Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Existence solved...

bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 9:08:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

Row, row, row your boat, gently down a stream,
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
life is but a dream.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 9:11:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:08:16 PM, bornofgod wrote:

Row, row, row your boat, gently down a stream,
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
life is but a dream.

Damn, you should have told me you were going to do that, so we could have sung it together in a round!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 9:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:11:31 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:08:16 PM, bornofgod wrote:

Row, row, row your boat, gently down a stream,
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
life is but a dream.

Damn, you should have told me you were going to do that, so we could have sung it together in a round!

Go ahead and start the next round.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 9:19:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:13:03 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:12:23 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Go ahead and start the next round.

On the count of three?

On the count of four my friend, not three. One, two, three, four is the beat of the song. Have a nice evening. I have to exit the forum for the night.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 9:26:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:19:32 PM, bornofgod wrote:
On the count of four my friend, not three. One, two, three, four is the beat of the song. Have a nice evening. I have to exit the forum for the night.

Wait, do we go ON four, or is it one, two, three, four, then GO?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

No objections here. It's simple enough without all the text. The left one will do.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:46:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

Well, it's definitely representative of other "brilliant" arguments I've seen along similar lines. :)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:06:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Because I had to draw less circles - I explained that in the image!

Ironically, while it looks like it's mostly directed at theists, I was actually inspired by atheists who argue with theists. A common debate situation I see goes like this...

Theist: God created the universe
Atheist: No, he didn't
Theist: Then what did create the universe? It can't just come from nothing!
Atheist: Well we don't know yet, but eventually science will give us the answer.
(sorry for making the debate example so detailed and realistic)

I think this is slightly bad atheism... and really bad science. Science studies the universe itself - and like studying the inside of a box, you will never be able to tell what the outside of the box really looks like. There's never going to be anyway to actually study the outside of the box scientifically.

Luckily, we can still "think outside the box". Indeed, this is not science at all, this is just plain unfalsifiable theory (just like all religions, mind - in fact, the entire point of this is that it uses theists own arguments to prove theism isn't the most likely possibility based on those arguments). I just find it's simply the easiest explanation you could ever come up with using logic (within limited capacity - as we're thinking outside the box our logic was designed in). I guess it could instead be considered philosophy.

Given the current evidence (or lack thereof), this seems the most likely scenario.

Evidence #1: Time, and all physical laws, are products of our universe (accepted truth)
Evidence #2: The creation of our universe requires a lack of the physical laws we know about (accepted truth)
....

That pretty much does it alone. The theists argument is that God avoids the need for all laws - he's above the laws. Well what exactly do you think the atheist argument is? It's exactly the same! The only difference is we don't personify the process.

As I also mention in the image, if I took any sort of God-believing position, it would be deism (I also point out atheism is essentially pantheism, unless the atheist doesn't care to think at all about how the universe was created). It's the most likely scenario involving God. Of course, more likely is one that doesn't involve a middle-man such as god. 2 circles instead of 3.

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?
It IS being used as the reason for deciding between things... and those things are the two currently most popular theories regarding the existence of the universe:
1. God invented it
2. It came from nothing

Theists seem to have a really hard time seeing how it comes from nothing though... which is ironic since God comes from nothing... and that's exactly my point. If either the universe has to come from nothing, or God has to come from nothing and decide his one creation will be the universe we live in (again, this is why even considering God I'd lean towards pantheism or deism, and I'd find it way more likely that 'God' created an infinite number of multiple universes than just ours, because personifying God is, well, it's a human thing to do - that's why it's wrong), what's more likely? The most simple explanation! Which is speakable in the shortest sentence, or requires me to draw the least amount of circles...

And again, throughout this whole thing, I'm not talking about Christian God, Muslim God, etc. Because they all basically disprove themselves in my eyes. And the core argument to all of them is that God exists, so instead of wasting time arguing with every single damn religious view (of which there could be millions - because even people who claim to have the same religion still disagree on many points of it), simply arguing theism itself seems the best option.

