You know, I haven't posted here in a while, and here's why not. Most people here don't really knoe jack crap about rhetoric.

Look, it seems many people "know" a God of ANY kind can't possibly exist. But what's the point of "knowing" God doesn't exist, if you don't know why you believe that? This entire post was designed to check why the hell some athiests don't believe in God. As i've seen, it turns out most of the athiests here are dumbasses, or else unwilling to risk sounding stupid, likely because they are. Thanks to those who did take the time to reply. Most of you were wrong, but hey, you've got some guts.



The SECOND argument I proposed, strikes out 80% of all the whiny as hell complaints about wording, and other crap. In fact there are VERY few holes in the argument, much fewer than Aquinas's and others. There are some critical holes, but I've only seen ONE that makes sense.

The only two main arguments that most seem to have been posted are as follows:

1)The laws of nature are not necessarily constant, OR nearly constant.

Post that thought in Mad Scientists, and I WILL drive your skeevy little butt into the ground.

2)The entire "proof" is based on a postulate

Well, duh, enter the matrix. But guess what. postulates are readilly accepted as the basis for thousands of theories.

Bye guys, I'm outta here.



I told you I'd start a new thread!

Again, you can't "really" prove anything, but:

"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? And even if not prefect there still is a God.

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.

Those who do poke holes shall be pounded into a teeny puddle by the "Mallet of Logic" Then the holes shall be patched with the "Duct Tape of Reason"



[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 06-17-2005).]

Taking the multiverse theory. There is a possibility that creates "you" in one of those universes. This is that universe, you only get to view this universe and no others, but all the other ones still exist.

All in all the argument isn't really a strong proof it goes by your assumptions that things cannot turn out this way by chance. Really we do not know enough about universe creation, and I doubt we ever will to put odds on anything happening as far as universe creation goes. It seems fucking amazing, but we really just don't have that knowledge.

Well that sounds really good and all but what if the universe doesn't expand infinately into the past and the future? Then all that you have thought up, although special sounding, is just goople gabber. btw thats just two words i made up, hence thats what your thingie is worth. But yeah, good idea though

I subscribe to the multi universe theory. But a universe doesnt extend infinitely in both directions on the t plane. The t plane is simply a delta of some measurement which we ascribe the label "time"

t is therefore not a fundamental plan like a real dimension. As such no universe can extend in any direction on a t plane from Gods point of veiw. Besides, the universe would only have motion on the t plane heading in one direction and would only take up the space of a singularity. The t plane itself is a 1 dimension plane. No universe may extend greater than the width of a singularity on the t plane.

Answer to multiverses:

quote: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.

Read the post jackasses, and don't assume it's wrong just b/c it tries to prove God exists.

Think about it. In an infinite number of universes where you could be concious / where you possibly exist, isn't there a near-infinite chance that you'd be ether dead by now, nonexistent, or be stuck with the body of a frog? Wow you ARE lucky to still be alive. And you whine about trivial things like GOD. Meh.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic.

quote: Well that sounds really good and all but what if the universe doesn't expand infinately into the past and the future?



Even better, then the universe HAD to be started by something outside of time. A finite universe also has rules. I chose the most inhospitibale situation for the existence of God to start with.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic.

quote:

But a universe doesnt extend infinitely in both directions on the t plane.



Yeah, fine, whatever let's bash you with the mallet of logic.

Um 1 dimentional plane (read brane)? Like a line? Last I checked you could traverse a line infinitely in both directions without having to be in every place at the same time. So even though a universe can't be larger than a singularity on the t plane (read t-line) it can still traverse infinitely into the past and future because the t-plane (read t-line) itself is infinite.

Yet even this universe has a ruleset, so your argument is just fluff that you hope I won't understand and therefore admit I'm wrong.

You should know that I am smarter than you, and am willing to do some serious reasearch to show all you guys up. Lol.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic. And since none of you made a valid argument, I don't even have to use my duct tape.

Pwned byatches.

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

Even better, then the universe HAD to be started by something outside of time. A finite universe also has rules. I chose the most inhospitibale situation for the existence of God to start with.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic.

That makes me think. What if the big bang had been started by some divine being? Its ironic that the supporters of the big bang dont even suppose something like that could ever have occured

Yeah, fine, whatever let's bash you with the mallet of logic.

Um 1 dimentional plane (read brane)? Like a line? Last I checked you could traverse a line infinitely in both directions without having to be in every place at the same time.

Wrong. There is only one t plane. If you have an infinite number of universes along that plane they must all fit. The only way for them to fit is to be infinitely smaller than the entire plane. Ala zero dimension.

What you dont seem to understand is that all universes have a copy of that universe at a previous point along the t plane. Meaning that each universe has a complimenting universe in all time points. [/b]

So even though a universe can't be larger than a singularity on the t plane (read t-line) it can still traverse infinitely into the past and future because the t-plane (read t-line) itself is infinite.

Previously resolved. Not only that, a universe cannot reverse its trajectory in the t plane. Therefore it also cannot extend further than a singularity from its current position, excluding trajectory drift.

Yet even this universe has a ruleset, so your argument is just fluff that you hope I won't understand and therefore admit I'm wrong.

WTF? I hope that you understand. You obviously either lack the rest of my theory or dont understand the little that i told you.

You should know that I am smarter than you, and am willing to do some serious reasearch to show all you guys up. Lol.

So if your smarter then why dont you know this research? Logically, you have show us that you are indeed not smarter than, at least I, us.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic. And since none of you made a valid argument, I don't even have to use my duct tape.

Strange. Your agruments are in fact illogical. A zero dimensional object does not have to traverse a line. In fact it cannot. Not only that, a 1 dimensional object in a 1 dimensional plane is not required to traverse the length. Ever heard of a nice dimension called "length"?

<Also, observe your post count and your other posts on these boards. It only shows your lack of maturity and by association, intelligence.>

Your shit wont fly in even Mad Scientists, which is where you should have posted this.

quote:<Also, observe your post count and your other posts on these boards. It only shows your lack of maturity and by association, intelligence.>

Your shit wont fly in even Mad Scientists, which is where you should have posted this.



I just joined dumbass and I've made a shitload of higher quality post than a copied and pasted "]<Also, observe your post count and your other posts on these boards. It only shows your lack of maturity and by association, intelligence.>

I suppose you think making an ass of posts makes you better. Post Whore! Post Whore! Post Whore! Besides I just joined.

Because you have made no contribution to this thread:

*Phoenix hunts down ArgonPlasma, shoots him and buries him. All further posts by ArgonPlasma will be made by me to make it look like I haven't shot him.

It would be in Mad Scientists if it didn't deal with God. Therefore my shit still flies.

quote:

Wrong. There is only one t plane. If you have an infinite number of universes along that plane they must all fit. The only way for them to fit is to be infinitely smaller than the entire plane. Ala zero dimension.



You should realize that a plane has 2 dimensions, hence two axes time can travel. A brane has n-dimentions so that's what i think you mean. You should know that you just can't have a universe with two axes of time unless one is rolled up so tiny that matter can't reverse direction. It's been proven that in such a universe couldn't support life.

quote:What you dont seem to understand is that all universes have a copy of that universe at a previous point along the t plane. Meaning that each universe has a complimenting universe in all time points.

Let's see an infinite number of singularities (read euclidian points) extended infinitely from one point along one dimension. Sounds like the definition of a ray ray. Almost like a line but in one dimension.

It's worth noting that research into superconductors and their effect on magnetic fields shows that space is made up of "atoms" of space. If space then why not time?

quote:

WTF? I hope that you understand. You obviously either lack the rest of my theory or dont understand the little that i told you.

Lol, you seem to think that I think your theory is wrong. In all likeliness it is wrong seeing as how every theoy created up to the present time is either wrong or incomplete. What I meant to say was that it is irrelevant wether the theory is correct or not because there are rules (read laws of physics) that govern this universe.

quote:

So if your smarter then why dont you know this research? Logically, you have show us that you are indeed not smarter than, at least I, us.



Lol, because my grammer is better than yours. In reality I don't know this theory because it's hugely incorrect. Along with most other theories which is why I don't feel like learning every branch of theoretical physics. And I AM smarter than you, until you spit something at me that I can't refute.

quote:

Strange. Your agruments are in fact illogical. A zero dimensional object does not have to traverse a line. In fact it cannot. Not only that, a 1 dimensional object in a 1 dimensional plane is not required to traverse the length. Ever heard of a nice dimension called "length"?



A zero dimentional object can traverse a line if it wants to. Just because it doesn't have to doesn't mean it can't. And you do have to. Have you heard of a dimention called length?

Pwned Again bt the Mallet of Logic.

Because you can't puddlefy someone who's already a puddle.

Now stop bothering me with massive amounts of theory and STAY ON TOPIC! The theory doesn't matter as long as it has rules. I'll lok int the t-plane thin if you want and if I find anything interesting I will post in in Mad Scientists



Edit, just checked out the T-plane thing. Either it's part of a 2D gaph of say position vs. time which I know you're not ignorant enough to do. Or it's a "complex T-Plane" meaning it's still one dimentional. A complex plane is just an easy way to represent complex numbers which undoubbtedly you'd know. However it caused a good deal of confusion didn't it.

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

Well i wanted to keep it simple. But time is indeed imaginary (its just a label of a measured delta), so it would be on some imaginary plane.

Also, my latest post wasnt copied/pasted http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I dont mean to say that because i have a higher post count than you, that makes me better. It just makes it easier to believe me over you.

Let's see an infinite number of singularities (read euclidian points) extended infinitely from one point along one dimension. Sounds like the definition of a ray ray. Almost like a line but in one dimension.

Yes, i did in fact mean literal points, an infinite number however. They do fit along a ray as well, well, the delta of the points at least. But you may as well say so because there are an infinite number of points. Im just saying that the universe traverses the t plane ( http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) ) in one direction. Thats why you cant time travel to the same universe.

