Neil Kelsey wrote:
Puddleglum wrote:

Ok. Sorry for the confusion. So, could you give me an example of a
closed system? One definition: a system that functions without any
materials or processes beyond those it contains and/or produces itself.
Sounds like the universe to me. Now for the lemming (me) in action.
LOL.

OK, I suspect the universe is a closed system too.

Glad we agree on that.

The first law of thermodynamics states that Matter/Energy cannot by
itself be created or destroyed. Matter/Energy may be changed from one
form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged.

Those statements apply to our universe. So if the universe is a closed
system, then you could say within a closed system matter/energy may be
changed from one form to another, etc. But in a non-closed state, this
may not apply. I'm going to try to outline what I think once again:

So you agree that matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed in a closed
system like the universe?

Before there was something (the universe) there was nothing (a vacuum).
A vacuum contains virtual particles, which fluctuate in and out of
existence because they do not possess enough energy to sustain
existence. Virtual particles, by the way, have been proven to exist
(such as their existence is). So, prior to the Big Bang, there was
nothing (nothing = vacuum). Time and space did not exist; it was a
non-closed system, there was no entropy. It was nothing like our
current universe. But it was unstable. In the quantum world, if
something can happen, it will happen. So this pre-universe state
expolded. Call it nature abhoring a vacuum. The explosion was an
infusion of energy. And with the Big Bang, time and space were created,
and a closed system was born, the Universe. From there the ball of
super hot energy cooled, particles formed, atoms formed, and matter
evolved. Life began, and life evolved. All of this obeys the Laws of
Physics; none of it requires a "god" that defies the Laws of Physics.
And this is just what I think, there are other plausible theories that
exclude "god" as well.

Scientists assert that virtual particles can appear from nothingness.
If the particles can originate from nothing, then nothing isn't
nothing, but it is really something (a virtual particle generator). And
again you have a pre-existing universe prior to virtual particle
appearance. Many big bang cosmologists declare, 'nothingness is
inherently unstable and so virtual particles are the result'. This is
impossible. 'Nothing' cannot be unstable. Only 'something' can be
unstable. What scientists have identified as 'virtual particles' are
not originating from nothingness but from a change in energy somewhere
else.

2. It would be absurd for a theoretical "Big Bang" to make matter out
of nothing. It just cannot happen.

Disagree. Nothing = vacuum. Vacuum (in physics) contains virtual
particles. It CAN happen.

Actually, nothing = nothing. VP are 'something'.

3. Matter cannot increase and make either stars or living beings.

Not after the Big Bang, I agree. But matter can and does evolve, matter
evolved into life, life evolved into humans.

Disagree of course. What are the chances of evolving the DNA molecule
[crucial to all life] by natural processes?

Without an outside
controlling designer of some kind, it is virtually impossible.

It is
highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things
evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one
protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural
processes.

There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into
existence from non-living matter.

Further, there is substantial
evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible.

Only DNA is known
to produce DNA.

No chemical interaction of molecules has even come
close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all
known life.

4. Evolutionary theory requires that matter originally made itself out
of nothing. If the theory is untrue, then how did matter come into
existence?

The theory is true, I think. And I think there is plenty of scientific
evidence to support it.

I'm not convinced that 'something' can be made from 'nothing'. I agree
that VP exist, just not in a non-existent state.

All science bows low before the second law (even though evolutionists
refuse to).

That's a lie (about the "evolutionists").
The theory of evolution obeys
the second law. A species is a closed system. In a closed system
entropy increases. There are ALWAYS pressures on the survival of a
given species, from environmental changes, from competitors, from
predators, from lack of prey. It is inevitable that whatever makes a
species successful will be taken away, and it will either evolve into
something that is successful, or it will die off. Evolution IS entropy,
in a way.