You can argue against Occam's Razor if you want, but it should be obvious that Godlessness is far simpler in many ways. But another point is that God doesn't have a unified definition. This is again why I point out that even atheists kind of "believe in God". Everyone in existence does, because we all (well, the people I care to consider) know the universe exists and it must have formed somehow, and since pantheism (God is a natural process) and deism (God is somewhat a 'figure', but doesn't get involved in the universe(s) it created) is still regarded as believing in a God, clearly any belief that the universe was created is the belief in 'God' - just not the theists version. That's why I play on it by calling it the "Greatest, Outmost Dimension" (previously "Greater Outer Dimension", but the -est suffix allows room for things inbetween, such as God). Because that's what theism is, personification of a process which is still yet to be fully explained (or maybe rather, accepted) - just like Greek Mythology (which I LOVE) with it's many god's explaining the many natural processes in our world.

Sorry, I rant, my mind races, I do that a lot.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.

Science today says the whole of the universe is nothing. That the energy in the whole universe adds up to Zero.

One argument does not need to answer All the questions you have. Arguments address one question at a time. Same as here. If the evidence and reasoning is acceptable you can;t reject the conclusion because it leads to harder questions.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:26:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

It is obvious that the more variables you add, the smaller the probability of one outcome gets. Hence Occam's Razor... God is an extra, unnecessary variable.

Actually, God is a HUGE SET of unnecessary variables. From what this God actually is (again, it could be G.O.D. itself - which you may refer to as "no God at all") to why it created a universe at all or why it decided to create the specific universe it did. It's infinitely more complex because theists add a human-like consciousness to it, which does beg the question - why is it any more likely to create a universe than we are to create a box? I mean, without any actual need for a box.

And the classic argument continues with: what created God?
Then it ends with: well, why can't it have simply created the universe itself instead?
Or if "God doesn't need creating": why does the universe, then?

A lot of additional inspiration for the argument comes from a popular muslim debater called "Hamza", who ALWAYS ends up coming up with the cosmological argument (and I didn't know what it was called back when I was watching these debates). And, as I said before, atheists debating him always seem to fail at actually even coming close to arguing against it, usually ending up saying "we don't know how the universe was created, but science is working to find out...". It kept driving me insane, because it made it obvious that these people then must have not actually thought enough about how the universe was created - or simply about the fact that his argument falls flat because the cosmological argument uses logic that exists as a result of laws of this universe...

https://www.youtube.com...

Using a freaking building as an example of the necessity of intelligent design to explain the universe? PUHLEASE!

The thing that annoys me is that Hamza is obviously really smart, and must actually be aware of the circular logic he's employing. You can just tell it in the way he creeps up to the premise. So yeah, quite a bit of venting came from that, and my desire to actually see him face a proper challenge against his loopy logic.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.

Science today says the whole of the universe is nothing. That the energy in the whole universe adds up to Zero.

One argument does not need to answer All the questions you have. Arguments address one question at a time. Same as here. If the evidence and reasoning is acceptable you can;t reject the conclusion because it leads to harder questions.

Coming to a conclusion must be done by observation, questioning, comparing, and through understanding. A concept (like God creating the universe) is not a conclusion it's just a philosophical concept or an idea. And to see that idea through to conclusion, difficult questions must be answered. We can answer physical questions about the natural universe, but we cannot answer questions about the supernatural. The supernatural universe is a metaphysical idea and it always will be just that. Un-testable because it is outside of natural laws.

The left side is still the simplest explanation for existence and it can be tested within natural laws.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:06:23 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Because I had to draw less circles - I explained that in the image!


Well you said in the godless circle.. "almost definitely an infinite number of other parallel universes..." I assumed you left these circles out for sake of space. But that would be a lot of more circles.

