 |
|
FrantzX
|
|
Proof destroys faith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JCG
|
 |
between a rock and a hard place
Feb 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
If there's no proof, then it doesn't "destroy" anything. If there's no proof that something exists, but no proof of its inexistence, you can't say anything 100% certain about it within true and honest rationality (you can only be a logical sophist, if you want to).
But...In my admittedly biased opinion there is indeed a "God", in a sense, BUT that doesn't imply that "God" has to be omnipotent or omni-whatever as many tend to state ("God" might not even be the appropiate word, then, if you would insist.).
Not easy to explain, and nobody here really cares, so I won't try too much...^_-
Suffice to say that I don't believe that nothingness is all that's behind this universe, and that this universe has no meaning because it was created out of pure luck and chance at the dawn of time, as several atheists would like to argue...
To make a long story short, "God" would be, among other things, THE Will behind everything. Even behind the "wills" of atheists that refuse to consider such a concept.
Btw, Okham's (spelling?) razor is not "God". It is overrated. Just because a simple explanation is more likely in theory doesn't make it automatically true in practice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Say A != B, Can God make A=B?
Can God create a squared circle?
Can God overpower himself?
Can God create a stone that heavy that he can't lift it?
Do those questions prove omnipotence to be impossible.
Pherhaps, but the only thing you prove by doing that is that the word omnipotence is flawed.
Omnipotence is a word to describe the capability of God.
If God created humans with limited inteligence compared to himself, how could these beings describe the superior inteligence of their creator? They can only used flawed words for that.
There is one valid question, and it is: "Does God exist or not" if God exists (in christian way) than all questions about things being possible or not are invalid.
If I can use my phantasy, then I can imagine jumping of buildings, walking over water, killing people with my mind and ressurect them 2 seconds later. Dreams that might seem to take hours in your imagination appear to last only 2-3 seconds!
If we can do all that with our imagination, why would a god not be capable to do that?
The question is: Do I have a phantasy, if I do have it, I can use it the way I want it.
Talking again about the limits the creation has;
If a creation has no creator it must be able to have occured autonomous and independant to anything.
But we can't prove that. Like a baby can't remember anything about the period it lived inside the mother. How could a baby ever find out where it came from were it not that we observe babies being born all the time.
But we don't see universes being born all the time. Neither do we see macro-evolution happen. All we can do is guess.
Since everything we have ever observed has an origin, I think it's default to assume everything has an origin.
atheism is not the default.
neither is christianity.
But deism is the default.
It's been the default since forever, since every civilization always worshipped gods. It's only since 200 years that people think they can find their origination through self-appearance.
they come with a theory that's absurd if you take a neutral look at it, while higher powers are easy to imagine. We imagine gods and heros all the time. All fairy tales contain higher powers. As a kid we think our father is a god who can do everything.
But since everybody speaks about evolution as the default, most people think it is the default.
But at the same time, only about 1% of all those evolution believers really knows what evolution is all about.
But those 99% concider everybody who does not believe in evolution to be a total idiot. While they don't even know what they believe in themselves.
I can't prove that the christian God is God.
That's because it's beyond my limitations. How could I ever explain something that goes further than my imagination? All I can come up with is omniscience, omnipresence, and all that. Not because those words cover the whole ship, but because it describes what I see as the logical source of live, something that's beyond our imagination, but I can imagine one thing: we cannot have self-appeared. Nothing we ever observed created itself. Nothing appeared out of nothing.
Quantem Mechanics provides only a theory about particles popping out of nothing. It has not been observed. And it can not be observed because we cannot recreate the situation of the first moments of this universe. Just only because the first moment there must have been nothing, and now there is everything.
But still there are scientists who say that they can recalculate back untill 1.7 seconds before the big-bang.
It's all theories based on theories based on theories based on theories etc. etc. etc.
If one theorie appears to be flawed, all collapses as a cardshouse. But we cannot prove them to be flawed because we cannot test the theories, we did not observe it happen neither will we ever observe it happen.
But still does majority of the decadent western world put all faith on it.
And everybody who thinks different is an idiot.
