We know the universe is expanding.

According to widely accepted Big Bang theory:

We can then follow this expansion back in time in reverse and follow it back to the moment the universe began as a single pixel of matter. From there we can follow out the immediate chaotic flow of a universe worth of matter and energy expanding from this single point. But why stop at the immediate moment after the bang? Take it back a mere moment more and there is nothing. An eternity of nothing existed before this. What could cause something to result from nothing after an eternity previous? God. You athiests even have faith that science can solve your mystery. Your faith alone is religion. Yours are based off of different books and scripts than the norm but you have a belief of your own and it's shortcomings are god.

Many of you may be familiar with the following table:

_________1

________1 1

_______1 2 1

______1 3 3 1

_____1 4 6 4 1

It can be derived by taking the 2 numbers above any number and adding them together to get the number in the row below.

From this we can derive the following

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

_0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

__0 0 1 2 1 0 0

___0 1 3 3 1 0

____1 4 6 4 1

If we take the table out farther we see the zeroes continue on to infinity around it.

If you do not know this table is the basis of nearly all of probability and can also be derived with the following:

row 0: (x+y)^0

row 1: (x+y)^1 = 1x+1y

row 2: (x+y)^2 = 1x^2+2xy+1y^2

row 3: (x+y)^3 = 1x^3+3x^2y+3xy^2+y^3

The multipliers of the variables end up on the table, this works on until infinity.

What comes above this table? Well using any method I've explained so far, or even some I have not, it is impossible to calculate anything above, actually it has the potential to be any real number. Without the single 1 to start the table off there would be an infinite amount of order in this series of all 0s. How does one single 1 come about in the infinite array to create all of probability? God is the reason there is probability at all, god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all of science and the movements of atomic particles and endless more possible.

So all you violent god deniers, deny this.

[This message has been edited by T-BagBikerStar (edited 05-12-2005).]

Deny what? That's the worse piece of circular logic I've read in my life.

It's a different interpretation of god, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it poor, what makes athiest's faith in science any different from a christian's faith in that they will be brought to heaven? Much of science is umproven as is christianity and our faith in whatever we believe is religion in itself. I have argued that probability for all of science and all of existance is impossible without some intervention from a greater power.

Who said it was poor because I don't understand it? It's poor because it is circular logic.

You set out to prove god's existence, and in doing so, you use the premise that "How does one single 1 come about in the infinite array to create all of probability? God is the reason there is probability at all, god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all of science and the movements of atomic particles and endless more possible."

Thus.... circular logic.

Now to answer your questions,

quote:That makes athiest's faith in science any different from a christian's faith in that they will be brought to heaven?

That Science is not faith, since it relies on scientific evidence, unlike Christianity.

Whatever Science hasn ot figured out yet, it is in the process of doing so, again with scientific evidence, which again is unlike Christianity and their faith.

The two are certainly not comparable.

quote: Much of science is umproven as is christianity and our faith in whatever we believe is religion in itself.

No. Faith does not equal religion in and of itself.

quote: I have argued that probability for all of science and all of existance is impossible without some intervention from a greater power.

And you did so with circular logic...



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-12-2005).]

Re learn the big bang. K?

quote:we can then follow this expansion back in time in reverse and follow it back to the moment the universe began as a single pixel of matter.

no

quote:But why stop at the immediate moment after the bang? Take it back a mere moment more and there is nothing .

no

quote:An eternity of nothing existed before this.

no

Wow.... this is just... uhh? yeah? umm....... you really ought to know what your talking about (the guy who posted this thread) before you post. I just love how as time goes on things change to being god's creation. First, evolution wasn't real, now alot of the people I talk to are like, "Yep, its real allright, and its all god's plan baby!" And the big bang "Nope, sorry, didn't happen!" Is now "Oh yeah, that was god who did that." It goes on and on. The ramblings of a worn out man.

Okay fuck it, I don't even agree with my perspective, but all we have on here are a bunch of rants against christianity so I was trying to get some argument against atheism. Sadly there are not good arguments against it so that was the best I could come up with to try to shake up all the athiests on the sight. Sadly it did not work out so well. Great go on with your scientific god hating lives.

well i'd be nice to see you love god seeing as hes the guy whos going to poke a stick thourhg your ass and make you roast for an iternity in diamond melting helfires in the pits of satans tomb. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Existence created probability.

BTW, I don't see any circular logic in his argument. Also, I don't hate things that I think are imaginary.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Existence created probability.

BTW, I don't see any circular logic in his argument. Also, I don't hate things that I think are imaginary.

Score, 1 person agrees with my logic somewhat on the topic. You rock Clarphimous!

1) You don't understand the big-bang theory.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

1) You don't understand the big-bang theory.

I understand it perfectly well, you try to summarize it better in the time. For the sake of my argument my shortcomings don't matter, and I admit I had to augment it a bit to fit my needs.

Most astromomers believe in a closed universe where the universe gets smaller to the point where it implodes rather than one where it is explanding.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

Most astromomers believe in a closed universe where the universe gets smaller to the point where it implodes rather than one where it is explanding.

You just posted the largest load of crap I have ever heard on totse... that's a big accomplishment, congrats. Hubble is famous for conducting endless tests and proving the universe is expanding. Since then we have only gathered more and more evidence on the topic. How does the fact that all our observations show other galaxies moving away from our own show the universe to be imploding? Essentually you posted a load of crap.

You're the biggest load of crap on TOTSE!!!!!!!!! LOLOLO!!!! PWNED!!!!

P.S. All my science knowledge comes from 80's and 70's textbooks

P.P.S. I like post scriptums

P.P.P.S. You suck... DICK!!!

hey,T-BagBikerStar

this is what i want to tell you.

saying that god created something because something can't come from nothing, is just a guess. and I hope you know that as well as I do.

that was all rust was trying to say.

it is circluar logic. you are basically saying "god exists because how could nothing come from something, thus god exists." that is not even close to proof.

if you stil don't beleive me then; how was god created?

You argument for this would probably be "he/she/it was always their."

Well, then couldn't matter have always been their instead of a god?.....Of course!!... but you are to involved in trying to find an answer because your doubt in thier being a god that you didn't see that.

I swear some of you christians need to get your head outta your ass and smell some roses instead.

your statement is thus void and I have nothing further to say,

P.s. Have a good day.



[This message has been edited by apitite (edited 05-12-2005).]

God can suck my dick in hell. He'd damn well fucking better.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Existence created probability.

BTW, I don't see any circular logic in his argument. Also, I don't hate things that I think are imaginary.

Premise: God exists.

"Proof" of premise: "How does one single 1 come about in the infinite array to create all of probability? God is the reason there is probability at all, god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all of science and the movements of atomic particles and endless more possible."

Which, in other words is, "God exists because he is responsible for creating all probability", which is circular logic.

Hah, light changes frequency from blue to red as it moves twards and away from your spot. If an interstelar object is moving twards us, it has a blueshift. If its moving away, a redshift. All objects in the universe appear to have a redshift. This of course excludes small things like orbits, comets, all that stuff. (I think I explained that right... if anyone knows what im talking about, tell me.)

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

We know the universe is expanding.

According to widely accepted Big Bang theory:

We can then follow this expansion back in time in reverse and follow it back to the moment the universe began as a single pixel of matter. From there we can follow out the immediate chaotic flow of a universe worth of matter and energy expanding from this single point. But why stop at the immediate moment after the bang? Take it back a mere moment more and there is nothing. An eternity of nothing existed before this. What could cause something to result from nothing after an eternity previous? God. You athiests even have faith that science can solve your mystery. Your faith alone is religion. Yours are based off of different books and scripts than the norm but you have a belief of your own and it's shortcomings are god.

Many of you may be familiar with the following table:

_________1

________1 1

_______1 2 1

______1 3 3 1

_____1 4 6 4 1

It can be derived by taking the 2 numbers above any number and adding them together to get the number in the row below.

From this we can derive the following

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

_0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

__0 0 1 2 1 0 0

___0 1 3 3 1 0

____1 4 6 4 1

If we take the table out farther we see the zeroes continue on to infinity around it.

If you do not know this table is the basis of nearly all of probability and can also be derived with the following:

row 0: (x+y)^0

row 1: (x+y)^1 = 1x+1y

row 2: (x+y)^2 = 1x^2+2xy+1y^2

row 3: (x+y)^3 = 1x^3+3x^2y+3xy^2+y^3

The multipliers of the variables end up on the table, this works on until infinity.

What comes above this table? Well using any method I've explained so far, or even some I have not, it is impossible to calculate anything above, actually it has the potential to be any real number. Without the single 1 to start the table off there would be an infinite amount of order in this series of all 0s. How does one single 1 come about in the infinite array to create all of probability? God is the reason there is probability at all, god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all of science and the movements of atomic particles and endless more possible.

So all you violent god deniers, deny this.



Although your mostly full of shit, AMEN BROTHER!

As a sidenote, if someone can find a better explanation to those hundreds of chariots and armour found in the dead sea (exactly where the bible said they would be) other than a big cyclone of fire, a dude that can part waters and other supernatural wonders - i'd like to hear it

***

God is not real.

Define what real means,

Prove your own existance with this definition,

Also with this deifinition Prove the existance of all other beings in the world,

Now prove the existance of the world with this rule,

Now prove the existance of space with this rule,

Now disprove the existance of god with this same definition.

----------------------------------------

For various reasons, i strongly doubt you can.

Ill be back in the morning to see who wins,

good luck fella

***

See? This is the intellect of those who believe in God. Stupid. Fucking stupid.

God and the Big Bang will always have issues with each other because it would seem that both are equally probable as an explanation for how the universe was created. Because they appear equally probable, the origin of the universe becomes irrelevant to the debate. It can't add anything because the argument goes nowhere. You have to look at other things like Would it really make sense that there's some dude in the sky who sent his son down to save people from the sin they were born with as a result of a snake telling some lady to eat an apple? Now I know that's Christianity, not God, but the point is still (sort of) valid. I guess the bigger question here is what is God? I don't believe in a god in any form, but what I call the Big Bang some call God. Some people say he is just energy that started the universe. To me this doesn't sound like a very good god, but whatever. ...your beliefs, not mine

Edit: I do like the argument though. With all the numbers and stuff. It would almost make sense if it could overcome the fact that saying God came from nowhere is the same as saying the Big Bang came from nowhere

[This message has been edited by GlitterPunk112358 (edited 05-12-2005).]