It's worth noting that research into superconductors and their effect on magnetic fields shows that space is made up of "atoms" of space. If space then why not time?

Id enjoy reading that, links plz? Also, can you say ether theory 2.0? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

And I AM smarter than you, until you spit something at me that I can't refute.

God does not exist http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 05-27-2005).]

It's worth noting that research into superconductors and their effect on magnetic fields shows that space is made up of "atoms" of space. If space then why not time?

Id enjoy reading that, links plz? Also, can you say ether theory 2.0? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

And I AM smarter than you, until you spit something at me that I can't refute.

God does not exist http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

A zero dimentional object can traverse a line if it wants to. Just because it doesn't have to doesn't mean it can't. And you do have to. Have you heard of a dimention called length?

That statement i made was simply my reasoning of saying that the singularity doesnt extend throughout the t plane at the same time. In fact, length does not apply to a singularity http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

ON TOPIC: My take on all of this is that you have four sets. all universe decisions, all time instances of set a, all location points in 3d space of b, and the causal plane, which i use in other arguements. This corresponds to a three dimensional space time continuum and a pseudo imaginary plane that contains all data of all decisions for each universe of sets a,b, and c.

However your theory goes to say there might be an infinite number of universes, but each respective universe travels its own t plane irrespective of the t delta. At least thats what im understanding.

As for God. Does it matter? Who knows, maybe God is just a normal person like we who was given the ability to be God by His super God and so on and so forth? We really cant say anything about God without leaving our own universe.

_______________________

By the way, how can we measure the length of each others brains penis? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

EDIT: Sorry to make two posts, damn totse wont take it as a whole.

A zero dimentional object can traverse a line if it wants to. Just because it doesn't have to doesn't mean it can't. And you do have to. Have you heard of a dimention called length?

That statement i made was simply my reasoning of saying that the singularity doesnt extend throughout the t plane at the same time. In fact, length does not apply to a singularity http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

ON TOPIC: My take on all of this is that you have four sets. all universe decisions, all time instances of set a, all location points in 3d space of b, and the causal plane, which i use in other arguements. This corresponds to a three dimensional space time continuum and a pseudo imaginary plane that contains all data of all decisions for each universe of sets a,b, and c.

However your theory goes to say there might be an infinite number of universes, but each respective universe travels its own t plane irrespective of the t delta. At least thats what im understanding.

As for God. Does it matter? Who knows, maybe God is just a normal person like we who was given the ability to be God by His super God and so on and so forth? We really cant say anything about God without leaving our own universe.

_______________________

By the way, how can we measure the length of each others brains penis? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

EDIT: Sorry to make two posts, damn totse wont take it as a whole.

Lol, big post. God does exist as long as no one can disprove the original topic.

And on atoms of time being theory 2.0 it's more like theory 82361483.2341622.

I repeat, I'm stil right, for now. It doesn't matter what theory you use, as long as it has rules.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Answer to multiverses:



quote:

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

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.

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

Read the post jackasses, and don't assume it's wrong just b/c it tries to prove God exists.

Think about it. In an infinite number of universes where you could be concious / where you possibly exist, isn't there a near-infinite chance that you'd be ether dead by now, nonexistent, or be stuck with the body of a frog? Wow you ARE lucky to still be alive. And you whine about trivial things like GOD. Meh.

You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic.





You may not have checked recently but I was the one who started the thread God Exists Athiests are Wrong on this forum. It's really hard to describe the logic I was trying to use. This universe is possible in the multiverse theory as it exists correct? So it may be VERY improbable that we ended up in this universe but we did end up in this universe. Let go of your body for a moment. The being that is you in this universe was destined as this universe is one of the existing universes to make this argument. What are the odds of any other individual exact thing happening? The very same amount of VERY improbable. What are the odds of being a conscious being that could make this argument? Only pretty damn improbable. But only a conscious being capable of making this argument could make this argument. If you were a frog this could never have happened. It's tough to explain.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

[B]

That makes me think. What if the big bang had been started by some divine being? Its ironic that the supporters of the big bang dont even suppose something like that could ever have occured

[b]

Actually, as a supporter of the big bang, I believe that there must have been a cause fotr that. I have researched non-causal theory, but it is equally plausible that a god/God created the universe as the universe creating itself, if not moreso. Since time is dependent on matter, I can see that a beign existing prior to the creation of matter would be omnipotent and omniscient, existing outside of either time or space.

I know you started the thread, however it seemed seriously off topic, and I really wanted to see what people thought of this proof.

It's really hard to describe the logic I was trying to use. This universe is possible in the multiverse theory as it exists correct? [...] But only a conscious being capable of making this argument could make this argument. If you were a frog this could never have happened. It's tough to explain. [/quote]

Actually I understand where you're coming from. It's called the anthropic principle and is explained very thoroiughly at http://anthropic-principle.com

However, my view is that the ability to ask this question has no effect on my chances of having been born as a frog. I feel that because I am aware that external universes with concious beings might exist I can account for them in any guesses at probability.

Congratulations, you've found a weakpoint. I salute you, but I still stand by my proof.

The Duct Tape of Reason still holds.

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

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:



"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.



Why couldn't he? Who said he couldn't exist if time extended infinitely?

quote:

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,

Huh?

You go from YOUR opinion that it is unlikely we are a result of chance, which is as good as my belief that we are, to claiming that you've proven that god exists... how the hell did you manage that?

The Anthropic Principle, which is a circular argument? The Anthropic Principle, which proves nothing since, not only would it be statistically possible for us to exists, the universal constants it cites as ruling our universe and permitting life in the universe... only permit life as we know it. There is absolutely nothing to say that other life forms could have existed.

The rest of the posts deals with this assumption, an assumption which does not hold.

The best proof is from Thomas Aquinas:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.

quote:There is absolutely nothing to say that other life forms could have existed.

Guess what, my entire argument on why the universe must have been created is based on the fact that a multiverse allows for the existance of a near-infinite number of other concious beings of any kind of life.

If you had any type of reasoning skill you'd know what I was trying to say.

The anthropic principle isn't a circular argument, it is a principle, a guideline. It states that result's can be flawed because our observation may be biased.

http;//anthropicprinciple.com (http://anthropic-principle.com)

And it's not circular, just dificult to understand (for you anyway). And if you read my post you'd see how I got to God from a created universe. It's not a jump, just 1 or 2 very small steps.

And on Aquinas. First argument is stated much more simply by saying what caused the initial imbalance in the universe.

Physics's answer: Probabalistic quantum effects magnified by the expansion of the universe.

Second argument that nothing can cause itself.

Physics answer, it has been shown that things can cause themselves. Look up virtual particles and hawking radiation.

Third argument:

I like this one, and it's part of what I'm trying to say. However it can be refuted by using the anthopic principle which is why I'm trying to show the anthropic principle can be got around with respect to concious beings.

Fourth argument:

Deals with abstract things, which scientists hate because they can't quantify love, good, etc. I like this one too, but most athiests hate it. You can reaffirm existence of God, but you can't convert an athiest with it.

Fifth argument:

Again with the anthropic principle.

Aquinas was a great man, but he can't refute what didn't exist at his time.

The first and second objections don't seem to deal with this thread.

GOT YOU YOU COPY AND PASTER!



Thank you for viewing MY thread, I hope you've enjoyed your stay. Any more objections, I like objections, they're fun.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:



Guess what, my entire argument on why the universe must have been created is based on the fact that a multiverse allows for the existance of a near-infinite number of other concious beings of any kind of life.

The problem here was that the Anthropic Principle is used as "proof" that we were created.

Here the popular argument:

"In 1986, the controversial book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (Oxford University Press) was published. In this book Barrow, a cosmological scientist, pioneered what he called the anthropic principle in order to deal with the seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence in a universe that appears to be perfectly set up for our existence. Everything from the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force seems to be tailored for us to exist. The existence of carbon-based life in this universe is contingent upon several independent variables; and were any of these variables to take a slightly different value, carbon-based life could not exist. The anthropic principle implies that our ability to ponder cosmology at all is contingent on all the correct variables being in place. According to critics, this is simply a tautology, a very elaborate way of saying 'if things were different, they would be different'.

"

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



If an infinite amount of parallel universes would allow an infinite amount of possible life forms, as you claim, then the Anthropic Principle, the version described above, is refuted. That was my point.



quote:

If you had any type of reasoning skill you'd know what I was trying to say.



Thank you for the insult!

Of course, given your godlike ability to write and reason, it cannot possibly be that you mention a principle that, in its most popular interpretation does not help your case. Nope. It must be my lack of reasoning skills.

[And then I am the one who is conceited ... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) (This, not aimed at you, but the other regulars who might be reading)]

quote:

The anthropic principle isn't a circular argument, it is a principle, a guideline. It states that result's can be flawed because our observation may be biased.



It definitely IS a circular argument.

The premise: "The universe must have had the qualities that make life possible".

Proof of premise: "If the universe didn't have those qualities at one point, we couldn't be here debating this."

That's circular logic. If you missed it, the proof of the premise is the premise itself.

But hey, don't take my word for it:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec19.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

"If you had any type of reasoning skill you'd know what I was trying to say."

The fucking irony...

---

Now please provide something to support your claim. You completely ignored my post.

Again, you reach the conclusion that a god exists simply because, TO YOU, it would be unlikely we are a result of chance, which is as much evidence as me stating the contrary.

What you have stated may, in fact be circular. However it is not the anthropic principle. It utilizes it, but it's not the same.

No, the anthropic principle isn't a circular argument because it isn't an argument. Lol. Arguments that use it can be, however. One such argument is the "Anthropic Cosmological Principle."

