Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Certainty of Atheism


BenMillard

Recommended Posts

I seem to recall a certain theory about there being a great many universes floating around, and it is through the collision of these different universes that others are born.

 

Thus, this removes rather nicely the problematic concept of there being nothing before the Big Bang. There was something - there were two other universes. After collision, we get our universe, and so the process goes on.

 

Can't really see how they could prove it, but I find it very interesting nevertheless.

 

Not as detailed a post or as thoughtful as some others in this thread, but it might lead to suitable debate.

I thought I got the definition right when I said this:
Uni Verse = [The] One Container [which contains everything.]
You cannot have two universes. The universe contains absolutely everything, whatever that might actually turn out to be.

 

I don't post in D&D at all, but just had to reply to this.

 

 

Because the name man gave to the universe literary means 'One Container', does not make it that there is only one. Does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, logically, you are correct that there is no way to know if god created the universe.

 

However, it is possible to know that the universe was never created, and thus needed no god. Thus is the power of infinity.

 

If you are religious, then you are already familiar with infinity, because you believe in eternal life. You might even believe that God has always existed, and is himself eternal. Well if you can believe that god was never created, then why can't you believe that the universe was never created? Saying "god created the universe" doesn't answer the question of existence, it merely pushes it back. It is perfectly analogous to an old hindu (I think) belief, that the world was supported on the back of a giant elephant. So if you asked "but what holds the elephant up?" you'd hear "another elephant". And if you asked "but what holds that elephant up?", you'd hear "another elephant beneath it". Only this time you are asking "well where did the universe come from?", and hearing "god created it", and so I might ask "but where did god come from?". And if your answer is that he has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed?

 

But that's working backwards from a flawed assumption (that god is even possible).

 

Working forwards, we see something like this (bear with me, I'm pulling an all-nighter and I've been up for 26 hours):

 

-Nothing can be said to possess an innate property, if there is no external reference. By definition, inherent properties can only be understood within the context of things which are not inherent. It is impossible to describe a property that a thing could possess if that thing were the only thing to exist (I'm using the word "exist" in two terms, one as meaning the distinction between existence and non-existence (which I'll denote with "(1)"), and one as meaning "simply being that which is" (which I'll denote with "(2)"), and just now I was using the second version). Thus the very property of existence(1) is conditional upon the external property of non-existence(1). As a simple analogy, consider what the universe would be like if light did not exist(1) in any form. Would there be darkness? No. There could be no darkness because there is no light. Without light, darkness could not exist(1), it would simply be that which is. If you don't believe me, think about it from the other perspective. What if there was another property, similar to light, but not the same thing, that does not exist? How could we understand it? How could we understand the opposite of it, if it does not exist(1)? We can only understand darkness, because light exists(1). Hence without non-existence(1), there can be no existence(2), and vice versa. Otherwise, whatever did exist(2) without the other could not be said to actually exist(1).

 

A: Thus existence(1) is contingent upon non-existence(1).

 

If A is true, then knowing that the universe exists(1), and that non-existence(1) must also exist(1), then logically the universe must be of finite size, for if it were infinite, then non-existence(1) could not exist(1), and thus neither could the universe (because A is true). Conversely, if non-existence(1) did not exist(1), then the universe must necessarily be of infinite size, being all that exists(2).

 

(I might point out now that the weakest link in this argument is the assumption that the universe contains all that exists. Maybe it's because I'm so tired my eyes are nearly rolling in their sockets, but the best I would be able to do right now is an "argument from definition", by simply defining the universe as being all that which exists, which is a poor man's argument, because then we have to try to show how our current understanding of the universe includes all the things which do exist, and we get sidetracked into arguments of induction)

 

B: The universe is of finite size, being all that exists(1), and nothing that does not.

 

If B is true and Time exists, then time only exists(1) within the universe.

Time exists(1).

 

C: Therefore time only exists(1) within the universe, and cannot exist(1) beyond it.

 

Now, if we do the impossible in an abstract way, and imagine things from a perspective outside the universe, floating around in the non-existence, looking at a huge sphere that is the universe. Now imagine that you can watch time go by super fast and you see the universe spring into existence, get really big, then implode/explode/whatever. So what is the point of imagining that little scenario? Well, for starters, the only way you could understand that is if you actually had a sense of time (even if it was sped up). Without a sense of time, none of that would have been visible to you. You couldn't even percieve an eternally static universe, because that perception requires time and an understanding of the word "eternal". But time doesn't exist in the non-existence. So how could the universe form? How could it end? How could there be any period during which it had a chance to exist? If, at any instance in all of existence(2), there was ever a lack of the universe, or a lack of the non-existence, then niether one would be enabled to actually ever exist. Within the non-time of non-existence, the universe can't begin or end, because these things are dependant upon time being external to the universe. A "beginning" is a thing only able to be understood chronologically. The same is true of an "end". Neither of these things are possible without time. If the universe were to try to end within non-existence, it would form a paradox, where it could not end until time ended, and time could not end until the universe ended, and this would simultaneously attempt to force the concept of an "end" into the non-time of non-existence.

 

Yeah, I know that last part was very complex and confusing, but paradoxes tend to be that way.

 

Therefore if A, B, and C are true, then time must be infinite, simply because the universe (existence) could never being nor ever end. This doesn't necessarily mean that time is linearly eternal, because it could just as easily be circularly eternal (an eternal loop is still eternal).

 

 

So in the end, we have a logical answer to "where did the universe come from?", and that is "it has always existed, and will always exist, because it IS existence". Existence cannot not exist.

 

But god can.

 

Also, man may not ever know if god created the universe. But I do. And he didn't.

 

P.S. Just because something is not possible right now, it does not follow that it will forever be impossible. So maybe one day man will know through science. That's the best part about science. It grows to explain more and more every day. Religion only ever explains less.

Actually..i already asked myself something simmilar to the hindu proverb. I belive that god created the universe sure, but i belive that god created a universe, this universe. But im not saying that there might not be another. Again..who's to say that this is the universe in it's entirety, it could be an entire self contained plane of existance that only makes up one part of the total. Now where god came from, and who made him..i don't know. Maybe i'll find out one day if i get up there hopefully.

 

Illspirit: So basically this whole discussin is a moot point then..already figured that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

I hope that one day I find someone who can read one of my arguments, and actually grasp what I have said down to the fundamental level. Someone who won't misread parts and then attack misconceptions, or gloss over parts and ask questions that were answered in the parts they glossed over.

 

It'd be really nice.

 

But f*ck dreaming.

 

Here's the whole point compressed into one easily digestible sentence: The universe has always existed, and will always exist, and just because your brian isn't able to comprehend infinity, doesn't mean it can't happen, so shut the f*ck up with the "but it had to start somehow" bullsh*t and realise that because the universe is eternal, there can be no place for any creator god/force/anything.

 

The point = God is impossible.

 

Hopefully that made sense. If you disagree, shut the f*ck up until you can understand the actual arguments behind it without confusing core concepts and creating straw man arguments.

