How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Mae von H]

What evidence?

Books have been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Evidence that Demands a Verdict?”

You said "God actually says,....." don't you mean a guy wrote in a book that says God said that?"

You probably take that view. That is not what I mean. I mean God said that He’d chosen them and the evidence bears that out.

If I write "God said, "I vant to drink your blood," does that mean God said it?

No because you don’t know Him and He wouldn’t ever say that.

Dracula said, "Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will!"

So, clearly, Dracula is real and said that. It's written in a book by a guy who said Dracula said it.

There is zero evidence for this.

To paraphrase you: "a Book has been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Dracula?”

No one but you thinks that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105

It really is worth a watch. It utterly refutes whatever you were trying to argue.

"Whatever"? If you don't even know what I'm trying to argue, how do you know that it's refuted?

Krauss talks about getting space, time and whole universes from nothing by applying quantum mechanics to gravity. Here, he's making the same mistake Stephen Hawking made with his infamous gaffe, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." If you're describing an environment of Absolute Nothing, you can't apply gravity; Absolute Nothing would have no matter, which means that there would be no mass to curve space and so there would be no gravity. So Krauss is applying a force to an environment in which that force wouldn't be present.


From 9:52 to 10:33 here,


Krauss does something else inexplicable. He admits that it's speculative, but actually takes seriously the notion that the laws of physics themselves came into being when the universe began at the Big Bang, before which there were no laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation.....nothing. Inexplicable because he says all of this seriously without ever raising the question (neither does the host of the show) of what law would have enabled the universe to begin before there were any laws. That's the way Krauss thinks.

Not only does that means that 'something from nothing' is possible, but it is pretty much required by quantum physics.

If the laws of quantum mechanics predict that something will come from nothing, the implication is that the metaphysical is hardwired into nature.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #106

Sir the difference îs me, scientists we know we are speculating. We say we don't really know it as fact.
Religious people believe what they are speculating is not speculating but a fact of reality. Therefore they claim to know what they can't know.

I don't believe that the author of the OP is religious.

There is zero evidence shamans today manipulate the weather or actually heal people or actually communicate with animals.

That there is no evidence you know of would be a more scientifically responsible position to take.

They are clearly charlatans.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
---Eric Hoffer

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #112]

I understand what you are trying to argue and what it is is Faithbased bias towards a god with no origin making all Dem Laws. I remind you of our former debate where I said that makes for 2 problems and something from notbing is only one, and as Krauss pointed out, the virtual particles experiment show that matter/energy can come from a nothing that doesn't need creation.

Lays 'hardwired' into potential reality potential exist (remember 'potential'?Or a 'mathematical value' existing without having to be created. Like a ight angle, circle and square potentially exist even before there is anything to be measured, time, space and perhaps gravity potentially exist even before events are measurable by matter changing form.

This is physics and 'metaphysics' just sounds like trying to shoehorn the supernatural into it. I haven't finished the video but it looks like your reference to a plausible god by Krauss is not what he is saying, so maybe your slap at Hawking isn't correct either.

Bottom line is nobody really knows and after this discussion I am just more sure that there is no god reason to postulate any sort god. Certainly not your attempts to apply bang it on the table thinking to whether virtual particles can come into existence because an unstable nothing requires it is 'plausible' or not.

I just finished off the video - it isn't long. While Colbert os having fun he is arguing for a got (never mind 'Him') anbd he ought to be ashamed of trying to force a positing 'No God' claim on Krauss who never says 'Plausible'. The last quip 'If God is Nothing couldn't the universe come from Him?' is a good laugh but bad logic. It is of course equivocation. Or maybe not...more anthroporphization of physics. The universe is (or was) nothing and produced particles because it mathematically had to. Nothing' is not a god, much less a 'Him'.

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #106

Sir the difference îs me, scientists we know we are speculating. We say we don't really know it as fact.
Religious people believe what they are speculating is not speculating but a fact of reality. Therefore they claim to know what they can't know.

I don't believe that the author of the OP is religious.

There is zero evidence shamans today manipulate the weather or actually heal people or actually communicate with animals.

That there is no evidence you know of would be a more scientifically responsible position to take.

They are clearly charlatans.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
---Eric Hoffer

You are making no valid arguments. It is irrelevant what the views of the op poster are. What matters is the case that can be made. You really have none. This means the burden of proof is on you to validate a 'god', not for skepticism to disprove it. Though the case for an origin of matter seems to argue that an intelligent creator is not required. That applies when there is no good evidence that the atheist side knows of or the theist side has.