And every scientist who comes up with a different view is a creationist, and creationists are idiots. How can we ever talk about neutral scientific research, if every scientists knows that if he comes with results that disprove evolution or big-bang, the entire scientific clan will dismiss him, whatever arguments he has?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
loinburger : Which leads to the question, "then what created God." Usually the response is "the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to God," but then one needs to answer the question, "why does the theory of cause and effect necessarily apply to the origins of the universe yet not apply to God, wouldn't it be much simpler to assume that the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to the origins of the universe rather than add a seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary layer to the problem of origins." Why have a divine first cause at all? Or, why stop at just one (or two or three etc.) layer(s) of divinity? |
It's quiet easy,
the create green, you need blue and yellow.
You don't need blue and yellow to create blue or yellow.
The universe is not "something" but it is all things we can observe gathered. The universe consists of stars, planets, clouds, commets..... etc. etc. etc. Without mass there is no universe.
We know that mass needs a cause.
We have never observed any mass that appeared without a cause.
We can be sure that mass needs a cause, thus this universe needs one.
We don't know if the cause needs a cause as well.
Pherhaps our cause does need a cause as well. But since our cause already goes beyond our imagination, how could we ever understand or exlpain the cause of our cause.
Besides that, why should the law of cause and effect which apparently is applicable for mass be applicable to our cause as well?
We can't apply the law of "We need blue and yellow" on green, but that doesn't mean that same law counts for blue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alofatti
This is a somewhat classical proof of the inexistence of an all-powerful being, which in this case we could call "god".
Letīs suppose that there exists an all-powerful being. Then, it is able to do absolutely everything, right? Well, then it is able to create stones.
Could it be able to create a stone that he couldnīt lift?
-If the answer is "yes", then there exists a stone that it canīt lift, therefore there are things it canīt do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.
-If the answer is "no", then he is not able to create that stone, therefore there are things it canīt do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.
Both ways conduct us to the inexistence of this all-powerful being.
Of course, I think of this more like a mathematical game rather than something more "serious". Some people would argue that itīs existence is bases in the idea of "fate" rather than "logic". I cannot say a thing in this aspect, just wanted to participate with this little game. |
The "can god make a rock so big he cant lift it" as I said above, is not a real concept, it is an unreal concept, which can be only be expressed because language is imperfect.....it is no different then the square root of negative 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Without mass there is no universe. |
The lack of mass doesn't preclude the existence of time and space. A universe suffering heat death wouldn't have any mass left, it'd all have broken down into free energy.
quote:
We know that mass needs a cause.
We have never observed any mass that appeared without a cause. |
Whoah there, since when have we ever observed any mass appearing at all? Masses don't just pop out of thin air on a macro level, and observing them on a quantum level can be a bit tricky to say the least (not to mention that there is apparently no causal relation on the quantum level)...
quote:
We can be sure that mass needs a cause, thus this universe needs one. |
When have we ever observed a cause for mass? How can we be sure that mass needs a cause if we've never observed the formation of mass on a macro level?
More to the point, when have we ever observed a cause for time, or space?
quote:
But since our cause already goes beyond our imagination, how could we ever understand or exlpain the cause of our cause. |
So you're arbitrarily drawing a limit on the depth of cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. "anything I imagined into existence doesn't need a cause, because I imagined it into existence." Why not draw the limit one step sooner, i.e. "it is meaningless to discuss cause and effect for a system that is currently far beyond human understanding, e.g. space-time"?
quote:
Besides that, why should the law of cause and effect which apparently is applicable for mass be applicable to our cause as well?
We can't apply the law of "We need blue and yellow" on green, but that doesn't mean that same law counts for blue. |
Indeed, why should the law of cause and effect be applicable to space and time (neither of which we have observed being created or destroyed)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
The lack of mass doesn't preclude the existence of time and space. |
time is dependant on mass.
without mass you woult not be able to observe time.
Because mass changes, we talk about the appearance before the mass changed and after the mass changed.
humanity ordered it all in hours and minutes.
same with space. Space is nothing. If it were not for the sake of mass, we wouldn't know about distance.
quote:
Whoah there, since when have we ever observed any mass appearing at all? |
we do, when a new child is born, a new peace of mass appears. But this mass has a cause, the mother.
A stone has a source, it comes ie. from a rock formation.
quote:
How can we be sure that mass needs a cause if we've never observed the formation of mass on a macro level? |
than the only conclusion could be that mass must have been there for an infinite time back.
quote:
"anything I imagined into existence doesn't need a cause, because I imagined it into existence." |
well, that's not true, because in that case I would be the cause.
quote:
Why not draw the limit one step sooner, i.e. "it is meaningless to discuss cause and effect for a system that is currently far beyond human understanding, e.g. space-time"? |
well, at one point I do that. I leave it in the lap of the gods. I believe that there is a god who created and designed all of this.
quote:
Indeed, why should the law of cause and effect be applicable to space and time |
what is space?
every atom in your body concists of a center and electrons circling around it. There's a gap between the centre and the electrons. In fact you're more space than anything.
