaning or purpose.... while, in the scheme of things, there is very little to show that human beings are even more important than that of specks of dust.

It is because we must only arrive at a conjecture through observation and draw inferences thereby arriving at a logical conclusion. The idea of god, as I have stated is nothing more than a fanciful pre-conceived notion.

God, is like an 'x' in a given equation considering that the size and expanse of the universe is too large for human beings to comprehend. Thus god is essentially the summation of human ignorance. Just like in the old days, the things we did not understand were explained as being 'magic'.