And we can really do without 'You are so WUDE so My case wins'.

[alexxcJRO]

I don't believe that the author of the OP is religious.

I am not talking of OP. We are comparing scientists, me versus religious people.

That there is no evidence you know of would be a more scientifically responsible position to take.

So they can manipulate the weather, actually heal people and communicate with animals but they are doing in a way that is hidden.

Q: Really?

Q: Why would scientific inquiry could not be employ to demonstrate that people actually can manipulate the weather, heal people and communicate with animals?

If that would be the case would be front page news.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
---Eric Hoffer

They are charlatans for they surely know they can't manipulate the weather, actually heal people and communicate with animals. This demonstrate they are falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill=charlatans.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

There is a good variety of points of view in this disussion. The point about constructing a God on the unknown is worth considering. My God is in what I know.

I am going to sound weird to the quantum /microscopic dispute that rages here but I must state my sincerely held view on this.

The discussion between Athetotheist and TRANSPONDER was predicted and de-marked as folly ,in the insightfulness of the Old Testament stories.

It is intellectual Babeling as mankind invests in his intellect as a means to reach the heavens. It is discord around the same point and the discussion acquires the quantum dynamics, it attempts to discuss. It attempts to make a resolution from a non existent point of apparent contention, that is nothing.

Look at the Ark, because our modern progression as a species is going to require another one, if not then a nuclear shelter , that is as well stocked as a Salt Lake City Silo.

What I really want you all to consider here is The Garden of Eden. Go back to the narrative and its contained wisdom and advice. It is in the fruits of the Tree of Good and Evil that we will find a proper framework for our discussion. Microscope them!

Hello Athetotheist and TRANSPONDER

Please consider the real possibility that these early writings and formulations might likely have the capability to out-think both of you. Consider Aristotle, Socrates, Buddha, etc. Do not underestimate the potency of this old wisdom.

Are you two up to being out-thought by OT writers of creation myths or do you prefer the comfort of your own google searches.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
TRANSPONDER says post 105: ". I also referred to the virtual particles experiment which Krauss is talking about and addresses the point Colbert makes - that a nothing than can produce something (virtual particles) is not 'nothing'. It is and quantum means that a nothing (which does not need to be created) can produce virtual particles out of nowhere and no god is needed. Not only does that means that 'something from nothing' is possible, but it is pretty much required by quantum physics."
--------
Am I really expected to study these guys to offer an opinion. There are high school/ college students coming on here to get us to do their homework thesis for them. Couldn't I go there instead.

As I said, about this academia- "It attempts to make a resolution from a non existent point of apparent contention, that is nothing."

Let us talk in real terms about a something from nothing described as such in Genesis. Out of nothing God creates humans who talk about nothing. Now that is a natural cycle, in my book.

[boatsnguitars]

What evidence?

Books have been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Evidence that Demands a Verdict?”

You said "God actually says,....." don't you mean a guy wrote in a book that says God said that?"

You probably take that view. That is not what I mean. I mean God said that He’d chosen them and the evidence bears that out.

If I write "God said, "I vant to drink your blood," does that mean God said it?

No because you don’t know Him and He wouldn’t ever say that.

Dracula said, "Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will!"

So, clearly, Dracula is real and said that. It's written in a book by a guy who said Dracula said it.

There is zero evidence for this.

To paraphrase you: "a Book has been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Dracula?”

No one but you thinks that.

NOt even I believe in Dracula, but the evidence is the same as Jesus so why don't you believe in Dracula, or why do you beleive in Jesus?

You are missing the point. The point is that even if I can prove there is a book written about Dracula, it's not a good reason to believe Dracula existed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello
TRANSPONDER says post 105: ". I also referred to the virtual particles experiment which Krauss is talking about and addresses the point Colbert makes - that a nothing than can produce something (virtual particles) is not 'nothing'. It is and quantum means that a nothing (which does not need to be created) can produce virtual particles out of nowhere and no god is needed. Not only does that means that 'something from nothing' is possible, but it is pretty much required by quantum physics."
--------
Am I really expected to study these guys to offer an opinion. There are high school/ college students coming on here to get us to do their homework thesis for them. Couldn't I go there instead.

As I said, about this academia- "It attempts to make a resolution from a non existent point of apparent contention, that is nothing."

Let us talk in real terms about a something from nothing described as such in Genesis. Out of nothing God creates humans who talk about nothing. Now that is a natural cycle, in my book.