You know, this is so typical of retarded Creationist arguments for the existnce of "God."

Ahem:

quote:"According to the Big Bang theory..."

Yeah, ok, anything could work if you set it up in that method. Why don't you just come out and say "According to the Creation theory, God exists"

http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang

Check those out. You might have a change of heart, unless, like the fundamentals accuse others, your heart is shut to the possibility of change.

And seriously, take a logical argument course and a truly inquisitive astronomy course that will actually examine the facts instead of regurgitating the commonly held theories of universal evolution... Whose premises are mistaken if not completely wrong.

Remember Ptolemy? Remember epicycles? That was disproven long before Copernicus and Kepler came about, but thanks to religion (and the faithful sheep that refused to believe anything but what they took on 'faith') the study of our universe was stalled for at least a thousand years.

Frankly, the argument of a God who is somewhere controlling "propability" like somoene fiddling with a toy is insane. Do you seriously believe there's some guy in the sky watching you? Some guy with ultimate control over everything, and can change the fundamental laws of the universe at a whim?

Instead, try to think about it like the rational religious do: God is inside of you. God, in a greater sense, is our shared collective life. The force that gives movement and life to this otherwise meaningless sack of water and dirt. God is the greater psychological, spiritual and physical law dictating what life can and can not do, not some entity like Santa Claus that is watching you to see if you are bad or not (so be good for goodness sake).

But I know what you're going to say, and all people in your position say it. "You're just an unbeliever" or "If you just had faith, you would understand."

Well, duh. If I believed it then I'd believe it, wouldn't I? If I was blind then I'd be blind. Yeah, real good argument there, Aristotle.

How about this:

Try to modify your views to fit the world instead of trying to modify the world to fit your views. It makes much more sense that way.

-Dust

This is the Closed Circuit intellect of all christians, This and this is here because god made it, But Who the fuck made god? Did he just crawl out of a blackhole from another dimension? No, no he didn't, he didn't because he didn't/doesn't exist. And not only that but christianity is a fake/incorrect Racist religion. If your going to believe in religion, at least believe in the Islamic religion, not some bullshit evil christboppers. To end this statement, I will say that religion is just a metaphor for us returning to our inner most existence.. Energy. Now go to hell christ-bopper, and stay there. ( You do realize that if you believe in your own religion, your going to hell, because your hiding behind the false son of man, In other words, Christ is not gods son, merely another of many prophets, dick-ead.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Deny what? That's the worse piece of circular logic I've read in my life.

Amen to that.

See, Christians these days think that making the idea of god more scientific is making it true.

Calling it "Intelligent design", and using mathematical theories makes it nothing but science itself. Faith is not FIXED as a definition of religon. Faith is beleiving in something. Despite what you think, atheists don't beleive in nothing unless they don't beleive in darwin's theory or another theory either.

I myself am agnostic, and it's a pretty good fact that both modern christians and atheists are complete assholes.

See, no other religon is as provoking and rude as christians. Buddhists usually keep to themselves, same with muslims, wiccans, jews, all them, don't force shit on people, and don't ridicule others. But no, Christians all seem to wear sandals (pun not intended, jesus should go suck a bong.), so they get to tell people where they're wrong and right.

You seemed to call science "Norms based off books and scripts."

Just like christianity. Now don't go off saying "BUT CHRISTIANITY IS THE TRUTH" because to be honest, even mathematical equations still cannot PROVE there is a god. This makes it a theory. Which is WHAT SCIENCE IS. Here's my own personal dictionary's definition of Science:

The group of studies, involving theories made off of existing information and then testing them to find the most logical answer.

Therefore, religon is no better than science. There is more proof of science's ideas than christianity, ask any human being who isn't biased to your cultist new-age crap. Here's my conclusion: You cannot know until you are dead. This is a fact, not a theory like religon or evolution. Therefore, if you can't know until you're 8 feet below dirt, this means the living cannot be sure. I mean, I consider the fact that either side could be right. I could just be dead in the dirt after I die. But I also might just go to hell, but at least I'll have fucking thought for myself in life, unlike you blind fools on both sides of the fence. The thought that I didn't try to "Evangelize" anyone to becoming agnostic in my life would make eons of torture worth it. I do beleive in human conciousness being seperate, but I think when you die, your body shuts down and your "Soul" floats around in a permanent dream, which is influenced by your subconcious thoughts about your life. Some break out of it or don't enter it at all, which can explain apparitions.

Now take your bible buckling crap, you can't compete with me in logic, asshole. I'm a fucking wordsmith, and I can outsmart you or any christian alive on my worst day.

Go drink hemlock,

Cojax.

I think the futurama god is best, a computer collided with God creating a computer god galaxy thing.

Hey if Gearge Bush Got elected then why not this....

Wow. You just proved that not only Christians are morons, but Democrats too.

You all make yourselves look stupid, I hope you know. I don't even need to insult you.

Not only what I said above, But in religion, Premarital sex and masturbation are sins.. How gay is that? I bet ever christian teenager one this site breaks one or both of these rules http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by bored_test_subject:

God is not real.

Then to be appropriate, you should say, "there is no god."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Huggy Bear:

See? This is the intellect of those who believe in God. Stupid. Fucking stupid.

Stupidity has nothing to do with religious preference.

Why don't you try out bigotry next ? It might be better if you just come out with it.

^ ^

I think Digital Savior is right. This has turned into pretty much a Christian-bashing thread, which it shouldn't be. I know plenty of perfectly rational Christians, and I also know Jews and Muslims and Hindus and others that take creation as *fact*.

Be very weary of simply saying "All Christians are stupid" or something to the effect. While all (for our purposes) creationists are Christian, not all Christians are creationists.

I still think Creationism is completely stupid and dead wrong, but assigning stupidity to one specific group of people based on what faith they happen to be is just bigotry. If anything, I'd be talking about Creationists instead of Christians.

-Dust

quote:Originally posted by apitite:

hey,T-BagBikerStar

this is what i want to tell you.

saying that god created something because something can't come from nothing, is just a guess. and I hope you know that as well as I do.

that was all rust was trying to say.

it is circluar logic. you are basically saying "god exists because how could nothing come from something, thus god exists." that is not even close to proof.

if you stil don't beleive me then; how was god created?

You argument for this would probably be "he/she/it was always their."

Well, then couldn't matter have always been their instead of a god?.....Of course!!... but you are to involved in trying to find an answer because your doubt in thier being a god that you didn't see that.

I swear some of you christians need to get your head outta your ass and smell some roses instead.

your statement is thus void and I have nothing further to say,

P.s. Have a good day.



Okay your message is the best to respond to everyone. You have all assumed I am christian and based your arguments off of that. I am not at all. I could not be farther from it infact. Actually it is not curcular logic. I had an introduction: God Exists. A proof: How can something come from nothing? and a conclusion the only explanation of this is god's existance. Either way I do not care for the logic.

Your asking the question how was god created is viewing god as a being which I have completely let go in my argument. God is not a being, I am arguing that god is the unknown, god is what causes these things, god is something beyond requiring existance.

My answer to that is that god came along with these mysteries and with the beginning of the universe, with the beginning of consciousness, with the beginning of question.

I still am not a christian and your argument is void. Get your head out of your ass and don't view everyone as a christian. Read my last dozen posts on this forum too where I was getting ranted for hating on christians. Essentially if you expand your view on what god is then you can merge religion and science and essentially nothing changes.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Deny what? That's the worse piece of circular logic I've read in my life.

I do agree, the logic being used is not correct.

Also, nobody(okay, except for some morons out there) is saying that the big bang actually happened. The big bang is a theory only. If there is such a thing as probablility, than doesn't that give the probability that we happened to exist, and DNA formed correctly to make us? Just because there is probablility, doesn't mean that there is a god.

I didn't know they typically measure actual matter in "pixels".

What the fuck T-BagBikerStar!? Weren't just on this forum showing pictures of starving people and saying this is how God loves his people? Fucking make up your mind.

[This message has been edited by Darkness Consumes (edited 05-13-2005).]

I am not saying this is my own belief, but you still are all viewing god as a being/entity instead of a happenchance. I personally do not believe the big bang theory is a proper analysis and agree more with string theory's version of the moment of singular existance of the universe. I used the word pixel as I could not think of a better word at the moment. It's stupid to bother to post over small errors such as that.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

An eternity of nothing existed before this. What could cause something to result from nothing after an eternity previous? God.



ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS

(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.

(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.

(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.

(4) You win!

(5) Therefore, God exists.

quote:god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all

Occam's Razor (http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif)

Magneto, what you're doing is sophisty at its best. At the worst it's just cheap wordplay and manipulation.

I've said this a hundred times in other posts but the Big Bang has more than one fatal flaw, the greatest one being how we even think about it--redshift. Our basis for the redshift-equals-speed-equals-distance is dramatically skewed.

We see quasars as far away because they're dim and heavily redshifted. However, we have new (November '04) observations that show "far away" quasars interacting with nearby galaxies.

Furthermore, in order for Big Bang calculations to work out, we need to shift the laws of physics to accomodate for many things, the least of which is the *amount* matter in the galaxy.

Dark matter? Dark energy?

We might as well just start using epicycles again.

Of course, the faith-blind never had a problem with epicycles, because they simply accepted those things as fact without actually checking. Well, I've done my homework and what the norm is (just as the norm back then was) is not in accordance with actual observations.

I'm sorry, but using the Big Bang to prove the existance of God is no better than using "because I say so".

How about if there was no Big Bang? Then where's your God then?

BikerStar, Magneto, the ball's in your court. But read my other post and check the links before you start cracking heads.

-Dust

-Dust

You're trying to say that the redshift thing doesn't work? Well it does work, the big bang theory may not be correct but the evidence for the universe's motion being in that manner is pretty much endless. They can use radiation left over from moments after the universe's beginning in it's modern era to for images of density distributions of the universe still at a tiny size. (We watched a movie on this in science class). So the universe does appear to have at one point crunched.

I have taken the following definition of god off of wikipedia.

There are variations on defining God either as a person, or not as a person but as an ambiguous impersonal force (see Absolute Infinite).

