You're also ignoring what he's saying over and over again though. For instance, you say your definition of omniscience is to know all that is and was. That is simply not the definition of omniscience. It has an objective definition and that includes knowing all that will be as well. Both sides are ignoring holes in the other side's argument and claiming they don't get it. It's quite amusing and exasperating at the same time.

"Omniscience (IPA: /ɒm'nɪsɪəns/)[1] (or Omniscient Point-of-View in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc."

I sustain that the past and the present is all that can be known. The future can't be known until it is decided.

Either way, change the word omniscience to 'knows all that was and is', and my point still stands. Darwyn does not attack the existance of God, he attacks him having certain qualities that are particular to the Christian beliefs.

@WhiteSammy:
>are you talking about my post at 1:25pm

Do you mean your post at 2:26am? Or do you know that diplo's Time Zone is GMT+11:00?

"Either way, change the word omniscience to 'knows all that was and is', and my point still stands."

But your definition, as well as mine, use the word infinity. If part of the definition of infinite, according to dictionary.com is "unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.", how doesn't it not include the future?

"Therefore, any religious belief is not true."

Couldn't have said it better myself. :) Not one religious belief is true...but yours is?

"Well, as I said before, it is different in that I have reasons to believe that the world couldn't have been created by chance, therefore, there must be a Creator."

Well, what if I said "it is different in that I have reason to believe that Horses couldn't have been created by chance, therefore, there must exist a Unicorn?"

How is what I said different from what you said? I have just as much claim to the belief in the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or the flying spaghetti monster as you have in your belief in god.

"Darwyn does not attack the existance of God, he attacks him having certain qualities that are particular to the Christian beliefs."

I've always been attacking the existence of god...I've just used Christian belief as an example because I am familiar with it.

hmmm...good point
i was refering to the post i made on friday at 1pm central(US)

""Therefore, any religious belief is not true."

Couldn't have said it better myself. :) Not one religious belief is true...but yours is?"

"That's a logical fallacy right there."

You missed that part of his post somehow.


""Well, as I said before, it is different in that I have reasons to believe that the world couldn't have been created by chance, therefore, there must be a Creator."

Well, what if I said "it is different in that I have reason to believe that Horses couldn't have been created by chance, therefore, there must exist a Unicorn?"

How is what I said different from what you said? I have just as much claim to the belief in the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or the flying spaghetti monster as you have in your belief in god."

That doesn't work at all. What Xapi essentially said was:
The Universe was not created by chance.
Therefore, something must have created by something other than chance.
Therefore, there must be a creator.

What you said was:
Horses could not be created by chance.
Therefore, Unicorns exist.

Assuming that Xapi's first point, that the universe could not have been created by chance, it follows logically that there must have been a creator. Yours doesn't even contain a logical fallacy, because that would mean that it used something that resembled logic.

That should say, "Therefore, the universe must have been created by something other than chance."

The prevailing theory on the creation of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. It does not imply that a being created the universe. It implies that all the matter in the universe was once only energy. That energy was converted to mass in a giant explosion. The theory does not imply what made the energy convert to mass or where the energy came from. That all happened about 10 billion years ago.

...and...exactly how did that explode again?

Everything that happens is the effect of a cause.
If you follow the chain back far enough you'll reach the big bang. What caused it? God? What caused God? Either way, you have to have an uncaused cause, which seems impossible.

To me, this means we misunderstand the nature of cause and effect, and the real goings-on are quite different.

Therefore, it is possible that if we have missed the mark in understanding our universe even to the point where we misunderstand such a basic tenet as cause and effect, then our other assumptions about the universe are likely faulty as well.

The logical conclusion from that is that nothing can be taken very seriously, and life must simply be lived in whichever way one chooses.