Evolutionist Julian Huxley, in his book "Evolution in Action", says
that evolution is driven solely by "blind physical forces" engaged in
what he calls a great "chaotic jazz dance of particles and radiations."
Huxley concludes that evolution is a process in which "the only
over-all tendency we have so far been able to detect is that summarized
by the second law of thermodynamics -- the tendency to run down." Now
think about this -- one of the most highly respected spokesman for
evolution tells us that evolution produces an increasingly high level
of organization in things by means of a chance process whose only
over-all tendency is to cause things to break down. Fascinating.

I follow the news too. I don't hear "everyone" clamouring for nukes (I
don't know what "and such" refers to) except for maybe the governments
of a few theist countries. Most everyone else lives in fear of nuclear
weapons, and many are like you, they want them banned.

It was actually a figure of speech. Americans tend to do that.

No they don't.

Really? Americans don't use figures of speech?

I know plenty of Americans who know how to properly
quantify an argument. The French, however...

What does "quantify an argument" have to do with using a figure of
speech?

In
reality about 30 countries have sought nuclear weapons, and nine are
known to have succeeded. The countries with successful, on-going
nuclear weapons programs are Britain, France, China, India, Israel,
Pakistan, Russia, and the United States. Also, I hear North Korea,
Iran, Libya, South Korea, Taiwan and Algeria are raising concerns about
nuclear weapons. This is a LOT of people, although not "everyone".

It still doesn't mean the citizens of those counties live in fear. Some
do, some don't.

Agreed. I never said otherwise.

Ok. Let me reiterate. Violent, disturbing acts have increased over the
years, particularly in the Middle East. I really think some of these
terrorists/jihadists would sacrifice the lives of their own nation to
obliterate America with nukes & the such, if they had them. Anger only
breeds more violence. Something to think about.

I agree with what you just said. I also think (as I've said before)
that this type of bad behaviour is limited to muslims,

Did you mean *not* limited to Muslims?

I think
christians are perfectly capable of it also, and have long demonstrated
their willingness to kill others in the name of "god."

I disagree with your premise for reasons we've already covered.

But currently,
the muslim fundamentalists are the biggest human global danger.

I agree with that.

Yes. You are committing a fallacy as you defend your beliefs. In this
case, you are using the "One True Scotsman" fallacy.

Shouldn't the Bible be the sole authority on matters pertaining to
Christianity? If we are going to argue what constitutes a Christian
then surely the biblical tenets of Christian faith need to be addressed
and understood.

By "understood" I'm sure you mean "believed."

You don't have to believe in the Bible, or God to debate biblical
semantics. If you want to argue Christian faith you need to understand
what the Bible says about Christians and their responsibilities.

I understand your tenets,
but I don't believe them. If it is left to Christians to define
themselves, they will argue forever. Keep it simple. A Christian is
someone who worships Christ as the Son of God. There are no value
judgements in that; that is a true statement, don't you think?

Yes. That is a true statement. And as I've stated previously "worship"
requires religious "devotion", which apparently the BTK killer didn't
have (according to the Bible).

Both of us have inadvertently used fallacies. As long as it's an honest
mistake I see no problem with it. I'll still try to avoid doing that in
the future.

Show me where I used a fallacy.

Neil, you have used the "Straw Man", "Avoiding The Issue", "Missing The
Point" and one or two other fallacies. In our earlier conversations I
mentioned the Straw Man, but I normally don't care about fallacies if
they aren't intentional.

I don't mind if you want to use the faux-Christian, but everytime you
use this fallacy I'm going to bring it up.

It isn't a fallacy if it's in accordance with the tenets of
Christianity.

So Christians have carte blanche to commit fallacies without being
questioned?

Of course not. Tell me all the fallacies Christians allegedly perform.
The "No true Scotsman fallacy" can't apply to the Bible if Christian
faith CAN be measured and proven to be true, unlike the Scotsman who
puts sugar in his porridge, or whatever.
"Sugar" in your porridge is NO indication of a true (or faux) Scotsman.