As an example: You catch fish in a pond with a net. Consistently the smallest fish you catch are 6 inches. Does that mean the smallest fish in the pond are 6 inches? Not necessarilly. The anthropic principle directs us to identify our limitations, such as the holes in the net might just be too large to catch smaller fish. Certainly not circular.

quote:

If an infinite amount of parallel universes would allow an infinite amount of possible life forms, as you claim, then the Anthropic Principle, the version described above, is refuted. That was my point.



Sweet, that was my point too!



Yes, I believe it's near-infinitely likely that weren't created by chance. However I back that opinion up with godlike powers of reason. Feel free to state why you think otherwise with your own earthly powers of reason.

As for my godlike powers of reason, it all comes from my trusty mallet and duct tape. I could make one for you if you want.

As for my godlike powers of writing, they suck. I lost my pen of ultimate clarity last month. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

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

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

What you have stated may, in fact be circular. However it is not the anthropic principle. It utilizes it, but it's not the same.

No, the anthropic principle isn't a circular argument because it isn't an argument. Lol. Arguments that use it can be, however. One such argument is the "Anthropic Cosmological Principle."

As an example: You catch fish in a pond with a net. Consistently the smallest fish you catch are 6 inches. Does that mean the smallest fish in the pond are 6 inches? Not necessarilly. The anthropic principle directs us to identify our limitations, such as the holes in the net might just be too large to catch smaller fish. Certainly not circular.



Well, the problem began with the creator of the argument I provided, labeling it as the Anthropic Principle (i.e. not Anthropic Cosmological Principle). The "Cosmological" was added later to, basically, prevent what just happened: confusion.



quote:

Yes, I believe it's near-infinitely likely that weren't created by chance. However I back that opinion up with godlike powers of reason. Feel free to state why you think otherwise with your own earthly powers of reason.

Well, your powers of "supporting arguments with evidence" are severely lacking unfortunately. You see, you made the claim, You claimed that it was unlikely. That's your opinion, which in and of itself is fine. Yet, for your opinion to hold any weight however, you, not I, must back it up with evidence. You have not.

Not only have you not backed it up, but even if you leave the chance of it occurring, which you must, however remote that chance may be, unless you can prove that it is impossible -- it would still mean it is possible, and thus however well supported your claim is, would never result in a refutation of the claim that we are the result of chance.

On the other hand, the argument that we did, by virtue of the chance of it having happened - existing, means that we have to provide no proof. The only, optional, course of action would be to broaden the chance, in order to make it more palatable.

quote:Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future.

Assumption.

quote:If this were true...

You then proceed to base your entire argument on an assumption, need i say more? i know i don't but i will anyway...

quote: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

1. Does something have to be rational to create something that isn't random? (this depends on your definition of rational of course..so define it...)

2. What if the 'rules' are just random...there is as much reason to believe they are than to believe they arn't.

quote:I seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it.

Opinion.

quote: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

To me this doesn't even make sense. If you want people to be able to refute your argument then i advise explaining it as clearly as you can.

quote:Well now that we know there is a creator

You jumped to this conclusion after poorly explaining a concept...hardly acceptable.

quote:you'd need to exist OUTSIDE of time

Prove to me that it is possible for something to exist outside of time...

quote:Now that we have an unchanging rational being, wouldn't that be the DEFINITION of perfection to us

I've never heard perfection defined as unchanging and rational...

quote:there still is a God.

Your definition of God is unchanging and rational.

If this is all that God is then how did he create us, you have said nothing of his power or knowledge. Your ideas are weak, undeveloped and your entire argument is based on an assumption...not only that but your argument also contains your own opinion...

Try again.

By saying near infinitely, I mean pretty darn close to impossible. So close that it's just as likely your clothes will quantum tunnel 1 ft. to your left in the middle of a crowded room. (A la infinite improbability drive.) If this does happen, I suppose I'll have to rethink my argument. Again I said you can't "proove" anything, however you can come real close.

Most physicist will accept a 95% chance for a prediction as pretty darn good. I propose a %99.9999999...repeat 9 1000 times..99.

Darn you casual uncertainty!

...and I give the figure of 99.999999999% probability of us being the result of chance...

What would make that NOT a figure I pulled straight out of my ass would me citing evidence for that figure.

So, yet again, please cite evidence for that figure. Until you do, that is quite simply your unfounded opinion, which is as valid as me stating that we are a product of chance.

Fine. Think of how many concious creature's there have ever been on earth. Now how many concious humans there could ever be. Compare the ratios. Of course where the line gets fuzzy is where you draw the line for conciosness. A multiverse makes this number so much larger, because every single quantum event has an infinite, or near infinite number of possible outcomes, and there's already a whole lot of quantum events occurring.

YThe math to come up with an actual quantity would take up maybe about 2 pages of math, and statistics.

Besides, I pulled the figure from my ass, not you.

As for why the a single universe can't be the result of a random ruleset see my answer to Daz

As for you Daz, boy do you have it coming...



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

If you read into my argument, wether the universe extends infinitely into the past is irrelivant. I "assumed" the universe had rules to govern it. What matters is that the universe has a ruleset, aka laws of physics.

You want a quantatative value on how hard it would be to get here without rules? Mwahahah, the odd's against are so damn huge.

No rules means that time and space can be infinite. Doesn't have to be, but it can. no RULES! That's an infinity to one chance that we'd have 3 dimentions. Now we add in time. You see with no rules we'd just be connecting universes randomly. How many universes can we have? An infinte amount! We don't have rules to limit the number do we. To list all the other parameters that could be combined any way. Every single point in spacetime. Mass of the universe. Mass of the sun. Synapses in your brain.

Wheeeeeeeeee. I could go on and on. Trust me the universe hase rules, and they aren't random. The rules might utilize random event's, but the rules themselves aren't random.

Show me how we could have gotten here as a result of a random ruleset. If you can and I can't just pound the snot out of your argument, that maybe it's just as likely the universe's ruleset is random. And if you say the anthropic principle, I shall shoot you. We've been over this.

My Definition of Rational: Not random, has a purpose.

I could care less how God created us, if he's all powerful, or if he's a giant nose ready to sneeze us out of existence. My ideas aren't weak. They are specific, narrow. If they were broad, they'd take way too much time to defend. I'll do that later, maybe.

As for the definition of perfection. This God created the universe. He is the highest thing, any definition of perfection could refer to. Either way, I saw this as the OLY iffy part of what I was saying, so I left myself an out. Whether God is perfect, or not, there still is a God.



You don't need to say more, you need to increase the quality of your argument. xtreem's gained my respect, and so has rust. A little anyway.

I would smack you with my mallet, but it seems that it only lets me use it on smart people. It tells me I must handle the fools on my own.

You've been smoked, toasted, and totaled.

Where to start, it seems with every new post you make there are more things to pick out...

quote:My Definition of Rational: Not random, has a purpose.

I am rational by that definition, if i was also unchanging then by your argument i would also be a God?

quote:I could care less how God created us

You should, because if he really did create us it would be the only interaction he has had with us...its really pretty fucking significant you'd think.

quote:As for the definition of perfection. This God created the universe. He is the highest thing, any definition of perfection could refer to

quote:Whether God is perfect, or not, there still is a God.

1. Your quotes contradict.

2. How can there be a God that is not perfect? would a God that is not perfect cease to be a God?

Let us assume for a moment that there were no 'rules' (you should really define yourself for clarity) governing the creation of the universe. There are infinite possiblities of what could happen, and it is infinity to one that the universe ended up the way it did. Not very good odds, and it was highly improbable that the universe would end up this way...however, it had to end up someway right? You take infinite possibilities, one of them is going to get chosen, it just so happens it was this one. Is that so hard to believe?

However, that is assuming there is no 'rules'

Someone as 'smart' as you must've heard of universal causality...there's your ruleset for this universe, a pretty handy one i think you will find aswell. Scientific data suggests that events on the quantum scale truely are random events, could it just be that we can't comprehend or observe the causes.

Why can't this be the natural law of the universe? we and everything else in the universed was caused by other things..so on and so forth back for infinity?..

It is really irrelevant though...my point is that your argument is flawed.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Fine. Think of how many concious creature's there have ever been on earth. Now how many concious humans there could ever be. Compare the ratios. Of course where the line gets fuzzy is where you draw the line for conciosness. A multiverse makes this number so much larger, because every single quantum event has an infinite, or near infinite number of possible outcomes, and there's already a whole lot of quantum events occurring.

YThe math to come up with an actual quantity would take up maybe about 2 pages of math, and statistics.

Besides, I pulled the figure from my ass, not you.



You still have not provided ANY evidence to support your claim.

Your claim is therefore unfounded and unsupported. It then follows that believing you and your claim is unreasonable.

Now, given that, your argument -- a piece of rhetoric offered to convince -- has failed completely.

quote:As for why the a single universe can't be the result of a random ruleset see my answer to Daz

I did. It failed. Guess why. You didn't provide ANY evidence to support your arguments.

If you were unchanging, ie existed outside of time, AND created the universe, you would be a God.

In reality, I do care how we were created. For the purposes of this thread it's irrelivant.

My quotes don't contradict, I am meerely indicating that i might be wrong that this god would be perfect.

Yes it is hard to believe the universe is random, because there is an infinity to one chance that every time time moves forward,(some say time is infinite, some say it's quantized, but i think you'll still get what i mean), that time will still maintain the illusion of being continuous. Enter your universal casuality. A ruleset, and that's all I need.

Would a god that is not perfect cease to be a God? Note the caps. It depends on how you define god, which is really hazy. For the purposes of this thread we can define god as the being or beings that created the universe.

Why can't we just go back to infinity?

Again, we CAN go back to infinity if we want, as long as there is ome sort of natural law.



quote:

Your claim is therefore unfounded and unsupported

Your claim is unfounded and unsupported.

Please cite exactly where.

My evidence for why my claim is true is that we are sitting here, concious and intelligent beings. If you wish to refute the evedince that we are concious and intelligetn, be my guest.