Every view to argue against my origional post has been viewing god as a person. I have argued for god in the ambiguous impersonal force/Absolute Infinite sense. From this perspective god is what I have described him as an existance amongst infinite nothingness. Outside of our universe? An endlessness that cannot even be descibed as having space. God is the existance of anything amongst infinite nothing.

Please use your brain my friend. Atheists don't all rely on science either, all "atheist" means is the absense of god. Many atheists believe nothing in common except that the idea of a being/creature/thing that many religions refer to as "god" is not logical and has no evidence to support belief in such a thing.

And no, your post is not evidence of any sort.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

well i'd be nice to see you love god seeing as hes the guy whos going to poke a stick thourhg your ass and make you roast for an iternity in diamond melting helfires in the pits of satans tomb. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

If you are referring to god as the christian god, he could not do this, for he is "all good". Also, if god is omniscient that means that everything is predetermined and got knows what is going to happen which would mean that god would have chosen to send people to hell which would conflict with the "all good" characteristic of the christian god.

The idea of an all powerful super-being referred to as god is a rediculous fantasy created to give people an easy way to explain things.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

God is the existance of anything amongst infinite nothing.

Hi T-Bag, how can there be nothing? Where can nothing be found? Are we able to view'nothing'? How is it possible or logical to say nothing existed? Is that an oxy-moron? How can something derive from nothing? Say God, where did god originate? What is more likely, that something has always existed and will always exist as there cannot be nothing? Not because of, but as a fact! There cannot be nothing, nothing does not and cannot exist, as a fact, beyond theory.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Hah, light changes frequency from blue to red as it moves twards and away from your spot. If an interstelar object is moving twards us, it has a blueshift. If its moving away, a redshift. All objects in the universe appear to have a redshift. This of course excludes small things like orbits, comets, all that stuff. (I think I explained that right... if anyone knows what im talking about, tell me.)

(please imagine this in bold and as a qoute i am not good at forums)

Woooo, you go man



The universe is expanding we all no that,after it has finish expanding it will start to shrink because of gravity The way the big bang occured was the big crush theory where another universe which was shrinking shrunk to much so that all of the gallaxies and stuff mix and exploded (Big Bang anyone)



try islam, i did and it worked (seriously it did not kidding) plus because i got in early i had a 98% chance of it succeding. Ask at your nerest mosque.

T bag bike star said sometime ago that if we are willing to change for a minute, our perception and definition of "god" and accept a greater concept of the word, a lot of it would fall into place. true that. but literally EVERYTHING undefinable exists. that again is a null theory. if god is somethihng beyond existance, then it cannot exist. i dont think we have words in english to get at the concept your trying to comunicate.

There is no go, Christianity is myth and superstition just like all religions

According to the big bang theory, before this unverse there was another, not just nothing. The universe before ours expanded, then contracted to a singularity, then bang, there was our universe. There was never nothing.

Is that right?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

T bag bike star said sometime ago that if we are willing to change for a minute, our perception and definition of "god" and accept a greater concept of the word, a lot of it would fall into place. true that. but literally EVERYTHING undefinable exists. that again is a null theory. if god is somethihng beyond existance, then it cannot exist. i dont think we have words in english to get at the concept your trying to comunicate.

Thank you Sarith, you are the only person who has really been able to catch on to what I've been trying to communicate.

AGruntsJaggon, that is not the correct analysis of string theory, it does not predict any prior universes or bangs.

MidgetBasketball, from what is known so far it doesn't appear that the universe is dense enough to cause the reverse crunch and that the universe may just continue expanding for an eternity because gravity will never be able to catch up.

Redzed, your entire argument was that nothing is nothing. Let me tell you, you are right, you have proven nothing as well. You are correct that the words is and nothing should not go together in that way, but the English language does not have a better format to describe that sentence.

Occam's Razor, why? Existence isnt as simple as just nothing.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Redzed, your entire argument was that nothing is nothing. Let me tell you, you are right, you have proven nothing as well.

T-Bag, I was asking, not trying to prove anything, what is truth? How could one ever know objective truth?

Seems to me that existence is the imperative and one has to look no further than the impossibility of there being nothing to find a logical reason for the existence of the universe. What do you think?

quote:Originally posted by Huggy Bear:

See? This is the intellect of those who believe in God. Stupid. Fucking stupid.

I have always said that. If we look in society the less intelligent believe in god, while the more intelligent do not.

I'm majoring in Bio-Chemistry at university and none one person in any of my classes would even accept the theory of god as a possibility.

If I did a lab proving the existence of god I would without a doubt fail because their is no substantial evidence to prove so. I would then be the laughter of the school.

My favorite scenario is as follows:

ME: There is no such thing a god, the mere thought of it means suspending all reason and logic.

Religious asshole: Well..ahh you know there is no such thing as evolution.

Me: I like how you can't defend your belief so you try to pick on one of the hundreds of scientific theories, which have a thousand times more evidence to support them. The theory of evolution shouldn't have even been brought up to support your religious belief, in fact since it has sound evidence and logic behind it you should have in effect destroyed your whole argument.

Religious asshole: OMG you don't believe in GOD. You're going to hell.

^(the extent of their intelligence)^

.



[This message has been edited by twista (edited 05-14-2005).]

God says "Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"But you have just proven your existence, so, by your reasoning, you do not exist."

"Oh. I hadn't thought of that." *God vanishes in a puff of logic"

So even if you prove the existence of God, He still doesn't exist.

And learn to spell Atheist.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

T-Bag, I was asking, not trying to prove anything, what is truth? How could one ever know objective truth?

Seems to me that existence is the imperative and one has to look no further than the impossibility of there being nothing to find a logical reason for the existence of the universe. What do you think?

You have proven a shortcoming of language by the fact that nothing can't be, not a proof against god.

My least favorite scenario:

Me: I am not a christian and do not believe in god in any essence of modern religions.

MasterMind420: So proove to me that evolution doesn't exist.

Me: I said I do not believe in that. What I have described is completely compatible with science, if you were not so closed minded and could change your definition of god somewhat you would understand.

MasterMind420: So why doesn't this god just step off of his cloud and proove himself to me.

Me: I HATE YOU FUCKING MORONS! GET OFF OF MY THREAD! GO DIE AND GO TO THE NON-EXISTANT CHRISTIAN HELL! GOD IS NOT A FUCKING BEING!!!

Go and read Sarith's post everyone because he is the only one with a bright enough mind to catch on so far.

You arn't proving anything - all you're doing is basically pointing at an apple and stating that because it exists, it has to come from somewhere; Because it exists, god exists.

U religious always change the meaning of the bible. Pretty soon it will be meaningless.

You always say u cant take it literally, one religion is changing the meanings to meet their needs.

Just follow your heart and common sense. Religion is just a leash of organized religion to control the masses. Take off your leash, take off your leash and run free. Run free and disorginized.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Okay fuck it, I don't even agree with my perspective, but all we have on here are a bunch of rants against christianity so I was trying to get some argument against atheism. Sadly there are not good arguments against it so that was the best I could come up with to try to shake up all the athiests on the sight. Sadly it did not work out so well. Great go on with your scientific god hating lives.

This is the saddest post in Totse history.

how the fuck did you compare god to a table of numbers??

first off, we know numbers are infinite.

so that completely destroys your argument

since it kind of relied on numbers having an end somewhere.

quote:Originally posted by Captian_Recruiter:

U religious always change the meaning of the bible. Pretty soon it will be meaningless.

You always say u cant take it literally, one religion is changing the meanings to meet their needs.

Just follow your heart and common sense. Religion is just a leash of organized religion to control the masses. Take off your leash, take off your leash and run free. Run free and disorginized.

unless im very much mistaken the bible has jack shit to do with this thread... what we'r trying to get at here is that GOD DOESNT HAVE TO BE ANYTHING THATS BEEN DESCRIBED IN SOME HOLY BOOK THAT WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE ANYWAY. god is merely a higher power. not a higher being. kinda like the force in startwars i guess..... now how can you ask the force to come out and show itself???

quote:Originally posted by God of Toilets:

God says "Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"But you have just proven your existence, so, by your reasoning, you do not exist."

"Oh. I hadn't thought of that." *God vanishes in a puff of logic"

So even if you prove the existence of God, He still doesn't exist.

And learn to spell Atheist.

Amen to Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy... And your all wrong its 42.

Any way not that i agree with T-bagwatsname but it is funny how you all started on about christianity when he wasnt speaking about it.

My belif is that the universe expands and then reverses back into its self. But like someone else mentioned i did hear from a show on the discovery channel that someone had calulated the mass of the universe and that it didnt weigh enough for gravity to pull it back in. My theory is that for some reason the cycle that normal flows has been disturbed some how and so the reverse wont happen this time.

Which means lucky for us humans wont die in a couple of hundred billion billion years... or whatever it was.

Not that i think humanity will last that long.

"My belif is that the universe expands and then reverses back into its self."

Where did the first universe come from,

to start the cycle? Or the big bang?

Science does not provide a final reality.

Religion does that. That's the difference.

Science just says "it seems there

was a big bang then" and "we can

tell there are electrons here".

Religion has all the big answers -

But you still have the problem

"how did your god come from nothing"?

There then is the paradox of the

existence of any system, the

chain of causality is infinite.

We can learn more, but we're just

looking deeper into the rabbit hole.

you have to realise that to know te origins of the universe is synonymus with impossible. you can fire an infinite number of "oh, so where did THAT come from?"s at any explaination including how you came into being. because of that EVERY idea of how the universe came into being is simply a null theory. you just have to stick with which ever theory's evidence (lacking in some cases) agrees with you. for now the best answer we have is what snoopy said some time ago... its all from the rectal gas. anyway this isn't about the origins of the universe in fact ive already forgotten what it IS about.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

We know the universe is expanding.

According to widely accepted Big Bang theory:

We can then follow this expansion back in time in reverse and follow it back to the moment the universe began as a single pixel of matter. From there we can follow out the immediate chaotic flow of a universe worth of matter and energy expanding from this single point. But why stop at the immediate moment after the bang? Take it back a mere moment more and there is nothing. An eternity of nothing existed before this. What could cause something to result from nothing after an eternity previous? God. You athiests even have faith that science can solve your mystery. Your faith alone is religion. Yours are based off of different books and scripts than the norm but you have a belief of your own and it's shortcomings are god.

