28-12-2003 05:04									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Agathon I went/am going to Victoria University. Just completed first year.

quote: Existence did not begin with the big bang. There was something before that. If we understand God to bethat which existed only after the big bang, then God was created. This is inconsistent with an idea that God was the creator and was not created. God must therefor exist in the universe, the big band and before. As Einstein said, God must be the Totality of everything.

I meant existence as in everything that exists now, like people, planets, solar systems etc. Before the big bang there was this "stuff" (for want of a better word) that I shall call God. Now at some point in time God sacrificed himself which was the big bang. Thus starting the existence as we currently know it. If you can follow what I mean.

quote: The "big bang" did not create anything. This is a common misconception. The Universe existed prior to it, just the dimensions were almost infinitely tiny. The big bang was the point when it suddenly started expanding (and very quickly).

Yeah, and this infinitely tiny universe is what I shall call God before he sacrificed. (I don't necessarily believe this by the way)

	28-12-2003 05:10									#92
	Support Apolyton

I shall call myself god. since we seem to be using pretty liberal definitions of god. and obviously I exist.

or do I?

	28-12-2003 12:24									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

My definition of the Universe is "all that exists" and view the sum of all possible universes (the Multiverse) as "all that CAN exist"

BTW: what makes Searle incoherent? His mini-article in Rita Carter's book Exploring Consciousness seemed reasonable to me.

	28-12-2003 12:52									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

What also seems extraordianary is that we exist -- intelligent beings with free will that exist in a universe primarily governed by action and reaction. If it is true that we are the inevitable by-product of the universe and whatever caused the big bang, we are the by-product of creation if not a creator. At least this much we can know.

	28-12-2003 12:59									#95
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by skywalker That's probably also the only meaningful definition of the Universe. Define it as a simple region of spacetime and it loses all of its special properties.

Well according to your definition it is just everything that exists. That leaves it neutral as to what other properties it has.

All you've said is: (x) x is either identical with the set that is the universe or a member of the set which it comprises.

That's compatible with all sorts of weirdness.

Anyway, is the set which you say is the universe a set which is a member of itself, or not?

And if it isn't, then is it a member of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves or not?

	28-12-2003 13:06									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

Exactly why I'm agnostic.

	29-12-2003 07:09									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned So, the very statement that one is an antheist presumes an understanding of who or what God is, which may, of course, be wrong.

Similarly, the statement that one believes in God presumes an understanding of who or what God is, which may be wrong. Atheists generally use the term "God" in the same way as theists -- the Big Daddy in the Sky, or something along those lines.

	29-12-2003 09:08									#98
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Well according to your definition it is just everything that exists. That leaves it neutral as to what other properties it has. All you've said is: (x) x is either identical with the set that is the universe or a member of the set which it comprises. That's compatible with all sorts of weirdness. Anyway, is the set which you say is the universe a set which is a member of itself, or not? And if it isn't, then is it a member of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves or not?

The Universe is a subset of itself, yes. EVERY set is a subset of itself, by definition.

	29-12-2003 16:33									#99
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I don't think existence is a thing, or a property. Believing that has got people into all sorts of confusion, from Parmenides onward.

Yeah I see some problems with it too.
There's this "Set of all sets" thing which I don't really like. Then you could have the Set of Sets that contain themselves...
And then The Set of Sets which -don't- contain themselves...
Which BTW is a grand stuffup of a paradox.

	30-12-2003 07:47									#100
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's simply impossible, on the traditional understanding of God as an infinite being, for finite beings such as ourselves to be able to investigate reality to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

Bah. I have a decent understanding of aleph-null, aleph-one, and aleph-two. The problem with the gods-concept has nothing to do with infinity.

quote: Agnosticism is the rational response.

In much the same way that solipsism is a rational response, yes. If it quacks like BS and walks like BS, I'd rather call it BS until it learns to quack and walk properly.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), religion is big on precedent, so it never will.

quote: In any case, if God really existed, it would be appalling if he said the things that the fundies say.

Yep. He?

	30-12-2003 07:51									#101
	Support Apolyton

God is watching all of you weirdos.

	30-12-2003 08:57									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Nice troll... That's basically a contradiction. Electrons and their surfaces are part of the physical universe, therefore it is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible for them to transcend it.

Electrons don't have surfaces, as they are fundamental particles.

	30-12-2003 09:06									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So then where are the liberal particles hiding?

	30-12-2003 09:14									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

We could say the exact same thing of a lettuce or a lawnmower. Except we wouldn't be using caps on a pronoun that obviously doesn't need it.

	30-12-2003 10:01									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"You can't argue against God without first defining God. This makes God special"



They teach this sort of logic at law school (if you actually are a lawyer)?

	30-12-2003 11:55									#106
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Electrons don't have surfaces, as they are fundamental particles.

They have to have surfaces if elves are going to dance on them, which was Skywalker's claim.

And it's common practice to clarify what you are talking about before drawing conclusions.

	30-12-2003 11:57									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

That's my point. Elves cannot be dancing on the surfaces if the surfaces do not exist...

	30-12-2003 11:59									#108
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's simply impossible, on the traditional understanding of God as an infinite being, for finite beings such as ourselves to be able to investigate reality to prove or disprove the existence of such a being. Bah. I have a decent understanding of aleph-null, aleph-one, and aleph-two. The problem with the gods-concept has nothing to do with infinity.

It does if you are relying on empirical evidence. Rationalist deductions are something else entirely. But they also fail

quote: quote: Agnosticism is the rational response. In much the same way that solipsism is a rational response, yes. If it quacks like BS and walks like BS, I'd rather call it BS until it learns to quack and walk properly.

Solipsism is not a rational response. It is based on errors about the nature of mind and mental states.

Agnosticism about God is the only rational response as we simply have no conceivable way of proving God's existence one way or the other, and his existence or non-existence is not self evident.

But then again, we should be agnostic about a lot of things so what's the problem?

	30-12-2003 12:00									#109
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse That's my point. Elves cannot be dancing on the surfaces if the surfaces do not exist...

Then that's just a different way of making the same sort of point I made.

	30-12-2003 12:03									#110
	Got spare money?

No it isn't.

Your argument was far less fundamental, and was based on things we're a lot less sure of.

i.e. that minds require a certain size...

	30-12-2003 12:08									#111
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse No it isn't. Your argument was far less fundamental, and was based on things we're a lot less sure of. i.e. that minds require a certain size...

It is in principle. It's the same kind of argument.

I for one would argue that you can't have a mind that small because you can't have a brain or similar structure that small. But the details don't matter since the point was simply to point out that we don't have to rush to agnosticism when it comes to claims about the physical universe in quite the same way that claims about evidence transcendent entities require it.

That's my argument. If you don't like the brains example then think up another one. The point is quite general though.

	30-12-2003 15:00									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Agnosticism about God is the only rational response as we simply have no conceivable way of proving God's existence one way or the other, and his existence or non-existence is not self evident.

I agree, which makes both belief in God and Atheism irrational.

Of course, there are others who have no idea what this topic is really about who are keen to repeatedly display their stupidity.