From the other thread:
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 07:00:43 AM
Sure. Let's start with a short one: Something exists; therefore there must be an intelligent creator that existed prior and exists even now in order to hold it in existence. For if there never was a creator there never would have been sufficient cause for something to have ever begun to exist.
Do you disagree?
I disagree on the grounds that there is no logical reason to assume that:
1) That if a first cause is needed that it must be an intelligent being.
2) That the universe can't be eternal but some other arbitrary being can be eternal.
Did you expect me to agree for some reason?
Other responses:
Quote from: Too Few Lions on December 20, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.
Quote from: history_geek on December 20, 2011, 01:56:50 PM
Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it. Of course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator". Of course, I might have misunderstood that, but hopefully someone can correct me in that case...
Second of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?
Also, have you ever heard about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument
Your claims seemed a lot like the same thing...
Quote from: Too Few Lions on December 20, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
I think plenty of people on this forum are going to disagree with the assumption that the universe needs a creator, myself included. But even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.
Agreed. Arguments for the existence of God only shift the weight of evidence toward the existence of "a" God; they do not prove that Jesus Christ is the appropriate revelation of God. The Holy Spirit does that.
Quote from: history_geek on December 20, 2011, 01:56:50 PM
Actaully, I disagree with all of it. Firsto of all, because something simply exists, does not logically mean there is an intelligent creator behind it.
Then what does it mean? You don't think you're just going to get to doubt with me and win, do you? You're going to have to work for this.
QuoteOf course, manmade objects, such as the computer I'm using now and the table underneath it exist, but they were not "created", but constructed through several phases from a numnber of different components that themselves needed to be made from other materials and parts. The word "created" implyes something complealty different, that something came from possibly nothing and became fullyformed without the other steps. However, we are yet witness such an event, other then perhaps in the world of quantum mechanics where there is no pre-existing "creator".
Who says there is no pre-existing creator affecting the world of quantum mechanics? When a quark or something just pops into existence, the same argument applies to it. It didn't just do so for no reason. Nothing exists for no reason. Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument. For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity. We could be wrong about it, but belief in God is not magical thinking. Belief in something from nothing and for no reason is. Therefore, it is more logical to believe in God.
QuoteSecond of, the rest is quite contradictory to me, because if we follow the logic that because something exists, there must be an intelligent creator who created it and without one there would be no sufficent cause it to exist, doesn't this mean that the intelligent creator also needed an intelligent creator, becase the first exists? In a more simple form: who created "god"? After all, your logic demands a craetor of all things that exist, so in order for a "god" to cause anything, one must exist, no?
God, if He exists, exists in an eternal present moment outside of time. He would have to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause of God. There is no creator of God. God simply is. By the way, this predicts that we will never be able to say how old the universe is. The physical universe will always appear as eternal and yet in time together as a kind of paradox, because it was created by a being who is eternal, so we can get very close to the start of the universe, but with physical methods, we will never be able to state when it actually happened (the big bang).
This is why God is considered the Prime Mover. He has no creator. He has no motivator. And in order to avoid magical thinking, He is the only one of his kind. There cannot be others. Also, magical thinking is not applicable to God because of the impossibility of atheism. In other words, it may seem magical to presuppose a God, except that it is impossible to do otherwise; therefore it's not magical. To do otherwise is magical thinking.
And paradoxically, this is the limit of our knowledge. For God is both obvious and necessary and yet impossible to comprehend. The only way we could know God is to be God. That's why we have to rely on revelations of God in order to understand Him.
Quote from: Whitney on December 20, 2011, 03:21:57 PM
I disagree on the grounds that there is no logical reason to assume that:
1) That if a first cause is needed that it must be an intelligent being.
2) That the universe can't be eternal but some other arbitrary being can be eternal.
Did you expect me to agree for some reason?
It doesnt matter if you agree. Your atheism doesnt end the existence of God. Nevertheless, lets take your first point:
In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence. Either it would be a mechanism programmed by something with intelligence or it would itself have to have intelligence. The order in the universe implies intelligence. If you claim there is no order in the universe, you are simply pointing at the sky and saying its not blue. Theres no way to argue that point. There is macrocosmic order and there is microcosmic order. I realize atheists like to deny that, but to do so is absurd.
Second, the universe is paradoxically eternal and temporal at the same time. If you try to go back to the very beginning of the universe, you cant, because it was made by an eternal being outside of time, so you wont find a moment when the Big Bang happened. You can come close, but that is all. I dont know if this has been proven scientifically or not, but if ever one looks into it, they will come to that conclusion.
And when it comes to the cause of God or the start of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:42:58 PM
In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence.
So many assumptions, so little intelligence in your thinking in order for you not to see your own assumptions.
