There is a God, else we are in hell

[Meem]

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.

[Meem]

I only made this second post because spammers (deleted already) were raging about 2012.

[ruskor]

2012 will be the apocalypse and War will kill demons n **** to restore the balance.

[Pettypete]

Thirdly, if it does end the universe, the we can comfort ourselves in the fact that god does exist.

God does not forgive... God does not forget!

It's OK, hell is a place of LARPs and nerds; We'll play dungeons and dragons for all eternity! How fun is that?

[Nolifer]

Alternative 2 is the right one, which means that your post really doesn't mean ****.
In this universe, nothing really matters, nothing really makes a difference.
I'd advice everyone to suicide in order to end their miserable lives full of nothing.

[Pettypete]

Alternative 2 is the right one, which means that your post really doesn't mean ****.
In this universe, nothing really matters, nothing really makes a difference.
I'd advice everyone to suicide in order to end their miserable lives full of nothing.

Likewise

[Magissia]

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

[magnakaser]

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

No one ever said he had to be a good guy! Why people get so stuck on the fact that god or whatever has to be all good and stuff is beyond me.

Also, here's the real story of 2012:

Like 1100AD

<Mayan Dude 1> Man, we got this calender done till like 900 years from now, can we be done yet?
<Mayan Dude 2> Ok, I guess. People can do more later.
*Mayans die

[Bobnintendo]

where did god come from?

[Magissia]

No one ever said he had to be a good guy! Why people get so stuck on the fact that god or whatever has to be all good and stuff is beyond me.

If god was a bad guy and if he exsist, he is a **** because he do absolutely nothing, he don't go in the street with guns and kill people.

[Blue_Kitten]

No one ever said he had to be a good guy! Why people get so stuck on the fact that god or whatever has to be all good and stuff is beyond me.

Also, here's the real story of 2012:

Like 1100AD

<Mayan Dude 1> Man, we got this calender done till like 900 years from now, can we be done yet?
<Mayan Dude 2> Ok, I guess. People can do more later.
*Mayans die
Yes but if he's not good then why praise him?

And i loled at the mayans story xD:scou:

[Unclesoppa]

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

Pretty much a universal law.

It's funny because vacuums constantly produce electromagnetic particles.

[SyKot]

It's funny because vacuums constantly produce electromagnetic particles.

Vacuum still has energy.

[crazysheep]

Just had a philosophical discussion and I'm feeling typey. Also looking for actual philosophy peoples to make me look like a fool.
k i'll try

first possible problem with your argument is that you limit yourself to 2 possible causes only - either God created the universe, otherwise nothing else did and the universe has always existed.

even though you go on to argue "if God didn't create it [the universe]" that is rather flawed logic, because there could have been other origins. [the Big Bang theory for example]

based on this i'm likely to dismiss your reasoning, since you do not admit other causes of the universe in your argument.

[FulgoreSama]

k i'll try

first possible problem with your argument is that you limit yourself to 2 possible causes only - either God created the universe, otherwise nothing else did and the universe has always existed.

even though you go on to argue "if God didn't create it [the universe]" that is rather flawed logic, because there could have been other origins. [the Big Bang theory for example]

based on this i'm likely to dismiss your reasoning, since you do not admit other causes of the universe in your argument.

Just thought id say that the big bang theory is as much bullshit of a theory as god not creating the universe. Big Bang Theory if i recall was also thought to be an unsupported theory by now.

Sometimes there really isn't an answer we as humans can provide.

[Sinestro]

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.

You make zero sense. There aren't only two options here. There isn't 'well it was either here forever, or god made it.' Do you know how the Earth was formed? Because it started with a huge collision in space where a meteor chunk got thrown into our Suns orbit, and sat there collecting other small pieces of rock for millions of years. The entire planet was nothing but liquid magma at one point. Boom, in comes ANOTHER planet or celestial body mass to scrape the top part of the Earth, causing it to recollect itself with all the iron and such towards the middle (core) and the rest towards the outer (how we got the mantle). The Moon is just the leftovers from the planet that crashed into Earth during it's formation, and millions of years of space debree which started, literally, as pieces of rock/meteor that literally cannot be seen by the naked eye.

We haven't unlocked **** so far as knowing how things work. In reality, if you wanna get into it, we (as humans) might know .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the total knowledge of the universe. For all we know there's a master race that's been around for eons that created earth and genetically created humans and threw us on here.

EVERYTHING about the universe is speculation at this point, to say a definite "god made it or it's always been" is just foolish and ignorant. Oh, and it's also someone trying to sound a lot more deep / philosophical than they really are.

[SyKot]

The universe was created by the Humans that existed before the last Big Bang. Those Humans were created by the other humans that existed before the last 2 Big Bangs. And so on.

Everything is too perfect in this universe. If the speed of light was just 1 digit different, everything would be COMPLETELY different.

The purpose of the human race is to create and maintain intelligence.

Now flame me :P

[magnakaser]

The universe was created by the Humans that existed before the last Big Bang. Those Humans were created by the other humans that existed before the last 2 Big Bangs. And so on.

Everything is too perfect in this universe. If the speed of light was just 1 digit different, everything would be COMPLETELY different.

The purpose of the human race is to create and maintain intelligence.

Now flame me :P

You're absolutely right, if **** in the universe was different **** would be different. We're here cause stuff is how it is. Now that we've gotten that out of the way let's start learning something hard like colors.

[Sinestro]

Everything in the universe is far from "too perfect".

You gonna tell me that black holes, which can annihilate entire galaxies at a time, or dying suns that shoot Gamma Rays out for lightyears on end are part of "too perfect?"

There's huge chunks of the universe out there that are in complete and total turmoil just because they didn't have the perfect combination that we have.

It's all just a numbers game. Somewhere, eventually, Earth and Sol were going to be created in a way that could sustain life.

Now what will really flip your mind and drive you crazy if you really think about it, is that the Big Bang and most other theroies on how the universe started will tell you that it's basically one side of the universe mirroed to the next.

Which means, possibly, that somewhere out there, millions upon millions of light years away (talking absolutely other end), is another earth, with people posting on this same message board.

Except they're all nazi's there because the Nazi regime won.

[FulgoreSama]

Everything in the universe is far from "too perfect".
I will easily say now... Is the drug that you are on availiable over the counter?


You gonna tell me that black holes, which can annihilate entire galaxies at a time, or dying suns that shoot Gamma Rays out for lightyears on end are part of "too perfect?"
Uh.. Look lower down your idea of perfect bro. That's just how things work. Things happen for a reason and simply saying its just a release of energy.


There's huge chunks of the universe out there that are in complete and total turmoil just because they didn't have the perfect combination that we have.
Yes and now we still dont care for those parts of the universe.


It's all just a numbers game. Somewhere, eventually, Earth and Sol were going to be created in a way that could sustain life.
Let me guess you play HoN religiously and Sol is your savior?


Now what will really flip your mind and drive you crazy if you really think about it, is that the Big Bang and most other theroies on how the universe started will tell you that it's basically one side of the universe mirroed to the next.
mirrored* Please elaborate more because this is seemingly incomplete due to lack of arguement backup.



Which means, possibly, that somewhere out there, millions upon millions of light years away (talking absolutely other end), is another earth, with people posting on this same message board, except they're all nazi's there because the Nazi regime won.Possible but not probable.

[Tyrando]

there are no universal laws

what people percieve as the "Law of Gravity" is merely an observation, it is in no way a law.

when you realise this you find out that there isnt a single atom of proof that the sun will rise tommorow

Empirical knowledge is useless in proving something despite the fact you use it everyday.

[Sinestro]

Here, feel small and inconsequential.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.gif

See that? All those white blobs? Those represent galaxies. Much like the Milky Way galaxy that we live in right now. Do you know how large the milky way is? Hold on, I'll help..

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galaxy.gif

The milky way is some estimated 100,000 LY's in diameter. Short of some kind of warp technology, we won't ever get past our own solar system. At all.

You think that all that was just "always there"? Or that "God magically created all of it"? Cause we've actually witnessed via telescope the birthing of stars, the dying of stars, the formation stages of planets and other celestial bodies. Granted some of them happened 15 million light years ago, but still.

[FulgoreSama]

Interesting ideas brought up but may i ask

What is your point?

HellI don'tneed help from a astronomy map to figure that out

[Sinestro]

I will easily say now... Is the drug that you are on availiable over the counter?
In California, very soon.



Uh.. Look lower down your idea of perfect bro. That's just how things work. Things happen for a reason and simply saying its just a release of energy.


I'm aware that things happen for a reason. However, if the universe were "perfect" in the ways that OP was talking about (IE, created by God), then there wouldn't be things like that that just erase all of existence. Did you know theres a star that's pointing directly at earth and it's a real threat that sometime in the next 200 years or so that star could produce a gamma beam shot right at earth, annihilating everything on the planet before we even realize what happened? Because there is. The amount of celestial "close ones" earth has on the yearly basis is astonishing and is something I really, really suggest AGAINST looking into. It's not fun when you read about how over the past 5 years we've had nearly 1,000 potentially fatal and devistating collisions that were 'near misses' in galactic measurements, and how all life on Earth could suddenly be wiped out with a solar flare from Sol or gamma beams from far off, or a rogue meteor. Seriously, it's scary ****.



Yes and now we still dont care for those parts of the universe.


Typical. We don't acknowledge it because we can't see it, so we don't give a ****. Fact is, theres entire galaxies that are just forming in complete and total chaos and turmoil. You can't just ignore that for the sake of proving a point.



Let me guess you play HoN religiously and Sol is your savior?


Spend 5 minutes in any astronomy class or any class that deals with the stars, or hell even middle school science classes and youll see something. Our "sun" is designated as "sol". When scientists and such refer to our sun, they generally use the term "sol".



mirrored* Please elaborate more because this is seemingly incomplete due to lack of arguement backup.


Hold on, I'll draw a crude mockup.
\ /
o

See those \ / ? It's equal parts of existence being broken off (split, if you will) to the far reaches of the galaxy. If you take something like the big bang (which is basically just all matter/mass concentrated at one point till it imploded on itself) and "slow it down" (because in an 'instant' there was countless galaxies forming throughout the blackness of space) it's already been said that if it all had to go somewhere, it stands to reason that it was split, or Mirrored.

I'm not saying an exact mirror. I'm not saying that everything on this half of the universe is exactly the same as on the other half. I'm saying (and by I'm saying I mean there are plenty of scientists and people who do this **** for a living who say as well) that it's possible for a "mirror" version of earth to be out there somewhere in the unreachable part of the universe.

We're talking like 500,000 Billion light years away though, so it's something that will never be proven or disproven.

[FulgoreSama]

I'm aware that things happen for a reason. However, if the universe were "perfect" in the ways that OP was talking about (IE, created by God), then there wouldn't be things like that that just erase all of existence. Did you know theres a star that's pointing directly at earth and it's a real threat that sometime in the next 200 years or so that star could produce a gamma beam shot right at earth, annihilating everything on the planet before we even realize what happened? Because there is. The amount of celestial "close ones" earth has on the yearly basis is astonishing and is something I really, really suggest AGAINST looking into. It's not fun when you read about how over the past 5 years we've had nearly 1,000 potentially fatal and devistating collisions that were 'near misses' in galactic measurements, and how all life on Earth could suddenly be wiped out with a solar flare from Sol or gamma beams from far off, or a rogue meteor. Seriously, it's scary ****.Yes I have heard of both of these. And chances are if it happens. You have to deal with it. Gamma ray burst is possible but... What are the real chances of us being able to stop it? At least with this alleged meteorite we have a SMALL chance of stopping it. I agree its frightening but what can you truly do about it.


Typical. We don't acknowledge it because we can't see it, so we don't give a ****. Fact is, theres entire galaxies that are just forming in complete and total chaos and turmoil. You can't just ignore that for the sake of proving a point.I don't doubt that. It's one of the few things a thing called BALANCE does its job. I'll admit im no real authority on astronomy or any type of branch or sort of its study. I ignore it because to me it's like as if a girl in... St. Louis had her bike stolen. It happens but as for me in a completely different area I can feel sad for the girl but will that make it all better? No.


Spend 5 minutes in any astronomy class or any class that deals with the stars, or hell even middle school science classes and youll see something. Our "sun" is designated as "sol". When scientists and such refer to our sun, they generally use the term "sol". Okay obviously didn't think about the sol reference. Not a term i run across normally because my last astronomy type class or lesson was perhaps... years ago maybe


We're talking like 500,000 Billion light years away though, so it's something that will never be proven or disproven.Okay.. Thats all i really had to read otherwise tl;dr rest.

Possiblities and chances both have one in common. It is or isn't able to happen and like any logical thinking person unless more is given into this It's easiest to assume the chances are possible but not probable just simply because that's how human nature is really.

Can we get back on topic somewhat about God?

[ldelusionl]

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.

How many times do I have to ****ing say this on these forums...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Much better than believing in magic IMO.

(It's a really good lecture if you can excuse the relentless bashing of religious kids. He is great at making Cosmology easy to understand)

[FulgoreSama]

How many times do I have to ****ing say this on these forums...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Much better than believing in magic IMO.

I like this guy.

[Wraiven]

Yes but if he's not good then why praise him?

And i loled at the mayans story xD:scou:

This doesn't work though, because the Mayans arent the only ones that predicted it.

[Megumijk]

This doesn't work though, because the Mayans arent the only ones that predicted it.

The Mayans used to drink their own urine.

[Narfle]

Reading the original post, i was a bit excited. Reading the second post, i was very dissapoint.

Reading just about every single post after that, i decided to stay the **** out of this debate.

I dont mean to offend, but ive seen youtube comments more intelligent.

Oh, and please stop the whole "omg 2012" thing, its so embarrasing seeing others take it a tiny bit serious and remembering that theyre members of my species. My favorite chinaman laid it out perfectly.

But i do have a plea to you guys arguing with each other. Youre not really that much arguing against each other, youre sorta on the same side, you just miss each other points all the time, maybe because you dont make them very obvious.

If we get a sub-forum where we can kick/ban people from it, i'd be glad to debate philsophy with you guys, but looking at this thread, the "pollution" would be too extreme if not.

[Wraiven]

The Mayans used to drink their own urine.

I am sure our customs would be just as strange to them. We snip peices of baby's genitals off when they are born...

[Megumijk]

I am sure our customs would be just as strange to them. We snip peices of baby's genitals off when they are born...

If they saw some of the people we allow to breed, they'd wonder why we don't cut off more.

[LolMaliken]

they also brought the best person in their tribe (ie the winner of their warriors contest) to the top of a pillar, and while he was still alive ripped his heart from his chest, showed it to him as he was dieing and ate it.

[Evozer]

If god made the world, who made god/where did it come from?

[IAmRoot]

So then, who created god?

Also, the universe doesn't have to have a beginning, either. Time doesn't have to be (-∞, ∞), [0, ∞), or [0, x]. It's quite possible that it's (0, ∞).

As far as everything being "so perfect": look at biology as one example. There's many flaws in it. AIDS is deadly to humans because of a biological accident. The fix to some previous disease left a vulnerability in our genetic code. Far from perfect.

[Zulukas]

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

Who ever said he doesn't help people? Did you see the episode of Futurama where Bender becomes a 'god' to a small colony of people living on his belly in deep space and then he meets 'god' and he says "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I think that sums up God very well, and he probably does help people in ways that aren't obvious to our thought process.

[SyKot]

So then, who created god?

Also, the universe doesn't have to have a beginning, either. Time doesn't have to be (-∞, ∞), [0, ∞), or [0, x]. It's quite possible that it's (0, ∞).

As far as everything being "so perfect": look at biology as one example. There's many flaws in it. AIDS is deadly to humans because of a biological accident. The fix to some previous disease left a vulnerability in our genetic code. Far from perfect.

From an Human viewpoint: that ain't perfection.
From and Evolutionary viewpoint: it could be perfection. By looking at the grand scheme of things, that might as well be perfection.
However, we will never now. Thats just my view :P

[Asator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Thanks for this, it's really worth watching. :)

[Pettypete]

So then, who created god?

Also, the universe doesn't have to have a beginning, either. Time doesn't have to be (-∞, ∞), [0, ∞), or [0, x]. It's quite possible that it's (0, ∞).

As far as everything being "so perfect": look at biology as one example. There's many flaws in it. AIDS is deadly to humans because of a biological accident. The fix to some previous disease left a vulnerability in our genetic code. Far from perfect.

If "from nothing, nothing is created" is true, then (0, ∞) cannot be true. However, it seems people have posted arguments that "from nothing, nothing is created" can be false so... time to watch that youtube video!

[Darkstrand]

I am God

Abandon all hope ye who enter here

[Ularg]

No one ever said he had to be a good guy! Why people get so stuck on the fact that god or whatever has to be all good and stuff is beyond me.

Also, here's the real story of 2012:

Like 1100AD

<Mayan Dude 1> Man, we got this calender done till like 900 years from now, can we be done yet?
<Mayan Dude 2> Ok, I guess. People can do more later.
*Mayans die

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.


And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

[Darkstrand]

And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

Kiss ass so you can be saved from the great purge.

[SyKot]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.


And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?