Ironically, while it looks like it's mostly directed at theists, I was actually inspired by atheists who argue with theists. A common debate situation I see goes like this...

Theist: God created the universe
Atheist: No, he didn't
Theist: Then what did create the universe? It can't just come from nothing!
Atheist: Well we don't know yet, but eventually science will give us the answer.
(sorry for making the debate example so detailed and realistic)


And arguing for evidence that you hope will come in the future is a faith based belief.

I think this is slightly bad atheism... and really bad science. Science studies the universe itself - and like studying the inside of a box, you will never be able to tell what the outside of the box really looks like. There's never going to be anyway to actually study the outside of the box scientifically.


Assuming the universe is a closed system.

Luckily, we can still "think outside the box". Indeed, this is not science at all, this is just plain unfalsifiable theory (just like all religions, mind - in fact, the entire point of this is that it uses theists own arguments to prove theism isn't the most likely possibility based on those arguments). I just find it's simply the easiest explanation you could ever come up with using logic (within limited capacity - as we're thinking outside the box our logic was designed in). I guess it could instead be considered philosophy.


Not that many years ago these sorts of things were considered philosophy.

Given the current evidence (or lack thereof), this seems the most likely scenario.


I think the heuristic points to a singular god like explanation.

Evidence #1: Time, and all physical laws, are products of our universe (accepted truth)
Evidence #2: The creation of our universe requires a lack of the physical laws we know about (accepted truth)
....

That pretty much does it alone. The theists argument is that God avoids the need for all laws - he's above the laws. Well what exactly do you think the atheist argument is? It's exactly the same! The only difference is we don't personify the process.


I agree, the crux of the issue is personification. Intelligence or force. Theist argue this facet is evident by the "purposefulness" of the creation.

As I also mention in the image, if I took any sort of God-believing position, it would be deism (I also point out atheism is essentially pantheism, unless the atheist doesn't care to think at all about how the universe was created). It's the most likely scenario involving God. Of course, more likely is one that doesn't involve a middle-man such as god. 2 circles instead of 3.


I spoke about the number of circles. I think science as a whole is heading to pantheism.

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?
It IS being used as the reason for deciding between things... and those things are the two currently most popular theories regarding the existence of the universe:
1. God invented it
2. It came from nothing


That's my point. It should not be the only reason for deciding between the two. There's no reason to think we are anything other the the only hole in a large flat desert.

Theists seem to have a really hard time seeing how it comes from nothing though... which is ironic since God comes from nothing...

Atheist seem to have a hard time understand God did not come.. there was no period of time or space that God did not exist. As a maximally great universal necessary truth means it automatically exists when and where ever possible.

and that's exactly my point. If either the universe has to come from nothing, or God has to come from nothing and decide his one creation will be the universe we live in (again, this is why even considering God I'd lean towards pantheism or deism, and I'd find it way more likely that 'God' created an infinite number of multiple universes than just ours, because personifying God is, well, it's a human thing to do - that's why it's wrong), what's more likely? The most simple explanation! Which is speakable in the shortest sentence, or requires me to draw the least amount of circles...


The argument from theist is simple on this point. You can continue the line of causality back in time till you eventually have to get to an un-caused cause.


And again, throughout this whole thing, I'm not talking about Christian God, Muslim God, etc. Because they all basically disprove themselves in my eyes. And the core argument to all of them is that God exists, so instead of wasting time arguing with every single damn religious view (of which there could be millions - because even people who claim to have the same religion still disagree on many points of it), simply arguing theism itself seems the best option.


Scientist don't agree on many of the details either.

