There is a God, else we are in hell

[halfthought]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "if this universe is the only one that exists, there are no other variables". The probability of, say, your cake being in front of you on your birthday would essentially be 1/(an insanely large number) if we take into account how big the universe is. Every specific event that exists in the universe is a number that approaches 0, or actually 0 if the universe truly is infinite(but that's not possible to prove; we only know that it is relative way bigger than we can try to fathom). So it is possible to calculate chance... but using this logic, it is also possible to say that the universe cannot possibly be infinite then, because if the probability of the cake being present is = 0, then the universe would be infinite. Clearly it is not 0, as I've had cake many times on my birthday, and I'm sure you have as well, and clearly events exist in the universe, so the universe has to be at the very most, a number approaching infinity, but not infinity itself.

Thats exactly my point.

Probability is a easily manipulated "science", and the only science not based on natural law. It is literally based on the absence of natural law, where we assign numbers based on previous patterns collected to determine the likelihoods of an unknown variable. In nature, nothing is a possibility, everything has cause and effect, however obscure and confusing they may be. Even in quantum theory.

As you can see, I've illustrated that the possibility of cake is a lie, with astronomically low rates. But I, too, have had cake on every single birthday except for one when my uncle got drunk and threw up on it (srsly :P), and one where everyone including me forgot it was my birthday.

The same goes for the universe. People are going to highlight how the universe is clearly improbable. (then maybe use that as leverage for intelligent design). I am CLEARLY living in the universe, in the same way that the cake I had eaten was not a lie. I think. I hope ;_;. That's a whole different subject. Their are three core flaws to the single universe improbability argument.

One is that a single universe is improbable (lol.) The concept of multiverses is becoming more and more plausible, and generally accepted.

Two, most people who run the numbers on how improbable the universe is use bullshit numbers literally made up on the spot. Let me elaborate. They assume that all variables have equal possibility. If the range of gravity is between 1 and 10 (made up numbers), and 5.5 is the only one that supports life, their going to make EVERY OTHER NUMBER between 1 and 10 the same possibility as 5.5. I don't get how on earth they do that, because they know absolutely nothing (noone does) about how those laws had come into being. How did gravity become a 5.5? Nobody knows. Perhaps gravity tends to....excuse the pun...gravitate toward 5.5? We DONT KNOW. The universe is either a Open, Closed or Curved universe. Their going to assign each a 33%. WHY? Do we have a entire SAMPLE SIZE of a bunch of universes, and 1/3 of them of them are closed, 1/3 are open, and a 1/3 are curved? That would be rather scary if we did.

Which brings us to our third point. Their is only one universe (according to this line of thought). Thus, not only is a 33% not even remotely relevant and completely pulled out a theoretical scientists ass, since their is only one universe, the chance for any of those variables that make up our universe being true, is in fact ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Our universe is the only universe, and nothing existed prior to it. Thus, it would be logical to say that because it happened, it is the only way it can happen, because we have no evidence to the contrary.



Keep in mind I don't even believe that theirs a single universe. If we ignore that still valid yet may soon be invalid guess, then there isn't an argument at all.

[Pettypete]

Thats exactly my point.

Probability is a easily manipulated "science", and the only science not based on natural law. It is literally based on the absence of natural law, where we assign numbers based on previous patterns collected to determine the likelihoods of an unknown variable. In nature, nothing is a possibility, everything has cause and effect, however obscure and confusing they may be. Even in quantum theory.

As you can see, I've illustrated that the possibility of cake is a lie, with astronomically low rates. But I, too, have had cake on every single birthday except for one when my uncle got drunk and threw up on it (srsly :P), and one where everyone including me forgot it was my birthday.

The same goes for the universe. People are going to highlight how the universe is clearly improbable. (then maybe use that as leverage for intelligent design). I am CLEARLY living in the universe, in the same way that the cake I had eaten was not a lie. I think. I hope ;_;. That's a whole different subject. Their are three core flaws to the single universe improbability argument.

One is that a single universe is improbable (lol.) The concept of multiverses is becoming more and more plausible, and generally accepted.

Two, most people who run the numbers on how improbable the universe is use bullshit numbers literally made up on the spot. Let me elaborate. They assume that all variables have equal possibility. If the range of gravity is between 1 and 10 (made up numbers), and 5.5 is the only one that supports life, their going to make EVERY OTHER NUMBER between 1 and 10 the same possibility as 5.5. I don't get how on earth they do that, because they know absolutely nothing (noone does) about how those laws had come into being. How did gravity become a 5.5? Nobody knows. Perhaps gravity tends to....excuse the pun...gravitate toward 5.5? We DONT KNOW. And lets their choosing between a Open, Closed or Curved universe. Their going to assign each a 33%. WHY? Do we have a entire SAMPLE SIZE of a bunch of universes, and 1/3 of them of them are closed, 1/3 are open, and a 1/3 are curved?

