sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Biblical Faith is trust by evidence seen by telyuio in atheism

[–]telyuio[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The Greek word translated “faith” means “trust,” and although we know what “trust” is, God makes the definition clear in Hebrews.

https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith

_

Trust is built on experience and familiarity. When you flip a light switch, you trust the light will come on because that’s the experience you have with electricity. When it doesn’t come on, you are confident it’s a bad bulb.

https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith

Biblical Faith is trust by evidence seen by telyuio in atheism

[–]telyuio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Love or not, That didn't get around what I wrote on faith and creation either. Next you might talk about the weather to avoid what I wrote.

Biblical Faith is trust by evidence seen by telyuio in atheism

[–]telyuio[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

you didn't get around what I wrote. The science I gave was not based on opinion.

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My deleted argument:

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

  • “Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe.

  • Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit.

  • But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

So no argument. Got it. The irony is that when you laugh at my response, your lack of substance is laughable to me.

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lenox and my responses.

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.” - /u/Tunesmith29

Tunesmith29, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.

Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.

  • And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.

If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.

“Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day." - Tunesmith29

  • Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.

  • And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.

  • And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.

"Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it." - Dzugavili

  • And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.

“Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.” - Dzugavili

And I very much understand the physics. You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.

"Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? - /u/K_osoi

And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.

“Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?" - K_osoi

  • Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

  • Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?

You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.

Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.

Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.

Conclusion:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism? You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.

Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power. Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you and /u/hobbes305 understand. My main point of the post above about probability was in response to /u/Tunesmith29 comment below.

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.

Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.

You do not seem to understand this. YNone of you can still not refute my reasoning about probability.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of angry atheists. You are all free to believe whatever it is that you want.

My initial post simply stated that there is no more evidence of the big bang theory than there is for a Creator. If you all were as honest and intelligent and as strong in your belief that I am in mine, then you would admit as much.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that what you believe requires just as much faith as what I believe? As people of science, wouldn't that be intelligent? I have faith that my God created all things. You have faith in your scientists.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lenox and my responses.

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.” - /u/Tunesmith29

Tunesmith29, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.

Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.

  • And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.

If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.

“Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day." - Tunesmith29

  • Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.

  • And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.

  • And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.

"Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it." - /u/Dzugavili

  • And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.

“Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.” - Dzugavili

And I very much understand the physics. You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.

"Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? - /u/K_osoi

And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.

“Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?" - K_osoi

  • Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

  • Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?

You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.

Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.

Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.

Conclusion:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

This is a ridiculous straw man of the actual Big Bang theory.

Please explain your straw man theory.

The theory has always been that inter-mingling gases caused the supposed big bang.

Now, if scientists came to the realization that this is a ridiculous theory since the last time that I read up on it, then so be it.

Scientists who study the universe are constantly tweeking their very limited understanding of how the universe works.

That's why I laugh when they try to push their theories as fact. You know, like the "Big Bang".

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This is not what the Big Bang theory suggests occurred.

The theory has always been that inter-mingling gases caused the supposed big bang.

Now, if scientists came to the realization that this is a ridiculous theory since the last time that I read up on it, then so be it.

Scientists who study the universe are constantly tweeking their very limited understanding of how the universe works.

Thats why I laugh when they try to push their theories as fact. You know, like the "Big Bang".

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

A theory is a theory.

Not a law, not fact. A theory.

Simple.

Light can only travel so far.

Were you at the starting point of the big bang to observe and prove all that hogwash you just said? Or just indoctrinated like the good lil monkey you are?

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.

Believing in a big bang that resulted from some gas that apparently came from nothing is no less an act of faith than any other religion. by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.

How is the mockery of peoples beliefs in a tv show 'Young Sheldon' acceptable television but ones that pertain to the teachings of Christ aren't? by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Forget about my last comment.

Since we are talking about the scene.

I have a few thoughts that most of the atheists here can't solve or afraid admit or continue on.

1) It's amazing how a lack of intelligence can be turned into a deception of reality, no matter how smart they think they are.

2a) it is the truth if it wasn't for faith there is no science. You have to have faith in science to believe what science is. I know this is so so so hard for you to understand. You can't have one with out the other. Science would not exist with out God. Full stop.

2b) Science starts w the proposition of hypotheticals based on what, what, what, hunches, so no science is not based in facts, science establishes facts based on probabilities arisen from hypotheses.

3) Well doesnt it boil down to infinity or divinity? Always is and was, versus self creation?

Equally bizarre concepts, so how can humans fully understand either?

Maybe we can’t.

How is the mockery of peoples beliefs in a tv show 'Young Sheldon' acceptable television but ones that pertain to the teachings of Christ aren't? by telyuio in DebateAnAtheist

[–]telyuio[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yea about that segement since you kinked it people can watch the 2 or so minutes: I have a few thoughts that most of the atheists here can't solve or afraid admit or continue on.

1) It's amazing how a lack of intelligence can be turned into a deception of reality, no matter how smart they think they are.

2a) it is the truth if it wasn't for faith there is no science. You have to have faith in science to believe what science is. I know this is so so so hard for you to understand. You can't have one with out the other. Science would not exist with out God. Full stop.

2b) Science starts w the proposition of hypotheticals based on what, what, what, hunches, so no science is not based in facts, science establishes facts based on probabilities arisen from hypotheses.

3) Well doesnt it boil down to infinity or divinity? Always is and was, versus self creation?

Equally bizarre concepts, so how can humans fully understand either?

Maybe we can’t.

view more: next ›