You can argue against Occam's Razor if you want, but it should be obvious that Godlessness is far simpler in many ways. But another point is that God doesn't have a unified definition. This is again why I point out that even atheists kind of "believe in God". Everyone in existence does, because we all (well, the people I care to consider) know the universe exists and it must have formed somehow, and since pantheism (God is a natural process) and deism (God is somewhat a 'figure', but doesn't get involved in the universe(s) it created) is still regarded as believing in a God, clearly any belief that the universe was created is the belief in 'God' - just not the theists version. That's why I play on it by calling it the "Greatest, Outmost Dimension" (previously "Greater Outer Dimension", but the -est suffix allows room for things inbetween, such as God). Because that's what theism is, personification of a process which is still yet to be fully explained (or maybe rather, accepted) - just like Greek Mythology (which I LOVE) with it's many god's explaining the many natural processes in our world.

Sorry, I rant, my mind races, I do that a lot.

I think 2 circles is simpler than a almost definitely infinite concentric ones. And I reasonably accept a personal deistic God. the definition of Deist you are using is more from a french and atheist influence from the late 1900's onward.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.

Science today says the whole of the universe is nothing. That the energy in the whole universe adds up to Zero.

One argument does not need to answer All the questions you have. Arguments address one question at a time. Same as here. If the evidence and reasoning is acceptable you can;t reject the conclusion because it leads to harder questions.

Coming to a conclusion must be done by observation, questioning, comparing, and through understanding. A concept (like God creating the universe) is not a conclusion it's just a philosophical concept or an idea. And to see that idea through to conclusion, difficult questions must be answered. We can answer physical questions about the natural universe, but we cannot answer questions about the supernatural. The supernatural universe is a metaphysical idea and it always will be just that. Un-testable because it is outside of natural laws.

The left side is still the simplest explanation for existence and it can be tested within natural laws.

Both sides answer to the evidence you can get from this universe. The left side can not be tested anymore than the right.

We can only look at the lack of evidence to support the left side.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 12:07:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:26:47 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

It is obvious that the more variables you add, the smaller the probability of one outcome gets. Hence Occam's Razor... God is an extra, unnecessary variable.

Actually, God is a HUGE SET of unnecessary variables. From what this God actually is (again, it could be G.O.D. itself - which you may refer to as "no God at all") to why it created a universe at all or why it decided to create the specific universe it did. It's infinitely more complex because theists add a human-like consciousness to it, which does beg the question - why is it any more likely to create a universe than we are to create a box? I mean, without any actual need for a box.

And the classic argument continues with: what created God?
Then it ends with: well, why can't it have simply created the universe itself instead?
Or if "God doesn't need creating": why does the universe, then?

Then you have no problem accepting that something does not to be created. The universe is physical.. energy/matter. For the energy to rearrange itself from a uniform motion means it needs an unbalanced force external to the physical entity in question. Conservation of motion.



A lot of additional inspiration for the argument comes from a popular muslim debater called "Hamza", who ALWAYS ends up coming up with the cosmological argument (and I didn't know what it was called back when I was watching these debates). And, as I said before, atheists debating him always seem to fail at actually even coming close to arguing against it, usually ending up saying "we don't know how the universe was created, but science is working to find out...". It kept driving me insane, because it made it obvious that these people then must have not actually thought enough about how the universe was created - or simply about the fact that his argument falls flat because the cosmological argument uses logic that exists as a result of laws of this universe...


Most would say the laws of logic, are not contingent on the laws of nature. But some would say the laws of nature are at least compliant to the laws of logic.

Maybe you referring to human consideration of logic. What makes mankind think it is capable of rational discourse, when it is fairly evident people are irrational.

https://www.youtube.com...

Using a freaking building as an example of the necessity of intelligent design to explain the universe? PUHLEASE!

The thing that annoys me is that Hamza is obviously really smart, and must actually be aware of the circular logic he's employing. You can just tell it in the way he creeps up to the premise. So yeah, quite a bit of venting came from that, and my desire to actually see him face a proper challenge against his loopy logic.

You have a problem with the building. Say we found an object on Mars, and some think it is made by aliens and some say natural. The technology is super advanced almost indistinguishable from magic.