Which brings us to our third point. Their is only one universe (according to this line of thought). Thus, not only is a 33% not even remotely relevant and completely pulled out a scientists ass, since their is only one universe, the chance for any of those variables that make up our universe being true, is in fact ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Our universe is the only universe, and nothing existed prior to it. Thus, it would be logical to say that because it happened, it is the only way it can happen, because we have no evidence to the contrary.



Keep in mind I don't even believe that theirs a single universe. If we ignore that still valid yet may soon be invalid guess, then there isn't an argument at all.

Agreed, it can be said that life's existence is based on a cosmological natural selection process. The reason why we exist as we exist is because that is what the universal laws allowed for to happen. Unless we can find more evidence of universes outside of the one that we know of, it's also possible to say that there is a 100% chance of life occuring at one point given an infinite time period with finite matter, as our existence is the proof. However, it's also impossible to say if time is infinite... There's just too many things that we do not know to say anything with 100% certainty.

[halfthought]

Agreed, it can be said that life's existence is based on a cosmological natural selection process. The reason why we exist as we exist is because that is what the universal laws allowed for to happen. Unless we can find more evidence of universes outside of the one that we know of, it's also possible to say that there is a 100% chance of life occuring at one point given an infinite time period with finite matter, as our existence is the proof. However, it's also impossible to say if time is infinite... There's just too many things that we do not know to say anything with 100% certainty.

Exactly. With only one universe, since it supports life, it is mathematically impossible for the chance of life to be anything short of 100%.

Unless...nobody is alive, and we're all zombies.

****...

...

http://billmullins.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/windowslivewritervideogameaddictiontrueorfalse-baacinternet-addict-12.jpg

Too late.




The only way life isn't a 100% chance is if we acknowledge the existence of multiple universes without life. In which case life is still a inevitability due to the sheer volume of the universes.

The only way this wouldn't work is if their were like, ten universes. And with this kind of stuff, its either, one, non, or several billion-trillion or infinity.

[MileyCyrus]

when did this thread get away from the arguments of God

edit: I dont understand this crap, at least I get philosophy :(

[Tripler]

if u only had a brine u would know that there IS a god but ... u don't have a brine so meh

[Sinestro]

A brine?

As in the shrimp?

[iTempest]

What I like about this thread is the fact that last time "you" made it, "I" made this very same comment.
Ironically this even occured at the first instance of the cycle, altough whoever was part of the first lap didn't know...

Wait, is this the first lap?


That aside, there's a minor flaw in your theory: AFAIK our solar system will be devoured in 6 billion years by our sun becoming huge.
...Or do you mean, that happened last time too?
****. This is hurting my head. I'm so getting out of this fate thread.

[Narfle]

if u only had a brine u would know that there IS a god but ... u don't have a brine so meh

If you only had a brine you would know that I am that god.

[Kartalov]

I have discussed on religion a lot of times for a long time. And i have concluded that there is NO god !

You did not give all the theories of the creation of the universe.
It wasn't god.
It didn't exist infinitely before us and it won't exist infinitely after us.
It was BIG BANG. Ring any bells ?

Anyways i'm tired of discussing this same topic over and over again, so i just said it .. There is no god, i don't buy those stories.

[Xanares]

Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing is produced).
So who created God?

[ImASurgeon]

Pretty sure Nietzsche, Darwin, Dawkins, hell even Kieth Olberman have more insight on this than you.

You sir, lose the game.

[RogerDodger]

Yeah but Darwin beats them all

[ImASurgeon]

Yeah but Darwin beats them all

No? Not to mention irrelevant..

PS. You sig scares me.

[coolmans]

No? Not to mention irrelevant..

PS. You sig scares me.



you can't admire gene.

[magnakaser]

Yeah but Darwin beats them all

I think he did say it best, "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

So maybe everyone should agree that everyone will disagree, and there's little anyone can do to change anyone's mind on the matter!

[high61]

ITT, People try to explain the complexity of the universe with basic logic.

[devilesk]

Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing is produced).

Pretty much a universal law.

From this we can deduce that if the universe exists now, it was either created by God (an entity representing infinite) or it has always existed. There are no other possibilities. If God didn't create it, and it hasn't always existed, it couldn't have popped out of nowhere, because then it contradicts ENNF. Universal heat death is not possible as long as ENNF stands; what are the odds of us living in a fixed segment of time followed by an infinite of universal heat death? It is "any number/infinity" which is a number so small it is effectively zero.