Electrons circle around atoms. Planets circle around stars. Stars circle around starsystems. Pherhaps we're a part of one big body, but we don't know.
Space depends on the size of the observe. Pherhaps God does not see any space in the universe, like we don't see space in our body.
But if there would be no atoms, no body, there would be no space as well. There would be just plain nothing. No stars, no planets, nothing....... how could we observe space in that case? How could we know what size the space has?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
time is dependant on mass. |
Time is a dimension. Mass can warp this dimension, but the dimension exists with or without mass occupying it.
quote:
same with space. Space is nothing. |
Space is three dimensions.
quote:
we do, when a new child is born, a new peace of mass appears. |
The mass doesn't appear from nothing. It is simply the reordering of other masses into a new form. We haven't observed mass appearing, we've only observed mass being reordered.
quote:
than the only conclusion could be that mass must have been there for an infinite time back. |
Or that the mass came into existence when time came into existence. If time doesn't extend infinitely into the past, then objects cannot exist for an infinite time back.
quote:
well, at one point I do that. I leave it in the lap of the gods. I believe that there is a god who created and designed all of this. |
Fair enough, but that's "belief," not "evidence" or "proof." Belief is all well and good, but it doesn't answer the original question of this thread.
A three-dimensional vector ordering. Space-time is a four-dimensional vector ordering.
quote:
But if there would be no atoms, no body, there would be no space as well. |
No, there would be an empty three-dimensional vector ordering. It might not be terribly exciting, but it wouldn't be "nothing."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
they come with a theory that's absurd if you take a neutral look at it, |
what's more absurd? if you take a truely neutral look at it.
1. Life evolved over millions of years, each generation being slightly different then the previous generation, eventually evolving into life as we know it.
2. One magical being, has created everything you see, and then placed all sorts of evidence to test the humans faith in It.
quote:
But since everybody speaks about evolution as the default, most people think it is the default.
But at the same time, only about 1% of all those evolution believers really knows what evolution is all about.
But those 99% concider everybody who does not believe in evolution to be a total idiot. While they don't even know what they believe in themselves. |
And how is that different from the past, when Roman-Catholicism was the default? Or before that, when the Roman gods where default., And before that in Asia, when Hinduism was default?
What the masses believe change over time, and it appears that right now, the masses are moving towards evolutionism, and away from creationism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Time is a dimension. |
that's a theory.
I say, time is not a dimension. Time differs from length and height and width. Time morely explains the difference between the 3 dimensions.
quote:
Space is three dimensions. |
what's the difference between space and no space?
Can you define a situation where no space exists?
Would there still be space if there would be no mass?
quote:
The mass doesn't appear from nothing. |
indeed, we don't know any circumstanses in which mass appears from nothing.
quote:
Or that the mass came into existence when time came into existence. |
no, it's the other way around, time came into existence when mass came into existence. Or better: when mass started to transform.
But if mass and time came into existence at the same period, let's say you're right, what resulted into this sudden all new situation?
quote:
Fair enough, but that's "belief," not "evidence" or "proof." Belief is all well and good, but it doesn't answer the original question of this thread. |
that's right.
But my believe is not more or less a believe than atheism. That's what I try to say. I even try to explain that believing in a higher being is more logical than believing in self-creating order.
quote:
No, there would be an empty three-dimensional vector ordering. It might not be terribly exciting, but it wouldn't be "nothing." |
height, length and width are there to describe mass.
Without mass, those three-dimensions make no sence.
Like languages don't make any sence of there are no beings that want to communicate with each other.
those dimensions are a concept. But without mass, the concept is useless.
quote:
what's more absurd? if you take a truely neutral look at it.
1. Life evolved over millions of years, each generation being slightly different then the previous generation, eventually evolving into life as we know it.
2. One magical being, has created everything you see, and then placed all sorts of evidence to test the humans faith in It. |
the first is more absurd.
You say that if you give one particle enough time it will tranform into a large scale of inteligent life, animals, colorfull eco systems.