Aside from cultural memory, what are measurements that could be taken to fairly decisively conclude in "Intelligent agent made it"?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 12:38:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.

Science today says the whole of the universe is nothing. That the energy in the whole universe adds up to Zero.

One argument does not need to answer All the questions you have. Arguments address one question at a time. Same as here. If the evidence and reasoning is acceptable you can;t reject the conclusion because it leads to harder questions.

Coming to a conclusion must be done by observation, questioning, comparing, and through understanding. A concept (like God creating the universe) is not a conclusion it's just a philosophical concept or an idea. And to see that idea through to conclusion, difficult questions must be answered. We can answer physical questions about the natural universe, but we cannot answer questions about the supernatural. The supernatural universe is a metaphysical idea and it always will be just that. Un-testable because it is outside of natural laws.

The left side is still the simplest explanation for existence and it can be tested within natural laws.

Both sides answer to the evidence you can get from this universe. The left side can not be tested anymore than the right.

We can only look at the lack of evidence to support the left side.

That's not true. We know very little about the physical universe and the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. Time as we know it most likely did not exist before the universe began expansion because time and space are relative and gravity affects time. The big bang is just one theory. There are others. As our understanding of particle physics expands so will our understanding of the origins of the universe as we know it. We will never stop learning about our physical universe, but we already know everything there is to know about the God philosophy through ancient books and scrolls written by men who knew nothing of the physical universe and who thought that from horizon to horizon is all that was to "creation".

It is more likely that we will learn that the known universe is simply another perceived horizon and that there is something beyond. However that something will be measurable and tangible. It is still the simplest explanation to our existence in comparison to filling in our lack of understanding with a complicated deity. How many times will it take for us to broaden our horizons, realize that what we thought wasn't there must be controlled by God, only to find there is much we don't know and that God was there only to fill in the mysterious blanks?

If you really look at it, bornofgod's explanation of existence is as plausible as the biblical account of creation and the eventual rapture. It's as likely and as unlikely. Both are a philosophical construct. It is no different and yet intelligent people like you, will not see it for what it is. Maybe there is a higher purpose, but so far man made concepts of deities fall short explaining existence.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 12:55:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/16/2015 11:44:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Well you said in the godless circle.. "almost definitely an infinite number of other parallel universes..." I assumed you left these circles out for sake of space. But that would be a lot of more circles.
Yes, but remember that these are parallel and not contained within that universe. It's not a "godless circle", it's a universe. The biggest circle is supposed to represent the 50:50 possibility of the G.O.D. (inexistence, which has infinite possibilities of creating anything) creating the universe directly rather than creating God. In fact, in the God circle, you just have to imagine yourself how many other circles could possibly exist. I didn't draw what didn't really matter. Because we know for sure we're in one existence, so the possibility of other existences is irrelevant. It'd be like playing poker and theorising about all the other cards you could have drawn - pretty pointless, you got the ones you did. It was equally possibly you could have gotten others.

And arguing for evidence that you hope will come in the future is a faith based belief.
Heh, I love the classics...
Even if it is a faith-based belief, it's still more simple. Therefore taking in Occam's Razor, it's more likely to be correct. Whether or not this theory is somehow a faith based belief is a strawman as it's not part of the argument. But thanks for assuming that I'd get distracted by that like a lot of atheists do.

And no, I'm not hoping for any evidence. As I said in what I think appears later in the post you're quoting, there are 2 pieces of evidence alone that already make this the most likely conclusion by virtue of being the easiest.

Assuming the universe is a closed system.
The universe is an isolated system... The laws of thermodynamics show that matter and energy cannot randomly enter or leave the universe.
Even if it weren't, it could still be contained within another system which exists in the G.O.D. - it's still simpler than the system of God.

I think the heuristic points to a singular god like explanation.
Wha?