But devout Christians ARE an example of true Christians because the
distinction is made within their religious beliefs.

God says you can lie? Sorry, the rules of logic apply to
everyone. I'm not buying it.

What do you mean by "lie"?

Why not, even though the Bible predates any dictionary. Let's look at
the word "worship" (as in "reverence") v. : "show religious devotion
to, as of a deity". Was BTK showing religious [Christian] devotion by
blatantly neglecting the tenets of his beliefs by killing innocent
people? We could look up the word "devotion" and on & on, ad infinitum.
I don't think the dictionary will be able to assist your purpose.

I don't know if the BTK Killer was thinking of god as he committed his
vile acts, but I do know that at other times he was in church
worshipping your "god."

He may have been in church but he wasn't worshipping God:

"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what
ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless,
ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do
such things deserve DEATH, they not only continue to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:18-32.

If BTK was really worshipping God then why does his type deserve death,
as mentioned above?

Are you showing religious devotion when you're
turning left in your car?
Are you not a Christian when you aren't
concentrating on your beliefs?

If you are a Christian you will show devotion by your
actions/mannerisms wherever you are. Christians will be known by their
fruits.

I guess I'll have to start being clearer with my wording. Also, I
disagree that evolution caused the BB; impossible.

Argument by assertion. Show why it is impossible.

I already HAVE shown why, earlier in this post (regarding virtual
particles). Therefore, I am not guilty of that fallacy.

The only "necessary physical laws" are the Laws of Physics. Let's see
you resist them. You can't.

Correct. The laws of physics proves why *everything* works a certain
way and for what reason. That won't stop people from trying to resist
the laws of physics, as indicated by the many forms of physical/mental
abuse.

You've proved my point then.

And mine.

*Still having server issues so I'll have to use two posts to finish my
reply.*

Puddleglum wrote:

Neil Kelsey wrote:

Puddleglum wrote:

How many uncompassionate Christians have you met?

Many many many. For example, have you checked out a poster named "duke"
on alt.atheism? I have a brother who is one. You don't strike me as
particularly compassionate calling people I like "whoremongerers."

I haven't read any posts by Duke. Also, what would you call a thief?
What about a a braggart?
I have friends that are both, but I have no problems reminding them how
they are seen by others when they ask me.
For the record, I have a friend that is a whoremonger. He's married
too. I remind him of his whoremongery, but I still like him and treat
him with respect. I have a LOT of compassion for people, but I believe
in telling the truth, even if it hurts.

I'd call a thief a thief and a bragger a bragger. The only person I
would call a whoremongerer is someone who frequents whores, and I
wouldn't use that term, since it is so archaic. I would call then
"Johns" because that is the modern term for someone who pays for a
prostitute (*****). YOU are calling people that don't pay for sex
"whoremongerers" and "whores," when that's not what they are, so that
is offensive. They are just people who like to have sex, male and
female.

*snip*

What evidence?

Scientific evidence suggests that matter is immortal; indestructible.

No it doesn't. Even subatomic particles may eventually break apart if
the universe keeps expanding to the point where even atoms cannot
maintain their force.

*snip*

You've never stated that. I just assumed you believed it like other
atheists I've encountered. Again, my fault. However, I think evidence
suggests that matter is completely indestructible, but I hope not.

What evidence?

Neil Kelsey wrote:

"No false dichotomy, at least not on purpose."

[It is still a false dichotomy, whether you understood it or not]

Ok.

"Atheism is the "belief" that God, or gods do not exist. Through faith,
Christians "believe" God does exist. Atheists and Christians can have a
belief in anything they desire, regardless if it is factually
consistent with each others POV. However, to actually believe in your
position without a drop of faith IN IT is illogical. You cannot prove
God, or a higher power, doesn't exist, so you must have faith that your
position as a non-believer is viable. Also, could you give me "an
alternative, reasonable explanation" for how the universe came into
existence? Currently nothing is set in stone since no one actually
knows."