 

But if you CAN understand the arguments, then please, feel free to voice your disagreements in a logical counter-argument fashion. I long for intellectual reciprocation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can prove if God exists or doesn't because we are finite and we all die. Unless Cerb wants to tell us something...oh and I didn't read any of the agruements. I didn't really feel like it to tell you the truth. It's the same mindless babble if you ask me. It's the same over and over again.

 

Mort...why don't you just dumb down your posts, so we can read it. The you won't be able to complain about no one being able to "grip the fundamentals" of your agruements.

Edited by Lazzo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Flashback666

 

Mort...why don't you just dumb down your posts, so we can read it. The you won't be able to complain about no one being able to "grip the fundamentals" of your agruements.

 

Ah, but if he did that the whole web of deceit would crumble and you would realise that he had no argument to dumb down. biggrin.gif

 

I have no time for the concept of 'god' myself, but then if I was to play devil's advocaat, I could say that we had no basis to argue this point either:

 

 

The universe has always existed, and will always exist, and just because your brian isn't able to comprehend infinity, doesn't mean it can't happen, so shut the f*ck up with the "but it had to start somehow" bullsh*t and realise that because the universe is eternal, there can be no place for any creator god/force/anything.

 

 

What this statement is doing is actually being self-defeatist. By proclaiming that the universe has always existed, and by simply dismissing the 'it had to start somehow' argument so, well, dismissively, you are quite nicely removing all possible argument against your point and thus declaring yourself an unbeatable winner. I have pointed out this tactic of yours on a number of occasions, and it amuses me when you keep using it.

 

My argument is thus, and may be similar to what Lazzo was saying. Because we ourselves are finite, we can not possibly be 'connected' to the entity that is the universe that surrounds us for us to be able to come up with an idea that there can not be anything outside of it. It is really a question of scale and of place. It is like a micro-bacteria being placed in a small petri dish, and having the presence of mind to declare that not only is there nothing in existence but the said petri dish, but that the dish has always existed and will always continue to exist. There can be no proper sense of understanding between us and the universe, because the whole concept of what a universe is just dwarfs us too significantly.

 

Now, I am not a believer of god, so I am not saying that there is a great being that clicked its fingers and created us. However, what I am saying is that there may well be something outside of the universe that we are unable to grasp and comprehend, because if we are unable to grasp what the universe is, we certainly would not be able to grasp what kind of entity loomed outside of it.

 

Think Russian dolls. There is always a smaller doll inside the larger one. From a position outside of the doll system, this is obvious. To the smallest doll in the middle, however, the world consists of it and the casing around it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, logically, you are correct that there is no way to know if god created the universe.

 

However, it is possible to know that the universe was never created, and thus needed no god. Thus is the power of infinity.

 

If you are religious, then you are already familiar with infinity, because you believe in eternal life. You might even believe that God has always existed, and is himself eternal. Well if you can believe that god was never created, then why can't you believe that the universe was never created? Saying "god created the universe" doesn't answer the question of existence, it merely pushes it back. It is perfectly analogous to an old hindu (I think) belief, that the world was supported on the back of a giant elephant. So if you asked "but what holds the elephant up?" you'd hear "another elephant". And if you asked "but what holds that elephant up?", you'd hear "another elephant beneath it". Only this time you are asking "well where did the universe come from?", and hearing "god created it", and so I might ask "but where did god come from?". And if your answer is that he has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed?

 

But that's working backwards from a flawed assumption (that god is even possible).

 

Working forwards, we see something like this (bear with me, I'm pulling an all-nighter and I've been up for 26 hours):

 

-Nothing can be said to possess an innate property, if there is no external reference. By definition, inherent properties can only be understood within the context of things which are not inherent. It is impossible to describe a property that a thing could possess if that thing were the only thing to exist (I'm using the word "exist" in two terms, one as meaning the distinction between existence and non-existence (which I'll denote with "(1)"), and one as meaning "simply being that which is" (which I'll denote with "(2)"), and just now I was using the second version). Thus the very property of existence(1) is conditional upon the external property of non-existence(1). As a simple analogy, consider what the universe would be like if light did not exist(1) in any form. Would there be darkness? No. There could be no darkness because there is no light. Without light, darkness could not exist(1), it would simply be that which is. If you don't believe me, think about it from the other perspective. What if there was another property, similar to light, but not the same thing, that does not exist? How could we understand it? How could we understand the opposite of it, if it does not exist(1)? We can only understand darkness, because light exists(1). Hence without non-existence(1), there can be no existence(2), and vice versa. Otherwise, whatever did exist(2) without the other could not be said to actually exist(1).

 

A: Thus existence(1) is contingent upon non-existence(1).

 

If A is true, then knowing that the universe exists(1), and that non-existence(1) must also exist(1), then logically the universe must be of finite size, for if it were infinite, then non-existence(1) could not exist(1), and thus neither could the universe (because A is true). Conversely, if non-existence(1) did not exist(1), then the universe must necessarily be of infinite size, being all that exists(2).

 

(I might point out now that the weakest link in this argument is the assumption that the universe contains all that exists. Maybe it's because I'm so tired my eyes are nearly rolling in their sockets, but the best I would be able to do right now is an "argument from definition", by simply defining the universe as being all that which exists, which is a poor man's argument, because then we have to try to show how our current understanding of the universe includes all the things which do exist, and we get sidetracked into arguments of induction)

 

B: The universe is of finite size, being all that exists(1), and nothing that does not.

 

If B is true and Time exists, then time only exists(1) within the universe.

Time exists(1).

 

C: Therefore time only exists(1) within the universe, and cannot exist(1) beyond it.

 

Now, if we do the impossible in an abstract way, and imagine things from a perspective outside the universe, floating around in the non-existence, looking at a huge sphere that is the universe. Now imagine that you can watch time go by super fast and you see the universe spring into existence, get really big, then implode/explode/whatever. So what is the point of imagining that little scenario? Well, for starters, the only way you could understand that is if you actually had a sense of time (even if it was sped up). Without a sense of time, none of that would have been visible to you. You couldn't even percieve an eternally static universe, because that perception requires time and an understanding of the word "eternal". But time doesn't exist in the non-existence. So how could the universe form? How could it end? How could there be any period during which it had a chance to exist? If, at any instance in all of existence(2), there was ever a lack of the universe, or a lack of the non-existence, then niether one would be enabled to actually ever exist. Within the non-time of non-existence, the universe can't begin or end, because these things are dependant upon time being external to the universe. A "beginning" is a thing only able to be understood chronologically. The same is true of an "end". Neither of these things are possible without time. If the universe were to try to end within non-existence, it would form a paradox, where it could not end until time ended, and time could not end until the universe ended, and this would simultaneously attempt to force the concept of an "end" into the non-time of non-existence.

 

Yeah, I know that last part was very complex and confusing, but paradoxes tend to be that way.

 

Therefore if A, B, and C are true, then time must be infinite, simply because the universe (existence) could never being nor ever end. This doesn't necessarily mean that time is linearly eternal, because it could just as easily be circularly eternal (an eternal loop is still eternal).

 

 

So in the end, we have a logical answer to "where did the universe come from?", and that is "it has always existed, and will always exist, because it IS existence". Existence cannot not exist.

 

But god can.

 

Also, man may not ever know if god created the universe. But I do. And he didn't.