That's as abserd as if you say that a monkey will type a book like shakespear did if you put him long enough after a typewriter.
and that's even easier!
quote:
And how is that different from the past, when Roman-Catholicism was the default? |
it is no different. it's as wrong as the roman catholic church and the mass in the middle ages. The differences is that the current believers feel superior above those guys in the middle ages, while they do in fac the same.
the latin became scientific language,
the holy book became the scientific books (no-one read them in the middle ages as well)
and the priests are the scientists..........
count the differences............!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Say A != B, Can God make A=B?
Can God create a squared circle?
Can God overpower himself?
Can God create a stone that heavy that he can't lift it?
Do those questions prove omnipotence to be impossible.
Pherhaps, but the only thing you prove by doing that is that the word omnipotence is flawed. |
How so? The word "omnipotence" describes a concept. If the concept of omnipotence leads to contradictions, that means it is a concept that is flawed.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
If God created humans with limited inteligence compared to himself, how could these beings describe the superior inteligence of their creator? They can only used flawed words for that. |
If your God cannot be decribed by our intelligence, your God is incomprehensible. It is pointless to speak of the incomprehensible. Even trying to establish His (as per Orthodox Christian conventions) existence is meaningless. How can we tell whether something incomprehensible exist or not?
Are you saying your God is incomprehensible?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
There is one valid question, and it is: "Does God exist or not" if God exists (in christian way) than all questions about things being possible or not are invalid. |
Not so fast. We must first establish that this being is comprehensible first. Otherwise how can we know anything about the unknowable?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
If I can use my phantasy, then I can imagine jumping of buildings, walking over water, killing people with my mind and ressurect them 2 seconds later. Dreams that might seem to take hours in your imagination appear to last only 2-3 seconds!
If we can do all that with our imagination, why would a god not be capable to do that? |
Do what? Carry out the actions in your fantasy? A god can only do that if said god has powers that correspond to your powers in your fantasy. Otherwise why would a god be able to do any of that? Note that we are talking about generic supernatural entities here, not the Judeo-Christianity god.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
The question is: Do I have a phantasy, if I do have it, I can use it the way I want it. |
I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Talking again about the limits the creation has;
If a creation has no creator it must be able to have occured autonomous and independant to anything. |
First of all, this is loaded. Calling something a "creation" implies that it has a creator. Secondly, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. This looks like a false dilemma, but I am not sure if that's what you meant. Does a peice of volcanic rock has a creator?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But we can't prove that. Like a baby can't remember anything about the period it lived inside the mother. How could a baby ever find out where it came from were it not that we observe babies being born all the time. |
What do you want to prove? Sure, a baby can't remember anything before it develops a memory, but he can later ask. There is lies the crucial difference.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But we don't see universes being born all the time. Neither do we see macro-evolution happen. All we can do is guess. |
You refuse to open your eyes. I have been linking the same article on talksrorigins for ages, and you still are regurgitating the same refuted argument. Very typical of creationists.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Since everything we have ever observed has an origin, I think it's default to assume everything has an origin. |
That is quote an outragous assertion. Matter has no origin and neither does energy. As far as we can tell they have always been existing.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
atheism is not the default.
neither is christianity.
But deism is the default.
It's been the default since forever, since every civilization always worshipped gods. |
I think the word you're looking for is "theism."
Your assertion is simply incorrect. Atheism is as old as theism.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
It's only since 200 years that people think they can find their origination through self-appearance. |
This is again incorrect. The ancients, including Greeks and Chinese, have their atheists. Some of them are actually famous.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
they come with a theory that's absurd if you take a neutral look at it, while higher powers are easy to imagine. We imagine gods and heros all the time. All fairy tales contain higher powers. As a kid we think our father is a god who can do everything. |
First of all, not everybody imagines gods and heroes. At least not gods for the atheists and agonstics. Why would they? Secondly, "god" is not a natural concept. You don't find any gods in nature. So why would kids think their fathers are gods. I never did.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But since everybody speaks about evolution as the default, most people think it is the default.
But at the same time, only about 1% of all those evolution believers really knows what evolution is all about. |
Why are you calling evolutionists "believers?" Is your intellect so awesomely superior to the combined intelligence of all the evolutionists past present and future, that the overwhelming amount of evidence that is present means nothing to you?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But those 99% concider everybody who does not believe in evolution to be a total idiot. While they don't even know what they believe in themselves. |
Do you believe in gravity? Do you think that, once you stop believing in gravity, it stops working?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I can't prove that the christian God is God.