If God were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that he couldn't lift. But if he couldn't lift it, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

The paradox of omnipotence.

[Spaztick]

You must define evil. Evil is an abstract concept and too vague and varying between people, so only God would be able to define what evil is, if he is omnipresent then he could see the "big picture" and give a definition to absolutes and abstract concepts.

In the context of that quote you say that a malevolent god will allow evil, but what is evil? Is there such a thing as evil, or is it a human construct we made to give ourselves an understanding of the world? I don't want to sound like some relativist saying good and evil don't exist, but giving a definition of it would be a better start than letting people make their own assumptions on what evil and willingness is. You will then have to define on why what you say evil is evil based on your own subjective experiences (and better yet the experiences of everyone else plus yours) until you can get a better definition of what evil fundamentally is.

Of course, who are we, with 2 pairs of eyes and barring people with extrasensory ability, a very heavily filtered view of the world through our senses, to try and define what is absolute, when we can't even see a measurable part of the world.

[cute]

i really hope i dont have to live this terrible life again

[stronK]

http://www.escapeearth2012.com/

[Snikmorder]

i am dissapointed, noone has explored the possiblility that the universe does not, in fact, exist

[Sinestro]

Like at the end of MIB?

[Isin]

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.

Stopped reading here. Your logic has holes wider than your mother's vagoo.


You must define evil. Evil is an abstract concept and too vague and varying between people, so only God would be able to define what evil is, if he is omnipresent then he could see the "big picture" and give a definition to absolutes and abstract concepts.

In the context of that quote you say that a malevolent god will allow evil, but what is evil? Is there such a thing as evil, or is it a human construct we made to give ourselves an understanding of the world? I don't want to sound like some relativist saying good and evil don't exist, but giving a definition of it would be a better start than letting people make their own assumptions on what evil and willingness is. You will then have to define on why what you say evil is evil based on your own subjective experiences (and better yet the experiences of everyone else plus yours) until you can get a better definition of what evil fundamentally is.

Of course, who are we, with 2 pairs of eyes and barring people with extrasensory ability, a very heavily filtered view of the world through our senses, to try and define what is absolute, when we can't even see a measurable part of the world.

The general Augustinian Christian view of evil is a perversion of free will; however, this leaves a lot of things unanswered.

[Pettypete]

Stopped reading here. Your logic has holes wider than your mother's vagoo.

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

[IAmRoot]

Well, our physics isn't advanced enough yet to understand the moment of the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Using that as proof that there is a god is way worse than the current theories of how things came about after the start of the universe. There was so much energy that nothing really formed atoms, then atoms were able to form, then some molecules, etc. Having that as a start is way better than saying a god created it because you cannot show how god (a much more complex thing) was created out of nothing. Saying that time could be (0, infinity) is very similar to saying that "from nothing, nothing is created" isn't true. It might not be, but having a hole at time=0 doesn't mean that it's false, either. It just means that if true, there was no beginning of time, but you can look very very (infinitely) close to it.

[Narfle]

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

wow, nice one sir.

Or you could have read the thread, or you could have applied your own thought.

To the "what is evil" guy, i agree theres a lot of grey areas, but there are also a lot of quite obvious areas.

The argument that epicurus put forth 33 BC loses nothing from just considering the extremes, which is universally agreed upon.

But sure, God might define it as combining milk and cookies instead of what Fritzl did, IF HE EXISTED.

[Isin]

what are the other possibilities? Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. It's possible for the big bounce to be true, meaning an infinitely recurring universe with no beginning or end.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.

Not knowing something does not justify going with the first idea that pops into our heads, or even the best idea after a thorough analysis. Unless it can be logically proved WITH EVIDENCE we can draw no conclusion.

[Narfle]

Not knowing something does not justify going with the first idea that pops into our heads, or even the best idea after a thorough analysis. Unless it can be logically proved WITH EVIDENCE we can draw no conclusion.

Just to add on top of what Isin said, id like everyone to look up the two different types of conclusions that can be reached.

a priori and a posteriori.

Religion is clearly a priori and seems to love it, whereas science tries its best to reach a posteriori conclusions.

In case you dont wanna look it up, priori = bad and stupid; posteriori = good.

EDIT: And if this really sparks your interest, then you might also enjoy Karl Poppers falsification theory.

[Pettypete]

wow, nice one sir.

Or you could have read the thread, or you could have applied your own thought.

To the "what is evil" guy, i agree theres a lot of grey areas, but there are also a lot of quite obvious areas.

The argument that epicurus put forth 33 BC loses nothing from just considering the extremes, which is universally agreed upon.

But sure, God might define it as combining milk and cookies instead of what Fritzl did, IF HE EXISTED.

You disagree then? If so, what is your logical basis? Remember, I did not claim that ex nihilo nihil fit was true. I only claimed that IF it was true, then the possibilities are limited.

I never suggested I know the origin of the universe, or if anything is certain. The only thing I stated was that IF ex nihilo nihil fit holds true, then it's inevitable that some infinite force must exist, for something cannot be created from nothing. Infinity is the only concept that trumps ex nihilo nihil fit. There's no reason to resort to hostility, I never claimed that is the absolute truth or that anyone is incorrect in their beliefs.

[Pettypete]

Well, our physics isn't advanced enough yet to understand the moment of the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Using that as proof that there is a god is way worse than the current theories of how things came about after the start of the universe. There was so much energy that nothing really formed atoms, then atoms were able to form, then some molecules, etc. Having that as a start is way better than saying a god created it because you cannot show how god (a much more complex thing) was created out of nothing. Saying that time could be (0, infinity) is very similar to saying that "from nothing, nothing is created" isn't true. It might not be, but having a hole at time=0 doesn't mean that it's false, either. It just means that if true, there was no beginning of time, but you can look very very (infinitely) close to it.

The big bang is part of the big bounce, I simply wanted to state that it cannot be the beginning of THE universe, just simply one of infinitely many universes. I don't claim to say god, or any infinite entity created the universe, I think it is simply one of the logical answers to the origin of the universe based on ex nihilo nihil fit.

[Narfle]

You disagree then? If so, what is your logical basis? Remember, I did not claim that ex nihilo nihil fit was true. I only claimed that IF it was true, then the possibilities are limited.

I disagree with your assumption that the big bang originated from "nothing".

And you dont have to continually type out the entire latin phrase, although it does make you look pretty damn smart.

And if im mistaken in you assuming that the big bang originated from nothing, then i -really- read your "Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true." wrong.

Or maybe you just have a sorta skewed definiton of what the word "universe" means, i dont know. Something is wrong at least.

In general, i prefer the term "multiverse" to "universe" at any rate.

[Pettypete]

I disagree with your assumption that the big bang originated from "nothing".

And you dont have to continually type out the entire latin phrase, although it does make you look pretty damn smart.

And if im mistaken in you assuming that the big bang originated from nothing, then i -really- read your "Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true." wrong.

Or maybe you just have a sorta skewed definiton of what the word "universe" means, i dont know. Something is wrong at least.

In general, i prefer the term "multiverse" to "universe" at any rate.

I never claimed the big bang was from nothing. In fact, that was what I wanted to point out was not possible, according to ex nihilo nihil fit. BTW, I type out the latin phrase because it's simpler to type than "from nothing, nothing is produced" but I guess you could just be dispositionally biased and think I'm a pompous forum goer trying to sound as intelligent as possible for the sake of my own self confidence boost...

I mentioned the big bounce, which would be in tune with your idea of the multiuniverse; there are infinite amounts of universes, and the one we reside in happens to be one of infinitely many universes. I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to by multiuniverse though.

[Isin]

The multiverse theory, actually, is a better answer for the problem of evil than pretty much anything else in our current understanding.

[Meem]

Big bounce = boom, x billion years to max entropy -> eek, y billion years to max syntropy -> repeat forever = infinite recursion

that would be answer choice B on the quiz

[SyKot]

Big bounce = boom, x billion years to max entropy -> eek, y billion years to max syntropy -> repeat forever = infinite recursion

that would be answer choice B on the quiz

This is what I believe in. Didn't know it was called the Big Bounce.

[Meem]

k i'll try

first possible problem with your argument is that you limit yourself to 2 possible causes only - either God created the universe, otherwise nothing else did and the universe has always existed.

even though you go on to argue "if God didn't create it [the universe]" that is rather flawed logic, because there could have been other origins. [the Big Bang theory for example]

based on this i'm likely to dismiss your reasoning, since you do not admit other causes of the universe in your argument.
My whole point was there are no other possible causes of the universe if ENNF holds universally true. If nothing comes from nothing, then how was the universe first created? If there was nothing at point x, the only way for there to be something at any point after x would be for God to have created it. You cannot go from nothing to something naturally. And if there was never "nothing," then the Universe has always existed. As for the big bang theory, it is explained by the big bounce, which is basically infinite recursion and implies that the universe has always existed.


You make zero sense. There aren't only two options here. There isn't 'well it was either here forever, or god made it.' Do you know how the Earth was formed? Because it started with a huge collision in space where a meteor chunk got thrown into our Suns orbit, and sat there collecting other small pieces of rock for millions of years. The entire planet was nothing but liquid magma at one point. Boom, in comes ANOTHER planet or celestial body mass to scrape the top part of the Earth, causing it to recollect itself with all the iron and such towards the middle (core) and the rest towards the outer (how we got the mantle). The Moon is just the leftovers from the planet that crashed into Earth during it's formation, and millions of years of space debree which started, literally, as pieces of rock/meteor that literally cannot be seen by the naked eye.

We haven't unlocked **** so far as knowing how things work. In reality, if you wanna get into it, we (as humans) might know .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the total knowledge of the universe. For all we know there's a master race that's been around for eons that created earth and genetically created humans and threw us on here.

EVERYTHING about the universe is speculation at this point, to say a definite "god made it or it's always been" is just foolish and ignorant. Oh, and it's also someone trying to sound a lot more deep / philosophical than they really are.
First of all I'm not just talking about how the earth was created. In fact I don't care how it was created. All I care about is how the universe came to be. Now I'm not claiming that ENNF is an absolute truth, but assuming it is, then either God created the Universe or it has always been. All possibilities fit under these 2 options, all others are highly unlikely. A universe that goes from [0, infinite], like the heat death of the universe, is practically impossible for reasons I stated in my opening post. You talk about humans not knowing the total knowledge of the universe, but I don't think that's relevant. If only nothing can rise from nothing, then the Universe HAD to be created by God, or this "master race" you speak of, because in the beginning there couldn't have been nothing which naturally became something over time.

[Spaztick]

The general Augustinian Christian view of evil is a perversion of free will; however, this leaves a lot of things unanswered.
This could be worked with, and is something I could talk on. If we define evil as infringing on someone's free will and removing the ability for someone to make a choice, then by staying with the line "if he's able, but not willing then he is malevolent," is God evil for removing the ability to infringe on free choice? As far as I can tell this isn't the case as I along with everyone else have our free choice to do what we please. Now if God were able to prevent freedom from being taken away, would that take away the freedom of the takers instead? You couldn't say that God is evil through inaction, because he is not the one removing freedom here - it is the evildoer doing that, but to make a definite move of removing an evildoers freedom is evil itself.

[Meem]

Stopped reading here. Your logic has holes wider than your mother's vagoo.
Your mother's vagoo has more holes than a spider web. Prove me wrong and I will retract this statement.

[Spaztick]

Your mother's vagoo has more holes than a spider web. Prove me wrong and I will retract this statement.
Cool name bro.

[Meem]

Cool name bro.
:rolleyes:

[Kaee]

well , i like to think were all in hell . but with HoN being released soon , i think were on interchangeable planes of existance. because HoN is the shiny new game thats my addiction and nothing from hell could create such a thing :)

[Sinestro]

First of all I'm not just talking about how the earth was created. In fact I don't care how it was created. All I care about is how the universe came to be. Now I'm not claiming that ENNF is an absolute truth, but assuming it is, then either God created the Universe or it has always been. All possibilities fit under these 2 options, all others are highly unlikely. A universe that goes from [0, infinite], like the heat death of the universe, is practically impossible for reasons I stated in my opening post. You talk about humans not knowing the total knowledge of the universe, but I don't think that's relevant. If only nothing can rise from nothing, then the Universe HAD to be created by God, or this "master race" you speak of, because in the beginning there couldn't have been nothing which naturally became something over time.

If you care about how the universe came to be, then you'd understand my analogy about how the Earth was formed from, essentially, nothing. I mean, so far as the naked eye could see, it started from nothing. Not to mention, without complete knowledge over all aspects of things, how can one truely understand or define "nothing"? From there, without knowing about say, how theres a visible spectrum the human eye or anything we create cannot see, it has merit. If we don't understand everything there is to understand, then we can't say what "nothing" really is.

So I ask you this, what is "nothing" ?

[ldelusionl]

My whole point was there are no other possible causes of the universe if ENNF holds universally true. If nothing comes from nothing, then how was the universe first created? If there was nothing at point x, the only way for there to be something at any point after x would be for God to have created it. You cannot go from nothing to something naturally. And if there was never "nothing," then the Universe has always existed. As for the big bang theory, it is explained by the big bounce, which is basically infinite recursion and implies that the universe has always existed.


First of all I'm not just talking about how the earth was created. In fact I don't care how it was created. All I care about is how the universe came to be. Now I'm not claiming that ENNF is an absolute truth, but assuming it is, then either God created the Universe or it has always been. All possibilities fit under these 2 options, all others are highly unlikely. A universe that goes from [0, infinite], like the heat death of the universe, is practically impossible for reasons I stated in my opening post. You talk about humans not knowing the total knowledge of the universe, but I don't think that's relevant. If only nothing can rise from nothing, then the Universe HAD to be created by God, or this "master race" you speak of, because in the beginning there couldn't have been nothing which naturally became something over time.

Holy ****, I wish I could make this text bigger so you can actually read it...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING

Strip away all all Energy, all matter, and you are left with a bubbling soup of virtual particles popping into existence and then instantaneously being annihilated by their anti-particles.

Pretty much, anything is possible in this quantum foam (within physical bounds), even a Big Bang (and even a super consciousness which I won't bother getting into). In the rapidly expanding early post big-bang universe, the virtual particles don't have a chance to annihilate, 'sup everything we know.


Oh, and the universe has been mathematically, and through observation, confirmed to be flat, or slightly tapered.

Also, there is no such thing as absolute truth, since our Brain, and in it, our consciousness comes into no direct contact with the environment. Our brain reads electrical impulses from our sensory perceptions. Nothing else.


I really don't understand why this is still being argued since your argument is only fueled by a complete ignorance of modern day quantum physics. Read some **** up before you post flawed logic and bad science.

[Isin]

This could be worked with, and is something I could talk on. If we define evil as infringing on someone's free will and removing the ability for someone to make a choice, then by staying with the line "if he's able, but not willing then he is malevolent," is God evil for removing the ability to infringe on free choice? As far as I can tell this isn't the case as I along with everyone else have our free choice to do what we please. Now if God were able to prevent freedom from being taken away, would that take away the freedom of the takers instead? You couldn't say that God is evil through inaction, because he is not the one removing freedom here - it is the evildoer doing that, but to make a definite move of removing an evildoers freedom is evil itself.

Actually, Augustine does not define evil as something that controls your free will; evil is your free will when it is used to do harm.

To veer away from this subject for a few seconds, I think we all can come to an agreement that SpasticMouse has no idea what he's talking about.

[Fieri]

Also, there is no such thing as absolute truth, since our Brain, and in it, our consciousness comes into no direct contact with the environment. Our brain reads electrical impulses from our sensory perceptions. Nothing else.



This doesn't follow. Even if we don't have direct contact with our environment, we still have some (presumably derivative) knowledge of our environment - given that our sensory perceptions are reliable. Also note: knowledge and truth aren't the same thing. We could have no knowledge, but there would still be truths (such as that we have no knowledge, for example).

In short, don't turn a (admittedly terrible) discussion in cosmology into another pointless crusade for relativism.

[VWoolfShirt]

god is gay

[ldelusionl]

This doesn't follow. Even if we don't have direct contact with our environment, we still have some (presumably derivative) knowledge of our environment - given that our sensory perceptions are reliable. Also note: knowledge and truth aren't the same thing. We could have no knowledge, but there would still be truths (such as that we have no knowledge, for example).

In short, don't turn a (admittedly terrible) discussion in cosmology into another pointless crusade for relativism.

The question is indeed pointless, and it is best to remain agnostic to all "The Matrix" like theories that it evolves into.

[Isin]

The question is indeed pointless, and it is best to remain agnostic to all "The Matrix" like theories that it evolves into.

Philosophy is fun.

[Haxblax]

"god" is imaginary.
That's it.

[Silentdeathz]

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.

There are no alternatives according to human sensory experience or our understanding of the laws of physics...

[Meem]

I just watched the youtube clip about "A Universe with Nothing." It was actually quite insightful and has changed my views on nothing. Although it's hard to physically grasp, not being a physicist and all, it does make sense. Thanks for posting it. Probably the only worthy post in this whole thread.

[Pleasuree]

I farted from egg long from ago and universe are create.

[Pettypete]

That video posted shows that the universe is most likely infinite. That still does not eliminate the possibility of an infinite being (god), however it does not prove the existence of it either. Basically, anything is possible, including God, given human ignorance. As I think many realize by this age, humans really are completely clueless.