 

P.S. Just because something is not possible right now, it does not follow that it will forever be impossible. So maybe one day man will know through science. That's the best part about science. It grows to explain more and more every day. Religion only ever explains less.

While it is true that we could not understand darkness if there was no light, that does not imply that the condition of darkness does not exist without light. A sentient being locked within a dark cave can also not understand darkness, but it surely exists. Ergo, the reasoning is fatally flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_conspiracy

Guess who's back? tounge.gif. I was bored tonight, so I decided to drop by GTAF and see how you guys were all doing, after about 3 months. Of course, visiting the D&D forum reminds me of Mortukai and his usual anti-god antics so I decided to visit and post something.

 

 

If you are religious, then you are already familiar with infinity, because you believe in eternal life. You might even believe that God has always existed, and is himself eternal. Well if you can believe that god was never created, then why can't you believe that the universe was never created? Saying "god created the universe" doesn't answer the question of existence, it merely pushes it back. It is perfectly analogous to an old hindu (I think) belief, that the world was supported on the back of a giant elephant. So if you asked "but what holds the elephant up?" you'd hear "another elephant". And if you asked "but what holds that elephant up?", you'd hear "another elephant beneath it". Only this time you are asking "well where did the universe come from?", and hearing "god created it", and so I might ask "but where did god come from?". And if your answer is that he has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed?

 

First off, there would be no point to religion if everything was explained. The idea of religion is about keeping faith, believing in something that seems impossible but you know is there. Which do you trust? Your gut instincts or common sense (I guess you could call it logical reasoning)? It's up to you. However, just because there is no immediate proof to satisfy your curiosities, does not mean there is no God. What kind of God would he be anyway if he just dropped out of the sky and enlightened all the humans with the infinite knowledge of the universe? That's why he's God, becaues he knows more than you ever will.

 

 

-Nothing can be said to possess an innate property, if there is no external reference. By definition, inherent properties can only be understood within the context of things which are not inherent. It is impossible to describe a property that a thing could possess if that thing were the only thing to exist (I'm using the word "exist" in two terms, one as meaning the distinction between existence and non-existence (which I'll denote with "(1)"), and one as meaning "simply being that which is" (which I'll denote with "(2)"), and just now I was using the second version). Thus the very property of existence(1) is conditional upon the external property of non-existence(1). As a simple analogy, consider what the universe would be like if light did not exist(1) in any form. Would there be darkness? No. There could be no darkness because there is no light. Without light, darkness could not exist(1), it would simply be that which is. If you don't believe me, think about it from the other perspective. What if there was another property, similar to light, but not the same thing, that does not exist? How could we understand it? How could we understand the opposite of it, if it does not exist(1)? We can only understand darkness, because light exists(1). Hence without non-existence(1), there can be no existence(2), and vice versa. Otherwise, whatever did exist(2) without the other could not be said to actually exist(1).

 

There is no such thing as non-existence in my book. It exists or it doesnt. Something in a state of "non existence" simply means it is not there. Lets say, I got hit by a big truck and died. You would say, " oh, he's non-existent because he died". Technically, if any sort of bit of me is left and carried forward at all then I still exist. It's impossible to argue the very definition of existence at all because we dont know the limits of the universe, we dont know, in short anything about this except for a few complex theorems you've concocted that hold no substance.

 

 

 

Now, if we do the impossible in an abstract way, and imagine things from a perspective outside the universe, floating around in the non-existence, looking at a huge sphere that is the universe. Now imagine that you can watch time go by super fast and you see the universe spring into existence, get really big, then implode/explode/whatever. So what is the point of imagining that little scenario? Well, for starters, the only way you could understand that is if you actually had a sense of time (even if it was sped up). Without a sense of time, none of that would have been visible to you. You couldn't even percieve an eternally static universe, because that perception requires time and an understanding of the word "eternal". But time doesn't exist in the non-existence. So how could the universe form? How could it end? How could there be any period during which it had a chance to exist? If, at any instance in all of existence(2), there was ever a lack of the universe, or a lack of the non-existence, then niether one would be enabled to actually ever exist. Within the non-time of non-existence, the universe can't begin or end, because these things are dependant upon time being external to the universe. A "beginning" is a thing only able to be understood chronologically. The same is true of an "end". Neither of these things are possible without time. If the universe were to try to end within non-existence, it would form a paradox, where it could not end until time ended, and time could not end until the universe ended, and this would simultaneously attempt to force the concept of an "end" into the non-time of non-existence.

 

Forgive me, but I didn't really get all that. So basically what you're trying to say is that the universe doesnt rely on time and is infinite because time does not exist before existence, which is supposedly started by the universe.

 

Ok, well the first step would be to ask if there is anything outside the universe. Question the reality of alternate dimensions, or an omni-potent force that existed in infinity and created the universe. If the universe is eternal, and there is no concept of time within it, then why are we dying everyday and being born, growing, getting old? Are you trying to say that time exists here but not in the infinite reaches of the universe that you have never explored, witnessed, and have made presumptions about based on the calculations of some scientists?

 

 

Here's the whole point compressed into one easily digestible sentence: The universe has always existed, and will always exist, and just because your brian isn't able to comprehend infinity, doesn't mean it can't happen, so shut the f*ck up with the "but it had to start somehow" bullsh*t and realise that because the universe is eternal, there can be no place for any creator god/force/anything.

 

 

Maybe the universe has always existed in tandem with a higher being. Maybe the higher being is eternal also. The bible does not give any controversy to this suggestion. They just talk about how god created earth.

 

Sorry, it's late, and I'm sort of taken aback by the ferocity and easily confusing arguments here.

 

P.S: Ignore my old sig, I'm just dropping by.

Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh*

 

I hope that one day I find someone who can read one of my arguments, and actually grasp what I have said down to the fundamental level. Someone who won't misread parts and then attack misconceptions, or gloss over parts and ask questions that were answered in the parts they glossed over.

 

It'd be really nice.

 

But f*ck dreaming.

 

Here's the whole point compressed into one easily digestible sentence: The universe has always existed, and will always exist, and just because your brian isn't able to comprehend infinity, doesn't mean it can't happen, so shut the f*ck up with the "but it had to start somehow" bullsh*t and realise that because the universe is eternal, there can be no place for any creator god/force/anything.

 

The point = God is impossible.

 

Hopefully that made sense. If you disagree, shut the f*ck up until you can understand the actual arguments behind it without confusing core concepts and creating straw man arguments.

 

But if you CAN understand the arguments, then please, feel free to voice your disagreements in a logical counter-argument fashion. I long for intellectual reciprocation.

Your argument wasn't complicated..just long... It still all boils down to the simple fact that man still has little comprehension on the universe concerning time, continuity, and planes of existence. It has nothing to do with comprehension... It's just that something can't just be here, without it being created..even the universe. That's logic. It's not really infinity, more like a cycle. We just can't confirm who started this cycle.