That's because it's beyond my limitations. How could I ever explain something that goes further than my imagination? All I can come up with is omniscience, omnipresence, and all that. Not because those words cover the whole ship, but because it describes what I see as the logical source of live, something that's beyond our imagination, but I can imagine one thing: we cannot have self-appeared. Nothing we ever observed created itself. Nothing appeared out of nothing. |
My question is, since your god is incomprehensible, how can you tell anything about your god?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Quantem Mechanics provides only a theory about particles popping out of nothing. It has not been observed. |
It has, AFAIK.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
And it can not be observed because we cannot recreate the situation of the first moments of this universe. |
 Do you understand about what you are talking?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
But still there are scientists who say that they can recalculate back untill 1.7 seconds before the big-bang.
It's all theories based on theories based on theories based on theories etc. etc. etc. |
Theories can be tested, your faith cannot.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
If one theorie appears to be flawed, all collapses as a cardshouse. But we cannot prove them to be flawed because we cannot test the theories, we did not observe it happen neither will we ever observe it happen. |
Do you understand about what you are talking?
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
And everybody who thinks different is an idiot.
And every scientist who comes up with a different view is a creationist, and creationists are idiots. |
At this point, my only conclusion I can drawn about you is that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
How can we ever talk about neutral scientific research, if every scientists knows that if he comes with results that disprove evolution or big-bang, the entire scientific clan will dismiss him, whatever arguments he has? |
Unless you are omniscient, I cannot see how you can possibly know whether something every scientist knows or not. If you are omniscient, however, how come you show absolutely no knowledge of how science works, or the staggering amount of evidence in support of evolution?
On the other hand, you have let your imagination to distort your perception of reality. You speak of this vast conspiracy. Where is the evidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Primarily because it can be explained with logic and intellectual theory whereas religious creation cannot be explained and most likely is an arbitrary belief. |
The only seroius attempt to describe how a universe might have been happened without creation by God was so speculative and still implied lots of prerequisites (and was described in terms of time, which only should exist after the big bang) that the creations stories in the Bible seemed coherent and pure logic  (of course, the author believed otherwise).
To settle the thing with the root of -2:
There are two of them, namely sqrt(2)*i and -sqrt(2)*i.
i is the so-called imaginary unit. It is not a real number, but a member of the so-called complex plane. Every complex number z can be written as z=a+b*i, with a and b real numbers.
This is nothing esoterical, as a physicist I'm working with them on an almost daily basis. Complex numbers have some really nice properties, such as that each polynomial
a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2 + ... + an*x^n
can be written as
an*(b1-x)*(b2-x)*...*(bn-x).
Otherwise, let's try it with Gödel. IIRC, he has shown that there are mathematical statements which are true but not provable. Therefore, I don't see any reason why the existence of God should be provable or disprovable (both of which are equivalent from a logical point of view).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
For God's sake Cybershy, leave it alone. You are giving religion a bad name...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
Fez:
quote:
You cannot prove anything. |
why not? Because I do not have the right arguments, or because I just plain cannot because it's a dogma?
quote:
You have no right to say a self-creating order is no less logical to believe then a creator |
Why do I have that right not?
Why can't I just say what is the most obious?
If I'm wrong, counter me with arguments.
quote:
It is all educated assumptions we make during our life. |
what means education if you're educated things that are not true? Is the person who's highly educated in lies someone we should look up to? How can any education work if critisism is only accepted from people who come from inside the education system?
It more or less means that only people who agree are allowed to disagree...........
quote:
others like me may not call them logical but we will not put your beliefs on an inferior level as you have attempted to do towards atheists. |
in fact what you say atheists do not is what they do all the time. Take Provost or Urban Ranger, they feel superior, and they spread their disgust all the time.
All I do is fighting back with the same type of arguments.
Any believe system that is wrong is inferior.
And I would be an idiot if I would not claim my believe system to be right. Why would I follow a believe system if I don't believe it's right? Why should I put my faith on it in that case?
I don't say that atheists are agnosts or muslims are idiots or whatever. They're all respectable people. Not better nor worse than me. But what they believe is wrong. It's ok with me if they want to follow their believe system. I won't bother them, I won't ignore them, neither will I look down on them. But they are wrong. It is an opion. Indeed. How could I speak about facts in this case. I would not dare. But the foolish thing is that UR and PH will speak about facts when they talk about their believe system. They refuse to accept that they are just following one hype in history. That makes them blind. And for sure not neutral.