[Meem]

So basically, the observable universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, and that it is flat.

What I don't understand is, if the universe will continue to expand infinitely, what are the odds that we exist in this time, or any time where the actual beginning of the universe is observable?

13.7 billion/infinite = 0.

Seems like an infinitely expanding universe and the universe having an observably accurate age contradict each other.

Which implies that we are either being deceived by modern day science for calculating the age of the universe, or the universe actually isn't flat.

Am I missing something?

[Silentdeathz]

So basically, the observable universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, and that it is flat.

What I don't understand is, if the universe will continue to expand infinitely, what are the odds that we exist in this time, or any time where the beginning of the Universe is observable?

13.7 billion/infinite = 0.

Seems like an infinitely expanding universe and the universe having an observably accurate age contradict each other.

Which implies that we are either being deceived by modern day science for calculating the age of the universe, or the universe actually isn't flat.

Am I missing something?

If something has a start it isnt infinite. Thus there was no 'beginning'

[ldelusionl]

So basically, the observable universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago, and that it is flat.

What I don't understand is, if the universe will continue to expand infinitely, what are the odds that we exist in this time, or any time where the actual beginning of the universe is observable?

13.7 billion/infinite = 0.

Seems like an infinitely expanding universe and the universe having an observably accurate age contradict each other.

Which implies that we are either being deceived by modern day science for calculating the age of the universe, or the universe actually isn't flat.

Am I missing something?


The Last Scattering Wall prevents any light from propagating from a very young universe. Hot Plasma is opaque to radiation. Eventually the universe would be so big, we won't even be able to see that wall.

and 13.7 billion/infinity is not 0. It's the limit as x approaches zero. Which is not Zero. The universe is very big, and very old. Rare things happen all the time.

[Jayschwa]

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.
There are more possibilities. Option three: the universe was created, but by something that isn't a god.

[Meem]

Ok, in the video he also gave an example at the very end of it.

Basically he said that civilizations existing 100 billion years from now will be under the false impression that the universe is only our galaxy, and that we are surrounded by infinite empty space, other physical laws that don't pertain to the rest of the universe, etc. That is due the universe expanding to the point that science can prove something that is false.

But what are the chances that we are the ones who are seeing the true picture of the universe? We seem quick to judge the false visions that our future will see and believe, but we don't really question the possibility that what we mathematically and scientifically prove now can be in the same way untrue. We can be experiencing exactly what he described the civilizations living 100 billion years from now to experience. That is, science that perfectly proves something that is in actuality false.

Furthermore it seems like his entire defense against the extreme unlikelihood of the universe's age being 13.7 billion is the fact that rare things happen all the time in the universe. Which is believable, but not very scientific.

[Silentdeathz]

There are more possibilities. Option three: the universe was created, but by something that isn't a god.

Is that possible? Isn't God just a name for the creator which is from outwith the universe. And since the universe didnt exist until its creation the creator must have been a 'God' ?

[rodzilla]

Can't the universe be created by something out of this universe (maybe another one if it could be called so) that has this one locked inside another physical entity? (maybe extra dimensions that can limit this one inside it).



If something has a start it isnt infinite. Thus there was no 'beginning'

No. Something can start somewhere and go to infinity beyond. If the universe is infinite we can assume that the earth is the starting point i.e. (this is easier to see with a single dimension and not 3)
Time could also begin and go to infinity if it were created with the universe.

[Jayschwa]

Isn't God just a name for the creator which is from outwith the universe.
No, a god has more traits, such as sentience. A creating force may not have necessarily been sentient.

[Gorb]

Hey guys, I heard the OP's post was countered by the Big Bang Theory. Just because you cannot produce something from nothing, it doesn't mean that theory is definite proof of a higher power or an eternally recursive universe (ooh, fancy term).

1. What if the energy that created the Big Bang came from some sort over overspill from a reaction of sorts in another dimension?

2. What if our theories are not accurate and/or even correct and the universe was created from nothing, by no-one?

[Isin]

No, a god has more traits, such as sentience. A creating force may not have necessarily been sentient.

The Christian God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (always good-willing).

[Meem]

There are more possibilities. Option three: the universe was created, but by something that isn't a god.
By god I don't mean the christian god. I mean god in the general sense; some entity that has always existed.

But now I'm not so sure if ex nihilo nihil fit is a universal law. After watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo my views on "nothing" have changed.

[Meem]

Hey guys, I heard the OP's post was countered by the Big Bang Theory. Just because you cannot produce something from nothing, it doesn't mean that theory is definite proof of a higher power or an eternally recursive universe (ooh, fancy term).

1. What if the energy that created the Big Bang came from some sort over overspill from a reaction of sorts in another dimension?

2. What if our theories are not accurate and/or even correct and the universe was created from nothing, by no-one?
My post was not countered by the big bang theory; the big bang is followed by a big crunch and this cycle loops infinitely.

My post, however, was soft countered by questioning the logic behind ex nihilo nihil fit.

[Isin]

God in the general sense can mean anything. Various religions have extremely different views as to what the hell God actually is. An eternal creator is most similar to the Christian God.

[crazysheep]

My post was not countered by the big bang theory; the big bang is followed by a big crunch and this cycle loops infinitely.
The big bang theory does not state that the big bang must be followed by the big crunch, with an infinitely looping cycle. Such an outcome is possible if the universe is proven to be closed, but it is not the only outcome possible.

[Norroar]

I apologize, but I really can't be bothered reading more than two pages of these random theories.

You say that a God might have created the universe, and that from nothing, nothing is produced. How did God come to existence?

Second part is also way too flawed, as to start this infinite loop, you will have to start 'something' to make all these events occur.


My own opinion on such matter, is that the human mind is just incapable of comprehending the fact that some things aren't meant to be fully understood. There are hundreds of examples, of things that makes supposedly no sense, and we can't elaborate. This is one of these things.

[crazysheep]

My whole point was there are no other possible causes of the universe if ENNF holds universally true. If nothing comes from nothing, then how was the universe first created? If there was nothing at point x, the only way for there to be something at any point after x would be for God to have created it. You cannot go from nothing to something naturally. And if there was never "nothing," then the Universe has always existed. As for the big bang theory, it is explained by the big bounce, which is basically infinite recursion and implies that the universe has always existed.
Cause and effect breaks down at the time of the big bang. The presence of the singularity at the beginning of the universe causes time to exist only after the big bang. This is due to the breakdown of the spacetime continuum at the singularity.

Logically this means you can't ask "what caused the big bang" because there was no past in which you could look for the cause of the big bang.

[IAmRoot]

How many times do I have to ****ing say this on these forums...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Much better than believing in magic IMO.

(It's a really good lecture if you can excuse the relentless bashing of religious kids. He is great at making Cosmology easy to understand)

That was pretty awesome. I deal with much much smaller things (nanotech major), so I don't know that much about cosmology. That was quite interesting. Makes me wonder if it's possible to harness dark energy somehow.

[Jayschwa]

By god I don't mean the christian god. I mean god in the general sense; some entity that has always existed.
The majority of religions have gods that share some common traits, one of which is usually sentience or some kind of consciousness. Attempting to redefine the word to mean pretty much anything is somewhat misleading.

[ldelusionl]

The majority of religions have gods that share some common traits, one of which is usually sentience or some kind of consciousness. Attempting to redefine the word to mean pretty much anything is somewhat misleading.


And leads to a bunch of people thinking Einstein was religious in the Christian sense.

[Narfle]

My own opinion on such matter, is that the human mind is just incapable of comprehending the fact that some things aren't meant to be fully understood. There are hundreds of examples, of things that makes supposedly no sense, and we can't elaborate. This is one of these things.

Stupid Hrank forgot to put a "yet" in there!

And yah, the human mind is quite capable of comprehending that some things arent meant to be understood, just look of the percentage of religious people in the world. Some of them even buy into the whole "God works in mysterious ways", which = "some things are not meant to be understood".

Also, i disagree that some things are not meant to be understood, its just a matter of becoming intelligent enough to properly understand them.

Que the singularity.

THAT WAS YOUR LINE RAY!

[whistle]

GUYS, IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST....

who makes the runes spawn in the river every two minutes?!

[Meem]

The majority of religions have gods that share some common traits, one of which is usually sentience or some kind of consciousness. Attempting to redefine the word to mean pretty much anything is somewhat misleading.
Well you said the third possibility is that it was created by something that isn't god. Well, something that created the universe IS god, in fact that is how I define god. If what created the universe is something that is created by something else, then it is an intermediate that is created by god.

I had to clarify that I was not talking about some kind of omnipotent omniscient christian deity, but a force that has existed always.

Anyway, I don't see how it's possible for something to create the universe and not be god or a separate creation of god.

[Testknight]

There is no God, Deadwood wasn't nerfed.

[RAMON17739]

EVERYTHING about the universe is speculation at this point, to say a definite "god made it or it's always been" is just foolish and ignorant. Oh, and it's also someone trying to sound a lot more deep / philosophical than they really are.

So the laws of physics are speculation then!? :eek: /sarcasm

[crazysheep]

Anyway, I don't see how it's possible for something to create the universe and not be god or a separate creation of god.
Ok so you're defining God here as "some force that created the universe". Why not stop at the Big Bang, which created the universe, and accept that as "God"?

[Jacklus]

Option 3 : We really don't know.

[RAMON17739]

Ok so you're defining God here as "some force that created the universe". Why not stop at the Big Bang, which created the universe, and accept that as "God"?
Because the Big Bang cannot explain itself. (based on current, known laws of physics)

[Silentdeathz]

Ok so you're defining God here as "some force that created the universe". Why not stop at the Big Bang, which created the universe, and accept that as "God"?

As i understand it the concept of God is to add in a sense of purpose through god being a sentient being/thing for the vast majority of people.

You could indeed argue that the big bang was 'god'. It has been argued that the laws of nature have been influenced by God and that there is no such thing as 'chance' because behind every seemingly random action is Gods will.

So in a sense you could say that the infinately dense spot WAS God. And since God isnt constriced to our laws of physics or concept of life/death then God could literally be everywhere.

[crazysheep]

Because the Big Bang cannot explain itself. (based on current, known laws of physics)

Well can you explain your God?

[Silentdeathz]

Well can you explain your God?

The reason nobody can explain God is because God has to be from outwith our universe; he is not subject to any conventional thinking methods, logic or physics which we have deduced from the universe.

In short, man cannot comprehend God

[RAMON17739]

Well can you explain your God?
I never mentioned god but was stating the facts. The origin of the universe/mutliverse may never be known. Current human knowledge and limits to experimentation do not allow us so.

E: Although you COULD arguably say that everything has a cause, which in turn has its own cause. And if we follow this logic then we must arrive at a first cause (which cannot be the big bang, YET) so then there must be an uncaused cause w/c Aquinas refers to as God.

[Narfle]

The reason nobody can explain God is because God has to be from outwith our universe; he is not subject to any conventional thinking methods, logic or physics which we have deduced from the universe.

In short, man cannot comprehend God

And God is in not way interested in aiding man in understanding God.

I mean, for an omnipotent being, it should take less than a quarter percentage of a nanosecond, if he also needed a break while doing it.

Sumerians were what, 6k years BC? So hes has like 8k years?

Lemme do ze maths. Lets see, 8k years = 252 billion and 288 million seconds.

Basically God has had 100915.2 trillion trillion times the amount of time he needed to do the most worthwhile thing he could ever do, and havent done it.

Mysterious ways indeed.

My math may be off by some zeroes, i did it on windows calculator, not my TI-83 (yeah i know its old).

Oh, also regarding the whole "made in his image" deal, if we were truly made in his image wouldnt that then also extend to our way of thinking?

IE our logics being similar to gods logics? (if not identical).

Cue mandatory school system.

[crazysheep]

The reason nobody can explain God is because God has to be from outwith our universe; he is not subject to any conventional thinking methods, logic or physics which we have deduced from the universe.

In short, man cannot comprehend God
@Ramon: This explanation neatly explains why we can do away with invoking God. If we can't explain God, and neither can we explain the Big Bang, we might as well call the Big Bang God, in line with OP's idea.


I never mentioned god but was stating the facts. The origin of the universe/mutliverse may never be known. Current human knowledge and limits to experimentation do not allow us so.

E: Although you COULD arguably say that everything has a cause, which in turn has its own cause. And if we follow this logic then we must arrive at a first cause (which cannot be the big bang, YET) so then there must be an uncaused cause w/c Aquinas refers to as God.
Actually some, if not most philosophers recognise that you do not need to have an uncaused cause if you stop looking for causes at the Big Bang, and they've used this to refute that particular proof Aquinas used to prove the existence of God.

[Narfle]

The best God-proof argument ever was obviously what Descartes intented his cogito ergo sum to be, and even he realized he failed horribly.

[RAMON17739]

Actually some, if not most philosophers recognise that you do not need to have an uncaused cause if you stop looking for causes at the Big Bang, and they've used this to refute that particular proof Aquinas used to prove the existence of God.

I get your view point. Basically we have similar views in that you would call big bang god whilst I would define god as the creator of the big bang, and only that, allowing leeway to the flaws of the theory.

E:

The best God-proof argument ever was obviously what Descartes intented his cogito ergo sum to be, and even he realized he failed horribly.
Actually this is the first time I ever heard of such an argument. Maybe because I'm not a philosophy major. O_o

[Vinki]

If there is no god/God (Heaven), there is no Satan (Hell).

Done.

[Narfle]

If there is no god/God (Heaven), there is no Satan (Hell).

Done.

Oh i wish it was that easy...

[Narfle]

Actually this is the first time I ever heard of such an argument. Maybe because I'm not a philosophy major. O_o

Well im quite sure you know the phrase "i think therefore i am", which is what cogito ergo sum means, the entire proof is just also called cogito ergo sum.

And it was originally intended as Descartes trying to prove the existence of god, which is a bit funny because that entire part of the argument is completely irrelevant, and uses circular logic (which he realized and admitted).

Instead he wound up making the most significant philosophical proof ever made, that he himself is real and not a figment of someones imagination.

And everyone can use that argument, but it can never prove beyond "i am real". It can never go to "we are all real".

And now i await a shitstorm of children trying to use the matrix as proof that descartes was wrong, because all they know about the argument is what i just said in this post : )

Im not a philosophy major btw, i just have a strong interest in the subject, but then again I do in many other subjects also : )

EDIT: Link for relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

And disregard anything Kierkegaard had to say, i hate that emo.

[RAMON17739]

Read about it; and still cannot phantom why it would even be considered a good proof let alone the best. I still find Aquinas's proofs better.

[Narfle]

Well the actual argument isnt in the link, just some basic info about it. I'll try to see if i can find the real deal.

This is the best i could do in a short time, i wanna get back to south park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy#Meditation_III:_Co ncerning_God.2C_That_He_Exists

If you scoll down a bit to the additional bullet points, theres more. Combined, they make up the bulk of the argument.

[Evozer]

What i believe:

The universe has always existed, and will always exist. How? It cant be explained, it justs needs to be accepted because it is like this. I also think that the universe as we think of it, is always expanding. The "Big bang" is its way of resetting itself to zero, allowing everything to restart.

I also believe that God is the universe, and the universe is God.

[Pettypete]

Well the actual argument isnt in the link, just some basic info about it. I'll try to see if i can find the real deal.

This is the best i could do in a short time, i wanna get back to south park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy#Meditation_III:_Co ncerning_God.2C_That_He_Exists

If you scoll down a bit to the additional bullet points, theres more. Combined, they make up the bulk of the argument.

His ideas seem flawed... at least the wiki article makes it seem like it is.

Argument 1


Something cannot come from nothing.
The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
So God ? a being with infinite formal reality ? must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
So God is benevolent...
So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors.

So the argument seems to be, a finite being such as humans cannot formulate thoughts of an infinite objective reality. I agree that there are ideas that are seemingly innate(meaning, not relative to human experience and instead, outside of human creation), however I do not agree that God is an innate idea. It is not; for if it was, all humans would innately believe in a God. The very definition of innate knowledge/thought necessitates its presence in ALL beings capable of thought. Clearly, this is not true, as thoughts of God are not existent among, for example, those of cavemen in the neolithic times who are essentially the exact same as present humans biologically, or those who reject God with a passion as we can see in some people posting in this thread.

Secondly, he creates an assumption that an infinite being MUST be "good and benevolent". Now, it can be argued if good and evil are innate knowledge or if it's relative. I personally believe it to be completely relative. For example, most people raised in current society believe murder to be evil. However, if you take a child, born and raised in a society that deemed the murder of your parents as necessary to manhood, the act will be carried out in the society in a ritualistic manner. The act itself has not changed; murder is murder. However, murder is not evil in the second society; it is simply ritual. For the society that I live in though, a murder will be seen as evil.

The above is just one example of why good and evil may be relative, and not innate. However, there are many forms of good and evil; An example of good that is seemingly innate: empathy for life. There is a seemingly innate love of life that life has for itself; Life loves to preserve itself, in fact that is one of the reasons for its existence. The question is, would it be possible for certain conditions to create a life devoid of the seemingly innate concept of empathy? I believe so, but if this theory was to be tested, it would certainly break all kinds of ethical and humane laws of the world, which would ALSO be relative.