 

P.S.: God isn't impossible, and telling someone to shut the f*ck up if they don't belive it isn't really something to do when debating.. confused.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are religious, then you are already familiar with infinity, because you believe in eternal life. You might even believe that God has always existed, and is himself eternal. Well if you can believe that god was never created, then why can't you believe that the universe was never created? Saying "god created the universe" doesn't answer the question of existence, it merely pushes it back. It is perfectly analogous to an old hindu (I think) belief, that the world was supported on the back of a giant elephant. So if you asked "but what holds the elephant up?" you'd hear "another elephant". And if you asked "but what holds that elephant up?", you'd hear "another elephant beneath it". Only this time you are asking "well where did the universe come from?", and hearing "god created it", and so I might ask "but where did god come from?". And if your answer is that he has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed?

 

 

I know you told me to F%#K off but I just want to tell you this then I mite F#@K off.

 

That goes back to what I said before, all your knowledge is based on words that others made.

The word "universe" is a man made word for what someone wanted to named it. We can debate forever but we will never know. We can only believe that what we believe in is true. I believe that the God I believe in do not want us to know everything so our thinking is LIMITED. We don't even understand ourself, we have to go to doctors who don't even know. We just guess and guess but we will never know,

so we have "Faith". Faith in science, God, TV, atheism or just the books we read. But we really know nothing for sure . What you believe could be true , it could all be for know reason but I don't believe that. The God I believe in promised me eternal life, not for doing anything, but just for believing something no mater what I have ever done. Their are all kinds of books in this world about all kinds of stuff and we can choose what we want to believe. I choose to believe the one about God.

I see nothing wrong with that. I do not believe in religion, but I believe in God.

I think religion is just to keep you thinking you are not good enougf so they can make money. The god I believe in knows that I will never be good enougf, so created what is called his son to be good and die for me so I don't have to. All I have to do is believe it.

So out of all the books of all kinds, I believe that one. I don't believe that everyting is for no reason.

People have trying to prove this stuff forever, but you will never know.

All we can do is believe that what we believe is true.

I will f#$k off for now.

Edited by ctel
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one can prove if God exists or doesn't because we are finite and we all die. Unless Cerb wants to tell us something...oh and I didn't read any of the agruements. I didn't really feel like it to tell you the truth. It's the same mindless babble if you ask me. It's the same over and over again.

 

Mort...why don't you just dumb down your posts, so we can read it. The you won't be able to complain about no one being able to "grip the fundamentals" of your agruements.

What good would "dumbing down" my post do if people like you won't read it? I might as well make it as complex as I want.

 

Also, good work on "it's all the same mindless babble". You've just become an ignorant bigot! Now you can join countless others in your tyrannous parade against the acquisition of knowledge. Hell, Flashback's your leader isn't he?

 

 

What this statement is doing is actually being self-defeatist. By proclaiming that the universe has always existed, and by simply dismissing the 'it had to start somehow' argument so, well, dismissively, you are quite nicely removing all possible argument against your point and thus declaring yourself an unbeatable winner. I have pointed out this tactic of yours on a number of occasions, and it amuses me when you keep using it.

 

No, you dimwitted baffoon, what that statement was was a summary of conclusions drawn from my earlier comprehensive arguments. I never simply proclaimed anything in an effort to dismiss a counter proposition, I provided ample logical support for a conclusion which renders the counter-proposition false. The result, that you cannot argue "it had to start somehow" without first attacking and defeating the supporting arguments for "it has always existed", is merely a comfortable consequence of solid logical reasoning. This "tactic", is simply good argument ability. First, you identify the strongest arguments in favour of the opposing position (in this case, the existence of God, then you formulate counter arguments which disprove those strong opposing arguments. You should try it sometime, though I doubt you are up to the challenge.

 

 

My argument is thus, and may be similar to what Lazzo was saying. Because we ourselves are finite, we can not possibly be 'connected' to the entity that is the universe that surrounds us for us to be able to come up with an idea that there can not be anything outside of it. It is really a question of scale and of place. It is like a micro-bacteria being placed in a small petri dish, and having the presence of mind to declare that not only is there nothing in existence but the said petri dish, but that the dish has always existed and will always continue to exist. There can be no proper sense of understanding between us and the universe, because the whole concept of what a universe is just dwarfs us too significantly.

Sooo, your argument is "we can't possibly know everything, therefore we can't know anything, therefore there is no point in even trying"? And you call my arguments self-defeating? Holy sh*t bitch!

 

But I've seen this from you many times. Especially when you are faced with something you can't counter. You always revert to "but you can't possibly know that", and it's not only childish and stupid, but also completely anti-intellectual. You claim that you aren't anti-intellectual because you have a degree... but I'm sorry, a piece of paper does not discount your oft-shown attitudes and ignorance, nor your constant opposition to logical thought and reasoned analysis.

 

But this is pretty funny:

 

Think Russian dolls. There is always a smaller doll inside the larger one. From a position outside of the doll system, this is obvious. To the smallest doll in the middle, however, the world consists of it and the casing around it.

So, tell me, how do they make a doll as small as an atom? And how do they make a doll that is inside that doll?

 

Don't be a f*cking moron. Physical scale has a lower limit. Why should it not also have an upper limit?

 

But if your point is merely, yet again, that we can't possibly know so there's no point in trying, then please, leave the D&D forum because your opinions run contrary to everything that human thought stands for.

 

 

While it is true that we could not understand darkness if there was no light, that does not imply that the condition of darkness does not exist without light. A sentient being locked within a dark cave can also not understand darkness, but it surely exists. Ergo, the reasoning is fatally flawed.

No, it isn't. The condition of darkness is "the absence of light", meaning that light is a requirement for it to be absent. There is no condition of darkness without the existence of light. There is only what is.

 

Also, if you want to bring in the concept of "what we can understand", then you are opening up a huge barrel of fish that I'd be more than willing to get into with you but it's even more damaging to the concept of God than it is to my arguments about reality. We can only be certain, and can only argue logically, about those things which we know, and those things which we can deduce from that which we know. None of us have any senses that we don't, nor can we know that which we cannot percieve (either directly or indirectly). This doesn't mean that those things which we do know are false. But seriously if you want I'd be happy to really get into this topic.

 

 

There is no such thing as non-existence in my book. It exists or it doesnt.

Mind explaining that to me again? Cos call me crazy, if it doesn't exist, isn't that non-existence? Therefore you are stating a dichotomy which I was stating, that between existence and non-existence (does or does not exist).

 

 

Forgive me, but I didn't really get all that. So basically what you're trying to say is that the universe doesnt rely on time and is infinite because time does not exist before existence, which is supposedly started by the universe.

You're right about one thing. You didn't really get it. What I said was stated quite clearly in my third conclusion:

 

C: Therefore time only exists(1) within the universe, and cannot exist(1) beyond it.

 

 

Your argument wasn't complicated..just long... It still all boils down to the simple fact that man still has little comprehension on the universe concerning time, continuity, and planes of existence. It has nothing to do with comprehension... It's just that something can't just be here, without it being created..even the universe. That's logic. It's not really infinity, more like a cycle. We just can't confirm who started this cycle.

No, if you follow my arguments and understand what they are saying, then you'd realise that logically, time must be something that is infinite. In other words, it could never have been created, nor can it ever end.