My evidence for why the universe is not random is that if it were random, it is near-infinitely likely that we wouldn't be here. I know. the universe had to end up some way, why not this way... That is very hard to believe. Refer to the Capurnican principle. We aren't special with regards to the laws of nature.

If you guys insist on recycling the same argument's over and over, and making me sit here and refute them with the same arguments over and over, I will have to stop replying. It's just not worth it.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:



My evidence for why my claim is true is that we are sitting here, concious and intelligent beings. If you wish to refute the evedince that we are concious and intelligetn, be my guest.

That isn't evidence. There are explanations of that, that do not necessitate a god; hence that we are "conscious and intelligent beings" is as much evidence of the existence of a god, as it is of non-existence.

quote:

My evidence for why the universe is not random is that if it were random, it is near-infinitely likely that we wouldn't be here. I know. the universe had to end up some way, why not this way... That is very hard to believe. Refer to the Capurnican principle. We aren't special with regards to the laws of nature.



That is not evidence either. Again, for the thousandth time, that is YOUR opinion. Simply stating your opinion is not evidence.



Now once again, either provide evidence or admit that you cannot.



quote:

If you guys insist on recycling the same argument's over and over, and making me sit here and refute them with the same arguments over and over, I will have to stop replying. It's just not worth it.

Please. Do not play the victim here. If anyone is the victim here, it is us who had to read your post, where you proceed to make countless claims based on nothing but assumptions, and have to waste our times.

The purpose of argument is to convince. You convince with a reasonable, logical, and supported argument. You have absolutely no evidence, hence your argument is unsupported.

You expect us to believe your argument when the only "evidence" you have is, "I believe the probability is very unlikely"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So now, once again, either provide some evidence or admit that your argument is as credible and supported as me believing that it was likely that we were the result of chance.

Sorry if Rust had already torn this man a new asshole, but I feel I can't let such blatant bullshit continue...

Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future. If this were true

Prove that it does or the rest of your argument is 100% meaningless bullshit.

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.

Once again, you provide no evidence of the rules being structured...and in reality the laws of the universe aren't "laws", they're side effects of the 4 forces.

bI seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it.

Ah, but does doubt disprove something? Fuck no.

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.

Nah, I think this universe perfectly fits the conditions for your intellect to match a frog's. And yes, this is an ad-hom attack, but what worth is contained in life if you can't fucking laugh, eh?

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?

WE don't know shit, other than that your argument so far is based solely on assumptions that you take as innate fact for some ridiculous reason.

Well, see to create a universe without being created oneself, you'd need to exist OUTSIDE of time.

Prove it...better yet, prove time even exists...hell, if you can even show evidence of time existing I'll be blown the fuck away. Time is a tool invented by man to understand change; just as math is an invention of man to help us understand the world around us.

Now if you existed outside of time, you'd be unchanging.

If God is unchanging, how can it be rational? Doesn't rationality imply a thought process, even if it is one far beyond our understanding (aka a changing of thoughts)?

Well, feel free to poke holes in this argument, just please when you do try to refute it, PROVIDE SOME SORT OF REASONING.

I feel I provided enough reasoning in my refutation to not only poke a hole in your argument, but to tear it as wide as the gaping ass of the goatman.

Those who do poke holes shall be pounded into a teeny puddle by the "Mallet of Logic" Then the holes shall be patched with the "Duct Tape of Reason"

I highly doubt, atleast from the terrible presentation of your thoughts thus far, that I'll be turned into a puddle by a real mallet, let alone one powered by your 'logic'.

Back to lurking...someone wake me up again when another dipshit posts something this incredibly retarded.

Wow, you people are making complete jackasses of yourselves.

Most of what you have said is that I haven't proven jack crap. Well, guess what, you're absolutely correct. However I would take a near-infinite to one chance for the existence of God as pretty darn good.



Fine. I'll rephrase my argument as to be clearer. I believe all your crap is accounted for.

I) Time is Contiguous.

This cannot be "proven", as we cannot know if we are the result of a near infinite to one chance that the laws of physics are completely and utterly random, and that our whole concept of the continuous nature of time is liable to colapse at any one instant in time. However, we have never seen a massive discontinuity in time with a near infinite number of chances to have done so in the past.

II) The universe has at least one rule, or law of nature. Point I is a rule, or law by definition. Since it applies to the universe, it is a universal law, or a natural law, or a law of physics. Take your pick as to what name you desire.

III) We are not alone!

This cannot be proven, and is, in fact, completely irrelevant.

IV) If the universe's ruleset was created, the creator would be an intelligent being.

What level of inteligence is unimportant. If the ruleset were created by a being of no inteligence, it would be random, as the creator wouldn't know what the hell to do. As shown in point I, at least one rule in our universe isn't random.

V) If time had a starting point, the ruleset had to be created.

That seems clear to me, if it doesn't to you, you've got issues man. Because time didn't exist before it's own creation, whatever created it must lie outside of time.

VI) If the universe were not created, and as such, extends infinitely into the past, (oscillating universe model): It still has a ruleset, and that has to come from somewhere. If it didn't it would be random. The reason it would be random is that if the universe had no starting point, there is NO reason for time to be the way it is. It doesn't have a cause and would be random. Because the ruleset had to come from somewhere, other than the past (can't precede something that extends infinitely int the past), the ruleset's creator would have to exist outside of time.

VII)I'm tired, and I'm just going to say, screw this thread, people in the God forum are idiots, I'm going back to mad scientists.



VIII) Whether or not time has a starting point, the ruleset in point I was created by a being outside of time.

Whether you wish to call this entity/entities god, or something else is your choice.

In response to the inevitable multiverse argument. Cool, let's have a multiverse. It doesn't matter if there are concious beings or not.

I know you say, "But we could only have this discussion in a universe in which time appears to be contiguous." Well, if time isn't contiguous, there is a near-infinite chance that armageddon will occur as all sense of casuality is razed to the ground. Nope didn't happen. Proof enough for me. If it's not for you, fine, stake your bet against the near-infinite to one chance of there being a god.



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

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:



However I would take a near-infinite to one chance for the existence of God as pretty darn good.

You haven't proven that either! Geez, how many fucking times must we spell it out?



quote:

I) Time is Contiguous.

This cannot be "proven", as we cannot know if we are the result of a near infinite to one chance that the laws of physics are completely and utterly random, and that our whole concept of the continuous nature of time is liable to colapse at any one instant in time. However, we have never seen a massive discontinuity in time with a near infinite number of chances to have done so in the past.

Did you read what you just said? You, in the first fucking sentence, admit that your argument rests on an assumption... exactly what we were pointing out in the first place!

Not to mention that this assumption goes against many scientific theories. The universe could be in a state of constant expansion and then contraction (i.e. of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches") which would mean time is not contiguous.

quote:

II) The universe has at least one rule, or law of nature. Point I is a rule, or law by definition. Since it applies to the universe, it is a universal law, or a natural law, or a law of physics. Take your pick as to what name you desire.



This is a truism. If the universe must have a law, then its a law that the universe must have a law. Great.

quote:

III) We are not alone!

This cannot be proven, and is, in fact, completely irrelevant.



If its irrelevant, then why even mention it? Filler?

quote:

IV) If the universe's ruleset was created, the creator would be an intelligent being.

What level of inteligence is unimportant. If the ruleset were created by a being of no inteligence, it would be random, as the creator wouldn't know what the hell to do. As shown in point I, at least one rule in our universe isn't random.



If it was created. Great. We're not debating "ifs", we're debating YOUR claim that you had PROOF of god existing.

Giving an "if", "or" scenario, is hardly " Proving God Exist's Without Schrodinger's Freaking Cat"

quote:

V) If time had a starting point, the ruleset had to be created.

That seems clear to me, if it doesn't to you, you've got issues man. Because time didn't exist before it's own creation, whatever created it must lie outside of time.



Again, another "if".

quote:

VI) If the universe were not created, and as such, extends infinitely into the past, (oscillating universe model): It still has a ruleset, and that has to come from somewhere. If it didn't it would be random. The reason it would be random is that if the universe had no starting point, there is NO reason for time to be the way it is. It doesn't have a cause and would be random. Because the ruleset had to come from somewhere, other than the past (can't precede something that extends infinitely int the past), the ruleset's creator would have to exist outside of time.

You didn't provide any argument for why it couldn't be random...

quote:

VII)I'm tired, and I'm just going to say, screw this thread, people in the God forum are idiots, I'm going back to mad scientists.



Yes. Of course. We are idiots because we demand someone that claims to be 'Proving God Exist's Without Schrodinger's Freaking Cat' provide proof and not idiotic assumptions and unsupported claims... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Really, what the fuck did you expect when your replies amount to such childish retorts as:

"Those who do poke holes shall be pounded into a teeny puddle by the "Mallet of Logic" Then the holes shall be patched with the "Duct Tape of Reason"

"You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic. And since none of you made a valid argument, I don't even have to use my duct tape."

"Pwned byatches."



quote:

VIII) Whether or not time has a starting point, the ruleset in point I was created by a being outside of time.

Whether you wish to call this entity/entities god, or something else is your choice.



This is infinite regression. Who created that being? No matter what you answer, the end result will undoubtedly be something existing (e.g. existing for an infinite amount of time) without having been created.

Who's to say that is not the universe itself? You. You're arbitrarily deciding that the universe must have been created.

quote:

I know you say, "But we could only have this discussion in a universe in which time appears to be contiguous." Well, if time isn't contiguous, there is a near-infinite chance that armageddon will occur as all sense of casuality is razed to the ground. Nope didn't happen. Proof enough for me. If it's not for you, fine, stake your bet against the near-infinite to one chance of there being a god.



What the hell are you talking about? Why must "Armageddon" occur (first define what you even mean by it, as you should know it has a religious connotation) and then tell me how is it not (according to you) having happened in the past is proof that it wont happen in the future? Moreover, how the fuck did you get that "near infinite" figure? Out of your ass?