This is all hypothetical; good and evil as observed in a practical sense is seemingly concrete and innate. However, through analysis it can be said that good and evil is relative, meaning it is a creation of humans... not innate laws of nature.

Did Descartes really admit that he failed in his idea? I wouldn't be surprised.

[Narfle]

No doubt about the God proof being flawed, but what makes it so truly great is what also came out of it, cogito ergo sum.

And i guess a more proper translation of it would be "I think about thinking, therefore i exist".

And yes, he admitted that he failed to prove the existence of God, at least according to my philosophy teacher at that time, and he seemed pretty into Descartes in particular.

[Narfle]

What i believe:

The universe has always existed, and will always exist. How? It cant be explained, it justs needs to be accepted because it is like this. I also think that the universe as we think of it, is always expanding. The "Big bang" is its way of resetting itself to zero, allowing everything to restart.

I also believe that God is the universe, and the universe is God.

Interesting post, from a psychiatrict viewpoint at least. I cant wait for us to fully reverse engineer the human brain so we can know how people arrive at such conclusions, and seem content with randomly making up stuff and then accepting it as fact.

[Jimmers]

Everything is too perfect in this universe. If the speed of light was just 1 digit different, everything would be COMPLETELY different.


proberly taken billions and billions of 'attempts' to create our world, you dont taken into account that there was infinity amount of time

[Sinestro]

So the laws of physics are speculation then!? :eek: /sarcasm

Technically? Yes. What is widely "accepted" and a "known fact" to humans might not actually be true.

Farscape (one of if not the best sci-fi shows out there) went over this briefly. When the main character returned to earth to show off some alien tech and aliens, he came back and told them that nearly all the fundamental laws of nature are wrong. Newton, Einstein, all the other guys...all the equations, gravity, mass, and it even expresssly says physics, are wrong and work no where near how we assume they work.

Piece of fiction, I'm aware, however it doesn't change the fact that just because we as humans on this earth understand it one way doesn't mean that somewhere else out there a much more organized and advanced civilization can't prove us wrong just with the day to day basics like traveling from planet to planet.

[Norroar]

Stupid Hrank forgot to put a "yet" in there!

And yah, the human mind is quite capable of comprehending that some things arent meant to be understood, just look of the percentage of religious people in the world. Some of them even buy into the whole "God works in mysterious ways", which = "some things are not meant to be understood".

Also, i disagree that some things are not meant to be understood, its just a matter of becoming intelligent enough to properly understand them.

Que the singularity.

THAT WAS YOUR LINE RAY!

I apologize for this misunderstanding. I meant to state that the human mind is incapable of apprehending the whole "internet" thing, as an example. Such extraordinary things like talking to people on the other side of the world, with next to no delay, was simply impossible at that point. Until we obviously expanded our network of phones and what not. It's the same now. We have no way to predict what might be to come. Look at where our technology has brought us in just a few hundred years.
So yeah, it's just a matter of time before we'll be doing something outrageous.



Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4&feature=fvsr) to be proven that God does exist.



On a side note; Why did you call me "Hrank"?

http://i48.tinypic.com/6fwqb8.jpg

[RAMON17739]

Technically? Yes. What is widely "accepted" and a "known fact" to humans might not actually be true.

Farscape (one of if not the best sci-fi shows out there) went over this briefly. When the main character returned to earth to show off some alien tech and aliens, he came back and told them that nearly all the fundamental laws of nature are wrong. Newton, Einstein, all the other guys...all the equations, gravity, mass, and it even expresssly says physics, are wrong and work no where near how we assume they work.

Piece of fiction, I'm aware, however it doesn't change the fact that just because we as humans on this earth understand it one way doesn't mean that somewhere else out there a much more organized and advanced civilization can't prove us wrong just with the day to day basics like traveling from planet to planet.

Flawed argument since from the start you were speculating. :eek: And if I ever encounter an alien I'm pretty sure they would agree that electrons repel each other. (P.S. I am not being closed minded. Its just plain right)

[Isin]

Well, relativity basically pwned our understanding of time.

[ldelusionl]

Hi guys! I reject mathematical evidence that points to a far less complex origin of the universe WITHOUT a God, and still cling to some supernatural space daddy that tells me what I can't eat and do on Sundays.

I also believe in equally absurd things like Magic, the tooth fairy, and santa.

[ldelusionl]

I apologize for this misunderstanding. I meant to state that the human mind is incapable of apprehending the whole "internet" thing, as an example. Such extraordinary things like talking to people on the other side of the world, with next to no delay, was simply impossible at that point. Until we obviously expanded our network of phones and what not. It's the same now. We have no way to predict what might be to come. Look at where our technology has brought us in just a few hundred years.
So yeah, it's just a matter of time before we'll be doing something outrageous.



Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4&feature=fvsr) to be proven that God does exist.



On a side note; Why did you call me "Hrank"?

http://i48.tinypic.com/6fwqb8.jpg



You realize that video is ****ing SATIRE...

[ldelusionl]

Because the Big Bang cannot explain itself. (based on current, known laws of physics)

Yes it can.

[ldelusionl]

The reason nobody can explain God is because God has to be from outwith our universe; he is not subject to any conventional thinking methods, logic or physics which we have deduced from the universe.

In short, man cannot comprehend God

And here we can invoke Occams Razor. The simplest solution always works out.

A God is no longer necessary...why do we still believe in one is beyond me.


YEAH I JUST QUAD POSTED AND COMPLETLY IGNORED THE MULTI-QUOTE BUTTON, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? BAN ME?!!?



What i believe:

The universe has always existed, and will always exist. How? It cant be explained, it justs needs to be accepted because it is like this. I also think that the universe as we think of it, is always expanding. The "Big bang" is its way of resetting itself to zero, allowing everything to restart.

I also believe that God is the universe, and the universe is God.


I hate when people invoke the word "believe" in their ignorant, twisted view of theories we already have... Do some reading for God's sake.

[cute]

ldelusionl is deluded and has no idea what hes talking about

[Evozer]

Interesting post, from a psychiatrict viewpoint at least. I cant wait for us to fully reverse engineer the human brain so we can know how people arrive at such conclusions, and seem content with randomly making up stuff and then accepting it as fact.

I did it in 2 min cause i was bored, no need to reverse-engineer my brain for that

[Flair]

Because I'm a sucker for paradoxes and this is pretty much about God:

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox )
J.L. Cowan attempts to resolve the paradox in "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited." He proposes the following:


Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.


And another one:

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma )
Epicurus' trilemma

One of the earliest uses of the trilemma formulation is that of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus), rejecting the idea of an omnipotent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent) and omnibenevolent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent) God (as summarised by David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)):


if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?


Before I'm starting a shitstorm, I've got little to nothing against religion as long as religion feels the same way about me. I don't believe in any of it and I don't believe any god believes in me.
If people choose to believe, so be it, I won't convert them, but I ask them to threat me the same way as I treat them.

[Fieri]

Hi guys! I reject mathematical evidence that points to a far less complex origin of the universe WITHOUT a God, and still cling to some supernatural space daddy that tells me what I can't eat and do on Sundays.

I also believe in equally absurd things like Magic, the tooth fairy, and santa.

Hi idelusionl! Guess what? Complexity is relative! The universe always existing (or coming into existence inexplicably) is just about as weird as God existing. BOTH PROOFS HAVE SERIOUS EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.

Also, omnipotence is usually defined as "able to do all things that are possible." Which rules out the case of the boulder too big for God to lift.

The evidential argument for evil, however, is probably the strongest and best argument against God's existence today because it gives us good reason to believe that given the existence of evil, God's existence is either extremely unlikely or entirely unknown (but not impossible).

[Narfle]

Hrank, technically our brains arent able to fully comprehend groups of people larger than a small village, so yeah, way more complex and huge **** is beyond us also. That sorta goes without saying. And if you want hints at what "outrageous" stuff we are going to do in the near future, then ask Ray, he knows.

And that video was too hardcore for me to watch for more than 90 seconds, wheter or not its satire, i shant be able to say, because that level of retardation isnt really something that i havent seen before in religious people.

10L of the most awesome person ever? Outstanding!

FarScape guy, get a clue. Please. I'll pitch in and then maybe you can get two. Also, Doctor Who is clearly a superior sci-fi show, so nyah.

Idel, youve got the wrong idea about Occams Razor, it doesnt state that the simplest solution is always the correct one, it states that the simplest solution is -often- the correct one.

Meez, im glad it only took you 2 minutes to come up with total bullshit.

Zaigon, tyvm for posting stuff that we already have in this thread. And i shall gladly threatnen you the same way you treat me.

Fieri, go look up "omnipotence". And the way we think of God? Yes, it is ENTIRELY impossible, and i really hate using extremes. Valid reasoning for this statement has already been given in this thread, feel free to read through it.

In conclusion, people that have nothing against religion needs to rethink that stance. The amount of good that religion has done (as compared to what amount of good that would have been done, had there been no religion) is so miniscule thats its largely irrelevant compared to the intense and extreme amount of harm it has done.

Religion is a scourge and it needs to be removed. Kick/Ban that **** please, its counterproductive to the team, feeds hardcore and only speaks russian in all caps.

[Sinestro]

Flawed argument since from the start you were speculating. :eek: And if I ever encounter an alien I'm pretty sure they would agree that electrons repel each other. (P.S. I am not being closed minded. Its just plain right)

Speculation is all this thread is.

[Snikmorder]

A God is no longer necessary...why we still believe in one is beyond me.

Gods were originally used in unadvanced civilizations as an explanation for that which they did not understand, as man has sought to understand more, he has eliminated several of these gods, for the most part narrowing their veiw down to one.

when the entire population of the earth fully understands the nature of the universe and its creation, there will be no more need for him

[Sauron`]

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

lol @ this person.

[magnakaser]

Because I'm a sucker for paradoxes and this is pretty much about God:

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox )
J.L. Cowan attempts to resolve the paradox in "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited." He proposes the following:


Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.


And another one:

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma )
Epicurus' trilemma

One of the earliest uses of the trilemma formulation is that of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus), rejecting the idea of an omnipotent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent) and omnibenevolent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent) God (as summarised by David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)):


if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?


Before I'm starting a shitstorm, I've got little to nothing against religion as long as religion feels the same way about me. I don't believe in any of it and I don't believe any god believes in me.
If people choose to believe, so be it, I won't convert them, but I ask them to threat me the same way as I treat them.

Theodicy of one of my favorite topics! It's so neat how many ways people try to solve this problem. There are numerous defenses for God, most are a bajillion years old made by dudes I find boring and unsavory in the early Catholic tradition, so I'll give you a newer one.

This one isn't so much a full fledged theodicy as it is a simple defense, however.

I'll skip all the mumbo jumbo and get to the meat, though.

Basically, he supposes that we have free will. By having free will, God can not just make us do good stuff. Rather, we have to CHOOSE to do good stuff, and as a result the good stuff we do has more meaning. God created creatures who could choose to do morally good things, but as a result could also do morally bad things.

The argument relies that you concede to the idea that, although God is omnipotent, it is beyond even his power to create creatures who can do good by means of free will without also having the chance of doing bad things.

Now if you don't believe in free will it goes down the drain... and like any philosophical argument you can make 4,000 points against it. But I think it's a pretty succinct and interesting defense, seeing as the bulk of it was cooked up during the later half of the 1900's and not the 500's like most arguments of this nature.

The guy's name is Alvin Plantiga, if you're interested in reading what else he's done. He's a Christian philosopher, most of whom I dislike, but was one of the most interesting dudes I came across in my contemporary philosophy class.




A God is no longer necessary...why do we still believe in one is beyond me.



The idea of God does a lot more for people than just tell them where the world came from. Hell, the most important stuff religion does for people has nothing to do with cosmology or anything science would or could ever refute.

[Money75]

Also, here's the real story of 2012:

Like 1100AD

<Mayan Dude 1> Man, we got this calender done till like 900 years from now, can we be done yet?
<Mayan Dude 2> Ok, I guess. People can do more later.
*Mayans die

Lol this ^

[Sinestro]

"if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?"

God does not interfere except in the most dire of circumstances like The Biblical Flood. And even then, it's not He who interferes, but one of his creations ("Angels"). God gave Man free-will and choice specifically to let them live out their time on their own without his help, for if God helped Man at every turn then Man would do nothing for himself.

[IAmRoot]

Because the Big Bang cannot explain itself. (based on current, known laws of physics)

Actually, they can. All it takes is one very rare quantum fluxuation to create a big bang. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


The reason nobody can explain God is because God has to be from outwith our universe; he is not subject to any conventional thinking methods, logic or physics which we have deduced from the universe.

In short, man cannot comprehend God

No, the reason nobody can explain God is that He doesn't exist. Every form of God is flawed in some way in all religions, predominantly the earth-centric views. The truth is that we are all utterly insignificant.


The universe was created by the Humans that existed before the last Big Bang. Those Humans were created by the other humans that existed before the last 2 Big Bangs. And so on.

Everything is too perfect in this universe. If the speed of light was just 1 digit different, everything would be COMPLETELY different.

The purpose of the human race is to create and maintain intelligence.

Now flame me :P

Why humans? What's so special about humans? We may have done a great job so far (if not too good) as far as advancement as a species goes, but that probably isn't anything special. The universe is massive. That said, it could be possible to create a big bang, which would ruin everyone's day.

And yes, everything would be completely different. We evolved to fit the present conditions. People keep saying "oh, if things were just slightly different, we wouldn't exist". There's no problem with that. Something else might exist instead.

In general, you're putting way too much emphasis on the importance of humans. Look at how big the universe is, and that's <1% of everything. Some people seem to think that we have to have a purpose, but really, the universe doesn't care what we think. We just have to make of it what we want.

BTW my posts in this thread are completely unofficial. Just want to make that 100% clear :)

[crazysheep]

God does not interfere except in the most dire of circumstances like The Biblical Flood. And even then, it's not He who interferes, but one of his creations ("Angels"). God gave Man free-will and choice specifically to let them live out their time on their own without his help, for if God helped Man at every turn then Man would do nothing for himself.

Let's draw a parallel - cancer.

If you are diagnosed with cancer, and you only go to the surgeons when it has spread too far, you have little chance of total recovery. However, if you go under the knife as soon as possible before the cancer spreads throughout your body, you have a far better chance of total recovery. In both cases, intervention is possible, only the chance of survival differs greatly.

In the case of the Flood, why does God choose to intervene at the last moment? He could have intervened earlier and saved more of humanity, if not all of humanity. If God were a doctor, we would have sued him for not trying to save us earlier.

Furthermore, if God had the power to intervene when we were faced with Evil, why does he not do so? Is it because God chooses not to? If so, it shows that God has the free will to ignore us. If we accept that we are less than perfect, whereas God is perfect, then free will is a superhuman trait that we share with God. Hence we are perfect as well, and there is no need for God to exist.

[kimimaru`]

God does not forgive... God does not forget!

It's OK, hell is a place of LARPs and nerds; We'll play dungeons and dragons for all eternity! How fun is that?

Yes he does, you just ask for Hos forgiveness and he will if you really mean it. Play dungeons and dragons for eternity? Nah, more like burn for all eternity.


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

Why would God help people who don't even believe in Him? Why would He help people who hate Him? He helps people, the people who believes in Him. Like Noah, he and his family lived in the "Great Flood" because he believed in God. All those other people died because they didn't believe in God and they even mocked Noah for making a big boat and saying "there will be a flood" even though it was a sunny day. And look what happened? They we're saying, "Let us in please" lol.


Let's draw a parallel - cancer.
In the case of the Flood, why does God choose to intervene at the last moment? He could have intervened earlier and saved more of humanity, if not all of humanity. If God were a doctor, we would have sued him for not trying to save us earlier.


Why would God save the people who hate Him, who don't love Him and don't even believe in Him? God gave those people a chance, he told Noah to tell those other people about Him. But they didn't believe him did they? God only saves those people who believe in Him, I mean, there's no reason for Him to save those people who don't even believe that he exists.

[crazysheep]

Why would God save the people who hate Him, who don't love Him and don't even believe in Him? God gave those people a chance, he told Noah to tell those other people about Him. But they didn't believe him did they? God only saves those people who believe in Him, I mean, there's no reason for Him to save those people who don't even believe that he exists.

Well this shows that God can choose to save or choose not to save. Which now goes into another question: What would happen if God had saved all of humanity including those who mock him and do not believe his existence? Would that not give them food for thought? For this action would prove to the devout that there is indeed a saviour. It could also [hypothetically] convert some of the non-believers after they are saved.

Also another question. Why choose to save some but not all? Merely saying "They do not believe in God" is not a good answer. If I were a doctor and I chose not to save a tribesperson's life because "He does not believe in me" I would be judged guilty of negligence. [at the very least] You may say that "A doctor is not God", but doctors are God to many people because of their ability to cure and save. Hence the parallel to cancer and surgery in my original quote.

[kimimaru`]

Well this shows that God can choose to save or choose not to save. Which now goes into another question: What would happen if God had saved all of humanity including those who mock him and do not believe his existence? Would that not give them food for thought? For this action would prove to the devout that there is indeed a saviour. It could also [hypothetically] convert some of the non-believers after they are saved.