 

But there's a reason why people have a biased perception of what is possible and what is not, regarding scale and time. For time, they naturally assume that everything must have a beginning, because they had a beginning, and everything that they can percieve within the universe appears to have a beginning. However, we only live for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the amount of time our galaxy lives for, let alone the universe as a whole. Also, we can't percive the truth of things, that there really is no beginning, only a continuity of action. All matter is conserved, and can be neither created nor destroyed (the definition of matter here includes energy, because matter is merely energy in another form, and the two are interchangeable). Thus nothing is ever actually created, it only ever merely seems that way because of a new arrangement of moving atoms, and we can only see the new arrangement, not the atoms, so we percieve it as a new creation. The order of matter changes, that is all. No creation.

 

Also, we seem to have an easy time understanding the concept of "no end". After all, many people believe in eternal life after death, and that once created, their souls exist forever. This is easy to believe because although we can easily identify our own beginnings, very few people ever really "grasp" the true concept and finality of death until the last few brief moments. So few people ever question "but when will it end?", whilst they often question "but when did it begin?"

 

So there's a natural bias in our perception and understand of time.

 

With space, we have the same thing. Only this time, we can't easily understand the concept of "the absolute smallest possible", because its very hard to imagine anything smaller that what we can see. However, when something gets bigger, we can easily understand this. Naturally we assume that if something exists, it must exist within something else. We exist in the world, the world is in the solar system, which is in the galaxy, which is in the universe, so there must be something outside that universe that the universe is in too, mustn't there? No. This is just another perceptual bias. And we know it, too, because at one point, it just becomes ridiculous. Consider this:

 

"How big is our universe?"

"Very big."

"What's outside our universe?"

"A bigger universe."

"What's outside that universe?"

"An even bigger universe."

"What's outside that universe?"

 

...

 

See what I mean? It gets stupid quickly, because we can see that it isn't actually logical, only recursive.

 

Similarly, it's easy to understand an infinity that gets bigger because we can look at the stars and they seem to just go on forever. However, how easily can you understand an infinity that just gets smaller? At what point does that become ridiculous? How about if inside every electron around an atom, there was a universe a billion times bigger than ours, and inside the electrons of that universe, were other universes each one a billion times bigger than the last? So why is it so easy to understand a unidirectional infinity?

 

Not to mention the fact that a unidirectional infinity is illogical. If infinity had a beginning, then logically, you could turn around and actually reach the beginning, which from your new direction, would be an end. Infinity must exist in both directions, spatially and temporally, or it can not exist.

 

 

That goes back to what I said before, all your knowledge is based on words that others made.

The word "universe" is a man made word for what someone wanted to named it. We can debate forever but we will never know. We can only believe that what we believe in is true. I believe that the God I believe in do not want us to know everything so our thinking is LIMITED. We don't even understand ourself, we have to go to doctors who don't even know. We just guess and guess but we will never know,

so we have "Faith". Faith in science, God, TV, atheism or just the books we read. But we really know nothing for sure . What you believe could be true , it could all be for know reason but I don't believe that. The God I believe in promised me eternal life, not for doing anything, but just for believing something no mater what I have ever done. Their are all kinds of books in this world about all kinds of stuff and we can choose what we want to believe. I choose to believe the one about God.

I see nothing wrong with that. I do not believe in religion, but I believe in God.

Half your argument sounds awefully like the "we can never know so don't try" of flashback fame, and the other half sounds like "well I believe it and that's good enough for me".

 

The fact that you believe something is not a reason for believing it. That;s just nonsensical. Likewise, believing in something because you like the idea is also stupid. If you don't believe me on this, then imagine a person who believed in fairys, dragons, unicorns, elves, and giant gods that walk the earth. Is the fact that they enjoy their delusion any reason for them to believe it? Or are they classifiably delusional and should be given psychiatric treatment?

Edited by Mortukai
Link to post
Share on other sites
Max1millionP

God exist. Otherwise, when did the universe start and how? Spontanious generation has already been proven not to exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it isn't. The condition of darkness is "the absence of light", meaning that light is a requirement for it to be absent. There is no condition of darkness without the existence of light. There is only what is.

 

Also, if you want to bring in the concept of "what we can understand", then you are opening up a huge barrel of fish that I'd be more than willing to get into with you but it's even more damaging to the concept of God than it is to my arguments about reality. We can only be certain, and can only argue logically, about those things which we know, and those things which we can deduce from that which we know. None of us have any senses that we don't, nor can we know that which we cannot percieve (either directly or indirectly). This doesn't mean that those things which we do know are false. But seriously if you want I'd be happy to really get into this topic.

 

I disagree. Let's say there are six basic colors (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet). Now, we are living in a state right now that is lacking a seventh basic color. We don't understand the lack of the seventh color, because we have no alternative to compare it to, but surely, we live in a state lacking it. Just like if light did not exist, we would be in a dark state. We wouldn't understand the alternative, because we aren't familiar with both scenarios (having and lacking), but the state of darkness would be just as real as the state of light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one can prove if God exists or doesn't because we are finite and we all die. Unless Cerb wants to tell us something...oh and I didn't read any of the agruements. I didn't really feel like it to tell you the truth. It's the same mindless babble if you ask me. It's the same over and over again.

 

Mort...why don't you just dumb down your posts, so we can read it. The you won't be able to complain about no one being able to "grip the fundamentals" of your agruements.

What good would "dumbing down" my post do if people like you won't read it? I might as well make it as complex as I want.

 

Also, good work on "it's all the same mindless babble". You've just become an ignorant bigot! Now you can join countless others in your tyrannous parade against the acquisition of knowledge. Hell, Flashback's your leader isn't he?

Excuse me? I didn't read your post. What did you say? blink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

 

Erm, forgive me if I missed something here, as I resorted to skimming over parts that seemed redundant, but this whole argument seems to be based on whether the universe is infinite or not. The idea of the universe being finite is absolutely absurd, and totally irrelevant whether it's finite or not.

 

Okay, for starters, the idea of a finite universe would imply it has physical spacial dimensions (fixed or dynamic) and boundries of some sort at the edges to keep one from buggering off into nothingness. Or, in other words, a container. And what of the space outside the container? Naturally I assume the argument for this would be along the lines of there not being space or, well, anything outside of the container since everything that could, did, and does exist is held within the universal container. And it is in the general direction of this one dimensional line of reasoning which I point and laugh at.

 

While it may be so that the practical universe is of a fixed size (IE- all of its matter and energy living within a certain radius), this in no way whatsoever precludes areas outside of said region from existence. All this would prove is that no paricles have mustered up the courage to venture out into the great unkown. To say otherwise would be a Flat Earth Society-esque statement. Just because no particle (person) has been past the "edge" of the universe (earth) doesn't mean the universe (earth) ends abruptly at a certain point.

 

Furthermore, the very claim that the universe has finite spacial boundries, in itself, implies there is something outside of the container. Oh, but what's this you say? The universe contains everything? But what of the empty space outside of the container by which the very shape of the container is defined! Sure, it may be empty, and completely devoid of anything, but the mere nothingness of is still something if it contains something with any sort of shape or size. Such an absolute nothing, while being, well, nothing would still have to be included into the practical universe for it to be considered influential or relative to the size or shape of said universe.