Phoenix, while your use of logic and reason touches my heart, because I love those constructs, your argument falls apart, like most, before launch. Let's start with the logical fallacies--as I'm sure you know, even one fallacy will completely decimate an entire argument.

quote:Let's say the universe extends infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future

Unfounded assumption, but for the sake of argument we can let this one go.

quote:If this were true, a creator couldn't exist, right?

This is completely unfounded; you can't just state a claim and assume everybody knows what you're talking about -- WARRANT YOUR STATEMENTS!!!

quote: I seriously doubt that any random ruleset could lead to life as we know it

Argumentum ad ignoratum, you're arguing that this idea is invalid because you personally can't conceive it.

quote: 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

Red herring. This statement doesn't add to your argument and only serves to distract the reader; very dishonest.

quote:Well now that we know there is a creator, and also that it's rational..etc etc etc

Why, lookee here, your argument fails and therefore your conclusion does too.

quote:how does it become elevated to the status of a God with a capital G...

Your argument on God is a semantic one. "God" as a word is inherently subjective, so any attempt to define the word will be a complete failure. Do not try it.

quote:Read the post jackasses, and don't assume it's wrong just b/c it tries to prove God exists.

Any argument that "proves" God automatically fails because it cannot stand logically. This is not a false generalization, logic soundly disproves God, or places Him into the purgatory of burden of proof.

Now suppose I ignore all those tiny "poked holes," and assume the validity of your argumentation? I will refute the argument holistically, too.

You misuse (butcher, in fact) the concept of infinity--the hinge of your argument. Infinity is a difficult idea to apply, which is why I try to avoid it. Infinity means everything. Everything. Everything from the intelligence of a worm to a frog to a superhuman being.

If we allow your first assumption, then God is made irrelevant. If we disallow your first assumption, then your argument ceases to exist.

I think that we as humans can't and really shouldn't understand the inner workings of the universe. That's just my take on it.

Monk, look at the new argument. Most of your arguments have been answered there. Sorry for making you type so darn much.

As for infinity, I know that it means absolutely everything. That's why I've used the phrase near-infinite so darn much. I noramlly try to ignore infininities to, but it's almost unavoidable.

Also, I realized the whole multiverse thing was irrelevant, so I cut it out.

An even if we might never be able to understand the inner workings of the universe, we're still trying.

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

Point III was a joke. I seriously hope you got that, otherwise I don't think anyone will look at your post's as having any meaning whatsoever.

Those two "if's? Well Either the universe had a starting point, or it didn't. It has to be one or the other.

As for point II, your argument is circular logic, however, my argument is based on the postulate that time is contiguous.

As for your expantion/contraction BS. Don't even attempt to BS me on physics. What you are referring to is the oscillating universe theory. Guess what. In this theory time extends infinitely into the past, and into the future.

And this argument doesn't rely on time being infinite. Neither did the last one, but that is made more clear in the revised version.

As for point 4, i intended to prove the creation of the universe later on down the line.

I provided an argument against random in the first line. It is not a proof, it is a postulate.

"We" are not idiots. "You" are an idiot.

Those childish insults are supposed to be childish. This is so no one could take them as a serious insult. I normally try to respect everyone's opinion.

Does it matter if it's infinite regression. The universe was created. Wether that creator was created is outside the scope of this argument. And why can't this creator be the universe itself? Well, that's because it needs to be inteligent. If you think the universe is intelligent, go right on ahead.

As for armageddon, What I meant was that "all sense of casuality [would be] razed to the ground." Poetic license my friend.

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

You want to throw away the childish comments. Fine. I've lost my sense of humor.

Rust, you've constantly griped about this not really being a proof, because it "only" has a near infinite chance of being true. Again, all of euclidian geometry is based on two postulates. Have you ever seen, the Matrix? Well, you could be an AI program for all you know. All of Einstein's equations are based on 2 postulates. The speed of light, c, has been tested many times, so we take it to be a constant. The contiguousness of time, however is tested every instant you continue to exist, and so far has been proven correct.

Other that that, all you've done is pick at the wording of the theory, not the substance. Yes it is a thoery, but looking at your posts, it is unlikely that you're going to be the one to disprove it.

If you insist on maintaing the illusion of you own intellectual superiority, you just go right on ahead. I wish that you wouldn't, but go right on ahead. If that's all that keeps you from slitting your wrists, keep it that way.

Rust, I'm no longer going to reply to your repetitive, childish, arrgant, and downright idiotic posts. There's just no point in running you any deeper int the ground.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 06-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Point III was a joke. I seriously hope you got that, otherwise I don't think anyone will look at your post's as having any meaning whatsoever.

I assumed it was a joke. So? The point is, WHO THE FUCK CARES? I'm not here to be not-entertained by your shitty jokes.

quote:Those two "if's? Well Either the universe had a starting point, or it didn't. It has to be one or the other.

That doesn't even make sense in the context of what I said.

You saying "if this happened, blahbity blah blah blah" is proof that what you're giving is your opinion. Nothing else. You're not "Proving God Exist's Without Schrodinger's Freaking Cat". That was the point.

quote:As for point II, your argument is circular logic, however, my argument is based on the postulate that time is contiguous.

How is my argument is circular logic? What the hell are you talking about?

This is what happens when you don't use the very useful and nice tool of quotations and just provide an inane rant.

quote:As for your expantion/contraction BS. Don't even attempt to BS me on physics. What you are referring to is the oscillating universe theory. Guess what. In this theory time extends infinitely into the past, and into the future.

I'm sorry Mr. Wizard, but you're wrong. Time ceases to exist as we know it during the Big Bang singularities.

quote:As for point 4, i intended to prove the creation of the universe later on down the line.

Right. Brilliant excuse. Your original post was a waste of human intelligence since it didn't succeed in what it claimed it would... you were going to "do that later on down the line". Great!

quote:I provided an argument against random in the first line. It is not a proof, it is a postulate.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

quote:"We" are not idiots. "You" are an idiot.

Yes. You said, and I quote:

"people in the God forum are idiots"

Now. Either you just made a complete fool out of yourself or you don't know the difference between plural and singular... thus making a complete fool out of yourself. Which one is it?

quote:Those childish insults are supposed to be childish. This is so no one could take them as a serious insult. I normally try to respect everyone's opinion.

Oh well thank you. I know that all of us here at this forum are just sitting in our chairs saying "Hey, we really need a fucking moron to make stupid childish insults that are not supposed to be taken serious!".

Thank you for filling that void.

quote:Does it matter if it's infinite regression. The universe was created. Wether that creator was created is outside the scope of this argument. And why can't this creator be the universe itself? Well, that's because it needs to be inteligent. If you think the universe is intelligent, go right on ahead.

Wrong. If its an infinite regression then it would be impossible to reach, and therefore you cannot claim to know who is the creator!

Again, the only possible end to that infinite regression is the existence of something that has always been: has always existed.

Moreover, you have yet to even prove why it must be intelligent; hell why it must even be conscious!

quote:Rust, you've constantly griped about this not really being a proof, because it "only" has a near infinite chance of being true. Again, all of euclidian geometry is based on two postulates. Have you ever seen, the Matrix? Well, you could be an AI program for all you know. All of Einstein's equations are based on 2 postulates. The speed of light, c, has been tested many times, so we take it to be a constant. The contiguousness of time, however is tested every instant you continue to exist, and so far has been proven correct.

Other that that, all you've done is pick at the wording of the theory, not the substance. Yes it is a thoery, but looking at your posts, it is unlikely that you're going to be the one to disprove it.

1. The continuity of time is certainly not a necessity for Einstein's equations.

2. Even then, that is hardly important in the debate.

The main points are:

a. You have not provided ANY proof, which you claimed you would.

b. Your argument is based on numerous assumptions.

quote:Rust, I'm no longer going to reply to your repetitive, childish, arrgant, and downright idiotic posts. There's just no point in running you any deeper int the ground.

Every single poster in this thread has disagreed with you. Does that not say anything about how pathetic your argument is, and how they agree with me? Yes it does.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

God does exist as long as no one can disprove the original topic.

You can't prove a negative.

Your argument holds up like circumstancial evidence in court. Convincing, but not exactly prima facie.

Here, I'll show you why you're wrong:

quote: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.

Firstly, ignoring the fact that there's no support for the ridiculous assertion that the universe "extends infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future" (time is linear, dipshit, until you prove otherwise)...

Nonsense. If the ruleset were different, life would be different. The rules don't fit life; life fits the rules.

quote: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.

Bullshit. A proper statement would be, "ours has the right conditions for life as we know it." Life in this universe could just as easily be silicon-based, and who knows about other universes? To say that something could only happen in one universe out of an infinite number of universes is absurd.

quote: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.

You mean your intelligence level is higher than that of a frog? Damn, you had me fooled.

quote: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? And even if not prefect there still is a God.

The rest of your argument begins with the assumption that there is indeed a creator and thus doesn't fly until you PROVE that there is one.

Bam, you've just been puddlefied by the, er... Mallet of Logic.

[This message has been edited by T-zone (edited 06-03-2005).]

If the universe is in fact infinite, and it follows Hawking's theury of continued expanision and contraction, than if there is no higher being watching over this every time there is a Big Bang a new, random rule set is established. Eventually, on set will have to be the one we live in now, a life-giving one. So it is mere probability that we are here. Eventually, in a infinite universe, we would come to exist. No "God" involved.

Again T-zone, there was a refined argument. You're being almost as much a dumbass/jackass as Rust. I'd be careful if I were you.

Hadji, congratulations, you're the only one to actually find a critical flaw in the theory, and show it to be a flaw with actual evidence! And not just the wording that could be corrected in about 4 seconds (Rust...).



AND you weren't a jackass about it. W00t!

I was wondering when someone would find something. Actually I had found a different critical flaw already, but I like pissing people like Rust off.

Never mind, I've managed to refute that, even an oscillating universe has a ruleset. I.e. it oscillates. Oops, too tired at the time.