Many of you may be familiar with the following table:

_________1

________1 1

_______1 2 1

______1 3 3 1

_____1 4 6 4 1

It can be derived by taking the 2 numbers above any number and adding them together to get the number in the row below.

From this we can derive the following

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

_0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

__0 0 1 2 1 0 0

___0 1 3 3 1 0

____1 4 6 4 1

If we take the table out farther we see the zeroes continue on to infinity around it.

If you do not know this table is the basis of nearly all of probability and can also be derived with the following:

row 0: (x+y)^0

row 1: (x+y)^1 = 1x+1y

row 2: (x+y)^2 = 1x^2+2xy+1y^2

row 3: (x+y)^3 = 1x^3+3x^2y+3xy^2+y^3

The multipliers of the variables end up on the table, this works on until infinity.

What comes above this table? Well using any method I've explained so far, or even some I have not, it is impossible to calculate anything above, actually it has the potential to be any real number. Without the single 1 to start the table off there would be an infinite amount of order in this series of all 0s. How does one single 1 come about in the infinite array to create all of probability? God is the reason there is probability at all, god is responsible for creating all of probability and making any existance and all of science and the movements of atomic particles and endless more possible.

So all you violent god deniers, deny this.



Thumbs up to you ...i agree...how could a one just appear without the existence of something to make it appear..but of corse what brought the 1 into existance?? something had to do it...therefore yes god exists...but what number would you assign to god? an infinity array of zzeros? nah i belive that god could have been made from something but by following that it wouldent make sence because the zeros speak...ironic...nothingness speaking out heh well im going to say something about this all...im glad someone took a stand against the atheists becasue they seriously need to stop pushign their belifes on everyone else...props to you man for staring this thred and for beinging up a reasonible explanation to the big bang

-Groovy.

If god has infinite power and is hence a god

Surely he affects everything infinitely

This would mean that there would be proof in abundance, in everything in fact that he exists.

This would mean that to not realise he exists would be impossible if he did exist.

You could say he is in a higher place and can't influence the world that would deal with this argument....

But that would mean he isnt really a god.

And that we couldnt get to whatever holy place he is in (ie. heaven), as he couldnt get to us even with his infinite godly powers.

To be honest the sheer lack of any evidence that he exists or ever did exist is proof in itself.

You could say that he could make us stupid so we didnt notice. But as his power is infinite the evidence must also be infinite, that would mean we would have to be infinitely stupid and therefore have 0 intelligence.

As we can read and write to this board that cant be true.

The oinly way he could hide his presence and power would be to hide all infinity of his power, but that would take all his infinity power to cancel out the infinity evidence.

This would mean that he would have 0 power left and so would be powerless, by definition not a god.

quote:Originally posted by MIND:

Occam's Razor, why? Existence isnt as simple as just nothing.

But 'just nothing' doesn't fit the evidence. Occam's Razor instructs us to choose the theory with the least number of entities that fits the evidence.

craig, stop viewing god as a being. Sarith is a genius for understanding comprehending something outside of what already exists on this planet. Nobody else has been bright enough to do that. God doesn't necessarily have power infinite. Oh just to call you stupid some more craig, who the hell says it takes infinite power to hide infinite power from some stupid lousy humans? Anybody can argue that for even the christian god that he can easily cover his power up. Throw away all your beliefs of modern religion because those are all crap. Occam's razor should not be used here however because god in this definition can be necessary and compatible with all that humanity has discovered. Infact it is impossible to deny the existance of this god by any argument or proof if you are bright enough to understand it.

Dark_Magneto is more then bright enough, i just had trouble understanding its definition. I still love his analogy of not being able to remember the movie(life) once its over, its somewhere in the archives. Thanks for the reply, much respect.

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

If god has infinite power and is hence a god

Surely he affects everything infinitely

This would mean that there would be proof in abundance, in everything in fact that he exists.

This would mean that to not realise he exists would be impossible if he did exist.

You could say he is in a higher place and can't influence the world that would deal with this argument....

But that would mean he isnt really a god.

And that we couldnt get to whatever holy place he is in (ie. heaven), as he couldnt get to us even with his infinite godly powers.

To be honest the sheer lack of any evidence that he exists or ever did exist is proof in itself.

You could say that he could make us stupid so we didnt notice. But as his power is infinite the evidence must also be infinite, that would mean we would have to be infinitely stupid and therefore have 0 intelligence.

As we can read and write to this board that cant be true.

The oinly way he could hide his presence and power would be to hide all infinity of his power, but that would take all his infinity power to cancel out the infinity evidence.

This would mean that he would have 0 power left and so would be powerless, by definition not a god.

I'm gonna make this short and incomplete, but hopefully you can get the point anyway.

Just so you know, Faith is much more than belief. And it is much more than just trust.

The problem is not in God's infinite power, nor in the lack of evidence; but in our perception and what we expect to see as proofs. I've noticed that my walk in Faith grows and wanes. And as it fluctuates i understand more or question (faith) more in respect to where the level of my Faith is in those times. (in the over all, it is growing, but to grow, it needs to be questioned).

OK, you said, "This would mean that there would be proof in abundance, in everything in fact that he exists.

This would mean that to not realise he exists would be impossible if he did exist."

This is not true. Just because we do not recognize something, does not mean it is non-existant.

Here is an example:

Have you ever tried to balance a magnet above a magnet? It cant be done. The magnet just flips over, and the two stick together. In 1842, Rev. Samuel Earnshaw published a theorem that established, mathematically, that it (magnetic levitation) can not be done. Earnshaw's theorem is absolutlely correct, but it has some loopholes.

I have a toy that shows one of these loopholes. It's called a "Levitron", which is two magnets, one in the form of a top. When you spin the top just right, and in the right place, it floats above the other magnet. It's pretty cool, if you ask me.

Another loophole is something called, 'diamagnetism' (as opposed to 'ferromagnetism). I'm not sure how it works (you can buy a nifty toy that does it), but i've heard of scientist floating a bowling ball, hamsters, water drops, etc.

Ok, just so we are one the same page, i am not saying floating hamsters in a lab, is proof or lack of proof of God. What i am saying is that, "just because we do not recognize something (your words, "proof in abundance" in this case), does not mean it doesnt exist. All it means is that we might not have looked at things from the right perspective.

As was said in a different topic (i think it was posted by ryanl, in 'Jesus was Jewish' topic, first page), paraphrased for the sake of this response to your post---the more one immerses in God's teaching, the more that can be accomplished-- in this case, noticed and understood.

You said, "The oinly way he could hide his presence and power would be to hide all infinity of his power, but that would take all his infinity power to cancel out the infinity evidence".

That is not true either. If He is all-powerful, He could hide His presence and power to whatever degree He chooses.

And really, is it even possible to cancel out anything infinite? Even by using something infinite? Since, i think, that would be a contradiction of the term 'infinite'.

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

To be honest the sheer lack of any evidence that he exists or ever did exist is proof in itself.

You could say that he could make us stupid so we didnt notice....

The oinly way he could hide his presence and power would be to hide all infinity of his power,



In reguards to what i just posted:

Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;

quote:Originally posted by osmandius

As a sidenote, if someone can find a better explanation to those hundreds of chariots and armour found in the dead sea (exactly where the bible said they would be) other than a big cyclone of fire, a dude that can part waters and other supernatural wonders - i'd like to hear it

Well, that's an interesting argument, but how did we find a city where the illiad suggested it was... and how come the ancient egyptians could build the pyramids as perfectly as they could in an era of a harsh god that they were ignoring and thus meanwhile building these perfect wonders towards other gods?

Because the bible is a STORY and a method of story-telling is to incorporate real figures to make it seem like you can relate to it, it was a realist tactic even used in the era of romantisism.

Every single fucking religion has its wonders that makes up oogle it because we can't seem to beleive how far we've come and how any advancements of technology existed even back then.

You have no argument that's better then any other ridiculous fucking religion and your religion has already been proven to have been based on the pagan religions it was trying to eradicate.

I hate you and I hate God. I have studied your bible- I have read the origional latin version. And it's stupid, it's not even that good of a story. It's written in romantic and it still remains around today...

You will find most people you talk to who think are athiest. If you put the slightest bit of thought into the thought that maybe you're not right in everything you've ever thought.

Study some other religions, study some other theorys before you jump to conclusions...

and to the starter of the thread-

If created everything, then what created god? If god could always exist, couldn't the universe also have that ability?

don't think to hard aobut things, you'll go insane.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

quote:Originally posted by SwordChucks:

and to the starter of the thread-

If created everything, then what created god? If god could always exist, couldn't the universe also have that ability?

don't think to hard aobut things, you'll go insane.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Dear moron,

It is too bad you have not been able to comprehend the plethera of posts I have made so far all putting my purpose into simpler and simpler words. God by the definition I am stressing does not require an explanation, it would be like asking what is the number before infinity, it doesn't exist by definition. What created god is only a valid question when you view god in the sense that modern religions do. When you view god to be more than a spirit/ruler/being, and think of god to be the essence of what we cannot understand more things become clearer to you. Read some of the earlier posts, god is not a creator, and has never influence human life, but god is existant, and infinite.

quote: Originally posted by T-bagbiker

Dear moron,

It is too bad you have not been able to comprehend the plethera of posts I have made so far all putting my purpose into simpler and simpler words. God by the definition I am stressing does not require an explanation, it would be like asking what is the number before infinity, it doesn't exist by definition. What created god is only a valid question when you view god in the sense that modern religions do. When you view god to be more than a spirit/ruler/being, and think of god to be the essence of what we cannot understand more things become clearer to you. Read some of the earlier posts, god is not a creator, and has never influence human life, but god is existant, and infinite.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. God is beyond infinite and thus expanded forever in time before the universe and will continue to exist even when the universe has gone.

But you're not understanding what I'm saying, EVEN THOUGH I don't try to sound smart whilst I'm doing it, like you happen to be doing.

If it's possible for god to be infinite why isn't it possible for the universe to be infinite? Carbon dating? Aging of atoms? Oh wait, none of that makes sense! Atoms don't age, they only change, so it's possible for them to remain in the plane of existance forever.