I spoke about the number of circles. I think science as a whole is heading to pantheism.
Pantheism, atheism, I really can't find a valid reason to make a distinction as pantheism simply seems to say the definition of 'God' is nature, and atheists certainly believe in nature. So the only difference is becoming what we describe the word 'God' as? Heck, sounds like the end of organised religion as we know it.

That's my point. It should not be the only reason for deciding between the two. There's no reason to think we are anything other the the only hole in a large flat desert.
Yes it should...

A person is murdered, there is a knife in their back. The knife has the fingerprints of a person called Alan.

We draw up two random possible theories, just as an example...
1) Alan stabbed the victim from behind
2) Alan threw the knife, which bounced off a wall and then stabbed the victim in the back

The most simple explanation is probably the correct one.

Atheist seem to have a hard time understand God did not come.. there was no period of time or space that God did not exist. As a maximally great universal necessary truth means it automatically exists when and where ever possible.
Uhh, noo... that's what I've been saying isn't the case. Atheists and theists both believe that the universe was created out of somewhere that never had to come. I called this the G.O.D., because I think it lacks a name which isn't easily confused with a theist perspective. There was no period of time or space (which never existed there) where this G.O.D. did not exist, and the G.O.D., being practically nonexistence itself, in all it's paradoxical glory, means that an infinite number of possibilities automatically exist when and wherever (which again, don't literally exist - or exist all at once, depending on how full your glass is) possible.

As we seemed to agree, personification is the crux of the issue. So it just seems you have a hard time accepting that personification is less simplistic and therefore less probable?

The argument from theist is simple on this point. You can continue the line of causality back in time till you eventually have to get to an un-caused cause.
Yep. The G.O.D.
Or 'nonexistence'. Nonexistence is uncaused - or rather, HAS to be uncaused (which works out even better logically) and the paradox of nonexistence is the cause of existence.

And again, throughout this whole thing, I'm not talking about Christian God, Muslim God, etc. Because they all basically disprove themselves in my eyes. And the core argument to all of them is that God exists, so instead of wasting time arguing with every single damn religious view (of which there could be millions - because even people who claim to have the same religion still disagree on many points of it), simply arguing theism itself seems the best option.


Scientist don't agree on many of the details either.
Politicians don't agree on many details either. That's irrelevant.
The only reason I mentioned religious people being so internally disagreeing was to explain why I think it's a bad idea for an atheist to debate specifics about religious views with a religious person when the actual debate is over theism in general. I think you'll agree with that. Yet, this is an accident a lot of atheist debaters seem to make and it makes debates way too complex and go off in loads of tangents.

On the other hand, since science can be proven and more importantly disproven, at least with scientists disagreements, there is a scientist who is definitely correct (well, depending on the situation they could all be incorrect). Okay, I think that's enough this tangent...

I think 2 circles is simpler than a almost definitely infinite concentric ones. And I reasonably accept a personal deistic God. the definition of Deist you are using is more from a french and atheist influence from the late 1900's onward
Yeah I think you mistook my explanation of parallel universes with the single circle, as I explained earlier this post. They're certainly not concentric, but, well, parallel. They just share the same dimension, the G.O.D.. I drew one circle, but that circle represents the eventual possibility of one universe, specifically ours. But multiverse theory is a requirement as otherwise the argument of "but what are the chances of our universe?" would be valid. The idea is infinite possibility must exist at some point (whether that's God or just inexistence being a paradox which could instead be the considered the entirety of existence - again, a glass half full kinda thing haha) or it'd be infinitely improbable that our universe existed. If infinity universes exist, problem solved, we just "happen to be" in the right one, because it's an impossibility for us to be in a wrong one.

For that same reason, I think even theists should heavily entertain the possibility of other universes. It's just a bit naive to think that given an eternity, God only ever bothered having one project and it happens to be us, and surely underestimates God.

So yeah, the G.O.D., much like a computer randomly generating infinite amounts of code instantaneously, is host to an infinite amount of possibilities, such as our universe, other universes, or heck, the entire works of Shakespeare. I like to imagine that... just a parallel universe where the entire works of Shakespeare exists on it's own.