[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 06-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

. Actually I had found a different critical flaw already, but I like pissing people like Rust off.



Huh? I'm pissed off? That's news to me.

Sorry, but morons like yourself are not going to piss me off. Entertain me, yes, which is why I even bother replying; piss me off, no.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Again T-zone, there was a refined argument. You're being almost as much a dumbass/jackass as Rust. I'd be careful if I were you.

Ouch, careful of what, having Profundus Maximus here puddlefy me with his Mallet of Logical Fallacy?

Someone who can't utilize logic correctly has no room to talk here.

Also, you failed to refute my points, which still stand until you prove they don't, because most of them still apply to your "refined argument." You resorted once again to the use of logical fallacy... attacking the person instead of actually proving anything.

Now of course I have to pick apart your "refined argument" and show you why it was wrong too.

Stop being such a pompous fucking windbag and maybe more people will be won over to your way of, uh... did you call that thinking?

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

I) Time is Contiguous.

This cannot be "proven", as we cannot know if we are the result of a near infinite to one chance that the laws of physics are completely and utterly random, and that our whole concept of the continuous nature of time is liable to colapse at any one instant in time. However, we have never seen a massive discontinuity in time with a near infinite number of chances to have done so in the past.

Time doesn't have to be contiguous. Time could exist on multiple dimensions, and we could simply only be capable of travelling through time on a line. Time might not even exist. It's just as likely that everything happens at once and our brain simply perceives things as happening in a linear fashion because of its limited ability to multitask.

quote:II) The universe has at least one rule, or law of nature. Point I is a rule, or law by definition. Since it applies to the universe, it is a universal law, or a natural law, or a law of physics. Take your pick as to what name you desire.

Alright, I'll play. Let's assume that time is linear and that's a universal law.

quote:IV) If the universe's ruleset was created, the creator would be an intelligent being.

What level of inteligence is unimportant. If the ruleset were created by a being of no inteligence, it would be random, as the creator wouldn't know what the hell to do. As shown in point I, at least one rule in our universe isn't random.

Nothing is random. Even things we think are random are only pseudorandom. The universal law of time being linear could just as easily be pseudorandom as developed on purpose. If that universal law were different, we would adapt to perceive time differently. It goes without saying.

quote:V) If time had a starting point, the ruleset had to be created.

That seems clear to me, if it doesn't to you, you've got issues man. Because time didn't exist before it's own creation, whatever created it must lie outside of time.

Exactly, and seeing as how it's impossible to exist outside of time until you prove otherwise, you are wrong.

quote:VI) If the universe were not created, and as such, extends infinitely into the past, (oscillating universe model): It still has a ruleset, and that has to come from somewhere. If it didn't it would be random. The reason it would be random is that if the universe had no starting point, there is NO reason for time to be the way it is. It doesn't have a cause and would be random. Because the ruleset had to come from somewhere, other than the past (can't precede something that extends infinitely int the past), the ruleset's creator would have to exist outside of time.

The reason humans can't argue this way is because we can only perceive one point in time at, well... a time. That's why we have that saying. The universe doesn't have to have a starting point and time doesn't have to be linear. Time could be cyclic and the universe could simply always exist.

The oscillating universe theory, by the way, simply states that the universe is constantly expanding and will do so until it collapses. It has nothing to do with time.

quote:VIII) Whether or not time has a starting point, the ruleset in point I was created by a being outside of time.

Once again, prove it. Your argument for a creator hinges entirely on whether or not there's a creator, and I think that's a bit silly.

quote:I know you say, "But we could only have this discussion in a universe in which time appears to be contiguous." Well, if time isn't contiguous, there is a near-infinite chance that armageddon will occur as all sense of casuality is razed to the ground. Nope didn't happen. Proof enough for me. If it's not for you, fine, stake your bet against the near-infinite to one chance of there being a god.

Logical fallacy on so many different levels.

What if armageddon already happened, and you're not going to perceive it until you perceive everything else that happened at the exact same time?

Also, you have yet to prove this assertion:

quote:Well, if time isn't contiguous, there is a near-infinite chance that armageddon will occur as all sense of casuality is razed to the ground.

Basically, if you can prove that time is contiguous and that something can exist outside of time, your argument flies.

T-Zone, to be honest now, you're making a little more sense.

quote:Once again, prove it. Your argument for a creator hinges entirely on whether or not there's a creator, and I think that's a bit silly.

No, it actually hinges on the postulate that time is contiguous.

I suppose that casuality on a macroscopic scale could have failed outside of our light cone by now, but the area inside is large enough that we can consider the idea that time is contiguous as a pretty damn good idea. The only problem is if something could exist outside of time, AND actually do anything.

Time doesn't HAVE to be contiguos, just because every experience we have in life says that is is. It's just very very very likely. A.k.a. postulate. Sortof like saying every closed polygon has an area. Very likely, but it can't be proved.

And if all things are only pseudorandom, they still have a guiding universal law.

And if time was an illusion created because we can only comprehend one moment at a time, don't you think that we'd be confused rather that restrict ourselves to one point. Or unable to percieve time at all, like being in shock? I believe that the theories of time as only an illusion are utter nonsense. They can't be substantiated or disproven, make no predictions, and rely on no present circumstances. Essentially they're useless rhetoric designed to get the creator famous by proposing a controversial viewpoint.

Either way, if we could only travel in time in one direction, that's a universal law.

And the oscillating universe theory states that when the universe starts contracting it will "bounce" outward again, then expand, contract and bounce again. It allows for the posibility that time is infinite.

I suppose that for every instant you exist, you may just believe that there was a past event, even if nothing ever really happened in some sort of order. Essentially there would be no precedence right? However, if that were so, it would be just as likely that we would exist in a universe where nothing makes sense, as in the sun just "winking out." Our every day experience shows us that there is some sort of precedence.

As for the outside of time thing, yeah, that's what I was thinking. If something exists oudside of time, how could it do anything, virtue of being "frozen" in one state. Of course our viewpoint could be biased virtue of the fact that just because we can't exist outside of time doesn't mean that another being can't.

But yeah, I can't prove a being can exist outside of time. The rest still stands though.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

No, it actually hinges on the postulate that time is contiguous.

Well yeah, that too. The thing is, since we can only perceive one point in time at once, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not time is contiguous. For instance, are there beings that see time as a plane, or as a cube? There could be. What if the multiverse theory is applied and every different universe perceives time differently? A different perception of time doesn't necessarily mean instant armageddon, it just means that you might perceive the end of the world before you're born. :-p

quote:I suppose that casuality on a macroscopic scale could have failed outside of our light cone by now, but the area inside is large enough that we can consider the idea that time is contiguous as a pretty damn good idea. The only problem is if something could exist outside of time, AND actually do anything.

Well, putting the idea of a being outside of time into practice, I see one possibility:

We look at our perception of time - a line - as the 4th dimension, time on a plane as the 5th, etc. This would mean that something existing outside of time, in a sense, would have to be 7-dimensional, at the very least. This isn't EVEN taking into account string theory, which accounts for 9 dimensions - or is it 10? My head hurts just thinking about it, but if I figure correctly, that means that for something to exist outside of time it would have to be small enough to be "rolled up" like a string, assuming string theory is correct.

Of course then that means that EVERYTHING exists "outside of time" since everything is made up of strings which are rolled up inside those tiny dimensions in the fabric of spacetime.

We exist in 4 dimensions. Would it be possible for us to exist in the 4th dimension without existing in the first 3? To exist in time but not in space? Can something be sentient and not have substance? No idea.

For now, let's just take the idea that a creator has to exist on at least 7 dimensions.

quote:Time doesn't HAVE to be contiguos, just because every experience we have in life says that is is. It's just very very very likely. A.k.a. postulate. Sortof like saying every closed polygon has an area. Very likely, but it can't be proved.

Proving that every closed polygon has area is much simpler than proving that time is linear. Every experience in life doesn't say that time is linear. How do you account for deja vu?

quote:And if all things are only pseudorandom, they still have a guiding universal law.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

quote:And if time was an illusion created because we can only comprehend one moment at a time, don't you think that we'd be confused rather that restrict ourselves to one point. Or unable to percieve time at all, like being in shock? I believe that the theories of time as only an illusion are utter nonsense. They can't be substantiated or disproven, make no predictions, and rely on no present circumstances. Essentially they're useless rhetoric designed to get the creator famous by proposing a controversial viewpoint.

But they're just as easy to prove as the theory that time is linear. Because our perception of time is limited, until we figure out how to change it, we can't prove the nature of time.

quote:Either way, if we could only travel in time in one direction, that's a universal law.

But that assumes that there aren't other beings in the universe, or that if there are, they can only travel through time in a linear fashion. I realize that going this far is getting a bit ridiculous but it has to be taken into account.

quote:And the oscillating universe theory states that when the universe starts contracting it will "bounce" outward again, then expand, contract and bounce again. It allows for the posibility that time is infinite.

Allows for the possibility, yes, but doesn't require it.

quote:I suppose that for every instant you exist, you may just believe that there was a past event, even if nothing ever really happened in some sort of order. Essentially there would be no precedence right? However, if that were so, it would be just as likely that we would exist in a universe where nothing makes sense, as in the sun just "winking out." Our every day experience shows us that there is some sort of precedence.

Either that or the Matrix has us. :-p Our every day experience shows us a lot of things, but everyday experience is not scientific proof. Some people's everyday experience shows them that everyone is out to get them, but we label them as paranoid schizophrenic and forget all about them.

quote:As for the outside of time thing, yeah, that's what I was thinking. If something exists oudside of time, how could it do anything, virtue of being "frozen" in one state. Of course our viewpoint could be biased virtue of the fact that just because we can't exist outside of time doesn't mean that another being can't.

But yeah, I can't prove a being can exist outside of time. The rest still stands though.