 

And, besides, just because nothing is there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For instance, there are surely sections of the known, practical universe which are lacking any sort of matter or energy for whatever reason. This, however, doesn't mean they don't exist, as they would still be included into the time/space dimensions of the universe. And at some point, particles or energy could choose to wander into such an empty space. And save for a massive brick wall and a sign reading "last exit before universe ends, road closed ahead" at the edge of the universe, what is to stop one from wandering off into the void as well? And please don't tell me there's some wacky law of astro-physics to automagically prevent one from crossing said boundry, nor one to destroy one who crosses it. Such an idea would only go to further my point, as it would mean extra-universal (non)areas are systematically recognized and accounted for by something somewhere. Which would also mean they retain some sort of physical property; even if it is a measurably complete lack thereof.

 

So, in summary, the universe proper contains everything that exists, and everything that doesn't exist. Just as non-life (read: death) is a state of life, non-existence is a state of existence. A universe with finite boundries is one that conveniently ignores the ubiquitous nothing which surrounds it. To say that nothing doesn't exist, and that the universe only holds things is quite absurd. Without nothing, things wouldn't have any room to move about...

 

 

In any case, the whole "GOD" thing is quite simple: everyone is wrong and right at the same time. For religious and atheist folks to argue that either "GOD" or mathematical systems created, control, or are everything is but to argue semantics. Whether you put the face of a mystery spook (usually white Jesus) on it, or accept that everything is comprised of vast numbers of interdependent systems which work in unison for a common result of sorts, it's all the same. So by praying at the alter of any "GOD" or the anti-divine alter of Science, you're putting your faith into some interpretation of the exact same force that made/controls/is the universe, no matter which way you cut the pie (or pi).

D&D is not a place you can skim. Read the topic properly and you will (hopefully) realise that your post was...somewhat off the mark. Not to put too fine a point on it.

 

You have not understood what a container is. I was quite specific to indicate that "Universe" and "One Container" were philosophical definitions of a principle which is adaptive to contain whatever there is. To say that there must be something outside of the Universe is actualy quite daft because then it would not be the Universe, it would be the Biverse! tounge.gif

 

Whatever the physical specification of "everything" happens to be, it is all contained within the adaptive philosphical concept of the universe. If you are still just skimming, I hope you saw that bit. If there is anything outside the Universe, the physical specification of the Universe would just be altered to include it. Even if your "force" builds an extension during Christmas, it'll still be part of the Universe.

 

 

Mortukai, you really need to structure your posts and not post them in a semi-concious comatose. Writing a sleepy ramble does not do much for your argument. The triple-layered brackets show you had not planned out what you were going to type.

 

 

-Nothing can be said to possess an innate property, if there is no external reference. By definition, inherent properties can only be understood within the context of things which are not inherent. It is impossible to describe a property that a thing could possess if that thing were the only thing to exist
For objects to only have properties relative to other things requires other things to have properties. These other properties then have to be relative to yet more things and the argument becomes recursive and regressive without foundation.

 

The Universe is one object, yet you often refer to properties it has. What are you comparing it to? The Universe contains everything, so there would be nothing left to compare the Universe to and so, by your reasoning, it could not be given any properties. This means your point A cannot be true because it prevents the Universe from having properties and cannot find a starting point from which to define any properties anyway.

 

My understanding was that when Humans talk about properties, they are describing their observation rathar than what actually might be in front of them.

 

 

But there's a reason why people have a biased perception of what is possible and what is not, regarding scale and time. For time, they naturally assume that everything must have a beginning, because they had a beginning, and everything that they can percieve within the universe appears to have a beginning. However, we only live for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the amount of time our galaxy lives for, let alone the universe as a whole. Also, we can't percive the truth of things, that there really is no beginning, only a continuity of action. All matter is conserved, and can be neither created nor destroyed (the definition of matter here includes energy, because matter is merely energy in another form, and the two are interchangeable). Thus nothing is ever actually created, it only ever merely seems that way because of a new arrangement of moving atoms, and we can only see the new arrangement, not the atoms, so we percieve it as a new creation. The order of matter changes, that is all. No creation.
This does not prevent time from being finite. Time would not be "created" as such because before its existance, there would be no time in which to sit around waiting for time to be created. Humans would be unable to comprehend a pre-time era becase, as you have correctly indentified elsewhere, observation is dependant upon there being time for observations to be made.

 

What is to prevent time from terminating? You have previously suggested that other dimensions terminate, so why not time too?

 

 

Please, make a properly structured post about how the Universe could contain infinite time. Scribble it out on paper, then write it out longhand, then reduce it to the key points and keep the paragraphs compact. Format it appropriatly, using bullet lists to show systems and so on. This is not dumbing down; it is the process of creating a rigourously optimised and coherent explanation based on systematic method. The fewer tangents you go off on whilst explaining this, the lesser the scope for making errors will be.

Edited by Cerbera
Link to post
Share on other sites
Flashback666

 

Sooo, your argument is "we can't possibly know everything, therefore we can't know anything, therefore there is no point in even trying"? And you call my arguments self-defeating? Holy sh*t bitch!

 

 

Not quite - my argument was that we have limits over what we can say is definite and what is not. Thus, in actual fact, I am being extremely open-minded because I do not believe in discounting something just because it is implausible.

 

For example, I do not believe in discounting the possibility that something exists outside our universe, thus by doing this I am immediately open to a variety of exciting possibilities.

 

My point with the Russian dolls was that we can never truly understand everything. I did not say we should stop trying to.

 

On the other hand Mortukai, you appear intent on discounting every argument or idea which does not fit in with yours. Now, you tell me who is being close minded.....

 

 

But I've seen this from you many times. Especially when you are faced with something you can't counter. You always revert to "but you can't possibly know that", and it's not only childish and stupid, but also completely anti-intellectual. You claim that you aren't anti-intellectual because you have a degree... but I'm sorry, a piece of paper does not discount your oft-shown attitudes and ignorance, nor your constant opposition to logical thought and reasoned analysis.

 

 

I could not resist pointing out the flaw in this little statement.

 

I have never claimed that me owning a degree makes me anything. I only even mentioned that I had one because I did not appreciate being regarded from your end like some insect through the wrong end of a telescope.

 

You might also point out how you are indulging in logical thought and reasoned analysis, yet turn around and call me a moron. Highly reasoned and thoughtful there, mon ami. I am so jealous of the ordering of your expression.

 

Now that I have quite nicely defended my own position, I feel I must have a little debate with Cerbera regarding his universe and container concept. He at least will not start squealing obscenities when challenged.

 

 

You have not understood what a container is. I was quite specific to indicate that "Universe" and "One Container" were philosophical definitions of a principle which is adaptive to contain whatever there is. To say that there must be something outside of the Universe is actualy quite daft because then it would not be the Universe, it would be the Biverse!

 

This is an interesting point Cerbera. But perhaps we must re-examine our concept of the universe and the terminology we use. We came up with the term 'universe' when we had a much more limited idea of space. Thus, just because we call it 'uni' does not then imply that this is correct. We are using a term to block our minds expanding beyond what we are comfortable with. Just because we call it universe does not make it so.

