Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

I answered everything that was relevant to my argument, but not what you were posting to other people: arguments about evolution and so on. The above post was a response to my argument: I have responded: I take it you have no argument with my response.

But lots of it is irrelevant. For example:

'Speed of light is constant for every observer. Is it logical that however fast you travel, you will always see light to be going at the same speed?'

is irrelevant to the complication that atheists who seriously consider the origin of life must consider eternality.

Show me the relevance.

BoB: Well I guess you can't rebut my points. Good distraction technique though.

'Is someone who chose to believe in Allah or Rumpelstiltskin just as right as you are?'

This for example, as an example of veering off into I know not what. What's this about?

Right. Frustrated.

Please can you respond to this post.

I understand your binary point. There is lots of stuff in the new physics about ex nihilo nihi fit- but I don't really understand it- not being a physicist. But what I also don't understand is why it is relevant to the god/not god debate. I don't know how life/ the universe started. Maybe one day we will find out. But the one thing I do know is that god cannot have been involved- because all the evidence says that god does not exist. So maybe the universe has always been here, and one day something happened to a bit of that universe to trigger life. Maybe the new physics i mentioned will show that something can come from nothing after all. I don't know. And I am happy with not knowing. None of this is anything to do with God.

Frustrated - I'm sorry that you don't readily see the relevance re speed of light and double-slit experiments. Never fear, though. Your friend Cote is here to help and will hold your hand as you read and learn:

You have been banging on about how the universe has to obey your logic. "Some stuff has to be eternal or must have come from nothing" you say, and declare the winner of this false dichotomy (a logical fallacy, FYI) your eternal God option, since, according to you, the latter is illogical.

You clearly believe that the universe must behave in a way that is in accordance with your logic.

So I ask how logical you find these two examples of how our universe really works:

(1) Speed of light is constant for every observer. Is it logical that however fast you travel, you will always see light to be travelling at the same speed?

(2) Re Double-slit experiment that shows light behaves as a wave. Is it logical that you still get the wave pattern when one photon is sent out, meaning it goes through both slits at the same time?

Have a Google and find out what I'm talking about. I'll be here when you feel up to answering the two little questions above

'I also don't understand is why it is relevant to the god/not god debate.'

I have said many times that my argument is not about God/not God. It does not try to convince anyone of the existence of God.

My argument, here on this thread - is about the original thread title, about respect. Atheists are often scornful or dismissive, claiming superior rational and logical thought. But quite often they have not themselves thought clearly about the problems of existence and origin: they do not understand central questions about origin and existence. This is all of course fine, in that atheists can just dislike religion or whatever reason they have. But they should cease and desist from pouring scorn on people of religious faith on the grounds of clarity and logic: because there's no monopoly there, and often no command of ration thought.

'I don't know how life/ the universe started. Maybe one day we will find out. But the one thing I do know is that god cannot have been involved'

How can you know nothing, but know this one thing?

'because all the evidence says that god does not exist' it is unclear what you mean here. Which evidence are you talking about? Are you talking about the fact that God would seem to 'disobey' the physical laws of this universe? Because your next sentence

'Maybe the new physics i mentioned will show that something can come from nothing after all'

indicates that you are willing to consider that the physical laws of this universe may not apply, and that there was a point in which they didn't apply. You cannot use the physical laws of this universe to support your argument, if in the next breath you say those physical laws may in some cases not apply. If there is a possibility that the physical laws of this universe do not apply or have not applied in certain circumstances, then it undermines your claim of evidence that God does not exist. That is, of course, if you are relying on evidence of the physical laws of this universe.

'I don't know. And I am happy with not knowing.' It's nice that you are happy. And it doesn't matter that you don't know. But you still have beliefs. Two beliefs you expressed here are:

Belief that there is no God; and belief in the possibility that the physical laws of this universe may not always have applied or may not apply now.

"Is someone who chose to believe in Allah or Rumpelstiltskin just as right as you are?'"

Actually, yes.

Allah is Frustrated's God. Quran is very clear that it is the same deity who sent Jesus as his messenger. "Allah" is just the Arabic word for God.