Yeah, so if a being can't exist out of time, it has to come from somewhere. We get an infinite loop of beings creating other beings, and that doesn't work. There has to be a beginning SOMEWHERE if time is linear and nothing can exist outside of it.

Of course if time isn't linear, then it's certainly possible that this being always was and always will be. In this case, however, there's no need for a creator because the same thing can be said of the rest of the universe.

What I'm trying to say is a bit confusing, I hope you can follow or find a better way to say it. The conditions under which there could be a creator are conditions under which the universe could just as easily exist without one. Not to mention that when a creator is finally proven, one has to account for where it came from on the same premise that they argue for the existence of a creator in the first place: the premise that where there's design, there's a designer.

BLOOGLE BLAAHGLE!!!!

Sorry...had to break the tension...this is about as interesting as watching Stephen Hawkings take a dump...oddly enough that may be what we are seing the product of right now...

I like the debate, I just keep going out of town/catching new flights before I can post my thoughts.

Alright, I posted this on another forum, on another "God fight". Simple response, and it should work.... and yes, it's long for a reason(apologies for the length). (Forgive the use of usernames, but they are in the post, and the post makes sense, I don't want to mess that up).

1st post. As far as I'm concerned, it is what you choose to call god. I figured it out when I was riding the bus in middle school. It is argueable that physical exsistance is imperfect, so, if god is to be perfect, then he cannot exsist physically. TO get steeped in philosophy, I believe god is an idea of perfection, which can easily exsist. It brings an interesting question, does an idea exsist outside time, things, etc? I say yes. Would it be wrong to rely on an idea like god, praise one, thank it. I mean, think of any war, think of what it was fought for, the idea's behind the campaign, and what the people fighting that war should thank the idea for. I mean, freedom for example. SO with this in mind, was the bible a means of teaching morals? I agree with this. Do I really think Jesus did all of that? I don't think so, but I don't rule out the possibility that he did. Yes, I am cristian.

2nd post. It is kinda obvious anything dealing with the more indistinguishable levels of faith are far more personal that standardized. It is nigh impossible to convince someone of something only you know. (Would you try to tell a blind person what green is?) If anything, we should just search for something we can all agree on, with logic, and let each person go from there with their own ideas, and experiences.

3rd post. First of all, we are all talking about difinition. Well, for one, I believe that Ideas are always there, it is just up to humanity to think them. And for your puzzle comment, I wish for you to use your brain, think if we took all life back to simple, one-celled organisms, would you expect it to evolve in the same fasion? doubtful. And in terms of physical perfection, I will unleash a paradox by saying that it is possibble for something to be perfect in it's imperfection, but to be perfectly imperfect is to go into the realm of the unargueable. So lets just go ahead and use some stupid philosophy to prove the greater. Lets invision the perfect computer. Are all computers the perfect computer.. no. They all have an hourglass function, lag, etc. SHould we put god into physical form, we would limit god, because that's what physical form is, limitations, measurments. Were it possible to measure god, he wouldn't be a perfect being with unlimited influence. And as far as what I think of Jesus, I believe in the symbolism, and ideals of the storyies. I believe I will be a better person for following their principles, and quite frankly, I don't really care it if did happen. I do believe that the IDEA of Jesus died for our sins. I believe that the IDEA of Jesus lived. Do I believe it in occurance, perhaps, but not for shure.

4th post. you know, lets just take this and put it back into basic context. Why does someone have religion? I have always thought of religion as a way to better yourself by seeking purpose and reason in the world, and it just so happens alot of people believe in a figure called god, so all you need to know, to know god, is what gives your life purpose and reason, and for me, that is the idea of perfection. I am an exsistentialist, and I have always thought that it is about personal truth.

This is becoming more difficult to make sense of. Ok, I am an alter server at my local church, for those of you who don't know of what I speak, I am one of the people who went through a training course so that I can assist priests in church. Now, from the experience i have gained from my duties, alot of people misinterprit the bible, or take it too literally. From theese simple beginnings, alot of opposition is brought against the church through paradox. For the questions posted by DeamonMachine, if you read my previous posts, which I have yet to find good opposing logic too (PM me if you think you have something better.) then you will find that I support the idea we are made in gods likeness, the likeness of the idea of perfection. Look at human nature, even the nature of the universe. Isn't it the stronger, faster, smarter beings that survive? This would place, step by step, all beings closer to perfection than the previous. Second, in terms of aliens, I believe that you are misinterpreting. "We" can be defined as any group/groups of individuals. Perhaps something was lost in the translation, but I doubt that the bible meant just us, and on top of that, and i quote "What we do in life, echo's in eternity". Through interaction, it may have begun with just humans, but wouldn't such an image spread? Third, religion typically will involve you by how involved you choose to be. I have been through some pretty bad stuff in my days, and good, everything fits in it's place. Fourth, To assume there must be a beginning, there must also be an end. We typically associate this with time, and sequential order. I ask you, when you question what is beyond time, what is beyond humanity? This, while a easily opposable statement, I wish simply to point one thing out. If you know the speech of St. Crespins day, as written by Shakespeare, it will lead you to believe that your acts, worthy of rememberance, shall be remembered, and live forever. So should time be able to live, only as long as time lives. This would go to show that there is no such beginning or end. ALso, there is the Theory of the big bang, and then the big crunch. Now, I agree with Psycho Clowns on some subjects, but to think of god as a govenor preceeds me. THinking of god, as i do, I believe it is a matter of cooperation between yourself, and god. Now, error, if someone becomes succesful, becasue they were strong, it is because of their likeness of perfection under the circumstances. THis would have been granted by god, as I see him. Brian, consider this, should god (the idea of perfection) have been in the minds of those who built the room, would it be the same as were the idea of imperfection? Idealistically, a room would have consistancy in it's angles, and arhitecture, without this, the room would not be able to stand, because a perfect building stands. And as to the next part of your post, I think you will see how god, put into my context, fits into every act, thought, etc of every being. In terms of the crusades, etc. I quote again "The biggest mistake of humanity is making their ideas beliefs. Ideas can be changed, beliefs aren't so easy, people die for their beliefs, and for others." When I see the statement, "We have a great capacity for evil and a great capacity for good." it makes me ask, was it a great evil in HItlers mind? No, he believed it was right that the world be put into how he invisiond it in his mind. This goes back to when I think of personal truth. To you and me, it is wrong, to Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, it is right. There are two sides to every story. Since we were made in gods image, we are also made in our own minds, as perfection is in the eye of the beholder. In terms of Jesus, follow your morals in his acts, and he has surved his purpose in cleansing your sins. Now I am not some kinda fanatic, but wouldn't it be logical should it be that you choose your corse, with a corresponding outcome?



[This message has been edited by FEZ (edited 06-07-2005).]

xXPhoenixFireXx-(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)

Wrong sorry but that was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. All rules are random e.x. all liquids get smaller when frozen except water which gets larger and this would seem to prove that god exists more than any thing else. (though I'm not quite sure on that whole God thing)

[This message has been edited by bsouthern6 (edited 06-08-2005).]

Kindly elucidate. I have no idea what relevance that has to the existance of a creator.

Alright, human life would not exist without this exception (water expanding when frozen) so why is this the only exception, i'm saying it could possibly point to Gods interference. ( though I dont subscribe to that whole divine intervention thing.

little did we know but the universe just blew up right now and was replaced by a even more complicated reasoning of a god

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

I told you I'd start a new thread!

Again, you can't "really" prove anything, but:

"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? And even if not prefect there still is a God.

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.

Those who do poke holes shall be pounded into a teeny puddle by the "Mallet of Logic" Then the holes shall be patched with the "Duct Tape of Reason"







Just because there are rules that govern our universe does not mean they had to have been creted by a conciouse necessary being i.e god. In the same way that life can create, evolve and design itself who are we to assume that the universe can't do the same. We are all here, the universe is a 'Brute fact' to quote bertrand russell, so maybe it just had to exist, imagine the universe expanding and collapsing on itself over and over again, each time randomly creating rules untill it finally gets rules rigid enough to become stable and in its current state, although it could still collapse again and carry on its evolution.

Although who is to say if there realy are any rules that conrtrol the universe? we as humans feel the need to put structers and systems onto phenomena to help us understand it, the rules you observe come from the choas of the universe which we as humans see as order to help us better understand it.

And life can evolve from any 'random ruleset' as long as there are rules for it to adapt to, for example when planet earth was in its infancy there was no oxygen in the air or oxygen breathing creatures on land, however when a type of seweed took over the oceans its by product was oxygen which filled the air due to the vast amounts of seaweed, this was disasterouse for the ornganisms of the time, however life evolved and many species now flourish in oxygenated air.

We can not figure this universe out for sure untill we transcend it and see it as a whole picture from outside of it, in the same way you can't just read a geometry book and completely understand it without going outside of the book and seeing it in real life.

quote:Originally posted by bsouthern6:

Wrong sorry but that was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. All rules are random e.x. all liquids get smaller when frozen except water which gets larger and this would seem to prove that god exists more than any thing else. (though I'm not quite sure on that whole God thing)

Tip: hit the crack pipe AFTER posting in a serious discussion.

Tip: hit the crack pipe AFTER posting in a serious discussion.

I'll make sure to do that next time.

quote:Originally posted by bsouthern6:

Tip: hit the crack pipe AFTER posting in a serious discussion.

I'll make sure to do that next time.

It helps relieve the boredom.

It also provides fascinating insight into why L. Ron Hubbard said some of the things he did.

You know, I haven't posted here in a while, and here's why not. Most people here don't really knoe jack crap about rhetoric.

Look, it seems many people "know" a God of ANY kind can't possibly exist. But what's the point of "knowing God doesn't exist, if you don't know why you believe that? This entire post was designed to check why the hell some athiests don't believe in God. As i've seen, it turns out most of the athiests here are dumbasses, or else unwilling to risk sounding stupid, likely because they are. Thanks to those who did take the time to reply. Most of you were wrong, but hey, you've got some guts.