You have proven nothing, and anything you might have proven is that you think about stupid shit too much.

Now go die, before you prove more obvious things.

Great the universe is infinite, everything has existed forever. That has no impact whatsoever on what I have been trying to explain.

Go and convert over to my side because of my genius.

pwned?

quote:Originally posted by SwordChucks:

Oh, I understand what you're saying. God is beyond infinite and thus expanded forever in time before the universe and will continue to exist even when the universe has gone.

But you're not understanding what I'm saying, EVEN THOUGH I don't try to sound smart whilst I'm doing it, like you happen to be doing.

If it's possible for god to be infinite why isn't it possible for the universe to be infinite? Carbon dating? Aging of atoms? Oh wait, none of that makes sense! Atoms don't age, they only change, so it's possible for them to remain in the plane of existance forever.

You have proven nothing, and anything you might have proven is that you think about stupid shit too much.

Now go die, before you prove more obvious things.



man you seem to be getting realy pissed about this but you two have to notice that the universe is erm, in our dimension not infinite http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) as long as we can calculate the rate at which it is expanding we can calculate an approximate date for its creating using which we can tell roughly how much is has expanded and hence its size. carbon dating works only for hydrocarbons, hence "carbon" dating and unfortunately most things in the universe are hydrogen--not very radioactive. atoms are also made of quarks so of course they age. ageing in a process. as long as something exists it ages, which is why we say something is 'old' or 'new'... it doesn't have to relate to carbon dating. also existance isnt a plane. its four dimensions.. the X, Y and Z axes plus time as the fourth. after having proved everything you said to be more or less false, what IS your point?

oh yes and for the person who wanted to know about how great something managed to find its way into the red sea when the bible said it would, the bible would have to take note that according to it the world is only 6000 years old and the egyptions worked their majic before that 7000 years ago. and you dont need carbon dating to show this. all the pyraminds follow the wobble of the north star which can be traced.

^ we don't know the size of the universe...

Atoms don't age, they cannot be created nor destroyed and the transfer of energy always remains constant.

The four 'dimensions' of which you speak are on a plane of existance, which is called the universe....

Hydrocarbons can be used for life, but... that's about it.

i love how T-Bag is only an atheist every other week

No actually I was merely "not a christian" for the first week and a half before this thread and then this thread exposed the world to an alternate and more scientifically understandable definition of god. Amazing how much it is connected on totse that if you are not an athiest you are automatically a christian.

It is intolerant people like you who just make me sick. Even though I am a n00b, I still respect other people's beliefs, as long as they are not violent.

Murder/Suicide. Seriously



Umm...what where we talking about again?

I'm bored. Anyone mention the non-causal theory of the universe yet? Infinite probability of their being something, and something happens to be this? I like the theory, but disagree with it, since one can say "Why not a god/God?" Plus, the whole argument about there having to be an origin is invalid when one considers that time is dependent on space. If there was originally no matter, then if there were a creator, it would exist outside of both and space- therefor having no beginning or end. Either way, I like those two. Discuss?

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

I'm bored. Anyone mention the non-causal theory of the universe yet? Infinite probability of their being something, and something happens to be this? I like the theory, but disagree with it, since one can say "Why not a god/God?" Plus, the whole argument about there having to be an origin is invalid when one considers that time is dependent on space. If there was originally no matter, then if there were a creator, it would exist outside of both and space- therefor having no beginning or end. Either way, I like those two. Discuss?



I don't like the first statement you put out there at all. First off the probability of there being something is 1 at most. (Probability is defined as the # of working scenarios/the total # of scenarios). Who the hell says that nothing wasn't an option. You are arguing that there were an infinite number of somethings that could have happened. But that would mean there is only 1 this that happened. Probability of this something happening: 1/infinity = 0. Our existance is impossible under that logic.

Second argument, who said god has to exist in space time? Who said he can't exist forever with no start or end? Who says existing outside of spacetime makes you eternal? Who says god can't be connected with the universe in some way, and he begins and ends with it inside of it's dimensions?

At first your arguments seemed sound and intellegent, but they are still quite flawed.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:



I don't like the first statement you put out there at all. First off the probability of there being something is 1 at most. (Probability is defined as the # of working scenarios/the total # of scenarios). Who the hell says that nothing wasn't an option. You are arguing that there were an infinite number of somethings that could have happened. But that would mean there is only 1 this that happened. Probability of this something happening: 1/infinity = 0. Our existance is impossible under that logic.

Second argument, who said god has to exist in space time? Who said he can't exist forever with no start or end? Who says existing outside of spacetime makes you eternal? Who says god can't be connected with the universe in some way, and he begins and ends with it inside of it's dimensions?

At first your arguments seemed sound and intellegent, but they are still quite flawed.

It's infinity over 1 of something existing. Just happens to be what we have here. Second argument was actually for the existence of God.

Edit- by non-causal theory (which I don't believe, but like, by the way), it's infinitely improbable that nothing would exist. It's possible, just infinitely improbable. Oh, and if you take many worlds theory (which I don't) into account as believable, then there are an infinite amount of working universes out there, which would theoretically make sense if the whole state vector interp never had a wave function collapse. I don't believe and don't even pretend to understand it any way except the most superficially conceptual way.



[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

No actually I was merely "not a christian" for the first week and a half before this thread and then this thread exposed the world to an alternate and more scientifically understandable definition of god. Amazing how much it is connected on totse that if you are not an athiest you are automatically a christian.

i wasnt calling you a christian, i was calling you an idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

It's infinity over 1 of something existing. Just happens to be what we have here. Second argument was actually for the existence of God.

Edit- by non-causal theory (which I don't believe, but like, by the way), it's infinitely improbable that nothing would exist. It's possible, just infinitely improbable. Oh, and if you take many worlds theory (which I don't) into account as believable, then there are an infinite amount of working universes out there, which would theoretically make sense if the whole state vector interp never had a wave function collapse. I don't believe and don't even pretend to understand it any way except the most superficially conceptual way.



What you're talking about is odds are infinity over 1, probability is infinity over infinity, probability cannot be greater than 1 no matter what. And that still means that the probability of this something existing are 1/infinity so we don't exist. Luckily we do exist because time and the other dimensions as well as all forms of matter all come in minimum units from which they cannot be divided any further so the number of total possible outcomes is just great beyond all immaginability, not infinite. Infact it's great beyond all the particles in the universe being able to form a calculator to calculate, but it is not infinite nevertheless.

From what we know currently the many worlds theory does seem to make sense... since particle movement is not definate in any way, it only can be represented by a wave of probabilities of it's being at any particular location, it's suggested that there are different universes for each outcome that was possible for each movement of each particle ever. Pretty crazy stuff.

I don't agree with the first statement of non-causal theory. For all we know it could be the opposite and something is infinately improbable, or it could be 50-50 either way for something vs. nothing, nothing in our universe can understand the probabilities of something v. nothing existance, since that does not exist in our universe. Just once there was something in our version of our universe it became guaranteed and that's all any mind in our our universe can comprehend.

No nepalm you were calling me an athiest every other week which was a false statement, I really was a non-christian merely like I said.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

It's infinity over 1 of something existing. Just happens to be what we have here. Second argument was actually for the existence of God.

Edit- by non-causal theory (which I don't believe, but like, by the way), it's infinitely improbable that nothing would exist. It's possible, just infinitely improbable. Oh, and if you take many worlds theory (which I don't) into account as believable, then there are an infinite amount of working universes out there, which would theoretically make sense if the whole state vector interp never had a wave function collapse. I don't believe and don't even pretend to understand it any way except the most superficially conceptual way.



What you're talking about is odds are infinity over 1, probability is infinity over infinity, probability cannot be greater than 1 no matter what. And that still means that the probability of this something existing are 1/infinity so we don't exist. Luckily we do exist because time and the other dimensions as well as all forms of matter all come in minimum units from which they cannot be divided any further so the number of total possible outcomes is just great beyond all immaginability, not infinite. Infact it's great beyond all the particles in the universe being able to form a calculator to calculate, but it is not infinite nevertheless.

From what we know currently the many worlds theory does seem to make sense... since particle movement is not definate in any way, it only can be represented by a wave of probabilities of it's being at any particular location, it's suggested that there are different universes for each outcome that was possible for each movement of each particle ever. Pretty crazy stuff.

I don't agree with the first statement of non-causal theory. For all we know it could be the opposite and something is infinately improbable, or it could be 50-50 either way for something vs. nothing, nothing in our universe can understand the probabilities of something v. nothing existance, since that does not exist in our universe. Just once there was something in our version of our universe it became guaranteed and that's all any mind in our our universe can comprehend.

No nepalm you were calling me an athiest every other week which was a false statement, I really was a non-christian merely like I said.

I don't understand probability being greater than one. I agree with you on the rest (I like state vector, even though no QM really makes sense), but IDIC would seem to dictate that there are infinite possibilities of something compared to only one possibility of nothing. Please elucidate or rephrase because I'm sure you know what I mean, I just don't quite understand by not being infinite. Things could have been made in an infinitely greater quantity, different relative postion (assuming space is infinite), etc. How could there not be IDIC?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that non-causal theory fails to state that the existence of God prior to space, therefor prior to time is equally plausible (a concept I like very much, being Christian myself.)

Here's a better explanation of probability vs odds. Odds are the number of possibilities that go for your argument: infinity, divided by the number of possibilities going against your argument: 1. So the odds would there for be infinity/1. Probability is the number of possibilities that go for your argument: infinity, divided by the total number of possibilities either way: infinity+1 = infinity.

I guess you could argue that all those other things are additional possibilities for what could have happened, but we really don't know enough to say that. What if a certain switch had to be activated before the existance to be even became an option? Then that switch could determine the odds of something being. And even if there could have been any number of particles in any number of positions, the number of particles has to be whole, and there cannot be an infinite number of particles, or gravity would be infinite smashing the universe in on itself and creating nothing again. So there is a numerical limit on the number of particles possibility. Secondly the spacial dimensions have a minimum unit of distance called the planck length, so their position can only be clarified down to a single planck length making this also a number less than infinity.

Wouldn't more quarks and gluons, giving the universe more momentum, be cancelled in force by more gravitons? The ratio of gravitational force to momentum could remain the same, as long as the proportionate number of particles were in existence. Really nice work with the planck length. What's that dependent on, anyway?