As an extension, I personally believe that though we most likely misunderstand some basic principles that we think are basics of our knowledge, it behooves us to behave in a socially acceptable and moral way just in case reality is remotely near what it appears. If it is not, then this is unfortunate, but guessing at a reality that we have no knowledge of is taking a shot in the dark when there is a well-lit target right in front of you, but knowing that hitting the target may be meaningless anyway. At least you hit the target though.

the big bang theory makes just as much sense as a supernatural being creating everything...none. That is exactly what i said about 50 posts ago when i explained that no matter what points the two sides try to argue it always boils down to both sides being unable to accept the other's explanation as possible

the universe is complicated, and questions remain unanswered.
therefore a giant invisible bearded man who lives in the sky watches all of us and knows everything and can do anything, except apparantly provide any proof that he exists, and when he got mad at his own creation (which he knew was going to happen) and a rib-woman ate a snake apple, he sent a jew zombie to get tacked up so a few thousand years later we eat crackers and drink wine so a loving being doesnt send us to infinite torment.

of course. that makes sense

it is less complicated than you make it out to be sicarius, for one thing. and the alternative is more complicated than you make it out to be as well, but i endorse neither, just playing devil's advocate.

looks like it's white sammy who agrees with me here

"we eat crackers and drink wine so a loving being doesnt send us to infinite torment."

I'm getting sick of explaining what the Eucharist means, Biff.

The Eucharist doesn't save you. It is a celebration of Christ's sacrifice which. If you're going to insult people's most cherished beliefs at least understand what you're making fun of.

You suck.

What is a snake apple and a jew zombie? Satan, as he appeard in the garden, was more lizard and definitely wasn't an apple. Even the story in Denesis makes it clear that he was a beast. He became a snake when God stripped him of his appendages and made him crawl on the ground on his belly. And the fruit may be presented in modern literature as an apple, but it is properly the fruit of the tree from the ceneter of the garden. Nothing says an apple. So, now that I've shown there was neither a snake nor an apple involved, how could it have been a snake and an apple in one as "ate a snake apple" states.

Now, the "jew zombie"... Jesus was born and was a man, not a zombie. He was tacked up and killed as a man, also not a zombie. So how did a "jew zombie get tacked up"? If your reference is to his resurrection, that happened AFTER he was crucified on the cross. So, even if I accept your disrespectful "jew zombie" reference, that "jew zombie" could never have been "tacked up."

So, Sic, show a little more respect to my faith and I won't attack the utter folly of your anti-establishment ramblings and how a civilized society needs accepted standards and that thos standards therefore preclude that society from being one of anarchy. I run from this definition at thefreedictionary.com: "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." The moment you have standards, you are no longer in an anarchy. Of course, you have a right to your belief, despite it countering the accepted definition, but you don't feel I have a right to my belief at all, even though I don't insist you follow it. Of course, if you had your way, anarchy would rule and we'd all have to follow it.

oops Genesis, not Denesis

Other than diplomat, I don't think anyone here has actually been arguing for Christianity. We've just been arguing for the possibility of a god. That said, Sicarius, I believe I've said this before, saying something in a way that makes it sound ridiculous is not the same as disproving it.

You believe in gravity right? So, apparently, a bunch of tiny, invisible things that live in all matter somehow pull each other together, even though they aren't touching each other. And magical force pulls everything on Earth towards it so that they accelerate downwards at the same rate, even though heavier things actually fall faster.

"of course. that makes sense"


The Big Bang theory does not explain where the energy, or how or why it existed for an infinite amount of time before spontaneously converting to mass.

Where the energy came from, that is.

The Eucharist is probably a poor place for a neophyte to embark upon his understanding of Christianity. It's too particular and hinges on too much stuff. Start with the big strokes. The Christian God, for example, is not important because he his "giant", "invisible", "bearded", a "man", or "in the sky". There are other much more interesting aspects of God to think about and they will also get your further in terms of true understanding.

Lol Draugnar, I always thought Satan took the form of a worm in an apple. Kind of squealing at Eve "eeeeeeat meeee"

jk :P

zuzak - "Assuming that Xapi's first point, that the universe could not have been created by chance..."