QuoteThen what does it mean? You don't think you're just going to get to doubt with me and win, do you? You're going to have to work for this.
Why does it have to mean anything? If something exists, it exists. We have pieces of a puzzle to answer the more specific questions, but there is still much more to be learned, which I find to be a possitive thing. It would be boring to live with absolute knowledge, instead of actaually living and finding out about those things that are still a mystery ;D
And I am not expecting a "victory" nor a "defeat" since thinking in such a way would be a little silly to me. Instead I intend to have a conversation or a debate and give you my own views on things as well as explain why I think so and what I base it on, while taking in your point of view and if nesseccary correct you, if you make a serious mistake, something that I encourage you and all the other to do as well. It is only through usch actions that we can learn :)
QuoteWho says there is no pre-existing creator affecting the world of quantum mechanics? When a quark or something just pops into existence, the same argument applies to it. It didn't just do so for no reason. Nothing exists for no reason. Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument. For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity. We could be wrong about it, but belief in God is not magical thinking. Belief in something from nothing and for no reason is. Therefore, it is more logical to believe in God.
As far as I know, there is no evidence to indicate that there is someone medelling with the quantum mechanics to create the things that we have observed and people have hypothesised.
Now, I'm going to need someone confirm this, if anyone can, but as I've understood it there is no reason for cahos not to able to create something without a reason. After all, we call it chaos, not order, which would imply that it is following some kind of pre-determined order or rules. Also, your calim that there is a reason for everything works both ways, because it can equally be that there is no reason for anything. There are actions, and consequences for them in our natural world, but there is no reason for me to believe or be convinsed that there is something "greater" at work or that there is some predetermined fate for everything. You can believe so if you want, but I preffer free will.
Actaully, you do realize that "god". if we use the Genesis account, created everything out of nothing? But, perhaps more importantly, what prevents the matter that expanded into our galaxy and universe to have existed eternally? These are things that people have debated since they have been comprahended and will be debated untill we find enough evidence to prove one of the main hypothesis or any of the other ones that have been propesed through out the times: if there was a creator that created everything ex nihilo, or something else or indeed nothing caused the mater to be created ex nihilo. Was there a creator that made the matter and dissapeared or is that creator still with us. Is our universe just one amongst many, does it have egdes, what is beyond, are we living in just one dimension while connected to many others, etc....
You base your point of view on belief of absolute knowledge in a book written a few thousand years ago. I can honestly say that I d o not know what is the correct answer because we do not have enough information or evidence to point to a definitive answer, so all possibilities are still open to critique.
QuoteGod, if He exists, exists in an eternal present moment outside of time. He would have to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause of God. There is no creator of God. God simply is. By the way, this predicts that we will never be able to say how old the universe is. The physical universe will always appear as eternal and yet in time together as a kind of paradox, because it was created by a being who is eternal, so we can get very close to the start of the universe, but with physical methods, we will never be able to state when it actually happened (the big bang).
This is why God is considered the Prime Mover. He has no creator. He has no motivator. And in order to avoid magical thinking, He is the only one of his kind. There cannot be others. Also, magical thinking is not applicable to God because of the impossibility of atheism. In other words, it may seem magical to presuppose a God, except that it is impossible to do otherwise; therefore it's not magical. To do otherwise is magical thinking.
And paradoxically, this is the limit of our knowledge. For God is both obvious and necessary and yet impossible to comprehend. The only way we could know God is to be God. That's why we have to rely on revelations of God in order to understand Him.
Well my first question would be how did he get to that eternal present moment outside of time? He still would need a reason on how he arrived there, unless we assume that everything, time included, is eternal. That's what my head says.
And that is only a paradox if we assume that there is something eternal, but even then we can still say how old our natural universe is (by "natural" I mean the universe we can see, measure and experiance through natural means).
And those are at best philosophical assumptions that you can base on nothing but your assumed knowldge through belief. And again, you fall for mispresentation about what in your mind equals "atheism". It is not "athesim" that says that something came out of nothing, it simply one of the possibilities for the existance of our universe, as I noted before. And really, that is no more otr less "magical" then your assumption that a creator that came out of nothing created out of nothing. There is nothing to suggest that there is a creator, and it is an illogical leap to assume that that such a creator would be a "god" of any human made religion.
And assuming that "god" is a nessaccity is still not logical, because there is nothing to suggest the existance of such a being or its interaction with our universe.
Although I have to admit, that if we assume that there is a being trappeed in an eternal present moment, the inconsistance makes a lot more sense, since that poor bugger is bored out of it's mind....and another proof of this is that it made itself known to a species like ours... ;)
QuoteAnd when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.
Well, that is your definition of "god"...