And a final proof to solidify the possibility, is the number pi, a value which has an infinite amount of digits. If you generate the digits and turn it into computer code, it eventually generates the works of Shakespeare. I might actually edit my picture to make the circles all more equal and draw "= pi" next to them! Damn I feel geeky...

Oh yeah... trivial question... doesn't pi somewhat challenge God's omniscience?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 1:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:38:27 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

I mean, come on...

Objections?

How is the Godless side more likely or probable?

Obviously you have objective peer reviewed scientific empirical evidence that proves this?

Occam's Razor is an heuristic. It's used a lot to make conclusions when it should never be the only reason for deciding between things. But what makes the godless side more heuristically simpler than the God side?

The right side begs the question. Why did God make it? Then it becomes infinitely more complicated. Because there would conscious intent and purpose, but for what end? It's convoluted and no one can answer those questions in a logical non-scriptural way without using their imagination to fill in the blanks. That is why I choose the left side.

Why? is not begged in this argument. Stating God made the universe may lead you to ask why, but the cosmological arguments do not attest to purpose or intent.

The universe from nothing is simple. The universe as a conscious plan for human beings becomes very complicated to explain.

I will ask you the questions. Why did God make the universe and what end result did God expect to achieve? Was it for humans or are we just a by-product or another life experiment? Do we have souls or are we just meant to live and experience? Does God intervene or just observe? Did God know the outcome or is God watching his creation evolve randomly? Are any of the current world religions completely right about God or none of them? Does God hear prayers or is it just a demonstration of faith? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now ask this. If the universe came from nothing, how? We have have a good chance of knowing this one day.

Science today says the whole of the universe is nothing. That the energy in the whole universe adds up to Zero.

One argument does not need to answer All the questions you have. Arguments address one question at a time. Same as here. If the evidence and reasoning is acceptable you can;t reject the conclusion because it leads to harder questions.

Coming to a conclusion must be done by observation, questioning, comparing, and through understanding. A concept (like God creating the universe) is not a conclusion it's just a philosophical concept or an idea. And to see that idea through to conclusion, difficult questions must be answered. We can answer physical questions about the natural universe, but we cannot answer questions about the supernatural. The supernatural universe is a metaphysical idea and it always will be just that. Un-testable because it is outside of natural laws.

The left side is still the simplest explanation for existence and it can be tested within natural laws.

Both sides answer to the evidence you can get from this universe. The left side can not be tested anymore than the right.

We can only look at the lack of evidence to support the left side.

That's not true. We know very little about the physical universe and the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. Time as we know it most likely did not exist before the universe began expansion because time and space are relative and gravity affects time. The big bang is just one theory. There are others. As our understanding of particle physics expands so will our understanding of the origins of the universe as we know it. We will never stop learning about our physical universe, but we already know everything there is to know about the God philosophy through ancient books and scrolls written by men who knew nothing of the physical universe and who thought that from horizon to horizon is all that was to "creation".


You say the hypothesis for a naturally created universe is evident by residual energies and stuff. I think that just makes it a possible hypothesis, that is if it really does account for ALL the evidence.

And i would like to see what residual energies you are talking about. could you provide a link.

I think if you read the preserved record of what ancient men and women wrote down you would see that horizon to horizon was not the whole of creation at all.

It is more likely that we will learn that the known universe is simply another perceived horizon and that there is something beyond. However that something will be measurable and tangible. It is still the simplest explanation to our existence in comparison to filling in our lack of understanding with a complicated deity. How many times will it take for us to broaden our horizons, realize that what we thought wasn't there must be controlled by God, only to find there is much we don't know and that God was there only to fill in the mysterious blanks?


I think god controls what we know and don't know. So having a predictive explanation of things verified by repeatable consensus of controlled laboratory experiments or video games programed by scientist... does not remove the God I believe in from reality.