[Atheism is the LACK of a belief. A LACK of a belief in god. That is
quite different from what you are saying, which is atheism is a BELIEF.

I thought you agreed with me when I asked the following question to you
earlier:"Do you have a *belief* that atheism is true"? And you replied:
"The answer is yes, I *believe* atheism to be true,..etc"? What was it
that you didn't understand?

A belief that there is no god. A = "without," so "atheism" means
"without theism." It is NOT a matter of belief.

Now you're confusing me. First you say you have a belief in atheism,
now you don't?

And faith is another
matter entirely, faith has several definitions. Faith in the context
you are using here ("...so you must have faith that your position as a
non-believer...") means "to have confidence in." But you are blending
this definition of faith with another definition of the word, which is
"belief in a supernatural deity."

No, I'm not. I'm quite aware atheists don't believe God exists
<smiling>; I'm also aware that the word "faith" is not limited to
religion. Even mass murderers have faith in something. You have faith
in something. I believe "faith" was applied in proper context.

It is unfair and dishonest and
incorrect to use the first definition of faith and then accuse atheists
of having a similar "faith" to theists just because they are synonyms.
Really, it would help if you got your nose out of the Bible long enough
to consult a dictionary. While you're at it look up the different
meanings of the word "believe."

Read above. You seem to have reading comprehension problems; you appear
angry with the truth, too.

To me, and many other atheists, the lack of any evidence despite 10,000
years of people claiming that there is a deity of some sort is enough
for me to conclude that those people are deluded. That, plus the
mountains of evidence supplied with an alternate explanation (the
evolution of matter) leads me to conclude that god/gods are not
required for the universe to work.

I do have to agree that matter is probably indestructible. The question
is, could matter have a point of origin?
I believe so.

I've done a lot of reading on
quantum physics, string theory, and cosmology, and I have every
confidence that while they haven't filled in all the gaps, they are on
the right track, what with the scientist's reliance on FACTS and
EVIDENCE.

I think physics, with "FACTS and EVIDENCE", can explain how God
created the universe.

I personally think there is a very viable explanation
regarding the state of thing BEFORE the Big Bang, and it involves known
physics (virtual particles). I find it infinitely more reasonable to
trust someone who presents plausible theories based on actual
demonstrable evidence than to believe someone who only offers
testimonials and solemn oaths from uneducated people.]

Opinion noted. You're entitled to your beliefs. I believe God used the
Big Bang to create the universe.

"> There is no "faith" involved. I "believe" in

science, but if you actually haul out a dictionary, you will find that
the word "believe" has many different nuances, and I certainly and by
definition do not mean "believe" in the context of faith in a
supernatural power. I am an atheist.

Science doesn't require *faith* as the standard for proof of something.

Atheism does require faith because it's contents are not factually
proven, nor believed by all; same with Christianity."

[Again, you're mixing up the different definitions of the word "faith,"
and misapplying the the theistic meaning to atheists. And atheist do
not have to present facts to prove their position, it is up to the
theists to prove their god(s) exists, because they are making the claim
in the first place. All atheists are saying is "I don't believe you." I
do not have to prove that I don't believe you, do I?]

You sure don't have to prove it. But, you do have to account for what
you say. If "I don't believe you" was all you had to say why are you
participating in a ng discussion?

"> You say it yourself, the choice

must be supported by evidence. There is all sorts of evidence for a
different explanation of existence than a deity of any sort, for which
there is no evidence, only testimonials, unfounded assertions, and
irrelevant solemn oaths from people like you, no offence intended.

If you have "evidence" for a different explanation of existence I'd
like to know what it is."

[Like I said above, I think quantum mechanics, physics, string theory,
cosmology as being studied by scientists are making exciting
discoveries in these fields. I am always morbidly amazed at how theists
jump up and down about how science hasn't proved this or that (e..g.
what caused the Big Bang). Haven't they had their hats handed them on a
platter enough times yet? The correct answer is that science hasn't
proved what caused the Big Bang YET. What makes you think they won't in
the future? They always have in the past.]