I remember giving you a list of defentions for the word "god" back in your "Are you really an atheist?" thread:
QuoteDefinition of GOD
1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Also, I gave number of other examples when you asked me what I though a "typical christian idea of "god"" was:
QuoteIt varries from sect to sect, pastor to pastor, and even individual person to person. For some "god" is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnisentient, Immaterial and eternal or non-caused being that is also timeless. To others it is the Jesus of the New Testament, others the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. To some "god" is a personal (as I think Escrub demonstrated when he said "For the record, my God....", post #86 in this thread). So really, what is a "typical Christian idea of "god"? I really have no clue.
"And when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are not necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist."
And now that makes a bit more sense, but only so much :-\
Two points I'd like to make:
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:32:04 PM
Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument.
Chaos produced where the universe is now in time. It hasn't been as ordered since the singularity.
QuoteFor you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity.
The universe popping into existence out of 'nothing' is magical thinking, therefore propose the existence of a magical being. I like that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2011, 07:55:42 PM
Two points I'd like to make:
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:32:04 PM
Chaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument.
Chaos produced where the universe is now in time. It hasn't been as ordered since the singularity.
QuoteFor you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking. The only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity.
The universe popping into existence out of 'nothing' is magical thinking, therefore propose the existence of a magical being. I like that.
who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed? who knows, none of us were there, but we can without a doubt say the creation story is bullshit. brb creating plants before the sun. brb creating earth before the sun. brb there was liquid water with no sun. brb the sun was created before the rest of the stars, yet it is younger then many visible stars. brb the sky is made out of water. brb making the stars twice. brb the moon gives off its own light. brb creating a tree, telling people not to eat from it, too stupid to put a barbed wire fence around it. brb ribs evolve into women.
the "big bang" is just a theory, it certainly has plenty of evidence behind it to support it. personally i think the universe as we know it more then likely did begin with a "big bang" but i doubt this is the first cycle its been through like this. everything in the universe is expanding, but every galaxy can and does exert gravity on its surrounding galaxies. depending on which force proves greater, the force of expansion may be enough to escape that "central" gravitational pull, in that case, the universe will continue to expand forever and ever provided there is no boundary, unless something (such as some unknown of yet) boundary is there. if it is not enough to escape it, eventually the universe will slowly but surely pull all of itself together and collapse in on itself, at this point we may yet again have another "small point" in which yet another "big bang" occurs starting this whole process again.
as far as god goes, do i beleive there is some angry entity sitting in a chair ready to blast us with fire if we misbehave? no. i don't. number one an all powerful god would not and cannot create something with the capability to misbehave, if god is all good and god created everything then he would have created everything good. don't try and pull the "satan corrupted everything blah blah blah" on me, god created satan too, and god is supposedly all powerful, satan would be no match for him, and anything satan did god could have easily put it all back into order, and destroyed or even changed satan. of course here is the problem, as "pride" and "envy" which is what supposedly caused satan to fall, were never created by god to begin with in satan, but wait god created everything, wait wait wait, its hard to wrap my logical mind (which was also supposedly created by god) around this. it just does not make sense. perhaps there is some sort of omniscient consciousness in which all consciousness comes from and goes back into that is experiencing this universe through life itself, through conscious, sentient beings. but this certainly is not the god of the bible. and this too is my own speculation mixed with some science, some theory, and some creative ideas. we will find out eventually what all of this is about as science progresses.
Quotethe "big bang" is just a theory,
GAH! Stop doing that! It seriously hurts! "It's just a theory" is the favourite horse of teh cretards to discredit scientific theories that they don't like or just plain don't bother understanding. I have argued over this more then once, so allow me to make this perfectly clear: there are two uses for the word "theory" in modern english, the first being the one used in everyday language to imply that "I think/suppose/guess...", while the other one is the scientific one. A sceitific theory is something that is starts with a hypothesis (the guess or idea), that is then tested, untill the gathered information of those and other observations show wheter or not the hypothesis has been correct, and only if the show case is truly considered as strong, it is named a theory.
Or perhaps this is more easily understandable:
Quote from: WikipediaThe English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.
A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]
By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
And yes, the Big Bang Theory is a sceintific theory, which explains the expansion of the known universe from a single point of origin. However, wehre the matter that expanded thus came from, we don't know yet. That is why the Big Bang is about the
expansion, and not the origin, just like Theory of Evolution is about the process that caused the speciation, and has nothing to do with the origin of life, of which there are many competing hypothesis'.
*deep inhale, deep exhale* Sorry, this is just one of those issues that seriously bug me and send me on a rage-rant :-[ But I ask you, for the sake of my already shaky sanity, don't do that again :)
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:42:58 PM
In order to conceive a universe with order in it, the creative force must have a vast amount of intelligence.