In fact everything that christianity has ever been blamed for, and right the blamers were, is being performed now by the scientific church. (no, I don't mean the real one)
arrogance, feeling holier than though, superiority feeling, knowledge among little, much believers with no knowledge.
Lemmy:
quote:
not any particle, a certain mix of the right molecules, then yes. |
and where would those right molecules come from?
And why do you believe they might transform in birds and bees and mamals in 5 billion years? Because you've been teached, or because that's what's what you observe every day. That's something that's usual in our world, that mess transforms in order.
quote:
Who knows, maybe in 50000 years, todays monkey will type books |
but those monkeys you refer to are todays humans.
We're not talking about incidental books anymore, but books written by inteligent beings. You cannot imagine a book being typed by accident. Not even if you give the brainless monkeys millions of years.
why would those monkeys transformate into thinking beings by accident if they can't even write a book by accident?
You only believe that because you've been teached that.
Like the people in the middle ages were being teached about the roman catholic believe system.
quote:
there only needs to be one, and that is that our new "holy book" can be tested and verified by anyone. |
how?
Can we observe monkeys becoming people?
Is it possible to go back and see the big bang happen?
There are millions of books, they all disagree with each other in some way. Every argument has a counter argument. Can you test the origin of live under circumstases? Some theories hang on one said to be succesfull experiment. Do you trust those scientists who claim success? Are you sure they were not searching for being famous?
Why would you believe a scientists on his word, while you don't believe a disciple on his word, who kept his words even if it would be his death.........?
We can not even be sure if the stars are on the distance we think they are. We have good theories, but we can never be sure. I believe those distances, but we can never be sure. But we can't prove it, we can't test it. We can only stick to our theories and blame everybody who says something else.
quote:
Just out of curiosity, what chance would you give to the right mix of molecules, and living conditions, to start life within4 billion years? |
life is special. I give it no change to occur by accident.
We cannot even create it in labs, how could it ever start by accident?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
that's a theory.
I say, time is not a dimension. |
What's time, then?
quote:
what's the difference between space and no space? |
"No space" has zero dimensions. Space has three.
quote:
Can you define a situation where no space exists? |
A point.
quote:
Would there still be space if there would be no mass? |
Yes. Space is defined by an x, y, and z axis, each of which is perpendicular to the other two axes. It isn't defined in terms of masses.
quote:
indeed, we don't know any circumstanses in which mass appears from nothing. |
Which is why I said that there is no reason to assume that our ideas of cause-and-effect apply to the origin of mass. Or space. Or time. There doesn't have to be an entity that acts as the "first cause" in order for our theories to function.
quote:
But if mass and time came into existence at the same period, let's say you're right, what resulted into this sudden all new situation? |
Who cares? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to know what happened during the first five seconds of the Universe's existence just as much as the other guy, but I'm not going to spontaneously combust if I don't know or if I don't have a "plausible" explanation to cling to. It's completely unnecessary to answer the question "why did the universe come to be" or even the question "how did the universe come to be" when any metaphysical explanation is just as valid as any other metaphysical explanation. Metaphysical conjecturing isn't a waste of time any more than painting or sculpting is a waste of time, but there's just as much reason to order one's life around metaphysical conjectures as there is to order one's life around the Mona Lisa--metaphysics is fun and all, but it has no bearing on "real life."
quote:
But my believe is not more or less a believe than atheism. |
The form of atheism I ascribe to is best defined as "no metaphysical belief," not "there is no god or higher power." In this form, atheism isn't a belief at all.
quote:
I even try to explain that believing in a higher being is more logical than believing in self-creating order. |
How so? I apologize if you've already explained this and I missed it, but how is "belief in a higher power of which there is no supporting evidence" more logical than "lack of any metaphysical belief given the lack of supporting evidence for any and all metaphysical beliefs"?
quote:
height, length and width are there to describe mass. |
They're there to describe space, not mass. Kilograms describe mass, cubic meters describe space. Whether that space is relative to anything is irrelevant to its definition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:21
|
|
Cybershy I had this argument before with you and you apparently cannot accept sense. You have proven time and time again you fail to grasp any concept of respect towards any fellow posters especially me. Your belief in religion is often pointed out as arbitrary as you try to pass into boundaries of gray not to be passed in.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
why not? Because I do not have the right arguments, or because I just plain cannot because it's a dogma? |
Because in this area what you say is too general... you cannot prove what you are saying.