Edit- I forgot to say nice expatiation; I understand what you're saying now :-). Terminology had me confused at first.

and I had to change gravitons to gluouns because I repeated myself and made no sense.



[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

Hmm... this gets hard even to comprehend. It depends on whether you believe infinite particles are possible or not. To tell the truth we really just don't know enough, and I doubt we ever will to decide what are possibilities for universes to have, and what aren't.

I think the planck length is derived somehow from the planck constant, but I'm really not sure, that's where my knowledge on the topic ends.

Ah. I know Planck's constant, but then I start confusing things. I wish I either knew more, or things were simpler. It's cool to see someone who knows what they're talking about here :-).

Noone can prove that G-d does or doesnt exist, end of story. The point is that he is infinite, therefore, by deffinition of the word, incomprehensible. Saying that athiests are stupid shows a close minded point of view and a lack of acceptance of others, I suggest that you study Jesus's teachings some more for remeber: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", your own faith (I'm assuming you are Christian, correct me if I am wrong, then I will use a different proof), you are being ignorant of the tenets of your belief while going around telling them that theirs is wrong, suggest you back off and do some serious bible study and learn about others faiths as well. Your kind of ignorance astounds me. (in response to the original post in this thread)

EDIT-I see you pointed out you are not necesarily Christian so lets use some others shall we:

Judaism-"Be kind to the stranger, for remeber you were a stranger in the land of Egypt"

Wican-simple application of the rule of three-any harm you wish to others comes to you threefold

Budhism-Judging others is generally looked down upon, plus no definite belief in a higher being can be seen.

I hope this will effectively cover my bases

tell me if not.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Noone can prove that G-d does or doesnt exist, end of story. The point is that he is infinite, therefore, by deffinition of the word, incomprehensible. Saying that athiests are stupid shows a close minded point of view and a lack of acceptance of others, I suggest that you study Jesus's teachings some more for remeber: "Judge not, lest ye be judged", your own faith (I'm assuming you are Christian, correct me if I am wrong, then I will use a different proof), you are being ignorant of the tenets of your belief while going around telling them that theirs is wrong, suggest you back off and do some serious bible study and learn about others faiths as well. Your kind of ignorance astounds me. (in response to the original post in this thread)

You are correct in every aspect. Sounds a lot like an argument of mine in "Chicken or Egg" thread after that devolved into biased flaming, only I played into devil's advocate for both sides just to make things interesting. They refused to cease the "Religion is stupid" and their failure to recognize evolution as a horribly incomplete theory (albeit an attractive one), was rather shallow. But, hey... this is totse. Just look at BI for the epitome of parochial totsean stupidity.

Edit- Wiccan rede in above post if any of you use that terminology and are ignorant of the three-harm... and/or too pompously bitchy to accept anything less-legalistic than whatever phrasing you prefer.

Plus Islam, though I can make no sense of that religion outside of rocks and trees shouting about Jews hiding behind them, and to kill them. I find that hilarious when one considers Israel.

"And verily whoso is patient and forgiveth - lo! that, verily, is (of) the steadfast heart of things." {Holy Qur'an 42:43}



[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

JewDude, don't forget- LaVey's CoS modern Satanism variation also forbids such behavior if unjustified.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

JewDude, don't forget- LaVey's CoS modern Satanism variation also forbids such behavior if unjustified.

Thanks for the information, was not aware of that.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Thanks for the information, was not aware of that.

You're welcome, though it's all relative in there.

Edit- Rule three of "The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth" is "When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there." I was a little off, but there are so many different forms of Satanism, I feel like it was an honest mistake. Plus, I got the general feel of it down.

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

Well gee now, no one can proove anything exists except that they themselves exist. Think Matrix. What we can do is find a really really really likely situation.

Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future. If this were true, a creator couldn't exist right. Nope. See the rules that govern this infinite universe must have been created. Why must they be created you say. Well, that's because if they weren't created by a rational being then they'd just be random rules wouldn't they. I seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it. Well what about the antropic principle? Essentially that in an infinite or near-infine number of universes ours has the right conditions for life, and we could only exist in that one universe possibily biasing our decisions. It's also near infinitely more likely that my inteligence level would be that of a frog in a universe where rational thought only exists as lower thought, aka the frog. well now that we know there is a creator, and also that it's rational, how does it become elevated to the status of a perfect god? Well, see to create a universe without being created oneself, you'd need to exist OUTSIDE of time. Now if you existed outside of time, you'd be unchanging. Now that we have an unchanging rational being, wouldn't that be the DEFINITION of perfection to us?

Well, feel free to poke holes in this argument, just please when you do try to refute it, PROVIDE SOME SORT OF REASONING. If someone just says "Nope." I swear I will track them down and shoot them.

I should mention that athies ARE in fact stupid, because ALL peeps are stupid at heart. Otherwise we'd be perfect, therefore unchanging and therefore Gods.

Oh, and we can't trace back to the starting point of the universe by tracing back the expansion because we just don't know what the rules of physics would be like at such high temps. that space itself would melt. The universe could be oscillating infinitely forward, and infinitely backward in time.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Well gee now, no one can proove anything exists except that they themselves exist. Think Matrix. What we can do is find a really really really likely situation.

Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future. If this were true, a creator couldn't exist right. Nope. See the rules that govern this infinite universe must have been created. Why must they be created you say. Well, that's because if they weren't created by a rational being then they'd just be random rules wouldn't they. I seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it. Well what about the antropic principle? Essentially that in an infinite or near-infine number of universes ours has the right conditions for life, and we could only exist in that one universe possibily biasing our decisions. It's also near infinitely more likely that my inteligence level would be that of a frog in a universe where rational thought only exists as lower thought, aka the frog. well now that we know there is a creator, and also that it's rational, how does it become elevated to the status of a perfect god? Well, see to create a universe without being created oneself, you'd need to exist OUTSIDE of time. Now if you existed outside of time, you'd be unchanging. Now that we have an unchanging rational being, wouldn't that be the DEFINITION of perfection to us?

Well, feel free to poke holes in this argument, just please when you do try to refute it, PROVIDE SOME SORT OF REASONING. If someone just says "Nope." I swear I will track them down and shoot them.

I should mention that athies ARE in fact stupid, because ALL peeps are stupid at heart. Otherwise we'd be perfect, therefore unchanging and therefore Gods.

Oh, and we can't trace back to the starting point of the universe by tracing back the expansion because we just don't know what the rules of physics would be like at such high temps. that space itself would melt. The universe could be oscillating infinitely forward, and infinitely backward in time.



Yay! We practically have concordance. People will still say the non-causal theory causes either this one, or when combined with many worlds/IDIC, this one out of many, dimensions. I feel that it is more probable (perhaps infinitely so) that God exists; however, it is not provable beyond a doubt. I agree that nothing really is, except our own existence. By the way, we've had some excellent posts in here, particularly in the last few pages.

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

Amen to Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy... And your all wrong its 42.

Any way not that i agree with T-bagwatsname but it is funny how you all started on about christianity when he wasnt speaking about it.

My belif is that the universe expands and then reverses back into its self. But like someone else mentioned i did hear from a show on the discovery channel that someone had calulated the mass of the universe and that it didnt weigh enough for gravity to pull it back in. My theory is that for some reason the cycle that normal flows has been disturbed some how and so the reverse wont happen this time.

Which means lucky for us humans wont die in a couple of hundred billion billion years... or whatever it was.

Not that i think humanity will last that long.

I agree with your perpetual collapsning/expanding to a degree, but the human race will get wiped out when the sun goes red dwarf, not by earth zooming out into space.

I think it's more likely we'll wipe ourselves out. Homo sapiens have existed for about 50,000. By picking an arbitrary point in the lifetime of the human race, say your birthday. there is a 95% chance of theat point lying in the middle 95% of the liftime of the human race. Therefore there is a 95% chance that the human race will last another 50,000-1,000,000 years. I think

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

I think it's more likely we'll wipe ourselves out. Homo sapiens have existed for about 50,000. By picking an arbitrary point in the lifetime of the human race, say your birthday. there is a 95% chance of theat point lying in the middle 95% of the liftime of the human race. Therefore there is a 95% chance that the human race will last another 50,000-1,000,000 years. I think

Though I can't statistically confirm or deny your thoughts, it's certainly possible. My personal belief is that I will end the human race first (kidding).

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

I agree with your perpetual collapsning/expanding to a degree, but the human race will get wiped out when the sun goes red dwarf, not by earth zooming out into space.

WTF ever happened to the origional topic, this is not a Christianity post at all, as I believe all views of god brought about by current religions are wrong.

But just to keep back off topic, we've made some really huge advances in the last 100 thousand, thousand, hundred years whatever Random... Don't think that in the next 4 billion years we could save ourselves from the collapsing star? We can already build space stations/land on other planets. I think the other planets should have enough resources on them combined to take our population out of here or we could use the propulsion from the impacts of photons from the sun method... But 4 billion years, think of the evolution, who can even imagine what we'd be then if we made it that far.

[This message has been edited by T-BagBikerStar (edited 05-26-2005).]

If we (read I) don't wipe ourselves out first. LOL.

There's been countless billions of variations of religions, someone has got to be at least close.

Origional Topic: God Exists... Athiests are Wrong

I proved God exists in some form, being a rational being outside of time.. No one has refuted me. I'm right for now.

In the last 100 thousand, thousand, hundred years we've become rational. In the past 5,000 years reason has changed the face of the earth damn. I'm willing to bet were moving too fast.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

I think it's more likely we'll wipe ourselves out. Homo sapiens have existed for about 50,000. By picking an arbitrary point in the lifetime of the human race, say your birthday. there is a 95% chance of theat point lying in the middle 95% of the liftime of the human race. Therefore there is a 95% chance that the human race will last another 50,000-1,000,000 years. I think



This is a terribly poor argument everybody tries to make. Say I am a baby, I am one day old. You think there is a 95% chance that I will live from 2 days to 21 days?

Meaning there is only a 5% chance that I live to be at least 25 days old? This is not how statistics work, we cannot predict things this way.