No...snowflakes and crystals form without intelligence.
Quote
Either it would be a mechanism programmed by something with intelligence or it would itself have to have intelligence.
how do you know this?
QuoteThe order in the universe implies intelligence.
prove it.
QuoteIf you claim there is no order in the universe, you are simply pointing at the sky and saying it's not blue. here's no way to argue that point. There is macrocosmic order and there is microcosmic order. I realize atheists like to deny that, but to do so is absurd.
I am not the one that mentioned order....so that's a needless strawman.
Quote
Second, the universe is paradoxically eternal and temporal at the same time.
Says who?
QuoteIf you try to go back to the very beginning of the universe, you can't
Right, we haven't figured out time travel yet (or if it is anything more than fantasy)
Quote
, because it was made by an eternal being outside of time,
You didn't provide proof of this.
Quote
. I don't know if this has been proven scientifically or not, but if ever one looks into it, they will come to that conclusion.
Science can measure back to T=0 utilizing red shifts and background radiation etc. That's how a general consensus was reached on the age of the universe. It's covered in public school...I think 5th grade.
QuoteAnd when it comes to the "cause" of God or the "start" of God. Those questions are absurd. Perhaps we can say there is no God, but if we are going to talk about God, we are necessarily talking about a being who has always existed, never not existed, and therefore was never caused to exist.
Perhaps the universe is necessarily eternal...you are making an exception for god so you can shove him into all the gaps in human knowledge. If god does exist, I don't think she would like to be a gap filler.
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 20, 2011, 09:32:22 PM
who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed?
I think most scientists and cosmologists don't agree with an expansion/contraction cycle.
The common theory of today is that our universe will continue expanding until is disapated into almost nothingness.
This means it has a limited lifespan, very small lifespan in relation to the infinite nature of space.
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself. He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.
What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 20, 2011, 09:32:22 PM
who's to say the universe hasn't just always existed?
I think most scientists and cosmologists don't agree with an expansion/contraction cycle.
The common theory of today is that our universe will continue expanding until is disapated into almost nothingness.
This means it has a limited lifespan, very small lifespan in relation to the infinite nature of space.
i've heard that before also, care to elaborate some?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 20, 2011, 10:49:36 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself. He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.
What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?
because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 20, 2011, 10:52:10 PM
because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.
And there's proof that it went from this universe to another universe? Or is that the assumption?
The idea of multiverses or bubble universes is somehow based in string theory and the math for it is over my head (and probably over most people's heads)...it's also not proven as we basically don't know how to test it yet.
I think what's more important as it relates to this topic is that it is possible that a multiverse model exists in an eternal manner and that would take out the need to assume a god (of course I'd be comfortable with "i don't know" even if there were no current scientific possibility).
Now the particles jumping in and out of existence (or at least appearing to do so)...yes, that has been observed. It has something to do with stuff that I don't really understand well enough to explain. All I really understand well is that the more we break down things and the smaller scale we use the more oddly the universe behaves...even to the point that the physics most of us understand starts to break down.
Maybe someone smarter and more educated on this than me can further expand...or at least link to something about it.
Quote from: Whitney on December 20, 2011, 11:57:22 PM
The idea of multiverses or bubble universes is somehow based in string theory and the math for it is over my head (and probably over most people's heads)...it's also not proven as we basically don't know how to test it yet.
I don't like string theory.
But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 20, 2011, 10:52:10 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 20, 2011, 10:49:36 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself. He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.
What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?
because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.
Didn't that have something to do with a dimensional shift? Mr. Flat and all..?
Imagine you are Mr. Flat, living in the 2D universe of a sheet of paper. A pencil is stuck halfway through the paper. To you, it is just a circle. You are not aware of the larger structure, since in your 2D world, you had no need to evolve means with which to see beyond the dimensions you know and inhabit.
You may think that our 3D space is about as high as it gets, but consider that Mr. Flat is probably just as convinced of the same for 2D, living in his notebook universe.
I'm no expert in this, but making something vanish out of our three dimensions does not make it vanish from this universe, just transitions it into an aspect of this universe we are not yet aware of. At least, those be my two ears.
Not that it's conclusive, but: 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387)
In summary: apparently one of those blobs suggests that there could be a gravitational interference of some sort, coming from a parallel universe.
There's the idea of the holographic universe, in which ours is a projection on a world of a higher dimension, much like what happens on the event horizon of a black hole I think, and if true there would be a metaverse beyond ours.