Dude, you may go wherever you like. But here the name of the game is argue your corner, not dismiss the gread brains of today because you can't understand their arguments or don't care from them.

For myself I see no value whatsoever in recasting physics, cosmology and the nature of matter in terms of myths by people who thought you gould genetically change animals DNA by showing them a striped stick.

Hello

There is a good variety of points of view in this disussion. The point about constructing a God on the unknown is worth considering. My God is in what I know.

I am going to sound weird to the quantum /microscopic dispute that rages here but I must state my sincerely held view on this.

The discussion between Athetotheist and TRANSPONDER was predicted and de-marked as folly ,in the insightfulness of the Old Testament stories.

It is intellectual Babeling as mankind invests in his intellect as a means to reach the heavens. It is discord around the same point and the discussion acquires the quantum dynamics, it attempts to discuss. It attempts to make a resolution from a non existent point of apparent contention, that is nothing.

Look at the Ark, because our modern progression as a species is going to require another one, if not then a nuclear shelter , that is as well stocked as a Salt Lake City Silo.

What I really want you all to consider here is The Garden of Eden. Go back to the narrative and its contained wisdom and advice. It is in the fruits of the Tree of Good and Evil that we will find a proper framework for our discussion. Microscope them!

Hello Athetotheist and TRANSPONDER

Please consider the real possibility that these early writings and formulations might likely have the capability to out-think both of you. Consider Aristotle, Socrates, Buddha, etc. Do not underestimate the potency of this old wisdom.

Are you two up to being out-thought by OT writers of creation myths or do you prefer the comfort of your own google searches.

They were all smart guys but were limited by what they knew. Just recently we touched on Lane - Craig and there is no doubt he is a smart guy and could think me under the table, eight times out of 10. But it does not alter the position that his notable apologetic - Kalam - is fatally flawed, if not dishonest.

It is not a question of how craft a person is but of how good the case is. And don't forget that the critics of the old philosophers or the writers of creation myths are also very smart. We also did just now Krauss explaining the case for Something from Nothing, which I struggled with myself, even though it seemed the only option that was reasonably possible . Curent top -brain knowledge or hypotheses at least "Google Search" as you put it is indeed going to beat out Religious apologists without me having to be smarter than is needed to press the on -off switch.

Bottom line, these modern -day geniuses do the work and thought so we don't have to.

[TRANSPONDER]

What evidence?

Books have been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Evidence that Demands a Verdict?”

You said "God actually says,....." don't you mean a guy wrote in a book that says God said that?"

You probably take that view. That is not what I mean. I mean God said that He’d chosen them and the evidence bears that out.

If I write "God said, "I vant to drink your blood," does that mean God said it?

No because you don’t know Him and He wouldn’t ever say that.

Dracula said, "Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will!"

So, clearly, Dracula is real and said that. It's written in a book by a guy who said Dracula said it.

There is zero evidence for this.

To paraphrase you: "a Book has been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Dracula?”

No one but you thinks that.

NOt even I believe in Dracula, but the evidence is the same as Jesus so why don't you believe in Dracula, or why do you beleive in Jesus?

You are missing the point. The point is that even if I can prove there is a book written about Dracula, it's not a good reason to believe Dracula existed.

I know that Theist apologists try to twist the 'can we trust books?' argument to suit themselves. It looks black and white to them - or rather 'Believe - or not' which is based on bias confirmation. Since the legends, magic and tall tales of the Bibl;e are all to be credited (all the time one does not risk becoming a laughing -stock) while other religions are dismissed without consideration. The interpretation of history is notoriously fraught. But the Bible apologetic approach is as flawed as almost all their others. Fiddle the evidence to confirm the bias. And the self -serving double standard of the now almost Axiomatic "Dismiss science as valueless human opinion when it contradicts the Faith, but appeal to it as Holy Writ (even when being misquoted) when it seems to support it". Bias is inherent in Theist apologetics and of course they project that onto doubters and questioners, when we want to know, not Believe.

What it comes down to is control of the narrative. Religion had had the driving wheel and are straining every nerve to keep their hands on it. All we can do is keep the channels open and present our case - which is very good, trust me (I'm an atheist ) I have seen the best theist apologetics can do and their smartest minds are like a top sprinter trying win races with a rock chained to their leg. Just sayin', and the campaign has to be won. Just we have to keep the channels open and hope that religion does not get political weaponry.