YET is a long time, if ever. Who knows how long the sun will last?

What
about nuclear warfare? Diseases? At one point or another earth will be
desolate; mankind will die before they have a chance to become that
knowledgeable, IMO.

However, I think I've heard bits about the recent
discovery of the third heaven, and the end of the universe, or
something like that. I'll backtrack and find my source to see if I said
it correctly.

"> Some atheists (like me) go all the way and say there is no god.
Other

atheists only go so far as to say they lack theism. There is a
difference. So I would say I KNOW there is no god, not that I "have a
positive belief inthe non-existence of god." Of course, how can I know
for sure, blah blah blah. Well, I'm just sure. And the more I see the
desparate behaviour of theists to convince me otherwise the surer I am
that god is just a conjuration of people, and by which people are still
being duped.]

So, you KNOW there is no God, but you have absolutely no objective
proof of your claim? I think you might want to change your belief to
agnosticism since you have no credible evidence that God doesn't exist,

just a belief. Isn't this as much of a *conjuration* as you allege
Christianity is?"

[Don't get so excited. That's just me. Other atheists might not make
that same claim. I think there are reams of credible evidence for an
alternative explanation for existence (the evolution of matter) than
theism, and you have no evidence for what you believe. I just say why
not go that extra step and say what I really think. I think there is no
god(s), and that all religion is based on a worldview of ignorant
people who lived thousands of years ago, who did not have the benefit
of more rational explanations of the world around them. I do not blame
them for their ignorance, but I do blame you, and other modern theists.
I think theists are at the root of most of the world's social problems,
and only hinder in their solutions.]

According to the Bible, it is the atheist that is responsible for a
world of depravity.

It makes rational sense as well.

Neil Kelsey wrote:

"The human make-up suggests that people can be quite devout in the
faith
of their choosing, even atheism."

[I'll say this before someone else does- atheism is a LACK of faith. We
have NO faith. None. See where your sentence is inaccurate?

"Do you have a belief that atheism is true? If no, then you're lying,
if yes, then you're acting on faith. If you don't believe in God, you
must believe in something or someone else. An atheist doesn't simply
lack positive belief in God. The atheist has positive belief in the
non-existence of God".

And I'll
let the distinguished Cristopher Lee and David Jensen address the rest
of your post, which is an issue you and I have already discussed. I
simply disagree with you about the existence of faux-Christians. See if
they can do better than I did.]

Since I already know that faux-Christians exist it would be meaningless
to try and prove otherwise.

"The human make-up suggests that people can be quite devout in the
faith
of their choosing, even atheism."

[I'll say this before someone else does- atheism is a LACK of faith. We
have NO faith. None. See where your sentence is inaccurate? And I'll
let the distinguished Cristopher Lee and David Jensen address the rest
of your post, which is an issue you and I have already discussed. I
simply disagree with you about the existence of faux-Christians. See if
they can do better than I did.]

Please, show us how anyone can use objective criteria to determine who
is a real Christian and who is a Fox, er, faux-Christian.

OK. Take Dennis Rader (sp?) the BTK Killer. He was a Christian Serial
Killer. He was also a devout Christian, and an elder in his church. I
don't know, but I whink he would still call himself a Christian.

As deranged as he is I'm sure he'd call himself a disciple of God's.
Thankfully, actions speak louder than words.

Personally, I do not take such a dim view of your society, and
generally appreciate the many great things the US has offered
the world.

There are many things I love about America, but at the same time there
are many things I dislike about her. Namely the war, bias towards obese
people, the nasty way women dress, culture of sex, pathetic border
control, homosexuality being taught in some schools, crystal meth
addiction among teens, dissolving family unit, unfit parents,
faux-Christians and more. Yet, I still have hope that America will be
restored.