As for string theory, they say that the dimensions are small and curled up in microspace, not anything we would ever be able to see. To detect the hypothetical strings, we would need to build a hadron collider as large as the solar system so...that complicates things. Just a bit. They use the analogy of people looking at a telephone wire from far off perceive it as a line whereas ants walking on the wire see more dimensions and can even go around it and end up in the same place. It's a question of zooming in. How they calculate these things is beyond me though. They say the maths works, so ... :-\
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 20, 2011, 10:49:36 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself. He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.
What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?
If that is the only way you define God, I don't really have a problem with it and I wouldn't even call you deluded for it. When it comes to our knowledge beyond the universe, we're all pretty vague. I get that there is probably a "something" out there that we don't understand.
It's only when you start ascribing anthropomorphic personality traits and claim to know what that big "something" wants and desires that I think the real leap occurs.
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 01:22:42 AM
But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?
I don't think we can draw that conclusion just off the position that god is not proven.
We could just be really lucky that we exist (of course we are lucky as individuals even if existence in general is inevitable)
Quote from: Asmodean on December 21, 2011, 01:25:40 AM
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 20, 2011, 10:52:10 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on December 20, 2011, 10:49:36 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 20, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
I think universes are exploding from big bangs all through space. Probably and infinite of them.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this
I think God exists outside of our known universe and time itself. He is infinite, with no beginning or end.
But of course we are unlikely to prove this.
What makes your statement of "faith" less deluded than mine?
Have you seen or experienced another universe exploding into existence (a Big Bang) apart from our universe?
because there is scientific evidence that there are other universes. i can't recall where i read this but scientists recently caused a particle to completely vanish from this universe.
Didn't that have something to do with a dimensional shift? Mr. Flat and all..?
Imagine you are Mr. Flat, living in the 2D universe of a sheet of paper. A pencil is stuck halfway through the paper. To you, it is just a circle. You are not aware of the larger structure, since in your 2D world, you had no need to evolve means with which to see beyond the dimensions you know and inhabit.
You may think that our 3D space is about as high as it gets, but consider that Mr. Flat is probably just as convinced of the same for 2D, living in his notebook universe.
I'm no expert in this, but making something vanish out of our three dimensions does not make it vanish from this universe, just transitions it into an aspect of this universe we are not yet aware of. At least, those be my two ears.
thank you carl sagan.
although there are theories that other universes can exist, such as the m-theory and others that have been mentioned in this thread.
Quote from: Whitney on December 21, 2011, 01:46:59 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 01:22:42 AM
But I think Atheism must conclude that nothing is unique. That there must be circumstances which mean that existence is enevitable.
How could our universe be the only one? Wouldn't the same circumstances prevail throughout space?
I don't think we can draw that conclusion just off the position that god is not proven.
We could just be really lucky that we exist (of course we are lucky as individuals even if existence in general is inevitable)
I think that to consider there is a possibility that there is no god one must consider that the conditions are autonomous and hence our universe isn't a one off fluke.
I term a universe to the result of a big bang. A system of expanding energy/matter from a central point.
But of course Atheism doesn't preclude a god, that still remains a possibility although in my opinion a very unlikely one.
The issue I have with the god possibility are:
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?
How can it have intelligence without knowledge?
How can there be knowledge without information?
How can there be information without data?
How can there be data without energy/matter?
How can it create energy/matter from nothing?
How can it have caused the big bang and not have been destroyed in the process?
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:32:04 PMWho says there is no pre-existing creator affecting the world of quantum mechanics? When a quark or something just pops into existence, The same argument applies to it. It didn't just do so for no reason. Nothing exists for no reason.
I'll make this easy on you, if god created all life and nothing he created exists for no reason, then explain god's purpose for cancer.
QuoteChaos doesn't produce anything, unless something is playing that chaos like an instrument. For you to assume that the matter in the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and for no reason is literally magical thinking.
Do you ever actually read what you write before you post it?
Re-read the above and see if you can identify the glaring lapse in logic. If not, it'll be made clear in the next block. Until then, you should understand that the Big Bang posits a theory for the existence of the universe based on our understanding of physics and cosmology that is observable and demonstrable. However, no one claims to know what the agent was that precipitated the bang because, prior to that instant, time, space, and reality didn't exist.
It is here, in this nether region of the unknowable where Xians such as yourself like to dismiss the whole of science despite the fact that it clearly didn't come from nothing. It came from something that science can't explain. A fact science openly admits. It is also here where many apologists will attempt to shoehorn god into the event by proclaiming him to have been the only possible agent to have brought about such a monumental act of creation. Nuh uh. They don't get to extrapolate from natural processes to arrive at a magical origin. A duck is an amazing creature, it can walk, swim, and fly but it doesn't take god to make a duck, it just takes two other ducks.