Stick around, Frustrated. You will learn so much more. It may not feel like it now, but that is a kind of winning, too

"Belief that there is no God; and belief in the possibility that the physical laws of this universe may not always have applied or may not apply now"

I suppose if you want to you could call them beliefs. To me they are things that I currently think. If I was given evidence that showed that I was wrong to think that, I would change my views. If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow, would you call that a belief? If so, then yes, my statements that there is no god, and that some time in the future what we now think of as the incontrovertible laws of physics may need to be expanded are beliefs.

'You have been banging on about how the universe has to obey your logic.'

It is not my logic, and I do not apply it to the universe.

"Some stuff has to be eternal or must have come from nothing" you say, and declare the winner of this false dichotomy (a logical fallacy, FYI) your eternal God option, since, according to you, the latter is illogical.

No: not an eternal God 'since' it's illogical for something to come from nothing. An eternal 'something', which may or may not be God. Belief in God is not the only alternative to believing that something came from nothing. I've said this many times.

Thus: The statement that 'God exists because it is impossible for something to come from nothing' may be a logical fallacy, but then again it's not something I have ever said. Never, not once. You can only choose what the eternal thing is you believe in after you have decided that you believe in something eternal - i.e. made the original choice.

'You clearly believe that the universe must behave in a way that is in accordance with your logic. So I ask how logical you find these two examples of how our universe really works: (1) Speed of light is constant for every observer. Is it logical that however fast you travel, you will always see light to be travelling at the same speed? (2) Re Double-slit experiment that shows light behaves as a wave. Is it logical that you still get the wave pattern when one photon is sent out, meaning it goes through both slits at the same time?'

I think you are confusing logic with the laws of physics here, to be honest. I wonder if you are suggesting

A. That there is/was a 'time' 'space' or 'dimension' in which the physical laws of this universe do not or did not apply?
B. That there is/was a 'time' 'space' or 'dimension' in which mathematical laws do not or did not apply?

'To me they are things that I currently think'. That is a belief.

It doesn't matter that you would change your mind if you had evidence: that simply means that you would change your beliefs, not that you don't hold any beliefs now.

'If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow, would you call that a belief?'
Everyone who knows what a belief is would call that a belief.

Are you trying to sidestep the questions? Oh dear

No. Are you trying to sidestep mine?

In case you are wondering, Frustrated, I'm not reading your rants until you answer my two very simple questions:

(1) Speed of light is constant for every observer. Is it logical that however fast you travel, you will always see light to be travelling at the same speed?

(2) Re Double-slit experiment that shows light behaves as a wave. Is it logical that you still get the wave pattern when one photon is sent out, meaning it goes through both slits at the same time?

This is only the third time I'm asking them to you. Take your time. I'm sure you'll understand them eventually and will dare give an answer

I simply don't know what you are trying to say. Are your questions about light to do with examples which show that the physical laws of the universe do not apply in these cases?

If so, why not say so?

I'll assume your point is that the physical laws of the universe do not always apply. Is this what you are trying to say?

Unless... Do you not know what a double-slit experiment is?

That would be really unfortunate for someone who talks so much about the laws & logic of the universe.

Or wait for a couple of years and study Physics for A level

You need to make a point Cotedazur. You need to articulate an argument. What are you trying to say?

I'm guessing here that your point is: these things do not obey the physical laws of the universe (as we know them) therefore logic is fallible.

Is this what you are trying to say? I will readily accept that these are examples where the physical laws of this universe somehow do not apply. Is this your point? And what do you think this proves as far as the teism/atheism debate goes? What is the pint of bringing these samples to the argument?

Oh dear. Do you not know what your point is? Now I see where the problems lies.

Or ask nicely and we can start your education right here, right now

By the way, you still didn't rebut my point-by-point take down of your earlier post.

Cotedazur: it seems you don't know what you are trying to say. What is the point you are making. Is it

'these things do not obey the physical laws of the universe (as we know them) therefore logic is fallible.'

Is this your point?