Also another question. Why choose to save some but not all? Merely saying "They do not believe in God" is not a good answer. If I were a doctor and I chose not to save a tribesperson's life because "He does not believe in me" I would be judged guilty of negligence. [at the very least] You may say that "A doctor is not God", but doctors are God to many people because of their ability to cure and save. Hence the parallel to cancer and surgery in my original quote.

1st paragraph:

As I understand, God knows what will happen before it even happens as in he knows the future. What if, he already saw that if he saved them, more evil people would be there and they still didn't believe in Him after he saved their lives? And that may be the reason why He didn't save them.

2nd paragraph:

That's a pretty hard question to answer my friend, it's practically impossible for me to answer it but I'll try.

That is not the case for doctors, you see, doctors can be seen, literally. But God cannot be seen by us and thus it's harder to believe in Him. And people just come to doctors if they need help and that is what the doctor's job is, to help people. But that is not God's job, His job is to try to make people believe in Him in some way so to save them from burning for all eternity. But I didn't say God did not help people, He does and He tries, but some people don't want to be helped at all.

[crazysheep]

1st paragraph:

As I understand, God knows what will happen before it even happens as in he knows the future. What if, he already saw that if he saved them, more evil people would be there and they still didn't believe in Him after he saved their lives? And that may be the reason why He didn't save them.

Ok, granted he has foresight. Why do we even exist in that case?


2nd paragraph:

That's a pretty hard question to answer my friend, it's practically impossible for me to answer it but I'll try.

That is not the case for doctors, you see, doctors can be seen, literally. But God cannot be seen by us and thus it's harder to believe in Him. And people just come to doctors if they need help and that is what the doctor's job is, to help people. But that is not God's job, His job is to try to make people believe in Him in some way so to save them from burning for all eternity. But I didn't say God did not help people, He does and He tries, but some people don't want to be helped at all.

Fair enough.

[OTRobin]

omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive

[Pettypete]

God sure is judgmental... What does he want with people's love anyway?

The bible should be rephrased from "From God's image, man was created" to "From man's image, God was created"

[magnakaser]

omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive

Only if god is temporal.

[Marylinn]

How many times do I have to ****ing say this on these forums...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Much better than believing in magic IMO.

(It's a really good lecture if you can excuse the relentless bashing of religious kids. He is great at making Cosmology easy to understand)
My room mate last year was in love with Lawrence Krauss. Needless to say, she was an astronomy major. I'm shocked to see someone else who knows about him. :eek:

[OTRobin]

god is a red herring

are our goals as a species not the same whether or not we believe in an invisible ruler?

[Paralyz3r]

Why would God save the people who hate Him, who don't love Him and don't even believe in Him? God gave those people a chance, he told Noah to tell those other people about Him. But they didn't believe him did they? God only saves those people who believe in Him, I mean, there's no reason for Him to save those people who don't even believe that he exists.

So u say that he helps people that believe in him? oh please

People that believe in him and are good die too so this isn't a valid point.

[rss]

Just wait until 2011

I'm next to certain ALL the questions previously asked will be answered. :)

Who will answer them?

Lisa.

[codegeass87]

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, male and female created He them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)
"And The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him ... And The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which The Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:7,18,21-23 KJV)

~when we die, we will go back where we came from... we will become dust 100% proven..
~the ribs! we have lesser no. of ribs compared to woman
~man dominated over all creatures (animals and etc)

~bible contains 100% truth.. there is a God

[kimimaru`]

So u say that he helps people that believe in him? oh please

People that believe in him and are good die too so this isn't a valid point.

Well of course, everyone dies, I never said there that those people who believe him and are good will not die.

What I mean by "Saving" them is to save them from going to hell. The Noah thing, why did Noah and his family live through the "Great Flood" if they didn't believe that there is a God? They lived because they believed that there is a God. And those other people died because they didn't believe that God even exists.

[Pettypete]

god is a red herring

are our goals as a species not the same whether or not we believe in an invisible ruler?

Belief in an invisible ruler that has laid down absolute laws that the species must follow inevitably changes, perhaps not our fundamental goal but the path taken to achieve the goal.

[OTRobin]

assumedly intelligent life is rare enough to the point where we are the only sentient species that we will ever know of for a very long time

thus we are the stewards of our corner of the universe. the beauty of it is only perceived through our eyes, only malleable by our will. we should explore it all, and incorporate it into our collection of reality

isn't this basically the same as god saying be fruitful and multiply

we might disagree in the short term, but in the long run these are the same. wouldn't you say that god made the solar system not to be merely dots in the sky but sights to be seen; rock to lie beneath our feet?

there's your religious argument for a common atheist/humanist dream, space exploration and colonization.

if you let go of the need to convince others of your faith or belief system, they are really very similar in the end. atheists, christians, muslims, even the weird religions, most of them would agree to some common moral standards.

[TruffleS]

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.


Well you have to see the irony, what created god then? woops infinite loop anyway..
Mt teori is that :sand: took a dump, and :behe: ultied thus creating all.

[Narfle]

And God is in not way interested in aiding man in understanding God.

I mean, for an omnipotent being, it should take less than a quarter percentage of a nanosecond, if he also needed a break while doing it.

Sumerians were what, 6k years BC? So hes has like 8k years?

Lemme do ze maths. Lets see, 8k years = 252 billion and 288 million seconds.

Basically God has had 100915.2 trillion trillion times the amount of time he needed to do the most worthwhile thing he could ever do, and havent done it.

Mysterious ways indeed.

My math may be off by some zeroes, i did it on windows calculator, not my TI-83 (yeah i know its old).

Oh, also regarding the whole "made in his image" deal, if we were truly made in his image wouldnt that then also extend to our way of thinking?

IE our logics being similar to gods logics? (if not identical).

Cue mandatory school system.

IM JUST GONNA LEAVE THIS HERE.

Oh, and to the guy that said God only intervenes when its in dire places, why do so many people pray all the time for tiny stuff? Their priest told them to, why would their priest lie to them? Hes a vessel of God you know.

And please stop saying that humans are irrelevant. All we basically know is our own solar system (yes we have ideas about whats past that, and telescopes and such stuff, i know, and we can see stars at night), and we are clearly the most important species in this entire solar system.

Think of it like this, if you have 50 dollars and only 50 dollars, then those 50 dollars are pretty important to you. Sure, compared to the whole planets GNP, those 50 dollars are pretty irrelevant, but since theyre all you have left for the month, those 50 dollars are pretty ****ing important.

I know its a bad example, but stupid statements only get bad examples in return!

**** YOU WHAAAAAAAALE!

[Sinestro]

Oh, and to the guy that said God only intervenes when its in dire places, why do so many people pray all the time for tiny stuff? Their priest told them to, why would their priest lie to them? Hes a vessel of God you know.


Just because he doesn't intervene doesn't mean he can't hear you.

Or something like that, I'm against organized religion personally and think it's all a sham so whatever.

[Narfle]

Just because he doesn't intervene doesn't mean he can't hear you.

Okay, i'll bite. Why ask for help if all youre gonna get is heard, instead of helped?

Why would millions upon millions of people keep asking for help if they never got any, but only got heard?


Or something like that, I'm against organized religion personally and think it's all a sham so whatever.

Thank for for saying something that isnt retarded, but you were long overdue for it anyhow.

And at any rate, its still a bit retarded, i mean people that formulate their own religion bases it on exactley what? At least the organized ones bases it on a book of lies.

[Godlaik]

Z-ro is God no one else listen to his music and you shall understand.

[OTRobin]

most religions are not a sham

don't let the fundies and politicians cloud the issue: most people couldn't care less about the religion of strangers. who brings up religious issues in political arenas? it's not the priests...

[crazysheep]

if you let go of the need to convince others of your faith or belief system, they are really very similar in the end. atheists, christians, muslims, even the weird religions, most of them would agree to some common moral standards.
Well.. there is a problem with "common moral standards", because if you look at the reasoning behind "common moral standards" you can do away with God.


Just because he doesn't intervene doesn't mean he can't hear you.
In that case I would have less reason to believe that God exists. If He doesn't want to be seen, but wants us to believe in Him, He's not giving me reason to believe in something that I cannot see or sense.

[Silentdeathz]

Well you have to see the irony, what created god then? woops infinite loop anyway..
Mt teori is that :sand: took a dump, and :behe: ultied thus creating all.

You assume that any conventional laws of ours would apply to God. (He is from outside our universe and the start of 'time' as we know it.

[Astah]

These guy's disagree with the OP

ttp://projectcamelot.org (ttp://projectcamelot.org)

[Sinestro]

In that case I would have less reason to believe that God exists. If He doesn't want to be seen, but wants us to believe in Him, He's not giving me reason to believe in something that I cannot see or sense.

It's called "faith" and it's the basis behind every single religion. You have faith that he exists even though most signs point to him not existing. Some people have substantially larger amounts of faith than others, but it's never something that people should be put down for.

I mean, I'm against organized religion. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to shove the fact that "god doesn't exist" down peoples throats or that I'm disgusted by people who have faith and believe in that. Shits weak.

[Narfle]

It's called "idiocy" and it's the basis behind every single religion. You have idiocy that he exists even though most signs point to him not existing. Some people have substantially larger amounts of idiocy than others

I fixed it for you, sir. Universal lolcare.


but it's never something that people should be put down for.

Oh, if only they would be put down. I know it would majorly reduce the earths population, but think of it as a "great flood".

But for now, i guess laughing and pointing fingers shall be enough.


I mean, I'm against organized religion. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to shove the fact that "god doesn't exist" down peoples throats or that I'm disgusted by people who have faith and believe in that. Shits weak.

Well, when someone on my team is actively counterproductive to the team, im going to call vote-kick and ban them.

And i guess im different from you, when something have clear proof of being a murderous ****head cult of rampant ignorance, then im disgusted by it.

I mean, Mansons family got jailed. Nobody likes the nazis. Why do people still accept christianity after the crusades? Why do people still tolerate islam after 9/11? (yes i know that islam is doing ALOT worse **** than what they did 9/11, but i have to speak in terms people understand).

Basically, the only religion i 'tolerate' is Buddism. Why, you ask? Karl Popper said it the best.

"The only thing we cannot tolerate, is intolerance".

You may think that religion preaches tolerance, but then again you also seem pretty stupid, and probably dont know alot about world history or human nature.

[Sinestro]

Well, when someone on my team is actively counterproductive to the team, im going to call vote-kick and ban them.

And i guess im different from you, when something have clear proof of being a murderous ****head cult of rampant ignorance, then im disgusted by it.

I mean, Mansons family got jailed. Nobody likes the nazis. Why do people still accept christianity after the crusades? Why do people still tolerate islam after 9/11? (yes i know that islam is doing ALOT worse **** than what they did 9/11, but i have to speak in terms people understand).

Basically, the only religion i 'tolerate' is Buddism. Why, you ask? Karl Popper said it the best.

"The only thing we cannot tolerate, is intolerance".

You may think that religion preaches tolerance, but then again you also seem pretty stupid, and probably dont know alot about world history or human nature.

You say **** like this and you have the balls to say I seem pretty stupid? Are you kidding me?

[Lamer883]

both of you should be honoured that ur posts take up 90% more space than ur sig

[Narfle]

You say **** like this and you have the balls to say I seem pretty stupid? Are you kidding me?

I work in mysterious ways, just start worshipping me.

Yes, i take paypal.

If you send me 150% of your income i will bless you with another braincell, effectively doubling your thinking power. Pretty cool **** huh?

Eventually you will be able to understand what my posts say, and you too will be a god.

[Sinestro]

both of you should be honoured that ur posts take up 90% more space than ur sig

Big sigs are for attention whores and retards.


I work in mysterious ways, just start worshipping me.

Yes, i take paypal.

If you send me 150% of your income i will bless you with another braincell, effectively doubling your thinking power. Pretty cool **** huh?

Eventually you will be able to understand what my posts say, and you too will be a god.

You're an idiot :rolleyes:

[Lamer883]

i m inb4lock

so what about 2012

[Lamer883]

Big sigs are for attention whores and retards.

sup.

[Sinestro]

Point.

[Narfle]

Big sigs are for attention whores and retards.



You're an idiot :rolleyes:

Thats exactley what i wanted you to say. Let me illustrate my incredibly amount of mind control over tcp/ip.

Sinestro, i order you to say something incredibly stupid.

Lamer666- 2012 is just a ploy i made up to market a movie, just dont tell anyone, theyre going absolutely nuts. Im lulling way harder than when i made up the Y2K deal.

Brb, gonna add another chapter to the bible, this time in polish. Yeah, i know, lol!

[crazysheep]

It's called "faith" and it's the basis behind every single religion. You have faith that he exists even though most signs point to him not existing. Some people have substantially larger amounts of faith than others, but it's never something that people should be put down for.
If we believe in fairies and magic, some people call us mad.
If we believe in ghosts and poltergeists, some people call us mad.
If we hear voices telling us to do something, some people call us mad.

But if we see or hear angels or God, suddenly we aren't mad. We are deemed to have been "touched by the hand of God".

Why is one set of intangible, immaterial beings venerated, and another set looked down upon?

"Faith" can rightfully be called "madness" or "hallucinations".


I mean, I'm against organized religion. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to shove the fact that "god doesn't exist" down peoples throats or that I'm disgusted by people who have faith and believe in that. Shits weak.
It's a conundrum my friend. This is why they need evangelists to spread their word.

[Fieri]

Fieri, go look up "omnipotence". And the way we think of God? Yes, it is ENTIRELY impossible, and i really hate using extremes. Valid reasoning for this statement has already been given in this thread, feel free to read through it.

In conclusion, people that have nothing against religion needs to rethink that stance. The amount of good that religion has done (as compared to what amount of good that would have been done, had there been no religion) is so miniscule thats its largely irrelevant compared to the intense and extreme amount of harm it has done.

Religion is a scourge and it needs to be removed. Kick/Ban that **** please, its counterproductive to the team, feeds hardcore and only speaks russian in all caps.

I will not go look up the definition of omnipotence in the dictionary, sir (and I will not reread the thread - it contains few example of valid reasoning). The context in any relevant philosophical debate is not some ordinary use and is defined by something more limited than the ability to do anything, period.

I'm undecided about whether religion as a whole is detrimental to society. Dogmatism of any variety (including those quite zealous about science) seems like the real problem. I tend to think that humans would find something else to kill each other over if not for religion, so it may not be the real issue.

[Janxer]

So I feel this whole argument fails upon this:

"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."

Really? How do you know this? Got any proof?

[Loli]

If the universe was created from nothing, then laws were created with it as well, because before it, there was nothing.

Not saying thats the case but it doesn't mean there are only 2 options.

[crazysheep]

I'm undecided about whether religion as a whole is detrimental to society. Dogmatism of any variety (including those quite zealous about science) seems like the real problem. I tend to think that humans would find something else to kill each other over if not for religion, so it may not be the real issue.
In that case I suggest not reading too much into the arguments put forth here. We can try our best to reason things out, but this being OT, any nonsense can happen and will happen [previously there was 2012 spam].


So I feel this whole argument fails upon this:

"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."

Really? How do you know this? Got any proof?
Deduction is reasoning things out in a proper fashion, the proof is in the reasoning itself, much like mathematical proofs.

[UltimaXtreme]

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.


hi,


being a scientist, i've come to the straightforward conclusion that christians are just not very smart people.

[Helgeran1]

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.
That's stupid, why would a segment of time followed by an infinite segment of time be impossible? Like, even during the what we would call heat death there would still be an increase in chaos.

[Narfle]

I'm undecided about whether religion as a whole is detrimental to society. Dogmatism of any variety (including those quite zealous about science) seems like the real problem. I tend to think that humans would find something else to kill each other over if not for religion, so it may not be the real issue.

Be undecided all you want, thats not my problem, im not trying to convert you.

And honestly, i'd take any other reason for humans killing each other than "its because my imaginary friend told me to".

Wanna kill for conquest? Its better and more justified. Wanna kill for items? Better, more justified. Wanna kill because the other guy is a retard? Go ahead.

Wanna kill because someone disagreed with you over some tiny petty thing that actually exists? Still better.

But "my imaginary friend told me to" is not, and will never be, a valid excuse for murder.

Go stuff that in your "philosophical debate" and smoke it.

[Sordak]

boring.

your opinion about religion bores me.

i dont give a **** about it.

stop crying about those "stupid people who believe in god"

you just show how you are not superior to them by making a thread like these.

please lock this thread. its obviously retardet.

[Pettypete]

95% of posters in this thread do not understand the OP post

true statement

[Fieri]

Be undecided all you want, thats not my problem, im not trying to convert you.

And honestly, i'd take any other reason for humans killing each other than "its because my imaginary friend told me to".

Wanna kill for conquest? Its better and more justified. Wanna kill for items? Better, more justified. Wanna kill because the other guy is a retard? Go ahead.

Wanna kill because someone disagreed with you over some tiny petty thing that actually exists? Still better.

But "my imaginary friend told me to" is not, and will never be, a valid excuse for murder.

Go stuff that in your "philosophical debate" and smoke it.