QuoteThe only way to escape that magical thinking is to presuppose God. Because whether you like to admit it or not, there is a logical basis for God's existence in eternity. We could be wrong about it, but belief in God is not magical thinking. Belief in something from nothing and for no reason is. Therefore, it is more logical to believe in God.
Y'know what real magical thinking is; it's thinking that the universe and all life was created by a magical being. So everything you said here was baloney. We see no logical reason for the existence for god and believing in god is the very definition of magical thinking. There's no way around it. You proclaim belief in a magical supreme being which, contrary to your above statement, is the very definition of magical AND illogical thinking.
QuoteGod, if He exists, exists in an eternal present moment outside of time. He would have to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause of God. There is no creator of God. God simply is.
Hmmm, saaaay, that's convenient. Mind if I use that too?
The Big Bang took place in an eternal present moment outside of time. It would've had to in order to create the universe. Therefore, there is no cause for the Big Bang. There is no creator of the Big Bang. The Big Bang simply was.
Damn, that is SO much less work than actually having to think of a reasonable and rational argument to support one's claims.
QuoteBy the way, this predicts that we will never be able to say how old the universe is. The physical universe will always appear as eternal and yet in time together as a kind of paradox, because it was created by a being who is eternal, so we can get very close to the start of the universe, but with physical methods, we will never be able to state when it actually happened (the big bang).
This is why God is considered the Prime Mover. He has no creator. He has no motivator. And in order to avoid magical thinking, He is the only one of his kind. There cannot be others. Also, magical thinking is not applicable to God because of the impossibility of atheism. In other words, it may seem magical to presuppose a God, except that it is impossible to do otherwise; therefore it's not magical. To do otherwise is magical thinking.
And paradoxically, this is the limit of our knowledge. For God is both obvious and necessary and yet impossible to comprehend. The only way we could know God is to be God. That's why we have to rely on revelations of God in order to understand Him.
I believe I've made it clear that this kind of lazy, unsupported,
"Well, God is just so awesome and beyond our comprehension that there's no way to explain Him in any rational or reasonable way." Xian copout isn't gonna fly. I wouldn't expect you to allow any of us to get away with this crapola either.
Your arguments have been consistently weak since you first arrived and continue to be filled with a brand of logic that can only make sense to those of faith. All they're doing here is confirming that the rest of us made the right choice in rejecting this nonsense.
Thank you for helping to strengthen my atheism even more. :)
The existence of God can neither be disproven nor proven by logic and reason alone. Neither can any probabilities be constructed with respect to this issue, as we don't have enough information yet about how the universe got here, nor do we have any baseline against which to form such probabilities. Theists can't validly say that "God probably exists" and atheists can't validly say "God probably doesn't exist": we simply don't have the knowledge to be able to make these types of calls. When a Las Vegas bookie sets the odds of one team winning a game or one horse winning a race, that determination is based on mounds of historical data. We don't have that kind of background information.
This is why, for me, it's all a matter of personal experience. If one's personal experience leads them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that. If one's personal experience does not lead them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that. That's about as far as the argument can go, in my opinion, given our current state of knowledge.
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 21, 2011, 02:38:55 AM
thank you carl sagan.
That's Asmodeus Saganis in Latin :-P
Quote from: Whitney on December 20, 2011, 10:15:42 PM
No...snowflakes and crystals form without intelligence.
Thats begging the question.
Quoteprove it.
Prove that order in the universe implies intelligent design? Its prima facie evidence of design, and the word design implies intelligence. Or are you expecting something from a test tube?
QuoteSays who?
Says me.
QuoteYou didn't provide proof of this.
So what? Any proof I provide you will discount because you like being an atheist.
QuoteScience can measure back to T=0 utilizing red shifts and background radiation etc. That's how a general consensus was reached on the age of the universe. It's covered in public school...I think 5th grade.
What science? Because the cosmology that Im aware of has a + or error of .13 billion years. And thats only if the mathematical models are correct. Thats not covered in 5th grade by the way. In fact, cosmology and astronomy arent taught in 5th grade, neither is the algebra used to determine the age of the universe.
Be that as it may, I cant prove my hypothesis is correct. Someone else will have to do that. But the fact is, the closer you get to determining the age of the universe, the more it will seem the universe has always existed. This paradox is a fact if God exists outside of time and created the universe within a dimension of time. If you just think about it, it will make sense to you, and you can do so without ever admitting God exists.
QuotePerhaps the universe is necessarily eternal...
Uh
wait a minute. That advanced 5th grade class you attended said that the age of the universe is known down to the instant of time when it happened. So how can you say the universe is possibly eternal? Wouldnt that contradict your 5th grade teacher.
Quoteyou are making an exception for god so you can shove him into all the gaps in human knowledge. If god does exist, I don't think she would like to be a gap filler.