 

If we look at it this way, the concept of a biverse is surely a logical progression forwards.....

Edited by Flashback666
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first page only because I don't have much time. I am quoting the first post here.

 

 

    * The universe contains absolutely everything.

    * A god created the universe.

    * For a god to have created the universe, it must have existed outside of the universe.

    * It is impossible for anything to exist outside of the universe.

    * Such a god cannot exist.

 

This might sound silly, but everything you said there can be countered. You say the universe contains absolutely everything. Can you prove that? And you said the universe is finite. How is it sealed off? I myself would imagine it as a sphere if it was finite but where is this sphere? Is it floating in something? Being held by something? It can't possible just stop and be something but yet exist in nowhere.

 

You also said "For a god to have created the universe, it must have existed outside of the universe.". How do you know that God didn't create the universe to surround himself? Humans haven't explored every part of the universe yet. Maybe a God is in the universe.

 

I know I didn't add to the arguement too much. I am just pointing out how without proof, things can so easily be turned around and "dis-proved" in a way. I don't mean any of this to be facts or anything. I am just tossing up a few ideas.

 

I myself am between Atheist and Religious. There's a word for it. Agtostic or something. I can't remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the first page only because I don't have much time. I am quoting the first post here.

 

 

    * The universe contains absolutely everything.

    * A god created the universe.

    * For a god to have created the universe, it must have existed outside of the universe.

    * It is impossible for anything to exist outside of the universe.

    * Such a god cannot exist.

 

This might sound silly, but everything you said there can be countered. You say the universe contains absolutely everything. Can you prove that? And you said the universe is finite. How is it sealed off? I myself would imagine it as a sphere if it was finite but where is this sphere? Is it floating in something? Being held by something? It can't possible just stop and be something but yet exist in nowhere.

 

You also said "For a god to have created the universe, it must have existed outside of the universe.". How do you know that God didn't create the universe to surround himself? Humans haven't explored every part of the universe yet. Maybe a God is in the universe.

 

I know I didn't add to the arguement too much. I am just pointing out how without proof, things can so easily be turned around and "dis-proved" in a way. I don't mean any of this to be facts or anything. I am just tossing up a few ideas.

 

I myself am between Atheist and Religious. There's a word for it. Agtostic or something. I can't remember.

That's basically what im saying. You can't confirm something like that..because man has not yet explored the universe in it's entirety, or any planes, realms, or dimensions that might exist inside of it...or outside of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
reticulatingsplines
  • The universe contains absolutely everything.
  • A god created the universe.
  • For a god to have created the universe, it must have existed outside of the universe.
  • It is impossible for anything to exist outside of the universe.
  • Such a god cannot exist.

Consider this:

 

What if a deity decided to become the universe? This would provide some justification for Gaia theories (at least on Earth), ie that the Earth is a single living entity following simple physical rules; and that our existence and that of all life could be likened to watching cells from within ourselves under a microscope - fractal-based life (similar structures regardless of scale). Indeed, our knowledge of the universe seems to suggest an underlying order that is mirrored within even the reactions between electrons and nucleii.

 

This would allow for a god to exist within the confines of the closed-system theory. This deity would no longer exist, at least in the sense that we would consider 'existing'; but it would indeed still live as an entity spanning our known universe and following the laws of physical reality we have already established.

 

Your argument is on the existence of a god now, not previous to the creation of the universe. I see this as an interesting counterpoint to your statements.

 

Hawking suggests that the universe began with a Big Bang, and subsequent discoveries have proved this (at least to the extent that we can prove such an event), and Einstein predicted that space time was a curve, not a straight line. My confusion arises when you try to apply laws of physics (most obviously the Conservation of Matter Theory) to a singularity that even Hawking admits goes beyond our understanding: how exactly did our laws of physical reality come into being from such a chaotic beginning? If the Big Bang caused our reality to exist, through what process would the universe become the place it is today? If there was no order, no framework of fractal geometry to order space and time as we know it, how exactly does such a thing come into being?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mortukai.

Half your argument sounds awefully like the "we can never know so don't try" of flashback fame, and the other half sounds like "well I believe it and that's good enough for me".

 

The fact that you believe something is not a reason for believing it. That;s just nonsensical. Likewise, believing in something because you like the idea is also stupid. If you don't believe me on this, then imagine a person who believed in fairys, dragons, unicorns, elves, and giant gods that walk the earth. Is the fact that they enjoy their delusion any reason for them to believe it? Or are they classifiably delusional and should be given psychiatric treatment?

 

 

Listen and listen with both ears this time, or at least read with both eyes

I never said don't even try,"The fact that you believe something" (like atheism) "is not a reason for believing it".

and I think you like the idea of atheism and I think thats stupid.

If we did not try to understand things we would not be posting on a Internet right now. We think the universe contains everything but we don't even know what everything is. What we think we know as everything don't have to be everything. We don't know how the universe is constructed from end to end, if it has a end or if there is more than one.

This universe could be one of many inside a main universe. But it was obviously designed. I don't see why you can't see that this world was no accident. It was obviously designed with us in mind. water, food, light, heat, beauty and everything in the ground for us to dig out and make whatever we want. How can you say that was not a creation for someone by someone or by something.

this type of design could never happen by accident. If you know any science you know that our thinking is limited. Why is that? Why don't it ever increase?

What are we being kept from knowing who's keeping us from knowing it and why?

If we could understand the universe, we would only go out there and [email protected] IT UP. We would have everything all out of balance and s#it.

We are not ready for that yet. According to the God i believe in one day we will be.

But for now I like the discussions.

 

 

Oh ,,God said he created the world in 7 days.

He also said 1000 years is A day to him.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHA

I get so much amusement from religious arguments. Be truly logical and come to the acceptance that YOU DON'T KNOW! You never will until the day you die, and if there is no afterlife then you will never know.

Agnostic nihilism all the way.

 

Shifty41s_beerhatsmilie2.gifinlove.gifcryani.gifblink.gifsuicidal.gifdevil.gifnervous.gifdie2.gifdevil.giflol.gifcool.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eyeofsauron

has any christian thought of the fact that the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old, yet we have fossils dating back MILLIONS of years ago? Just wondering

Link to post
Share on other sites
has any christian thought of the fact that the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old, yet we have fossils dating back MILLIONS of years ago? Just wondering

Not really..that whole "1000 years is one day to god." thing is still sketchy. He could have mean't billions, or even millions of years. Possibly trillions. Alot of parts of the bible can be misunderstood...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eyeofsauron
has any christian thought of the fact that the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old, yet we have fossils dating back MILLIONS of years ago?  Just wondering

Not really..that whole "1000 years is one day to god." thing is still sketchy. He could have mean't billions, or even millions of years. Possibly trillions. Alot of parts of the bible can be misunderstood...

no you see, if you add up the dates in the bible from the creation of the universe to the point where written history starts, then the according to the bible, the universe is only 6000 years old. Nothing misunderstandable about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

 

You have not understood what a container is. I was quite specific to indicate that "Universe" and "One Container" were philosophical definitions of a principle which is adaptive to contain whatever there is. To say that there must be something outside of the Universe is actualy quite daft because then it would not be the Universe, it would be the Biverse!
This is an interesting point Cerbera. But perhaps we must re-examine our concept of the universe and the terminology we use. We came up with the term 'universe' when we had a much more limited idea of space. Thus, just because we call it 'uni' does not then imply that this is correct. We are using a term to block our minds expanding beyond what we are comfortable with. Just because we call it universe does not make it so.