I will stuff it in my philosophical debate. Right in the sections of ethics and meta-ethics, where everything you just mentioned is up in the air - especially if you (as you seem to be doing) reject any sort of metaphysics.

[Atrim3ntus]

so what about 2012

2012 is not what the media has told you or everyone else. 2012 is the year and date (Dec 21) when The Bildgerberg Group launches its depopulation plan into the whole world, thus creating a new world where everything will be different than what it is now. The Bilderberg group is Big Brother, Big Brother has been watching and is watching us right now and will be watching us...We are at the mercy of Big Brother, only he can decide who lives and who dies and in Dec 21, when the day finally comes, Big Brother will choose among the 7 Billion people, the 500 million people that will continue living under his world and under his watch.

[ImmortalTecz]

I believe that China will destroy the world within year 2012

[yezZIR]

In conclusion, people that have nothing against religion needs to rethink that stance. The amount of good that religion has done (as compared to what amount of good that would have been done, had there been no religion) is so miniscule thats its largely irrelevant compared to the intense and extreme amount of harm it has done.

Religion is a scourge and it needs to be removed.

Please enlighten us as to your OPINION of the bad outweighing the good. What do you think the world would be like without religion? Do you account for the condition and mental state of a society without religious hope, promise of salvation(whether its a lie or not), etc.

Whether or not religion/God is "real", it has progressed our society in many ways, in others has hindered it.

Internetz allowing you to speak your opinion and imagination as fact.

edit because i read your most recent post: I think you're trying to interject the fact that religion is the creator/origin of evil. If you're ignorant enough to believe that if there were no such thing as religion people wouldn't be killing each other for no reason, then i am sorry for even giving you the time of day.

I mean, people have never killed each other just because their skin was a different color, right? I mean, that's just silly. ITS ALL BECAUSE OF RELIGION!!!!!








As for those who speak of the big bounce, it is becoming more widely accepted that the universe will expand forever instead of the universal armageddon coming via a big crunch (aka the contraction of the universe.)

[ldelusionl]

boring.

your opinion about religion bores me.

i dont give a **** about it.

stop crying about those "stupid people who believe in god"

you just show how you are not superior to them by making a thread like these.

please lock this thread. its obviously retardet.

Someone's butthurt

[Meem]

By the way, I realize now how futile it is to discuss things like this especially on the internet, where everyone is close minded and has a fixed set of beliefs derived from experiences, and tries to force them upon others. Methods mainly involve ridiculing others. It always becomes a power struggle because of the overwhelming dominance of egoism in human nature. Please just think harder about your own beliefs before you impose them on others, because all of us are really in one way or another clueless about our own existence. Only the most ignorant are not puzzled by philosophy.

[Meem]

hi,


being a scientist, i've come to the straightforward conclusion that christians are just not very smart people.
First of all, I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist, have been all my life. I'm also a bio major.

Furthermore, why would you even post something like this? Just to say "I'm better than you" and then feel good about yourself by soaking in the illusion that you are smarter than someone on the internet?

When you respond to this, I hope you will actually use your head for once rather than your ego.


That's stupid, why would a segment of time followed by an infinite segment of time be impossible? Like, even during the what we would call heat death there would still be an increase in chaos.
If something that is infinite encompasses something that is finite, it is probabilistically impossible to be in that finite. Pretend we have a real number x that approaches infinity. What is the chance (call it Y) that its value is within 13.7 billion? Y approaches zero as x approaches infinity. Setting x as infinity, Y becomes 0.

[crazysheep]

Please enlighten us as to your OPINION of the bad outweighing the good. What do you think the world would be like without religion? Do you account for the condition and mental state of a society without religious hope, promise of salvation(whether its a lie or not), etc.

Whether or not religion/God is "real", it has progressed our society in many ways, in others has hindered it.
In what way has religion led to progress? Could you please quote a few examples from history?

If you intend to argue that religion is linked to morality, the Greek Empire will be a good place to show that religion does not need to be linked to morality.


Internetz allowing you to speak your opinion and imagination as fact.
How about telly evangelists and online evangelists? Those people also speak their "opinions and imagination as fact".

The original purpose of the Internet is still fulfilled - to share ideas with others.


edit because i read your most recent post: I think you're trying to interject the fact that religion is the creator/origin of evil. If you're ignorant enough to believe that if there were no such thing as religion people wouldn't be killing each other for no reason, then i am sorry for even giving you the time of day.

I mean, people have never killed each other just because their skin was a different color, right? I mean, that's just silly. ITS ALL BECAUSE OF RELIGION!!!!!

Before you rage more do remember the sacrifice of Isaac. Test of faith or not, it is still an order to kill.


By the way, I realize now how futile it is to discuss things like this especially on the internet, where everyone is close minded and has a fixed set of beliefs derived from experiences, and tries to force them upon others. Methods mainly involve ridiculing others. It always becomes a power struggle because of the overwhelming dominance of egoism in human nature. Please just think harder about your own beliefs before you impose them on others, because all of us are really in one way or another clueless about our own existence. Only the most ignorant are not puzzled by philosophy.
See you had a noble idea - to share an idea for criticism and comments. Just ignore the personal attacks and read those comments that debate the topic at hand logically.

Furthermore a philosophical debate is not about imposing wills - its about logical reasoning of the topic at hand. Given the many ways of reasoning, it is not surprising we haven't come to the end of the thread.

[magnakaser]

Let's look at history before we go saying religion has only hindered mankind...

China never had the type of religious background somewhere like Europe or the Middle East had. It never had a state religion that was taken seriously and practiced to the extent that Christianity or Islam was. It never had something as monolithic as the Catholic Church. It never had a religious penetration (That is, the amount of people in the nation that actually practiced more than just the most superficial liturgy.) close to that of Europe and Christianity or the Middle East and Islam.

Yet, somehow, both the Middle East and Europe far surpassed China both economically, politically, technologically and scientifically during times we think of as being most religiously oppressive. This is all despite China being far more technologically advanced than either Europe or the Middle East for some time.

Weird.

[crazysheep]

However the Chinese empire has been around for very long. China has a history of producing philosophers, scientists and astronomers of name.

Does that mean that the Crusades are beneficial in terms of progress? In that case we should probably indulge in more cleansing of the Middle East region, or vice versa then.

[Meem]

China has one of the (if not the) longest histories of any country. There are traces of it before 2000 BC. Relative to ancient greece (~750 BC), that's over 1000 years earlier. Exactly how long the Chinese empire has been around cannot be accurately determined, so it is very possible that at one time or another it was ruled by religion. People everywhere are genetically and innately the same, so I don't see why their core beliefs would develop divergently.

[magnakaser]

I'm not talking about specific incidents, I'm bringing up history as the big picture. The Middle East and Europe both advanced much quicker than China. China didn't have the theocracy of the Middle East nor the overbearing Catholic Church of Europe.

Comparatively, it had very little religion and changed ideologies as often as it changed emperors.

Yet, somehow where there was religion in a far more all consuming way than we've had in hundreds of years, science prospered like it never had.

Arguing that religion is now obsolete is a completely different argument. I'm simply stating the facts don't seem to line up in any way, shape or form to prove that religion has in some way hindered progress at all.


China has one of the (if not the) longest histories of any country. There are traces of it before 2000 BC. Relative to ancient greece (~750 BC), that's over 1000 years earlier. Exactly how long the Chinese empire has been around cannot be accurately determined, so it is very possible that at one time or another it was ruled by religion. People everywhere are genetically and innately the same, so I don't see why their core beliefs would develop divergently.

It most likely was religious at some point, but that doesn't matter for what I'm arguing. What I'm talking about is from about 700CE-1600CE it fell behind the Middle East and Europe respectively. The Middle East was more or less an Islamic theocratic nation, and Europe was well under the sway of the Catholic Church. China, on the other hand, has no real parallel. It was more or less a secular nation, even changing what particular ideology (Legalism, Confucianism, etc...) the emperor of the week wanted very often.

Places with religion advanced. A place of relatively equal size that was once the most advanced area in the world with relatively little religion didn't.

Other things obviously had an effect on why the Middle East and Europe advanced and China didn't than just the presence or absence of religion, but it can still be inferred that religion does (or did) little to hinder scientific progress.

[crazysheep]

China has one of the (if not the) longest histories of any country. There are traces of it before 2000 BC. Relative to ancient greece (~750 BC), that's over 1000 years earlier. Exactly how long the Chinese empire has been around cannot be accurately determined, so it is very possible that at one time or another it was ruled by religion. People everywhere are genetically and innately the same, so I don't see why their core beliefs would develop divergently.
Chinese "religion" hardly pervades everyday life to the extent that Christianity or Islam pervades everyday life.


I'm not talking about specific incidents, I'm bringing up history as the big picture. The Middle East and Europe both advanced much quicker than China. China didn't have the theocracy of the Middle East nor the overbearing Catholic Church of Europe.

Comparatively, it had very little religion and changed ideologies as often as it changed emperors.

Yet, somehow where there was religion in a far more all consuming way than we've had in hundreds of years, science prospered like it never had.

Arguing that religion is now obsolete is a completely different argument. I'm simply stating the facts don't seem to line up in any way, shape or form to prove that religion has in some way hindered progress at all.
Galileo was hauled up before the Church over his heliocentric theory, which ran against the geocentric theory of the Church and the Bible.


It most likely was religious at some point, but that doesn't matter for what I'm arguing. What I'm talking about is from about 700CE-1600CE it fell behind the Middle East and Europe respectively. The Middle East was more or less an Islamic theocratic nation, and Europe was well under the sway of the Catholic Church. China, on the other hand, has no real comparison. It was more or less a secular nation, even changing what particular ideology (Legalism, Confucianism, etc...) very often.

Places with religion advanced. A place of relatively equal size that was once the most advanced area in the world with relatively little religion didn't.

Other things obviously had an effect on why the Middle East and Europe advanced and China didn't than just the presence or absence of religion, but it can still be inferred that religion does (or did) little to hinder scientific progress.
Could it be due to a cyclic sort of system? After all, when Europe fell into the Dark Ages, scientific progress virtually ground to a halt. After that, the Renaissance era pushed Europe back to the top of research whilst the Middle East got tangled up with infighting.

[Meem]

Chinese "religion" hardly pervades everyday life to the extent that Christianity or Islam pervades everyday life.
That's viewing it from our time and our perspective though.

There may have been, once upon a time over 4000 years ago, a time when Chinese religion was the unwritten law in all asia, but the evidence was forgotten and not recovered because it was so long ago.

My take is that if mankind is a species, and all members of the species are genetically similar, then religion should have an equally large impact in China as Europe or the Middle East. Having said that, I believe that China was once as religious as any other civilization, which allowed it to advance as far as it did. If this is true, then it would imply somewhere down the line our culture today will experience what Chinese culture experienced thousands of years ago, that would eventually result in war and conclude in some sort of absolute monarchy.

Sounds like crazy talk though.

[Manhim]

One of the basic law of physics:

Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed.


I believe in time being a geometrical dimension.

[magnakaser]

Galileo was hauled up before the Church over his heliocentric theory, which ran against the geocentric theory of the Church and the Bible.


Actually, Copernicus was the dude who is credited with Heliocentrism. Galileo was just using his theory for stuff. Copernicus was also a catholic priest. Pope also told the dude he should publish his little book, "On the Revolutions of Celestia Spheres." It was published with relatively little controversy from anyone in the Church. It was only later after one loudmouthed priest got to talkin', when that whole Galileo/Copernican ban thing happened.

Galileo was also a pious Catholic his whole life, even after his whole heresy mess. He never blamed the religion (Common thing for people to do nowadays.), he likely felt the people in charge were in the wrong over Christianity as a whole.



Could it be due to a cyclic sort of system? After all, when Europe fell into the Dark Ages, scientific progress virtually ground to a halt. After that, the Renaissance era pushed Europe back to the top of research whilst the Middle East got tangled up with infighting.

Maybe. Though it can easily be argued that monasteries, a product of religion, were key to getting out of the Dark Ages.

[crazysheep]

That's viewing it from our time and our perspective though.

There may have been, once upon a time over 4000 years ago, a time when Chinese religion was the unwritten law in all asia, but the evidence was forgotten and not recovered because it was so long ago.

My take is that if mankind is a species, and all members of the species are genetically similar, then religion should have an equally large impact in China as Europe or the Middle East. Having said that, I believe that China was once as religious as any other civilization, which allowed it to advance as far as it did. If this is true, then it would imply somewhere down the line our culture today will experience what Chinese culture experienced thousands of years ago, that would eventually result in war and conclude in some sort of absolute monarchy.

Sounds like crazy talk though.
We might be genetically predisposed to believing in the concept of God, but it doesn't mean the impact will be the same in different geographic locales. Environmental factors might make the difference in whether there is a need to subscribe to a divine being.

And about religion hindering progress, I will quote myself:

Galileo was hauled up before the Church over his heliocentric theory, which ran against the geocentric theory of the Church and the Bible.

[magnakaser]

That's viewing it from our time and our perspective though.

There may have been, once upon a time over 4000 years ago, a time when Chinese religion was the unwritten law in all asia, but the evidence was forgotten and not recovered because it was so long ago.

My take is that if mankind is a species, and all members of the species are genetically similar, then religion should have an equally large impact in China as Europe or the Middle East. Having said that, I believe that China was once as religious as any other civilization, which allowed it to advance as far as it did. If this is true, then it would imply somewhere down the line our culture today will experience what Chinese culture experienced thousands of years ago, that would eventually result in war and conclude in some sort of absolute monarchy.

Sounds like crazy talk though.

The problem with this is that we do have record from China going further back than nearly any other culture. We know that they were at least superstitious as any other nation back in the day, and we also know there was nothing close to Christianity/Islam/Judaism/etc... Buddhism took off for a while, but never hit the same level that other religions did in other regions.

That said, we know that China was never really like Europe or the Middle East were in terms of religion going back almost 3000ish years. (But, back that far, Europe and the Middle East also weren't that way themselves, either.) We also know they pioneered many fields from the last few centuries BCE to the first few CE while they were being as such. It's not like China just popped up fully formed, more advanced than any other place on Earth with no records.

[magnakaser]

We might be genetically predisposed to believing in the concept of God, but it doesn't mean the impact will be the same in different geographic locales. Environmental factors might make the difference in whether there is a need to subscribe to a divine being.

And about religion hindering progress, I will quote myself:

Again, that's not a great example. They put that cat in house arrest and he continued to research and write until his dying day.

Want a better example? I'll give you one.

Galileo, a very good Christian, thought that his contemporary Kepler's idea that the planets' orbits were elliptical was nonsense 'cause circles are prefect! His ideas blinded him to other ideas that didn't coincide with his. Whether he felt circles were so good due to religion or not, I don't know, but the fact is he didn't even consider it useful, nor Kepler's idea that the Moon rotated around the Earth and caused the tides, due to his own ideologies mucking him up.

It seems to be more of a HUMAN thing to do than a religious thing; that is, think other people are wrong and you are right.

Kepler was actually originally influenced by religion as well.

[crazysheep]

Again, that's not a great example. They put that cat in house arrest and he continued to research and write until his dying day.

Want a better example? I'll give you one.

Galileo, a very good Christian, thought that his contemporary Kepler's idea that the planets' orbits were elliptical was nonsense 'cause circles are prefect! His ideas blinded him to other ideas that didn't coincide with his. Whether he felt circles were so good due to religion or not, I don't know, but the fact is he didn't even consider it useful, nor Kepler's idea that the Moon rotated around the Earth and caused the tides, due to his own ideologies mucking him up.

It seems to be more of a HUMAN thing to do than a religious thing; that is, think other people are wrong and you are right.

Kepler was actually originally influenced by religion as well.
Yeah he can do his research while under house arrest, but if it doesn't get out to the masses, then the research is moot.

Although I do agree with you that his error of judgment is due to his human nature.

So far the greatest effect religion can have on progress is when the religion commands you to read - ie Islam. They did have a good number of chemists, scientists, mathematicians and astronomers.

On the other hand it can be a stumbling block for progress - creationism, intelligent design.

[OTRobin]

religion is not about bring progress to the masses, its about maintaining the status quo

[Forte]

Nothing is true.

[OTRobin]

i am scientist; i am excused from having an opinion about my own government

[Palmu]

I stopped thinking about these kind of things a long time ago, and settled for ''Whatever happens, will happen. Whatever is, will be. Nothing i can do about it.''

[Tamachan]

Pretty much a universal law.



This is your false assumption.

[MileyCyrus]

You guys should check out the ontological argument as presented by St Anselm. I took a philosophy of religion class last semester and it was very interesting and this is one of many arguments we looked at.

If God is defined as "the greatest possible being we can imagine" then he would have properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence..etc

Now look at 2 possible Gods and their attributes.

God #1 Omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent...etc (all powerful in all ways) and exists only in minds of people.

God #2 Omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent...etc (all powerful in all ways) but actually exists.

Which God is the "greatest" we can then imagine?

(I know there are flaws with this, but just thought I'd throw it out htere"

[crazysheep]

I stopped thinking about these kind of things a long time ago, and settled for ''Whatever happens, will happen. Whatever is, will be. Nothing i can do about it.''
mmm fatalist. Nothing to argue with you then.