The SECOND argument I proposed, strikes out 80% of all the whiny as hell complaints about wording, and other crap. In fact there are VERY few holes in the argument, much fewer than Aquinas's and others. There are some critical holes, but I've only seen ONE that makes sense.

The only two main arguments that most seem to have been posted are as follows:

1)The laws of nature are not necessarily constant, OR nearly constant.

Post that thought in Mad Scientists, and I WILL drive your skeevy little butt into the ground.

2)The entire "proof" is based on a postulate

Well, duh, enter the matrix. But guess what. postulates are readilly accepted as the basis for thousands of theories.

Bye guys, I'm outta here.



[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

You know, I haven't posted here in a while, and here's why not. Most people here don't really knoe jack crap about rhetoric.



Says the person who's idea of "rhetoric" is saying such idiotic and childish remarks, as:

" I WILL drive your skeevy little butt into the ground."

"You have been puddlefied by the Mallet of Logic."

And the always classic,

"Pwned byatches."



quote:

Look, it seems many people "know" a God of ANY kind can't possibly exist. But what's the point of "knowing God doesn't exist, if you don't know why you believe that?

And from where the fuck did you arrive at that? Who the fuck here said they "know" god doesn't exist? Nobody.

quote: This entire post was designed to check why the hell some athiests don't believe in God. As i've seen, it turns out most of the athiests here are dumbasses, or else unwilling to risk sounding stupid, likely because they are. Thanks to those who did take the time to reply. Most of you were wrong, but hey, you've got some guts.

So in order to know why we don't believe in god, you decide to ignore the obvious course of action, which would be to ask us, and instead decide to make a nonsensical argument, riddled with idiotic and childish remarks? Brilliant.

quote:

2)The entire "proof" is based on a postulate

Well, duh, enter the matrix. But guess what. postulates are readilly accepted as the basis for thousands of theories.



There is a subtle difference between a postulate, and a baseless assumption, which is what you have provided. By subtle, I of course mean, fucking humongous.

Sorry, but you didn't provide a postulate, you provided a myriad of worthless assumptions.

Not only are postulates supported by reasoning, and evidence, but they are meaningless in an argument, if I can provide an equally valid counter-example.

In your case, not only do you not support it with any valid reasoning; but, to use one of your baseless assumptions as an example, I can certainly and reasonably conclude that we can result from chance, and chance alone, thus nullifying any validity your argument has.

Naa, it was a damn good postulate. I invite you to try and show otherwise in Mad Scientists. No really, come on, it's a physics thing, and I took it for granted that anyone with even a decent grasp on reality would also know. I forgot some people are idiots.

As for the childish comments, just because I make them doesn't mean I'm any less right, so what's you're point. Oh, wait, you have none, oops.

Have a nice day.

^ I don't like you.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Naa, it was a damn good postulate. I invite you to try and show otherwise in Mad Scientists. No really, come on, it's a physics thing, and I took it for granted that anyone with even a decent grasp on reality would also know. I forgot some people are idiots.

Completely pathetic. You want me to go to Mad Scientists so you can have your "big bad friends" back you up! I'm so scared! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

This can be debated here. Stop being a child.

Postulate:

"A statement, also known as an axiom, which is taken to be true without proof. Postulates are the basic structure from which lemmas and theorems are derived. The whole of Euclidean geometry, for example, is based on five postulates known as Euclid's postulates."

Like I already said, postulates must have something to support them (in order for them to be reasonably taken as true), be it examples when the postulate would hold, or an argument based on reason. You have neither. Moreover, they are meaningless if I can reasonably provide an opposite postulate (i.e. counter-example), and then reach the opposite conclusion.

Now if you still want me to create the topic in Mad Scientists, just provide a reasonable argument as to why I'm supposedly wrong, here.

quote:

As for the childish comments, just because I make them doesn't mean I'm any less right, so what's you're point. Oh, wait, you have none, oops.

Have a nice day.

The point is obvious to even the biggest of idiots; that being, that you are a moron for even speaking of our skill in rhetoric, when yours consists of idiotic and childish remarks. I imagine you knew this which is why you didn't even try to defend it and instead created this strawman, as if I ever said you were wrong because of the childish remarks, which I did not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-19-2005).]

This is pretty silly, anybody who knows jack shit about anything knows that our whole universe is housed inside a petri dish that was created by some almighty alien college students.

I'm of the opinion that human consciousness itself is outside of time, or at least can be. Which by your idea would mean we are part of god.

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Naa, it was a damn good postulate. I invite you to try and show otherwise in Mad Scientists. No really, come on, it's a physics thing, and I took it for granted that anyone with even a decent grasp on reality would also know. I forgot some people are idiots.

As for the childish comments, just because I make them doesn't mean I'm any less right, so what's you're point. Oh, wait, you have none, oops.

Have a nice day.

man you sound like your 12 years old or something... grow up a bit.

your theory is based on your idea that only an intelligent being (ie God) could have created this universe which is bound by its timeline where as God is not. why is god not bound by time? if god created the universe, who created god? no i forgot, god isnt bound by time... so he must have just appeared.. hmm from where? rectal gas?

EVERYTHING IS BOUND BY TIME!!!! time is a dimension. its just used to describe a point ie 32km west (first dimension), 12km north (second dimension), 324m high (3rd dimension), at 0230 hours (4th dimension:time).

how does this bloody mallot of so called logic preach what goes againt the vey fundementals of physics? if anything exists, it is bound by time. if god is not bound by time, he does not exist. if he is bound by time, then he couldn't have created the universe now then could he? the universe everthing. "eveything" includes god! therefore god cannot create everything. hammer that with your mallot of piss.

quote:Completely pathetic. You want me to go to Mad Scientists so you can have your "big bad friends" back you up! I'm so scared!

Sissy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Actually, no. I just feel that a specific discussion as to why time must be contiguous belong in Mad Scientists. Don't you? As for my big bad friends, they tend to hang out in different forums.

And those little childish comments are just flavor. You could ignore them if you want. The theory isn't based on childish comments, although I view your extreme overreaction with great humor. If you can't take it, stop acting like you're 12 and learn to deal with someone who is acting like he is.

As for you jack, we weren't created in a petri dish, the hyperintelligent pandimentional space aliens have electro-scalar quantum gravitic containment fields for thet purpose.

As for everything being bound by time... I'm not bound by time. In fact I think I'll jump a few seconds into the future now. *jump*

Actually, on a more serious note that's the only reason I've seen for why the theory might not work. And I mean the ONLY reason. Though physics cannot provide an answer as to whether something can exist outside of time or not, or even prove what time is. Time is a sketchy thing.

Sarith: Your grammar blows. Learn to write/spell/type.

Paradise Lost: I'm really sorry you don't like me. You should catch me in a better mood when I don't have to deal wiht jackasses. Trying to fix that though.

Whisp: If human conciousness did exitst outside of time, AND created the universe, then we would be God. n the other hand, why can't we be part of God?



[This message has been edited by xXPhoenixFireXx (edited 06-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Sarith: Your grammar blows. Learn to write/spell/type.

I assume that means you concede to every point he made, because you sure as hell didn't refute them.

Cop-out.

And attacking the person to boot. Logical fallacy is certainly not consistent with this "mallet of logic" that you wield so childishly.

On a more agreeable note, your questioning as to why we can't be part of God gets more into the religious side of things. Have you studied Taoism? It sounds like what you might be getting at.

[This message has been edited by T-zone (edited 06-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Sissy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Actually, no. I just feel that a specific discussion as to why time must be contiguous belong in Mad Scientists. Don't you? As for my big bad friends, they tend to hang out in different forums.

No. You said "Naa, it was a damn good postulate. I invite you to try and show otherwise in Mad Scientists", which means one of either two things: 1) You want to debate whether or not it was a postulate; or 2) You want to debate whether or not it was good. Both of them are to de debated HERE, because you created the supposed "postulate", which I showed wasn't a postulate at all, HERE.

quote:

And those little childish comments are just flavor. You could ignore them if you want. The theory isn't based on childish comments, although I view your extreme overreaction with great humor. If you can't take it, stop acting like you're 12 and learn to deal with someone who is acting like he is.

Nice try, but I brought up your idiotic remarks again, when YOU questioned our skill in rhetoric. Next time, don't question the rhetoric of your opponent when yours consists of "OMGZ WTFPAWNED!!1!1!!1" http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The topic maker is a fucking idiot. Yes, a rational being is a seemingly probable choice to most of modern man's intellect. But you have to understand probability. The odds that what may have happened to cause such a sporadic, yet gradual occurence like life, were horribly slim odds. But what you, among many of those who "Know the truth" of religion, don't realise is, that no matter how small the odds were, they happened to roll in the direction towards the development of cells, and then of multicellular beings like ourselves. One could say it was almost a "Ghost in the machine" that caused the development of life. Random chance occurences that resulted in the creation of life. Think about the process of it. At the beginning of time, there was nothing but energy. Over time, energy grouped together into atoms, forming a superdense cluster of said atoms. They seperate into the universe, and continue to, making our universe a collosal void with matter throughout it. Planets form, things like meteors bringing new elements into already formed bodies causes things like water to naturally "evolve." Over time, our galaxy is formed, and our planet earth is probably one of the most prosperous in energy. The atoms, looking for ways to be transferred, form larger communities. The communities support each other, and work together to transfer energy among all the atoms. These are cells. The cells then need a new way to make energy. Communities, single celled organisms like bacteria and the amoeba, join together to make simple multicellular organisms. These form together, and over millions of years form the first signs of life as we know it. These creatures are a perfect, absolutely perfect way to transfer energy among atoms in cells in organs in the creature, so instead of developing larger communities, these creatures evolve to be better beings which will survive better. This is probably the way life could have developed on earth. Evolution is a property of matter, not a theory. Evolution is any and all change or irregularities in matter.