quote:
Why do I have that right not? |
Because you lack evidence.
quote:
Why can't I just say what is the most obious? |
Neither is more obvious. It is all opinion
quote:
If I'm wrong, counter me with arguments. |
I am not saying you are wrong but we discuss opinions here. You attempt to smash my opinion and fail with mockeries and rash thinking.
quote:
what means education if you're educated things that are not true? |
What? Work on coherent sentence structure please. I am thinking you are attempting to say that atheism is not true... but you are wrong... because you cannot prove it either way. Some of us just to choose to believe differently.
quote:
Is the person who's highly educated in lies someone we should look up to? |
Meaning in my honest opinion, you. You are the one trying to tell people they are wrong. Quite lying to yourself and this forum.
quote:
How can any education work if critisism is only accepted from people who come from inside the education system? |
I never claimed that.
quote:
in fact what you say atheists do not is what they do all the time. Take Provost or Urban Ranger, they feel superior, and they spread their disgust all the time. |
They do not. They criticize your beliefs for at time being arbitrary but they do not put you on an inferior level saying you must die because you are an infidel to the truth. We may be criticizing but we are not extremist.
quote:
All I do is fighting back with the same type of arguments.
|
And honestly you do not know what you are doing.
quote:
Any believe system that is wrong is inferior. |
And you my enemy, cannot claim any belief system is wrong.
quote:
And I would be an idiot if I would not claim my believe system to be right. Why would I follow a believe system if I don't believe it's right? Why should I put my faith on it in that case? |
Because a belief system is based entirely on faith. I have faith in existentialist atheism. That is all it is based on. I don't know if it is right or not. I hope it is.
quote:
But what they believe is wrong. |
Atheists believe in what is logical, not in what cannot be proven at all.
quote:
But they are wrong. How could I speak about facts in this case. |
Facts are not an abstraction. Religion is an abstraction.
quote:
I would not dare. But the foolish thing is that UR and PH will speak about facts when they talk about their believe system. |
And so do I. I will not deny that I am an atheist and will defend my ground as they do.
quote:
They refuse to accept that they are just following one hype in history. That makes them blind. |
And you refuse to accept you are following one of the greatest fallicies in history. Religion and the belief in god. You I will defend my ground against religious nuts like you.
quote:
In fact everything that christianity has ever been blamed for, and right the blamers were, is being performed now by the scientific church. (no, I don't mean the real one) |
No it isn't.
quote:
arrogance, feeling holier than though, superiority feeling, knowledge among little, much believers with no knowledge. |
That is the most hypocritical thought I have heard from you all day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
|
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
and where would those right molecules come from? |
so you agree then that these molecules can form life?
quote:
We're not talking about incidental books anymore, but books written by inteligent beings. You cannot imagine a book being typed by accident. Not even if you give the brainless monkeys millions of years. |
where did you get the idea that monkeys are brainless?
quote:
Why would you believe a scientists on his word, while you don't believe a disciple on his word, who kept his words even if it would be his death.........? |
you really don't see the difference between a disciple and a scientist, do you?
I don't have to believe a scientist on his word, i can recreate his research, and come to the same conclusion, if a scientist say wood can burn, i don't have to believe him, but i can try it myself, and see that wood indeed can burn.
Yes, evolutionism is a theory, but it is a scientific theory, and as such is based on FACTS or other scientific theories which are again based on facts, and not on arguments or opinions, in the end it all comes down to pure and simple facts. Now these theories are made up by people, that's true, but the reason that they are so widely accepted is that they fit with more facts then any other theory, therefore it is the most likely to be true. So unless new facts are revealed, or a better theory has been thought of, the original theories will stand.
quote:
In fact everything that christianity has ever been blamed for, and right the blamers were, is being performed now by the scientific church. (no, I don't mean the real one) |
You really should take a closer look at this new heathen thing calles science. 
quote:
And why do you believe they might transform in birds and bees and mamals in 5 billion years? Because you've been teached, or because that's what's what you observe every day. |
Because it makes sense, but not like you said it.
Do you believe in genetics, and that a child carries a mix of his parents genes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solar
|
|
quote:
Find me the square root of negative 2, then I'll answer, LOL! Its the same thing. |
I'm not taking sides, but the square root of negative to is i * SQRT(2)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-08-2002 10:10
. 
lots and lots of dodgy physics on this thread....
|
|