You guys should check out the ontological argument as presented by St Anselm. I took a philosophy of religion class last semester and it was very interesting and this is one of many arguments we looked at.

If God is defined as "the greatest possible being we can imagine" then he would have properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence..etc

Now look at 2 possible Gods and their attributes.

God #1 Omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent...etc (all powerful in all ways) and exists only in minds of people.

God #2 Omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent...etc (all powerful in all ways) but actually exists.

Which God is the "greatest" we can then imagine?

(I know there are flaws with this, but just thought I'd throw it out htere"
K I've read the argument as presented by St Anselm.

Two questions stand out:
1. Can humans grasp the concept of a perfect being?
2. Is existence necessarily perfect?

One can argue that we can't grasp the concept of a perfect being, the same way we cannot grasp the concept of infinity. Or one can argue about the perfection of existence.

Is existence necessary for something to be perfect? For example, the perfect murder exists as a notion thus far. Should it exist for it to be perfect?

[MileyCyrus]

Is existence necessary for something to be perfect? For example, the perfect murder exists as a notion thus far. Should it exist for it to be perfect?

Bingo, that was my main concern with the argument, is that "existence" isn't quantifiable by any means, and therefor it can't be "greater" than non existence. So existence isn't exactly "perfect"

[crazysheep]

Bingo, that was my main concern with the argument, is that "existence" isn't quantifiable by any means, and therefor it can't be "greater" than non existence. So existence isn't exactly "perfect"
Extending your argument further, this means that a God that exists is no greater than a God that is only an idea. Case solved? Probably.

[MileyCyrus]

Extending your argument further, this means that a God that exists is no greater than a God that is only an idea. Case solved? Probably.

All it proves is that this "proof" for god's existence isn't exactly a solid case. But there are many other interesting proofs :D

[KnightDavion]

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.
Cool post. I also like to talk about this subject. However, though I agree with your conclusion that there is a God, your deductive logic is all fail after that.

Nothing from nothing is an adequate argument for a creator, but keep in mind that is the classic argument that people have used for many centuries and it is easily rebutted by a "God of the gaps" type of an argument that says just because science hasn't found a reasonable explanation to something does't means we should assume the reason is because of God.


That being said, everywhere we look in science we see strong evidence to suggest intelligent design such as:

Uncertainty Principle - In 1927 Heisneberg discovered a the "code" that sits behind the scenes in our universe, much like the computer code behind video games. We have no idea why the universe is like this, but we used the knowledge to create transistors and eventually all the micro electronics we have today such as computers and televisions.

Expansion of the Universe - Inflationary theory. Atheists will have you believe that the universe expanded the way it did out of sheer luck. The only problem with that theory is that it takes 300 trillion big bang type events to create our universe out of sheer dumb luck.

Anthropic Principle - both weak and strong versions have serious philosophical implications for subjects like free will, causality, paradoxes and of course the existence of God.

Original poster if you want to discuss any of those subjects I will elaborate. I guess that goes for anyone who wants to discuss them seriously.

[KnightDavion]

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.
Cool post. I also like to talk about this subject. However, though I agree with your conclusion that there is a God, your deductive logic is all fail after that.

Nothing from nothing is an adequate argument for a creator, but keep in mind that is the classic argument that people have used for many centuries and it is easily rebutted by a "God of the gaps" type of an argument that says just because science hasn't found a reasonable explanation to something does't means we should assume the reason is because of God.


That being said, everywhere we look in science we see strong evidence to suggest intelligent design such as:

Uncertainty Principle - In 1927 Heisneberg discovered a the "code" that sits behind the scenes in our universe, much like the computer code behind video games. We have no idea why the universe is like this, but we used the knowledge to create transistors and eventually all the micro electronics we have today such as computers and televisions.

Expansion of the Universe - Inflationary theory. Atheists will have you believe that the universe expanded the way it did out of sheer luck. The only problem with that theory is that it takes 300 trillion big bang type events to create our universe out of sheer dumb luck. ie if the charge of the electron was even one nano volt more positive or negative then matter would not be able to exist. Pretty lucky for us electrons just happen to have that "perfect" charge yeah?

There are countless examples of this level of perfection in our universe. And while any one of them taken on their own might not be enough evidence to suggest intelligent design, when taken altogether they represent a staggering amount of either "amazingly lucky coincidences" or clear evidence of intelligent design.

Anthropic Principle - both weak and strong versions have serious philosophical implications for subjects like free will, causality, paradoxes and of course the existence of God.

Original poster if you want to discuss any of those subjects I will elaborate. I guess that goes for anyone who wants to discuss them seriously.


Edit: I expanded on the inflationary idea a bit to make it easier for ppl to understand.

[magnakaser]

Expansion of the Universe - Inflationary theory. Atheists will have you believe that the universe expanded the way it did out of sheer luck. The only problem with that theory is that it takes 300 trillion big bang type events to create our universe out of sheer dumb luck. ie if the charge of the electron was even one nano volt more positive or negative then matter would not be able to exist. Pretty lucky for us electrons just happen to have that "perfect" charge yeah?


I think it's pretty lucky for us. Of course, had things ended up differently, there's no telling what sort of stuff would have come out of it. Beyond matter existing or not, umpteen million factors also dictated the creation of this particular universe in which we all reside.

We arose in this universe for whatever reason as a result of the conditions that exist here; in another universe with other conditions it's entirely feasible that something resembling life nothing like how we know could have arisen all the same had luck been on their side.

[KnightDavion]

I think it's pretty lucky for us. Of course, had things ended up differently, there's no telling what sort of stuff would have come out of it. Beyond matter existing or not, umpteen million factors also dictated the creation of this particular universe in which we all reside.

We arose in this universe for whatever reason as a result of the conditions that exist here; in another universe with other conditions it's entirely feasible that something resembling life nothing like how we know could have arisen all the same had luck been on their side.

Are you arguing for intelligent design or against it? Your post is unclear.

You say we arose in this universe for "whatever reason". I'm sorry, but you cannot just gloss over the reasons behind the development of our universe if you want to discuss the subject of God seriously and intelligently.

[magnakaser]

Not really for or against anything at the moment. I was a few posts ago, but not now.

Just bringing up the fact that life exists as we know it due to the circumstances that surround us, and different circumstances could have breathed different sorts of life into existence. I suppose it's a shot against intelligent design... though my personal beliefs on this subject are unclear. I just think it's important to note that many believe the universe and everything in it seems so perfect because humans came about in and around the world instead of the universe being built around and for humans, which would be what intelligent design sometimes infers.

[IAmRoot]

It doesn't seem like many people are watching that video. Here's a summary:
Depending on how you define "something", "something" can exist from nothing:
The total energy + matter of the universe is 0, so that "something" is balanced by negatives. Therefore, the big bang just created an imbalance. There was no net change in energy+matter. Therefore, it HAS to be that the big bang created all this matter (in exchange for energy (e=mc^2)) without any input energy (ie NO GODS CAN HELP OR THE MATH BREAKS). In fact, if there were input of energy for the big bang to occur, the universe would be curved, which it isn't.

In short, ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. The problem with your analysis is that you are only looking at matter, when you need to look at matter+energy.

He mentioned that in the future we won't see any evidence of the big bang. It's quite possible that many big bangs have occurred, but are now too distant to be able to observe or interact with what we see. Another big bang could happen any time, but it probably won't because it's such an incredibly rare (but non-zero) quantum event.

[KnightDavion]

It doesn't seem like many people are watching that video. Here's a summary:
Depending on how you define "something", "something" can exist from nothing:
The total energy + matter of the universe is 0, so that "something" is balanced by negatives. Therefore, the big bang just created an imbalance. There was no net change in energy+matter. Therefore, it HAS to be that the big bang created all this matter (in exchange for energy (e=mc^2)) without any input energy (ie NO GODS CAN HELP OR THE MATH BREAKS). In fact, if there were input of energy for the big bang to occur, the universe would be curved, which it isn't.

In short, ex nihilo nihil fit holds true. The problem with your analysis is that you are only looking at matter, when you need to look at matter+energy.

He mentioned that in the future we won't see any evidence of the big bang. It's quite possible that many big bangs have occurred, but are now too distant to be able to observe or interact with what we see. Another big bang could happen any time, but it probably won't because it's such an incredibly rare (but non-zero) quantum event.

You are missing the point though. You are accurately describing inflation: matter "borrowed" energy from gravity to create the universe for a zero sum type of system. Thats all well and good but you are skipping over how this happen so perfectly and precisely as to allow matter and planets and human beings to be able to exist.

An atheist says we got just got really lucky (1 in 300 trillion). A religious man could argue convincingly for intelligent design, and many brilliant physicists and cosmologists have done exactly that.

Another place where you go wrong is when you suggest "other big bangs" occurring outside of our ability to interact with them. This tells me right away you are not serious about the subject because science uses the principle of economy called "Occam's Razor" to cut out all the parts of the theory that have no impact on the observations.

Still I liked that you mentioned "non zero" probabilities. This tells me that you might know a little something about the Uncertainty Principle. If you do know about it, and you understand my post up until this point, I challenge you to tell me how it relates to this discussion.

[cute]

I'm trapped in a world before later on

[Megumijk]

I have a strong argument against Intelligent Design for you:

Http://peopleofwalmart.com

Enjoy.

[KnightDavion]

I have a strong argument against Intelligent Design for you:

Http://peopleofwalmart.com

Enjoy.

I have to thank you for this. I laughed a ton! Too bad it will derail the thread :(

[Pettypete]

Not really for or against anything at the moment. I was a few posts ago, but not now.

Just bringing up the fact that life exists as we know it due to the circumstances that surround us, and different circumstances could have breathed different sorts of life into existence. I suppose it's a shot against intelligent design... though my personal beliefs on this subject are unclear. I just think it's important to note that many believe the universe and everything in it seems so perfect because humans came about in and around the world instead of the universe being built around and for humans, which would be what intelligent design sometimes infers.

I agree with this post. The universe was not built around life. Life was built around the universe. To think that the chance of 1 / infinity occurred for life to exist is impossible so it MUST be intelligent design is a life centric view. However, both sides of the argument cannot possibly be ruled out... it comes down to a matter of faith.

[IAmRoot]

The first parts were really simple, the last point took me a bit of thought.


You are missing the point though. You are accurately describing inflation: matter "borrowed" energy from gravity to create the universe for a zero sum type of system. Thats all well and good but you are skipping over how this happen so perfectly and precisely as to allow matter and planets and human beings to be able to exist.

Matter pops into existence all the time at the quantum level. The big bang was just a bigger event.

An atheist says we got just got really lucky (1 in 300 trillion). A religious man could argue convincingly for intelligent design, and many brilliant physicists and cosmologists have done exactly that.

No, we didn't get really lucky. We grew to fit the constants. It was no accident that we were able to evolve to fit constants that allowed us to live, but it wasn't intelligent. The way the universe formed is simply one of those variables that shapes evolution. There's absolutely nothing wrong with us evolving in a form that allows us to live. It's quite expected. Many other values would allow many other forms of life. Not all values could allow life, but it's certainly not something that has to be extremely precise.


Another place where you go wrong is when you suggest "other big bangs" occurring outside of our ability to interact with them. This tells me right away you are not serious about the subject because science uses the principle of economy called "Occam's Razor" to cut out all the parts of the theory that have no impact on the observations.
Yes, our theories don't need to account for other possible big bangs because the matter from them would now be traveling so fast it would be completely red-shifted away. I'm completely serious about the possibility that there were other big bangs, as nothing changed to allow or disallow such an event around the time of the big bang. Other big bangs could happen spontaneously in the future, just like they could have in the past (even if the past ones no longer effect anything near us).


Still I liked that you mentioned "non zero" probabilities. This tells me that you might know a little something about the Uncertainty Principle. If you do know about it, and you understand my post up until this point, I challenge you to tell me how it relates to this discussion.

Well, there are multiple principles that define the relationship between how well you can know a pair of variables. What it means is that for very short time frames, energy can change. This means that energy and matter can pop into existence for short periods of time. The quantum event that caused the big bang is a different phenomenon (I don't believe there's math for it yet) which caused a separation of energies (some of which in the form of matter). There was effectively no net energy change, so it's stayed around way way longer than the typical event: ΔE*Δt = h/4π. In order to develop the math that shows exactly how it happened (though we can still see it did), we will need to learn a lot more about dark energy. Now that I think about it more, it probably wouldn't be the same phenomenon as the usual quantum fluctuations (as there's no change in energy), but it's still the same general concept, and could possibly be related, maybe triggered by extremely strong energy, albeit short, events (maybe like an activation energy). There's still a lot of hypothesizing about what exactly the fluctuation would look like, but it's a lot simpler of a solution than a god (which would be an incredibly complex waveform).

[halfthought]

Doesn't your logic contradict itself? If everything needs to be created by something, who created god? Who created its god? Eventually, your going to need a eternal diety, however far up the chain (and due to the fact that it is eternal, all things preceding it, including god, and our universe, are also eternal, and thus, cyclical.)

Thus, the logic used to prove their is a god invalidates itself by proving the universe is eternal, and godless.

Second of all, if the universe is infinite, and all probabilities exist, why does the universe still exist? Considering one of the possibilities is "Someone/something permanently destroyed the universe".

[KnightDavion]

No, we didn't get really lucky. We grew to fit the constants.

This principle you are describing is called the Anthropic Principle and to invoke it opens up a scientific can of worms that leads to circular arguments that have been going on for decades. Google it if you want.

Regardless, you are assuming that life as we know it would be possible if the universe had evolved differently, I disagree, and I am certainly not alone. What kinds of life could exist in a universe where only 2 linear dimensions were smooth and the rest were all curled up? Currently we have 3 flat linear dimensions and one time dimension. How would blood flow in a 2d creature? How would it eat?

I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that life needs very specific, very rare conditions to evolve, else why wouldn't we see life everywhere we look? In the center of the Sun perhaps?

[halfthought]

This principle you are describing is called the Anthropic Principle and to invoke it opens up a scientific can of worms that leads to circular arguments that have been going on for decades. Google it if you want.

Regardless, you are assuming that life as we know it would be possible if the universe had evolved differently, I disagree, and I am certainly not alone. What kinds of life could exist in a universe where only 2 linear dimensions were smooth and the rest were all curled up? Currently we have 3 flat linear dimensions and one time dimension. How would blood flow in a 2d creature? How would it eat?

I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that life needs very specific, very rare conditions to evolve, else why wouldn't we see life everywhere we look? In the center of the Sun perhaps?

The chances for the existence of life doesn't need proving. If life didn't exist, there would be nobody to observe the universe which does not contain life.

You can't be lucky in this context. Since your trying to factually prove that life requires god, you've got to stick to facts. The facts assert their is zero evidence of the existence of a soul (In this case, defined as a consciousness/being that precedes (and may or may not supersede, that is irrelevant in the argument) the existence of the of a physical individual). The lack of a soul independent on the existence of a individual means that you do not exist prior to your (or a predecessor, if reincarnation exists) physical being.

Meaning their is a level of complexity needed to create consciousness (in our case, our brain). Prior to the existence of that level of complexity, the being we refer to as "self" does not exist. Something that does not exist cannot be lucky, because since an infinite amount of things do not exist, the chances for anything existing would be the mathematically improbable chance of 1/Infinity for it to exist. The chances for the identity/persona known as "you" is just as improbable as H atom existing at any given point in space, namely being 1:infinity, going by your logic.



This entire **** is pseudoscience. You guys are grasping at vague principals which you don't understand the complexity of the math surrounding it, and projecting it to fit your beliefs. That isn't how science works. Science simply cannot logically prove or deny the existence of a being that supersedes the principals of science. A god bound by science and logic is simply not a god, but a really powerful but fallible being.

Stop trying to prove or deny a God. It cannot be done. That is the nature of omnipotence. If the god can be proven to exist, it is not a god. And If it isn't a god, I hope we'll be the first to kill it :).

[KnightDavion]

The chances for the existence of life doesn't need proving. If life didn't exist, there would be nobody to observe the universe which does not contain life.

The Anthropic Principle, nearly verbatim.


Again this leads to circular arguments that people a lot smarter than you or I could not resolve so lets not argue that particular point. The real question is would life evolve under other more extreme conditions like those found in other big bang events? In my opinion since the vast majority of our universe which DOES allow for the conditions necessary for life to exist, is in fact devoid of life, suggests that life cannot evolve under just any old random conditions.

You disagree I assume?

[halfthought]

The Anthropic Principle, nearly verbatim.


Again this leads to circular arguments that people a lot smarter than you or I could not resolve so lets not argue that particular point. The real question is would life evolve under other more extreme conditions like those found in other big bang events? In my opinion since the vast majority of our universe which DOES allow for the conditions necessary for life to exist, is in fact devoid of life, suggests that life cannot evolve under just any old random conditions.

You disagree I assume?

Sorry, I was oversimplifying in my OP, I edited to explain more in depth.


Heres another example.

Do the math.
X=All possible and non possible items which may or may not exist
X=Infinity
1/X=Chance for any specific item to exist, assuming at least one item must exist.