Secondly your numbers are further stupid. Who says we only count Homo Sapiens as humans? There are earlier versions of humans as much as 3 million years ago that we have slowly evolved from, there is not a definate point of change. Why not make the number 3 million? Wait but those ancestors merely evolved from monkeys, monkeys have been around millions more years. Why don't we just trace it back to our first Amoeba ancestors 3+ billion years ago? We'll live between 3 billion and 60 billion more years.

Your mother had a kid, so did her mother, mother before that... every mother along the line ever... had a kid. 100% in your family. Odds of you having a kid? I'd put it around 70%.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

If we (read I) don't wipe ourselves out first. LOL.

There's been countless billions of variations of religions, someone has got to be at least close.

Origional Topic: God Exists... Athiests are Wrong

I proved God exists in some form, being a rational being outside of time.. No one has refuted me. I'm right for now.

In the last 100 thousand, thousand, hundred years we've become rational. In the past 5,000 years reason has changed the face of the earth damn. I'm willing to bet were moving too fast.





This was not the definition of god I intended at all. I was trying to stress that god was not even a being.

I was stressing this view which I later found in better words off wikipedia:

Some concepts of God centre on a view of God as ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world.

Beyond any current views of religion or anything, that's what I think god is.

Something that exists and is rational is by definition a being, reagardless of what you think.

"God is ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world."

God is a place? No, that would be heavean. You can have a heaven w/o a God. Not a christian hevean mind you but a hevean nontheless.

And if Wikipedia can provide a definition utilizing what other religions believe, and you believe what is essentially that definition, don't you essentially believe that religion? To believe that you're the first a.k.a. "beyond any current views" is pretty friin arrogant. You have been "pwned".

Edit: Crap my spelling scks.



[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Something that exists and is rational is by definition a being, reagardless of what you think.

"God is ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world."

God is a place? No, that would be heavean. You can have a heaven w/o a God. Not a christian hevean mind you but a hevean nontheless.

And if Wikipedia can provide a definition utilizing what other religions believe, and you believe what is essentially that definition, don't you essentially believe that religion? To believe that you're the first a.k.a. "beyond any current views" is pretty friin arrogant. You have been "pwned".

Edit: Crap my spelling scks.





Where in that statement does it say god exists? It is slightly implied, but not to the point of being a definate being. And I must say it is most definate that that quote I provided never says god is rational. God has no rationality whatsoever necessarily.

Oh the religion exists? Please name it for me.

quote:Random... Don't think that in the next 4 billion years we could save ourselves from the collapsing star? We can already build space stations/land on other planets. I think the other planets should have enough resources on them combined to take our population out of here or we could use the propulsion from the impacts of photons from the sun method... But 4 billion years, think of the evolution, who can even imagine what we'd be then if we made it that far.

[/B]

I was thinking postively (Sarcasm :-))

"Oh the religion exists? Please name it for me."

Which religion? Late for stuff, so cursory read, but I didn't see him mention a specific religion per se. I'd think that since all religion is exegesis at one level or another, whatever religion mentioned may exist without a name, but that's equally unprovable as a definite existence of a god/God. Anyone heard that terrible argument of imagining a perfect being? Then, because it is perfect, and a definition of a being is something in existance, a god exists? I absolutely loathe that argument.

"Which religion? Late for stuff, so cursory read, but I didn't see him mention a specific religion per se."

Actually it sound very similar to Plato's "World of Forms."



"that's what I think god is."

That's where you said you believed in a God. Either that or you truly are a dumbass because you think you can just redefine words all on your own you arogant piece of crap. You've "slightly implied" that you believe in God, just like when someone leaves a dead horsehead in your bed they "slightly imply" that they don't like you very much.

"This is a terribly poor argument everybody tries to make. Say I am a baby, I am one day old."

Dumbass, you've got to pick an ARBITRARY date throughout your entire life. Like today. Steven Hawking proposed this argument and has, in fact, applied it with a great deal of success. BTW this argument works best with very large timescales.

"Who says we only count Homo Sapiens as humans?"

A whole lot more people than those who don't. Sure we could evolve into a completely different species, but there is a 95% chance that homo sapiens will go poof within said timeframe. Dumbass.

Besides, most people count homosapiens as human and homo erectus and other such creatures as hominids.

Pwned again.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-26-2005).]

As I wish someone to try to refute me I must restate:

"Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future. If this were true, a creator couldn't exist right. Nope. See the rules that govern this infinite universe must have been created. Why must they be created you say. Well, that's because if they weren't created by a rational being then they'd just be random rules wouldn't they. I seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it. Well what about the antropic principle? Essentially that in an infinite or near-infine number of universes ours has the right conditions for life, and we could only exist in that one universe possibily biasing our decisions. It's also near infinitely more likely that my inteligence level would be that of a frog in a universe where rational thought only exists as lower thought, aka the frog. Well now that we know there is a creator, and also that it's rational, how does it become elevated to the status of a God with a capital G? Well, see to create a universe without being created oneself, you'd need to exist OUTSIDE of time. Now if you existed outside of time, you'd be unchanging. Now that we have an unchanging rational being, wouldn't that be the DEFINITION of perfection to us?

Well, feel free to poke holes in this argument, just please when you do try to refute it, PROVIDE SOME SORT OF REASONING. If someone just says "Nope." I swear I will track them down and shoot them.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:



This was not the definition of god I intended at all. I was trying to stress that god was not even a being.

I was stressing this view which I later found in better words off wikipedia:

Some concepts of God centre on a view of God as ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world.

Beyond any current views of religion or anything, that's what I think god is.

I would like to point out that your "unique view" of the G-d as an "ultimate, immanent, TRANSCENDENT, eternal Reality" is held by those who follow the philosophical school of thought know as TRANSCENDENTALISM-think Emerson-also similar beliefs are held by many branches of Budhism, Eckakar, and a significant portion of "New Age" religions. Before you state that you believe someone that noone else believes, better know what they believe first, huh?

I would also like to point out that reality "is" therefore reality is a being.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I would like to point out that your "unique view" of the G-d as an "ultimate, immanent, TRANSCENDENT, eternal Reality" is held by those who follow the philosophical school of thought know as TRANSCENDENTALISM-think Emerson-also similar beliefs are held by many branches of Budhism, Eckakar, and a significant portion of "New Age" religions. Before you state that you believe someone that noone else believes, better know what they believe first, huh?

I would also like to point out that reality "is" therefore reality is a being.



You know some people think reality is sentient and, therefor, closes its own wave function? I think that's just weird (wrong).

Edit- sort of pantheistic, in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

You know some people think reality is sentient and, therefor, closes its own wave function? I think that's just weird (wrong).

Edit- sort of pantheistic, in my opinion.





I have heard that belief before, and I agree with you on its being a little odd, but then again for all we really know, G-d could be a large used Q-tip floating in a tub full of some random petroleum distilate. Interesting thought huh? IN HEAVEN ALL EARS SHALL BE CLEANSED!!!

quote:Originally posted by SwordChucks:

^ we don't know the size of the universe...

Atoms don't age, they cannot be created nor destroyed and the transfer of energy always remains constant.

no... matter cannot be created or destroyed.

atoms are not fundamental particles of matter, they are made up of smaller things, and thus can be destroyed, as long as the matter all remains accounted for

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

"Which religion? Late for stuff, so cursory read, but I didn't see him mention a specific religion per se."

Actually it sound very similar to Plato's "World of Forms."



"that's what I think god is."

That's where you said you believed in a God. Either that or you truly are a dumbass because you think you can just redefine words all on your own you arogant piece of crap. You've "slightly implied" that you believe in God, just like when someone leaves a dead horsehead in your bed they "slightly imply" that they don't like you very much.

"This is a terribly poor argument everybody tries to make. Say I am a baby, I am one day old."

Dumbass, you've got to pick an ARBITRARY date throughout your entire life. Like today. Steven Hawking proposed this argument and has, in fact, applied it with a great deal of success. BTW this argument works best with very large timescales.

"Who says we only count Homo Sapiens as humans?"

A whole lot more people than those who don't. Sure we could evolve into a completely different species, but there is a 95% chance that homo sapiens will go poof within said timeframe. Dumbass.

Besides, most people count homosapiens as human and homo erectus and other such creatures as hominids.

Pwned again.



Similar to this, similar to that, I haven't read them, I don't think I've copied them.

Imagine god as more of a wave function. I believe in the wave function. I believe it exists, but it is not rational, a wave function is not a being.

Your ideas of statistics are completely irrational. I have spent a good deal of time studying statistics, and I know that what you have presented does not work. You might be thinking about normal distributions and samples and stuff, but what you are trying to present is not a valid prediction for our species development. Plus there are so many factors you could take in to account that you have ommitted. Say we suddenly invented a weapon capable of immediately vaporizing our entire planet. Your calculations are unable to incorporate that and still leave the same predictions as before... It's hard to explain all of it, but that is not a reasonable prediction.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I would like to point out that your "unique view" of the G-d as an "ultimate, immanent, TRANSCENDENT, eternal Reality" is held by those who follow the philosophical school of thought know as TRANSCENDENTALISM-think Emerson-also similar beliefs are held by many branches of Budhism, Eckakar, and a significant portion of "New Age" religions. Before you state that you believe someone that noone else believes, better know what they believe first, huh?

I would also like to point out that reality "is" therefore reality is a being.



I have not studied transcendentalism, and cannot be directly copying their beliefs.

WTF? Reality is not a being, reality is an idea. Wave functions are not beings either, and wave functions are a better idea that you can use in your mind to represent god.



[This message has been edited by T-BagBikerStar (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:



I have heard that belief before, and I agree with you on its being a little odd, but then again for all we really know, G-d could be a large used Q-tip floating in a tub full of some random petroleum distilate. Interesting thought huh? IN HEAVEN ALL EARS SHALL BE CLEANSED!!!

HaUber-Q-Tip. :-).

Edit- a wave function could not predate matter, though. The wave function only closes upon being witnessed, in some interpretations; the existence of God, or a god may be substantiated in some way by claiming that a sentient being witnesses events, but being outside of time, is able to manipulate them through thought, since many feel that the Schroedinger's cat experiment "proves" that witnessing an event not only closes the wave function, but affects them.

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-27-2005).]

Umm, Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that is largely misunderstood.

it was proposed as an analogy to explain quantum effexts to stupid people with narrow minds.