Right, Xapi's basis for his belief in god is an assumption. I know this. And perhaps my example wasn't clear or even that good. All I'm trying to suggest is that I, too, can believe in things that are based on assumptions. And if all it takes are assumptions, then the difference between god and a unicorn is zero.

god is a mythical creature created by man. The concept of god or gods have taken endless forms since the dawn of man...and ALL of them are assumptions for explaining what science couldn't yet explain. Non-atheists assume that science will not ever explain why "the Universe was not created by chance"...Much like (again using Christianity as an example) how the catholic church failed to consider a heliocentric universe for so long (to the detriment of Galileo) they also fail to consider that perhaps it WAS created by chance!

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

is the big bang not an assumption?

The big bang is an assumption, yes.

so by your own words...the difference between the big bang and a unicorn is zero.


this is STUPID
i told you that if you took this argument to the roots its not going to get anywhere because both parties think that the other is composed of complete wackos who dont know fact from fiction.

...that's my opinion

*correction
i know those arent your actually words
what i meant by that is in the paragraph your logic would justify my revised statement two posts up

also your link that you referenced really only covers evolution it doesnt address how the big bang might have happened or any other questions that might stem from it

I think the Big Bang theory is showing it's age... the theory of "inflation" - the hyper-fast expansion that is assumed to have happened in the first second of creation - was added in the 1980's to handle the homogeneity of the universe... and more recently the concept of "dark energy" - which should be pointed out has never actually been detected and is completely mysterious (and made up) - was added to try to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. Interestingly there are alternative explanations for the origin of the cosmos that are consistent with data and are totally different from the Big Bang. We don't hear much about them, though. The Big Bang has captured the popular imagination... and has been the orthodoxy for the last 60 odd years... though cracks in that orthodoxy are present. Alternate theories include other dimensions and a variable light speed (one that slows slightly over distance giving us red-shifts). Problem is of course, that we know as little about these other ideas as we do about the patchwork fixes we've applied to the Big Bang theory to keep it alive ("inflation" and "dark energy")... i.e. nothing. No actual evidence of additional dimensions has been collected... though they are mathematically possible to imagine. No dark energy has ever been detected... though a theoretical construct called dark energy acts as a place-holder to account for data we can't make sense of. Perhaps the Hadron collider will provide the data we need to either support or disprove one or more of the current models... only time and a lot of effort will tell. Ah - but that is often the case with Science. Ideally science is always ready to dispense with old models that are contradicted by new data. An interesting aspect to Religion is that new data may not ever dispense with the old models... they simply go underground... God is silent... God no longer makes appearances... etc. The concept of uniformitarianism that informs science does not apply to religion.

"Right, Xapi's basis for his belief in god is an assumption. I know this. And perhaps my example wasn't clear or even that good. All I'm trying to suggest is that I, too, can believe in things that are based on assumptions. And if all it takes are assumptions, then the difference between god and a unicorn is zero"

Seriously? Are you really arguing that all probabilities are equal?
Assuming that the Sun rises in the east tomorrow, it will set in the west. Assuming that the Sun rises in the west tomorrow, it will set in the east. Therefore, the difference between the Sun setting in the east and the west is zero.

The likelihood that a proof is correct is the likelihood that all of its assumptions are correct.

"god is a mythical creature created by man."

Prove it.

"The concept of god or gods have taken endless forms since the dawn of man...and ALL of them are assumptions for explaining what science couldn't yet explain."

That doesn't meant that god cannot exist. You can find the correct answer though incorrect methods.

"Non-atheists assume that science will not ever explain why "the Universe was not created by chance"...Much like (again using Christianity as an example) how the catholic church failed to consider a heliocentric universe for so long (to the detriment of Galileo)"

So what? Wow, the Catholic Church has been wrong before! I never would have imagined. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

"they also fail to consider that perhaps it WAS created by chance!"

Perhaps it was, but you claim to know that God doesn't exist. This is an argument that it is possible that God doesn't exist, not that it isn't possible for him to.

You haven't responded to any of the points I listed in the post beginning:
"@Darwyn:
"God says different things to different people"
..."
Do you concede that your proof was incorrect?