1/X * X = X/X

X/X=1

Chance of existence=100%

Heres the thing

1/Infinity is 0.

Chance of existing = 0%

In your argument, your saying we got "lucky" to exist. A previously nonexistent object cannot exist because of "luck", because the concept of chance cannot be applied to nonexistent objects. Nonexistent objects are represented by a 0, or more accurately, the chance for them to exist is completely unknown. Thus, nonexistent objects cannot be lucky. If a consciousness does not exist until the moment it physically exists, it is not luck that causes consciousness to arise. It isn't a designer either. It is inevitable, because it the moment you can put a chance to it, it already exists.

[KnightDavion]

Sorry, I was oversimplifying in my OP, I edited to explain more in depth.


Heres another example.

Do the math.
X=All possible and non possible items which may or may not exist
X=Infinity
1/X=Chance for any specific item to exist, assuming at least one item must exist.

1/X * X = X/X

X/X=1

Chance of existence=100%

Heres the thing

1/Infinity is 0.

Chance of existing = 0%

Before you call that logic bullshit, let me say, I agree. Its pretty mathematically flawed. But its the same argument you are using. In your argument, your saying we got "lucky" to exist. A nonexistent object cannot exist because of "luck", because the concept of chance cannot be applied to nonexistent objects. Nonexistent objects are represented by a 0, or more accurately, the chance for them to exist is completely unknown. Thus, nonexistent objects cannot be lucky.

Well I thought I understood what you meant until I read your edit now I am really confused. Answer this yes or no to help clarify for me:

Do you think anthropic life could exist in say, a 2 dimensional universe? (assume only two linear dimensions are mostly flat the rest curled up to quantum size)

[halfthought]

Well I thought I understood what you meant until I read your edit now I am really confused. Answer this yes or no to help clarify for me:

Do you think anthropic life could exist in say, a 2 dimensional universe? (assume only two linear dimensions are mostly flat the rest curled up to quantum size)

Do you think a 2 dimensional universe can even exist? We have no proof it does. Its a irrelevant question. And no.

edit: Sorry for the frequent edits (ironic, i know). I'm at work right now, and this is more like jotting down notes then forming a cohesive post on the first try. Think I'm done editing now :P

[KnightDavion]

Do you think a 2 dimensional universe can even exist? We have no proof it does. Its a irrelevant question. And no.

edit: Sorry for the frequent edits (ironic, i know). I'm at work right now, and this is more like jotting down notes then forming a cohesive post on the first try. Think I'm done editing now :P

yes I think there is a chance that the universe could very well have had a different number of linear dimensions if there was no intelligent design to prevent it from expanding that way. And thats the whole core of what I am trying to say, mathematically speaking the chances of our universe expanding the way it did out of pure chance are very slim to say the least. thus we have evidence of intelligent design.

You should note if you are interested in this subject this is just one of MANY examples of evidence that could be interpreted as intelligent design in science. Some of the others are even more cool and complex like the Uncertainty Principle.

[halfthought]

yes I think there is a chance that the universe could very well have had a different number of linear dimensions if there was no intelligent design to prevent it from expanding that way. And thats the whole core of what I am trying to say, mathematically speaking the chances of our universe expanding the way it did out of pure chance are very slim to say the least. thus we have evidence of intelligent design.

You should note if you are interested in this subject this is just one of MANY examples of evidence that could be interpreted as intelligent design in science. Some of the others are even more cool and complex like the Uncertainty Principle.

Well I think your stupid.

>:|

Joking, you're not, but my point is what evidence do you have to prove a 2 dimensional universe is likely, or even possible? You've shown me no logic in that, so perhaps a reliable source?

Also, let me note this is only if one universe exists. If many universes exist, intelligent life is inevitable (chance). Since consciousness is unique to its physical shell/progenitor, it isn't chance that our consciousness got itself a physical body-It couldn't exist without one, and in fact, are the same thing. Our brain IS our consciousness. When our brain was functional, so became our consciousness. Neither existed without the other. Arguing about intelligent design in a multiverse theory just becomes absurd. Its like arguing that its mathematically improbable that this specific Cake occupies the space where it does, instead of anywhere else on the multi-verse, and only God could have made such an unlikely event come true.

Finally, one last edit, my closing thoughts...Chance itself is a human conception. Nothing exists because of chance in the universe. Nothing is truly random. EVERYTHING about this argument is absurd, whether at a micro or macro level. Like my cake analogy. What is the chance their is cake in a (relative to humans) specific location on a table during a birthday party? Very high.

Now, what is the possibility that those carbon atoms that comprise the cake exist in that specific location in space in time in this universe? Incredibly improbable. Chance is a way of predicting something in which not all the variables are known to us by observing patterns. If their was only one universe, what weight does chance have? If this universe is the only one that exists, their are no other variables. It is the ONLY ONE. Meaning their are no patterns we can base it on. Chance falls apart when their is only, and has only been one possibility.

[KnightDavion]

You've shown me no logic in that, so perhaps a reliable source?


Hmm ok just off the top of my head...


The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be so
close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been
very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be
very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended
to create beings like us.

Hawking, 1987. "A Brief History of Time" pg 65.


EDIT: Heres something from later in the book you might find interesting too:


There may well be other regions of the
universe, or other universes (whatever that may mean), in which all the dimensions are curled up small or in
which more than four dimensions are nearly flat, but there would be no intelligent beings in such regions to
observe the different number of effective dimensions.

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 11
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/j.html (8 of 11) [2/20/2001 3:15:56 AM]
.

[IAmRoot]

We usually think of things in 3 dimensions, but you can think of time as a dimension, too. Also, I think string theory uses something like 27 dimensions. It's just the way you interpret the world and doesn't really matter.

Rather than being logically fallacious, let's have some proper logic and stop having a discussion trying to prove a negative (that things aren't intelligently designed). What makes you think that there's logic to the universe?

Also, nice local URI :).

As far as the "we're so lucky" thing goes, on a smaller scale it's exactly the same thing as why fish live in water and not on land. They evolved to fit their conditions. I don't understand what's so hard about that. Also, I believe it's string theory that allows for universal constants to change among parallel universes. If there are an infinite number of universes (which, if I am correct, would also be a solution to the black hole information paradox), then it's perfectly reasonable to have many universes that fall within even a tiny region of possibilities.

[halfthought]

As far as the "we're so lucky" thing goes, on a smaller scale it's exactly the same thing as why fish live in water and not on land. They evolved to fit their conditions. I don't understand what's so hard about that. Also, I believe it's string theory that allows for universal constants to change among parallel universes. If there are an infinite number of universes (which, if I am correct, would also be a solution to the black hole information paradox), then it's perfectly reasonable to have many universes that fall within even a tiny region of possibilities.

I support your point, but their are many universe that simply cannot support organized complexity (as opposed to disorganized complexity, or chaos), information storage, causality, or even simply cannot exist for more then several fractions of a second. These aren't even the prerequisites for life as we know it, these are the prerequisites of information storage in a way that allows life. Life, regardless of your definition of it cannot exist without finite non-zero organized complexity or information storage and transfer.

Obviously, if their are infinite, or even "a lot of" (on a cosmological scale) of universes, the chance that intelligent life exists is inevitable. The chance that our specific "self" exists is completely normal, unless you believe in pseudo-science of dualism which has no factual base.

If the universe is singular, the very fact that their are no other possible universes make a life supporting universe that we live in completely probable. Probabilities is the study of patterns to predict unknown variables with a degree(%) of certainty. Since the only pattern that exists is the universe we live in, which supports life, and is the only universe that has ever existed, probability simply is not applicable.

EX: Universes that have existed in the past that do not support intelligent life: 0. Probability of our universe not supporting intelligent life: 0%

[Pettypete]

This principle you are describing is called the Anthropic Principle and to invoke it opens up a scientific can of worms that leads to circular arguments that have been going on for decades. Google it if you want.

Regardless, you are assuming that life as we know it would be possible if the universe had evolved differently, I disagree, and I am certainly not alone. What kinds of life could exist in a universe where only 2 linear dimensions were smooth and the rest were all curled up? Currently we have 3 flat linear dimensions and one time dimension. How would blood flow in a 2d creature? How would it eat?

I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that life needs very specific, very rare conditions to evolve, else why wouldn't we see life everywhere we look? In the center of the Sun perhaps?

You cannot assume that life cannot exist anywhere outside of earth just because we do not know life in any other form but on earth, where we have specific conditions. Also, if someone was to exist inside a 2d universe, that would be their universe and there would be certain 2d laws within the 2d universe. You cannot compare 3d universe laws to 2d universe laws. Someone from a dimension higher than the dimension in question, for example, someone living in the 4d universe looking at a 3d universe would see the 3d universe as nearly frozen in time. Let me to elaborate.

Imagine a 1 dimensional universe. A 1 dimensional universe would be a line. Now, imagine a 2 dimensional universe, which would be a plane. If the 1d universe moved in a 1d direction perpendicularly, then it would form 2d. However, within the 1d, everything is the same; the universe remains equal, but as it moves through time (perpendicular direction) it becomes 2d. Same thing for 2d; a 2 dimensional universe moves in a 2 dimensional direction, creating a 3d sphere. The important thing to notice here is that the catalyst between dimensions is the movement through time. Now since we know that we live in a 3d universe, with time present, we can assume that our movement through time create a 4d universe. However, it is not necessarily true that we create just a 4d universe... it's possible that we live in a infinitely dimensional universe, as long as time exists.

Now, knowing this, we can assume that for something in the 3d universe to become 4d, it would have to be moving at an infinite velocity. If moving at an infinite velocity, it would theoretically become frozen in time in the 3 dimensional universe. Therefore, everything in the 3d universe will remain static. Vice versa, if someone is in the 3d universe and is looking at something existing in the 4th dimension, it would be moving infinitely fast. To sum up, as we exist in the 3d universe, if we looked at something in the 2d universe it would look like it was frozen in time. Therefore, it's impossible to really say what's going on in the 2d universe as we exist in the 3d universe, and it's impossible to speculate that life could not possibly exist in the 2d universe, just as it's impossible to prove that life does exist in it.

Once again, it is just a matter of where your faith lies.

[halfthought]

You cannot assume that life cannot exist anywhere outside of earth just because we do not know life in any other form but on earth, where we have specific conditions. Also, if someone was to exist inside a 2d universe, that would be their universe and there would be certain 2d laws within the 2d universe. You cannot compare 3d universe laws to 2d universe laws. Someone from a dimension higher than the dimension in question, for example, someone living in the 4d universe looking at a 3d universe would see the 3d universe as nearly frozen in time. Let me to elaborate.

Imagine a 1 dimensional universe. A 1 dimensional universe would be a line. Now, imagine a 2 dimensional universe, which would be a plane. If the 1d universe moved in a 1d direction perpendicularly, then it would form 2d. However, within the 1d, everything is the same; the universe remains equal, but as it moves through time (perpendicular direction) it becomes 2d. Same thing for 2d; a 2 dimensional universe moves in a 2 dimensional direction, creating a 3d sphere. The important thing to notice here is that the catalyst between dimensions is the movement through time. Now since we know that we live in a 3d universe, with time present, we can assume that our movement through time create a 4d universe. However, it is not necessarily true that we create just a 4d universe... it's possible that we live in a infinitely dimensional universe, as long as time exists.

Now, knowing this, we can assume that for something in the 3d universe to become 4d, it would have to be moving at an infinite velocity. If moving at an infinite velocity, it would theoretically become frozen in time in the 3 dimensional universe. Therefore, everything in the 3d universe will remain static. Vice versa, if someone is in the 3d universe and is looking at something existing in the 4th dimension, it would be moving infinitely fast. To sum up, as we exist in the 3d universe, if we looked at something in the 2d universe it would look like it was frozen in time. Therefore, it's impossible to really say what's going on in the 2d universe as we exist in the 3d universe, but it's impossible to speculate that life could not possibly exist in the 2d universe, just as it's impossible to prove that life does exist in it.

Once again, it is just a matter of where your faith lies.

Life would have to be exponentially simpler in a 2d universe. A single prokaryotic cell represents a terabytes of data (I mean to reconstruct the entire cell, not just the DNA which is just a couple megs of data). In a 2d universe, in the amount of space we could encode a terabyte of data, in the 3d universe, we could encode a terabyte^2. That kind of universe really doesn't promote organized complexity that allows sentient life. The human brain would need to be as big as a small moon (obviously, that isn't possible due to stuff like gravity, or a hell lot of other things).

Second of all, complexity would also be exponentially less then our universe, and complexity is the fundamental basic of life.

Basically, unless the 2d universe had a COMPLETELY different set of physical laws, including gravity etc etc, I don't see how it could support life. Remember, life can't even exist on Mars, and the only thing wrong with that is its a couple hundred degrees too cold, and theirs a lot of methane.

[KnightDavion]

A bunch of stuff that makes no sense to me

Sorry I don't understand much of what you wrote can you please clarify? Also I NEVER said I did not think life could not exist on other planets. I said life could not exist in other universes, or other regions of our own universe that have different fundamental laws.

[halfthought]

Sorry I don't understand much of what you wrote can you please clarify? Also I NEVER said I did not think life could not exist on other planets. I said life could not exist in other universes, or other regions of our own universe that have different fundamental laws.

Hes saying life can exist in 2 and 1 dimensional universes, we could never know. Not other planets


regions of our own universe that have different fundamental laws.what? They're are regions of our own universe with different fundamental laws? I thought the entire point about laws were that they weren't different. lol.

[Pettypete]

Life would have to be exponentially simpler in a 2d universe. A single prokaryotic cell represents a terabytes of data (I mean to reconstruct the entire cell, not just the DNA which is just a couple megs of data). In a 2d universe, in the amount of space we could encode a terabyte of data, in the 3d universe, we could encode a terabyte^2. That kind of universe really doesn't promote organized complexity that allows sentient life. The human brain would need to be as big as a small moon (obviously, that isn't possible due to stuff like gravity, or a hell lot of other things).

Basically, unless the 2d universe had a COMPLETELY different set of physical laws, including gravity etc etc, I don't see how it could support life.

The forces of gravity would be relative; if everything was attracted to each other in a proportion equal to the 3d universe, then it would relatively, be equal to the 2d universe. Imagine if all matter in the universe had 2x mass than it originally has right now... would it change anything? (I'm not too sure about this actually, so please enlighten me)

[halfthought]

The forces of gravity would be relative; if everything was attracted to each other in a proportion equal to the 3d universe, then it would relatively, be equal to the 2d universe. Imagine if all matter in the universe had 2x mass than it originally has right now... would it change anything? (I'm not too sure about this actually, so please enlighten me)

If everything in the universe had 2x the mass it has right now, it would explode as the delicate 1:1 ratio between the positive Mass of matter and the negative mass of Gravity is eschewed, and well....

Let this picture illustrate the general idea.

http://boxtofu.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/explosion.jpg

Second of all, gravity is obviously not linear. (As the other thread a couple posts down in the OT forum rants about :P). A linear change in mass results in non-linear effects on gravity. If the universe had a square of its current mass (as a 2d universe would suggest), the gravity would go down by a much higher level, and the universe would explode (again), then heat death.

(Note: By explode, I really wish It was as cool as things actually going boom. Though it would be pretty ****ing awesome if the universe actually conflagrated into a universe big explosion. I actually meant the technical definition in which everything flys out super rapidly until their so far apart the whole thing just approaches near heat deaths from maximal entropy in a incredibly short (relative, probably millions/billion of year(s), as opposed to 100^50'ish years in our current universe))

And uh, thats just the cosmic effect of doubling mass. If mass actually doubled, I have no idea how it would effect our day to day lives. Somewhere between "imploding" and "weighing 50 pounds more" and "having Earth slingshotted into the sun". No idea.

[Pettypete]

Well I think your stupid.

>:|

Joking, you're not, but my point is what evidence do you have to prove a 2 dimensional universe is likely, or even possible? You've shown me no logic in that, so perhaps a reliable source?

Also, let me note this is only if one universe exists. If many universes exist, intelligent life is inevitable (chance). Since consciousness is unique to its physical shell/progenitor, it isn't chance that our consciousness got itself a physical body-It couldn't exist without one, and in fact, are the same thing. Our brain IS our consciousness. When our brain was functional, so became our consciousness. Neither existed without the other. Arguing about intelligent design in a multiverse theory just becomes absurd. Its like arguing that its mathematically improbable that this specific Cake occupies the space where it does, instead of anywhere else on the multi-verse, and only God could have made such an unlikely event come true.

Finally, one last edit, my closing thoughts...Chance itself is a human conception. Nothing exists because of chance in the universe. Nothing is truly random. EVERYTHING about this argument is absurd, whether at a micro or macro level. Like my cake analogy. What is the chance their is cake in a (relative to humans) specific location on a table during a birthday party? Very high.

Now, what is the possibility that those carbon atoms that comprise the cake exist in that specific location in space in time in this universe? Incredibly improbable. Chance is a way of predicting something in which not all the variables are known to us by observing patterns. If their was only one universe, what weight does chance have? If this universe is the only one that exists, their are no other variables. It is the ONLY ONE. Meaning their are no patterns we can base it on. Chance falls apart when their is only, and has only been one possibility.

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.