You have to make an exception for God, or else there is no truth and no knowledge. If there is no God, nothing can really be known, for everything is simply chaos, without order, without meaning, without reason.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 21, 2011, 03:08:40 AM
The existence of God can neither be disproven nor proven by logic and reason alone.
I completely agree. In fact, I have a kind of cartesian graph that shows that very thing. The close one gets to a physical explanation of God, the more God looks like a force of nature, but the more God looks like a force of nature, the more another God is required to explain the first god,
ad infinitum.
QuoteThis is why, for me, it's all a matter of personal experience. If one's personal experience leads them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that. If one's personal experience does not lead them to believe in God, there is nothing inherently irrational about that. That's about as far as the argument can go, in my opinion, given our current state of knowledge.
But, IMHO, one way is more rational than the other. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. There are no arguments against the existence of God, when God is considered the intelligent Creator of the cosmos. Make no mistake; atheists don't so much have a problem with God as they do with Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 02:48:00 AM
The issue I have with the god possibility are:
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?
How can it have intelligence without knowledge?
How can there be knowledge without information?
How can there be information without data?
How can there be data without energy/matter?
How can it create energy/matter from nothing?
How can it have caused the big bang and not have been destroyed in the process?
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?There's no time now, but you think and make decisions. Apparently that's just a capability of consciousness. There is no past in existence and the future hasn't happened yet. You are always in an eternal present moment. Are you not?
As for the other questions, I simply don't understand what you are getting at sufficiently to answer them.
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
If it created energy/matter and time, then what is it made of?
When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.
My dreams are made of neurons and electrical pulses, chemical changes within my brain.
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
How can it think and make decisions and take actions when there is no time?
There's no time now, but you think and make decisions. Apparently that's just a capability of consciousness. There is no past in existence and the future hasn't happened yet. You are always in an eternal present moment. Are you not?
As for the other questions, I simply don't understand what you are getting at sufficiently to answer them.
So by your definition time does not exist
Quote from: Egor on December 20, 2011, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on December 20, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
even if you want to believe in a kosmokrator, there's no logical reason why it should be the Christian god ahead of anything else that humanity has ascribed that power to.
Agreed. Arguments for the existence of God only shift the weight of evidence toward the existence of "a" God; they do not prove that Jesus Christ is the appropriate revelation of God. The Holy Spirit does that.
So....the holy spirit is proof that Jesus Christ is the appropriate revelation of god, I hope you can see what a poor circular argument that is. By the same logic divine ecstasy 'proves' that Dionysos is the correct revelation of god, and
maat 'proves' that the Egyptian gods are the correct revelation. You're going to have to prove to me that the holy spirit actually exists, and isn't just a made-up Christian idea, that you're then claiming as proof that your god and saviour are the true(st) ones.
At the moment I see that as no proof whatsoever as to why your god should be considered creator of the universe ahead of any other force ascribed that power.
QuoteBut, IMHO, one way is more rational than the other. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. There are no arguments against the existence of God, when God is considered the intelligent Creator of the cosmos. Make no mistake; atheists don't so much have a problem with God as they do with Jesus Christ.
I don't think that's quite true, for most atheists Jesus was either a mythical figure or an apocalyptic Jewish philosopher who lived 2000 odd years ago. Either way he's no great shakes, and there's nothing new in his teachings or story in the gospels.
Personally I also don't have a problem with the belief in gods, I see nothing inherently harmful in that, it's certain
religions that I dislike. As for these arguments for the existence of god(s), what are they? So far all you've come up with is saying the universe exists, therefore it must have been created by something, and that something is your god. That's an assumption based on faith, not a logical argument. The other arguments you've passingly mentioned were all written by people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, who only knew a fraction of what we know now.
Given how long ago it happened, none of us can know how the universe came into being. Your claim that it was your god who created the universe is based on things written 2-3000 years ago, by people who thought the universe was a fixed dome that sat above a flat Earth (in the case of the OT) or as a sphere that surrounded a central Earth (most probably in the case of the NT). Personally I prefer to put my trust in modern cosmology and science.
I'm not enjoying this conversation anymore...so I'm done; at least for now.
btw, egor...this is what begging the question means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition
Most of your proofs of god fall under it.
Quote from: Whitney on December 21, 2011, 02:13:55 PM
btw, egor...this is what begging the question means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Definition
Ah, but you see, that there is a Wikipedia reference. Have you any idea how many evil bastards out there just sit and write misinformation articles on begging and questions?!
:P
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.
A simulacrum? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
That's the first time you've said anything that I actually agree with! ;D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 21, 2011, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.