In actuality the cat demonstrates the existence of the Q-boundary, or R or some other letter of the alphabet which is where quantum effects break down and einstein takes over.

And I repeat:

PROVE ME WRONG YOU LAZY SONS OF A GUNS OR I SWEAR I WILL START A NEW THREAD. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Umm, Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that is largely misunderstood.

it was proposed as an analogy to explain quantum effexts to stupid people with narrow minds.

In actuality the cat demonstrates the existence of the Q-boundary, or R or some other letter of the alphabet which is where quantum effects break down and einstein takes over.

And I repeat:

PROVE ME WRONG YOU LAZY SONS OF A GUNS OR I SWEAR I WILL START A NEW THREAD. Thank you.

I always understood it to originally be a macro-physical example of the wave function/state vector interpretation. In doing so, it would be inevitable not to go into excrutiating detail about the quantum boundary.

Yeah, I've read about that experiment also. It's not a real experiment, more of an explanation as to how the motions of these particles can be explained on a larger scale. Essentially say you view the location of a particle at some point in time. After that period in time the particle does not have an exact position, it's position is merely demonstrated by a wave function that describes the probability of the particle being in any location. Since you cannot imagine that the particle could actually not have a position (and they have done tests to show this, look up the two slit trick) they use the cat analogy to explain it by saying, I think it's "the cat is neither dead or alive until you actually open the box."

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Yeah, I've read about that experiment also. It's not a real experiment, more of an explanation as to how the motions of these particles can be explained on a larger scale. Essentially say you view the location of a particle at some point in time. After that period in time the particle does not have an exact position, it's position is merely demonstrated by a wave function that describes the probability of the particle being in any location. Since you cannot imagine that the particle could actually not have a position (and they have done tests to show this, look up the two slit trick) they use the cat analogy to explain it by saying, I think it's "the cat is neither dead or alive until you actually open the box."

I forget what I was originally going to say, but he did put "thought experiment", so I'm sure he knows it was hypothetical.

Oh, and it's superposition- like Qbits having two states, making them dynamic quantum systems.

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

I have not studied transcendentalism, and cannot be directly copying their beliefs.

I nevewr said you were copying, but it isn't unique.

quote:

WTF? Reality is not a being, reality is an idea. Wave functions are not beings either, and wave functions are a better idea that you can use in your mind to represent god.



Being is the gerund of the verb "to be", or is therefore if something is, it is a being, tada.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Being is the gerund of the verb "to be", or is therefore if something is, it is a being, tada.



How did I know you'd say that? That caused me much humor.

Edit- dictionary.reference.com's first definition for "being" is " To exist in actuality; have life or reality".

[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-28-2005).]

Pascal's Triangle is a formula for polynomials, not God's existance.

quote:Originally posted by osmandius:

Define what real means,

Prove your own existance with this definition,

Also with this deifinition Prove the existance of all other beings in the world,

Now prove the existance of the world with this rule,

Now prove the existance of space with this rule,

Now disprove the existance of god with this same definition.



I hate God Squad...



1:reality is what exists as matter/atoms or particles and what can be proven to exist

2:i am made of particles and atoms, which is proven by merely looking at me

3:the world is made of particles and atoms which is proven by merely looking at it

4:space is both a vacuum with some nebulae, galaxies and black holes etc. mixed in, which is proved by merely looking at it

5:god isnt.

5.1: god cannot be proven to exist as he is a fictional character just like harry potter and sherlock holmes, they don't nor did they exist ever in time.

and while you are thinking of your comeback, treat yourself to a nice cup of 'stfu'

PS. please explain how you can believe how perfect god is in all ways when if this was true we wouldn't be 5,000 years overdue for another ice age

[This message has been edited by Odeon (edited 05-30-2005).]

You're wrong.

in the name of fuck! you just cannot accept the truth? god doesnt exist and if he did he would be a self-contradicting asshole with mental problems

quote:Originally posted by Odeon:

in the name of fuck! you just cannot accept the truth? god doesnt exist and if he did he would be a self-contradicting asshole with mental problems

Then it's settled. God exists and is a self-contradicting asshole with mental problems.

yeah... sure...

since when did anybody else share thier thoughts on whether or not the matter is settled? it isn't settled you fucking arsehole, if God existed would the Pope be dead? If God existed then would there be poverty? If God existed then would I or any Athiests exist? No, i don't think so somehow

quote:Originally posted by MidnightAssassin:

Pascal's Triangle is a formula for polynomials, not God's existance.

Pascal's Wager is an argument for the existence of God. It's like a punnet square, sans genes.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

Pascal's Wager is an argument for the existence of God. It's like a punnet square, sans genes.

It's not an argument for the existence of a god, it's an argument for believing in a religion or having faith.

A very poor one though...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's not an argument for the existence of a god, it's an argument for believing in a religion or having faith.

A very poor one though...

Having faith? Faith is like human emotion & imagination combined. Total bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by TeckGuru:

Having faith? Faith is like human emotion & imagination combined. Total bullshit.

Faith in an of itself is the belief in something without evidence to support it.

You believe you're speaking with a human being, right? Yet you have no evidence to support that. For all you know I could be a computer, an alien or a very smart bird.

Faith is fine as long as it is supported by logic. You have a logical expectation of speaking with another human being, because that expectation is supported by evidence (i.e. the existence of human beings, of computers, of the internet, of totse, etc.)

Faith in a religion which is based on logical impossibilities, is on the other hand, unreasonable.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's not an argument for the existence of a god, it's an argument for believing in a religion or having faith.

A very poor one though...

Corrected- yeah, meant for believing in. And yes, it is bad. I like it better than the one where the argument went like this, though "imagine a perfect being. Since it is perfect, and a being has to exist, it is God. God is perfect..." Really, that alone could make people atheist.

Yeah. Ontological, and similar arguments for the existence of a god are severely lacking.

quote:god is not a creator, and has never influence human life, but god is existant, and infinite.

So what is the point of this god? he hasn't created anything, he hasn't influenced us in any way at all, yet he is existant...

he doesn't even sound fucken conscious -

all you've done is create a null definition of god that i could use to prove any fictional character to exist.

I hate that square crap. Just because something's better doesn't make it true.



I shall draw out the square for clarity.

code:<pre>

Believe Don Believe

|---------------------------------|

God |Go to |go to hell |

Exists |heaven |totally suxorz |

|---------------------------------|

|waste life 4 |spend life how |

God |false god |you want |

Don't |cease 2 exist |cease 2 exist |

Exist |nothing mattered|nothing mattered|

|---------------------------------|

</pre>

Ontonological Argument (sp?)

1) I can concieve of a perfect being

2) By definition a perf. being exists.

3) Therefore a perf. being exists.

OR

2)A perfect being can't not exist

3)God exists



Eep, the square's messed up. Fixed, but ignore the starz.





[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 05-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Odeon:

I hate God Squad...



1:reality is what exists as matter/atoms or particles and what can be proven to exist

2:i am made of particles and atoms, which is proven by merely looking at me

3:the world is made of particles and atoms which is proven by merely looking at it

4:space is both a vacuum with some nebulae, galaxies and black holes etc. mixed in, which is proved by merely looking at it

5:god isnt.

5.1: god cannot be proven to exist as he is a fictional character just like harry potter and sherlock holmes, they don't nor did they exist ever in time.

and while you are thinking of your comeback, treat yourself to a nice cup of 'stfu'

PS. please explain how you can believe how perfect god is in all ways when if this was true we wouldn't be 5,000 years overdue for another ice age



You are the narrow-mindedest POS ever. Have you read any of the posts on this thread or just the title? Your argument merely assumes that I am saying that god as the Christian/related religions see it exists. Those religions are completely wrong as has been argued for the last 1-- something posts. Quit wasting our time you narrow minded shit.

quote:Originally posted by Odeon:

I hate God Squad...

1:reality is what exists as matter/atoms or particles and what can be proven to exist

2:i am made of particles and atoms, which is proven by merely looking at me

3:the world is made of particles and atoms which is proven by merely looking at it

4:space is both a vacuum with some nebulae, galaxies and black holes etc. mixed in, which is proved by merely looking at it

5:god isnt.

5.1: god cannot be proven to exist as he is a fictional character just like harry potter and sherlock holmes, they don't nor did they exist ever in time.

and while you are thinking of your comeback, treat yourself to a nice cup of 'stfu'

PS. please explain how you can believe how perfect god is in all ways when if this was true we wouldn't be 5,000 years overdue for another ice age



First, i ask, IF you do respond to me, please start a new topic... these topics that go on for six pages are a pain to weed through all the spam, flames and general BS, that i seldom check em out anymore. And when i do, i read less of the back posts to get up to speed with what may have been useful comments.

In your #1, you say that reality is matter/atoms/particles, and can be proven to exist.

Yet, are there not 'theoretical' particles that are believed to exist? We take them as reality on faith. Forgive my shortcomings in physics about the (my) understanding of particles with "spin" other than a 'spin of one', but arent the 'spin' properties taken on faith?

#2... ok, this one works good enough (other than that, you are more than just atoms/particles, but thought/emotion/experience/life)

#3 and #4 can be refuted by your own #5

I've seen harry potter (movie, not book), so by your premise of #3 and #4, Harry Potter is real, not fiction.

But you cannot prove that God does not exist, without being a god yourself. And that would disprove what you are trying to dispove (i.e. you would have to be able to see the entire universe simultaneously and all of time simultaneously. Not only that, but to PROVE a negative to anyone outside of yourself, they too, would also have to be an infinite god)

Now, on to your #PS. Maybe it is my powers of comprehention or maybe you misworded this, but as it is comprehended or worded, it defeats itself.

What i think you are trying to say, is that "if the biblical belief of only 6000 years is true, shouldnt there have been an ice age 5000 years ago (but according to my &lt;&lt;speaking as you&gt;&gt; understanding, we havent)"... or something like that, right?...

But the way you have worded it, or my (mis)?-understanding of it, I would answer that since God is good/perfect, He could be holding that ice-age at bay for us.

I would also say, that according to my "young earth" creation belief, the ice age was possibly after the Great Flood of Noah's.

And God being perfect does not ommit Him from sending a deluge to a Sin fallen world.

Gotta get to work, have a good day.