 

If we look at it this way, the concept of a biverse is surely a logical progression forwards.....

When humans talk about a circle in mathematics, they are talking about a precise concept which is strictly definied. A circle is a perfectly round polygon of any size but which only has one side and is two-dimensional. When we talk about the Universe in matters of pure philosophy, the same process is taking place. We are talking about a precise concept which is strictly defined as being that which contains everything, regardless of what everything actually is.

 

It is a philosophical definition to be used as a First Principle in discussions about concepts, rather than a detailed inventory of what things are actually present in existance. Whatever everything actually is, the concept of The Universe must contain it, even stuff we have not discovered.

 

To this end, our concept of the Universe can include whatever we decide it should do, even stuff we do not know about yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A circle has not one side, but an infinite amount of sides. For example, if you look at a triangle, then a square, then a pentagon, then an octagon, and then a polygon with 200 sides, they all increasingly look more and more round. The only way to form a perfectly round circle is to have an infinite number of sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, I just have to say "wow" to this topic, it's pretty damn impressive. Actually a bit overwhelming- so you'll have to excuse me for not going into depth concerning any existing post in this thread. Too much to choose from, too much to say on any one of them.

 

Since it's best to admit any biases before a discussion like this (or people will identify your biases themselves) I had also better add that I am an agnostic student of theology, which is to say that I approach everything with a dose of skepticism and open-mindedness and, personally, have no stance on whether there is or is not a God out there.

 

EDIT: But I have to add, I'm not an agnostic nihilist, which seems to me rather a lazy way of looking at things. Or... not looking at things, as the case may be.

 

It was mentioned that God and science are mutually exclusive. This I must disagree with. Take the following for example: scientists have proposed that there are as many as ten (spacial) dimensions out there. I believe it's called string theory. We live in three (not counting time, that is, only axes of motion). Note that seven is a holy number, and that's just how many there are above and beyond our normal three. Interesting... what do these extra dimensions mean to us?

 

Imagine we live in a two-dimensional world. Everything is on a plane- movement only exists along an X or Y axis. If a man needs a heart transplant in this two-dimensional world, we must go right through his side to get the heart out and put a new one back in. But if we were to introduce a third dimension to his world, we could go straight in (along the Z axis) and perform the operation that way. To people living in a two-dimensional world, the third dimension is a miracle. Like an act of God. Imagine if we were to experience a fourth, or fifth, dimension?

 

Would it be God? Or simply a wonder of physics? What do you guys think about that?

Edited by Le Machin
Link to post
Share on other sites

"EDIT: But I have to add, I'm not an agnostic nihilist, which seems to me rather a lazy way of looking at things. Or... not looking at things, as the case may be." -Le Machin

 

I've been contemplating this for over 10 years now actually. Humans have been going OVER and OVER this for thousands of years. What could possibly make any one person or group of people think that they have the definitive answer to everything or even something close! I've looked for long enough to know that there is no conclusion to be had. On the other side of things, I do still stay open minded to all possibilities. (I'm still here reading)

 

Also, by the way, M theory (where string theory has culminated in the last few years) predicts that there are 11 dimensions.

Edited by gambet1234
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been contemplating this for over 10 years now actually.  Humans have been going OVER and OVER this for thousands of years.  What could possibly make any one person or group of people think that they have the definitive answer to everything or even something close!  I've looked for long enough to know that there is no conclusion to be had.  On the other side of things, I do still stay open minded to all possibilities. (I'm still here reading)

Sorry about my comment. I made a pretty big generalization there with respect to my experience with some self-proclaimed nihilists. THEY were quite lazy in terms of this kind of thought.

 

Good point. I don't know of anything that could convince me, absolutely, that one belief or another is right. The fact is that some people are nonetheless convinced, and some (I stress SOME) of these people are very educated and reasonable. It's a matter of ontology before epistemology- determine that something exists before you begin wondering whether there can be knowledge about it. We know there is an answer somewhere- accessible or not- because we exist. So even if there's no way of being sure we're absolutely right, it can't hurt to wonder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"God exist. Otherwise, when did the universe start and how? Spontanious generation has already been proven not to exist. "

-Max1millionP

 

Then what created god if there is no spontanious generation? (and what created what created HIM?)

 

If we then accept that god has been around FOREVER, then why not just cut out a step and assume that the universe has been here forever.

 

"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" - Occam's Razor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cerbera, we have talked about circles, dimensions, containers, mathematics, concepts, the universe, and all the long writings and quotes, over proving your point because you really have no point to prove. If your not, you should become a philosophy writer, I think you are good at it. Mortukai also.

By the way, the heavens and the earth was made long after the universe, celestial bodys live there. Light and dark was divided and called day and night IN the first day.( first 1000 years of earth creation) The sun and the moon, seasons and days, and years was made IN the forth day. Man was made IN the 6th day.(6000 years of earth creation). The heavens and the earth is ours, the universe is Gods. Why is this the only planet with food, water and air?

The name of this is called,

"Certainty of Atheism, proving that gods do not exist".

Have you done that? I don't think so.

But the proof of God and his creation surrounds you. you can see it, breath it, eat it, you can even smoke it. If this was not a good creation by a good God, we would not have survived this long this good. we have even progressed, in a demented sort of way. everything about this creation is good. every thing bad is what we create and do. the Bible is like a instruction manual. It has detailed instructions on how to live, what to eat to stay healthy, what not to eat, and best of all, how to LOVE and get along with everybody in the world that he created. And whats going to happen to us because of the way we live. it even tells what governments are going to attack who, and how they will do it. And why all us bad people will get to live forever in a new world after we distroy this one, just for believing something. Sounds to good to be true but thats what makes it so hard. We refuse to be told what to do. even if it is good. Free will, our own ideas, vanity and greed always get in the way. every thing we need is here with unlimited supply, but we still fight over it like it will be gone next week. Allways saying there is a shortage of something just to get more money. But God gave us a endless supply that will always reproduce itself. Even the oil thats going to end this world. Throughout history that manual has been hated, banned and burned, but yet, its still here, all over the world. why is that? Some say it is subject to interpretation but thats only to deny responsibility for what they do. Instructions on how to live in one time period does not apply to us in this time period. He gave us different ones that don't even include 10 commandments.. God will not force a good way to live on us. we have to learn for ourself . And learn to be good because thats just the way you want to be, Not because you will be punished. because if you are a Christian, you won't be.

The most power of all has always been here, before everything. It is one power that is all the power there is, just look at what it has done.We are like a smart computer with AI and unlimited memory but only 500 GBs installed, trying to find out who made it, how and why, and the harder it tries, the more it crash.

you should call this,

"Certainty of Creation, proving that God exist".

Because when you live in a obviously designed, created and prepared world with air, food, light, water, heat and everything you could ever need or want built right in it, I don't call that atheism, that is called, DENIAL....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.