So then:

A) Universe was created by God
There is an end to the universe. God decides what happens to us after death, and after the expiration of the universe.

B) Universe has always existed
If there is an eternity behind us and an eternity in front of us, then we can safely assume anything that CAN happen HAS happened infinite times and WILL happen infinite more times. That means humanity has and will exist forever, in an infinitely recursive loop. Also implies that our consciousness will be reborn after each revolution, and we will live our lives identically in every second, thought, and little detail. Indirectly implies every moment of our lives will conclusively last an eternity, because any portion of infinite, regardless of how minute, is still infinite. Nietzsche anyone?

Anyway whether or not you take this seriously, I don't really care. Come to think of it, I don't know why I even posted this. Just had a philosophical discussion and I'm feeling typey. Also looking for actual philosophy peoples to make me look like a fool.
A) The universe was created but what exactly is "God". Why does it even need to be a sentient being? Even if it was, why are we assuming he cares at all about us?
B) The universe existing forever does not imply humanity existing forever.

Your philosophy sucks and by no means covers all possibilities. I don't see any deductively valid arguments here at all. At every step your inferences are weak.

[Juular]

A) Universe was created by God
There is an end to the universe. God decides what happens to us after death, and after the expiration of the universe.
If this is true, then you would think that he wouldn't want to keep his existence a secret. Discrepancies about the origin of the universe, specifically the religious origin, have been the spark for wars around the world since the beginning of recorded human history. Any being who would go to the trouble to create a universe would know that eventually, at some point, it would be inhabited by sentient species, and that if those species end up destroying themselves, it's a complete waste (considering how rare life, and how exponentially more rare sentient life in the universe is)


B) Universe has always existed
If there is an eternity behind us and an eternity in front of us, then we can safely assume anything that CAN happen HAS happened infinite times and WILL happen infinite more times. That means humanity has and will exist forever, in an infinitely recursive loop. Also implies that our consciousness will be reborn after each revolution, and we will live our lives identically in every second, thought, and little detail. Indirectly implies every moment of our lives will conclusively last an eternity, because any portion of infinite, regardless of how minute, is still infinite. Nietzsche anyone?This makes more sense than "a magical man who has lived somewhere in the universe forever created the universe in which he has always lived"

[Randomguy360]

If heaven exists, do you think they're mad we keep running planes through their homes?

[Meem]

A) The universe was created but what exactly is "God". Why does it even need to be a sentient being? Even if it was, why are we assuming he cares at all about us?
B) The universe existing forever does not imply humanity existing forever.

Your philosophy sucks and by no means covers all possibilities. I don't see any deductively valid arguments here at all. At every step your inferences are weak.
I've learned that there's no use discussing this topic on the internet, but I will say that you are misunderstanding me.

[Hat_Truck]

A) The universe was created but what exactly is "God". Why does it even need to be a sentient being? Even if it was, why are we assuming he cares at all about us?
B) The universe existing forever does not imply humanity existing forever.

Your philosophy sucks and by no means covers all possibilities. I don't see any deductively valid arguments here at all. At every step your inferences are weak.
Pretty much this.

I love how people use theorycraft and then claim that it MUST be true, when the argument itself is of a purely philosophical nature.

It's usually religious people doing that sort of thing; ironic?

[Meem]

When I say god I am not referring to a sentient being. I am referring to a natural force that objectively exists and is the cause of the universe.

Really the question I was intending to ask was "can there be a cause that isn't an effect of another cause?" Can something truly arise from nothing?

[SideKick1]

When I say god I am not referring to a sentient being. I am referring to a natural force that objectively exists and is the cause of the universe.

Really the question I was intending to ask was "can there be a cause that isn't an effect of another cause?" Can something truly arise from nothing?
Can we play SC2?

[Meem]

K I'm on

[Kartalov]

Pretty much this.

I love how people use theorycraft and then claim that it MUST be true, when the argument itself is of a purely philosophical nature.

It's usually religious people doing that sort of thing; ironic?

Well you see, that's the whole debate. We can only guess what's behind this unless if there really is "God" comes down and says "I am god ! Abandon all hope ye who enters here !" or something like that.

The point is, everything is just a theory of someone's beliefs, you don't have true evidence of anything on this subject.

[WalkinOnAir]

lol old thread is old

No doubt it's been said, what created God?

[DarkDefender]

No doubt it's been said, what created God?
It wasn't God that created man. It was man that created God :)

[Jaycoob]

If god exsist he is a **** because he don't help people

I hope you will get forgiven, anyway, God will help you only if you help yourself, get the drift?

[ems_]

no such thing as god
1/10
nt tho