A simulacrum? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
That's the first time you've said anything that I actually agree with! ;D
So to boil this down probably too far, gods exist only in the imagination or can only be perceived thru the imagination? I would certainly go along with that one, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for making an arguement that a specific god is the "real" one.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 21, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
So to boil this down probably too far, gods exist only in the imagination or can only be perceived thru the imagination? I would certainly go along with that one, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for making an arguement that a specific god is the "real" one.
But god has talked to Egor, you don't argue with god.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 21, 2011, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 21, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
So to boil this down probably too far, gods exist only in the imagination or can only be perceived thru the imagination? I would certainly go along with that one, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for making an arguement that a specific god is the "real" one.
But god has talked to Egor, you don't argue with god Egor.
fixed
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 21, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 21, 2011, 02:56:13 PM
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
When you have a dream and you're walking down a road, what is the road made of? It's the same way with God.
A simulacrum? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)
That's the first time you've said anything that I actually agree with! ;D
So to boil this down probably too far, gods exist only in the imagination or can only be perceived thru the imagination? I would certainly go along with that one, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for making an arguement that a specific god is the "real" one.
Simulacrums are also responsible for our ability to hold entire conversations in our heads with people that are not physically present. Evolutionary psychology would say that it's a result of our evolved theory of mind, that is the capacity to see different minds with different motivations in people that are not ourselves. A very important social tool.
Anyways, this is a fascinating topic, and I'll recommend Why We Believe in Gods (roughly 1 hour long) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg), in which he explains what use religions make of our evolved cognition.
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 08:52:01 AM
My dreams are made of neurons and electrical pulses, chemical changes within my brain.
So then you're not really conscious?
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
So by your definition time does not exist
No. Time is illusory. It's part of the physical universe, but it is an illusion. No time is passing. Never has. For that matter, so is motion and place.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 21, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
So to boil this down probably too far, gods exist only in the imagination or can only be perceived thru the imagination? I would certainly go along with that one, but it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for making an arguement that a specific god is the "real" one.
When I said it's like a dream, I meant that the universe is like a dream God is having, like some kind of super-lucid dream. Have you ever had a lucid dream?
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 06:04:47 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 08:52:01 AM
My dreams are made of neurons and electrical pulses, chemical changes within my brain.
So then you're not really conscious?
I presume that me consciousness is just like everyone else's, a longing running process driven by the amazing organ called the brain. It can receive, store, process and interprete data. It gives me the illusion of self, the illusion of emotions, the illusion of free will. It is fascinating stuff.
Problem is that some theists over simplify it and think that the mind is a metaphysical object rather than a concept. That the self (or soul) is a metaphysical object rather than a concept.
Quote from: Egor on December 21, 2011, 06:04:47 PM...the universe is like a dream God is having...
I've laways kinda liked this paticular idea, since not only is it good for some idle, late night philosophical pondering, it gives a whole new depth to the question "Are you a god?", which in itself leads to more, idle, late night philosophical pondering ;D
Not that it ever leads anywhere, but I am easily entertained :P
Other then that,
Egor, you are again making the leap of faith when you claim that should there be a being in whose (or whats) dream we are in, is a "god" of any striped, let alone that of a human religion. "Begging the question", I believe it was...?
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 06:21:48 PM
I presume that me consciousness is just like everyone else's, a longing running process driven by the amazing organ called the brain. It can receive, store, process and interprete data. It gives me the illusion of self, the illusion of emotions, the illusion of free will. It is fascinating stuff.
Good. That's very consistent with the implications of atheism. Damn, I might have actually met a real one at long last.
So, we're just kind of mutually stimulating each others brain here. No real purpose to it, it's just something that's happening in the chaos of the universe?
(Edited to fix quote. -- Recusant)
Quote from: Egor on December 22, 2011, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 06:21:48 PM
I presume that me consciousness is just like everyone else's, a longing running process driven by the amazing organ called the brain. It can receive, store, process and interprete data. It gives me the illusion of self, the illusion of emotions, the illusion of free will. It is fascinating stuff.
Good. That's very consistent with the implications of atheism. Damn, I might have actually met a real one at long last.
So, we're just kind of mutually stimulating each others brain here. No real purpose to it, it's just something that's happening in the chaos of the universe?
Absolutely no purpose.
You can create a purpose for yourself if you want one though.
Quote from: Egor on December 22, 2011, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 21, 2011, 06:21:48 PM
I presume that me consciousness is just like everyone else's, a longing running process driven by the amazing organ called the brain. It can receive, store, process and interprete data. It gives me the illusion of self, the illusion of emotions, the illusion of free will. It is fascinating stuff.
Good. That's very consistent with the implications of atheism. Damn, I might have actually met a real one at long last.
Free of whiney insecurity, isn't that wonderful? ;D