If you really look at it, bornofgod's explanation of existence is as plausible as the biblical account of creation and the eventual rapture. It's as likely and as unlikely. Both are a philosophical construct. It is no different and yet intelligent people like you, will not see it for what it is. Maybe there is a higher purpose, but so far man made concepts of deities fall short explaining existence.

I'm unaware of bornofgod's explanation. I would say that there are details that are better explained by a deity then natural occurrence.

Such as the non uniform expansion of the universe. The constants of the universe being what they are. The appearance that the universe is inevitable to produce life.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 1:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:07:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Then you have no problem accepting that something does not to be created. The universe is physical.. energy/matter. For the energy to rearrange itself from a uniform motion means it needs an unbalanced force external to the physical entity in question. Conservation of motion.
Hmm, what?

Most would say the laws of logic, are not contingent on the laws of nature. But some would say the laws of nature are at least compliant to the laws of logic.
Really? I'd have to say most are wrong then. Our laws of logic are directly based on laws of nature - existence as we've only ever known it.

Maybe you referring to human consideration of logic. What makes mankind think it is capable of rational discourse, when it is fairly evident people are irrational.
I don't see what (some) people's irrationality has to do with anything...

Oh, it feels like you're getting a bit riddlish on me now.

You have a problem with the building. Say we found an object on Mars, and some think it is made by aliens and some say natural. The technology is super advanced almost indistinguishable from magic.

Aside from cultural memory, what are measurements that could be taken to fairly decisively conclude in "Intelligent agent made it"?
Definitely riddlish... What makes said technology almost indistinguishable from magic?
What is the technology?
Obviously, it really matters what it actually is if we're to try and think about what we have to do with it to make conclusions about it...

And it sounds like simply a bad example anyway. You're suggesting something inexistent with no cause and then asking me how we should conclude what the cause of it is? Obviously, if it has no cause, it has no cause. It's an impossibility because this is a story you're making up, not a real case of a strange phenomena which actually has a cause.

It's like saying: imagine you found a dead body and it looks completely devoid of a cause of death, how do you know who killed him?

Well, look for evidence... but since this is a made up example, there is no murderer and no cause of death, hence no evidence.

I don't need another demonstration of Hamza's loopy logic, thanks...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 1:41:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:55:52 AM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:44:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Well you said in the godless circle.. "almost definitely an infinite number of other parallel universes..." I assumed you left these circles out for sake of space. But that would be a lot of more circles.
Yes, but remember that these are parallel and not contained within that universe. It's not a "godless circle", it's a universe. The biggest circle is supposed to represent the 50:50 possibility of the G.O.D. ...pretty pointless, you got the ones you did. It was equally possibly you could have gotten others.


If the multiverse is pointless to the discussion then how do you explain the singular existence of one universe?

And arguing for evidence that you hope will come in the future is a faith based belief.
Heh, I love the classics...
...But thanks for assuming that I'd get distracted by that like a lot of atheists do.

And no, I'm not hoping for any evidence. As I said in what I think appears later in the post you're quoting, there are 2 pieces of evidence alone that already make this the most likely conclusion by virtue of being the easiest.


Some day in the future scientist will come to understand and explain that God exists. See I can say science will discover stuff in the future as well. This is like a temporally reverse hypothesis to contrary fallacy.

Assuming the universe is a closed system.
The universe is an isolated system... The laws of thermodynamics show that matter and energy cannot randomly enter or leave the universe.
Even if it weren't, it could still be contained within another system which exists in the G.O.D. - it's still simpler than the system of God.


Nothing says that the universe could not be open then go closed. And the observation of the laws does not mean reality obeys them.. The laws of science are descriptive not legislative of how reality works. The description could be wrong. But there are experiments being conducted right now looking to see energy disappear into an alternate dimension.

I think the heuristic points to a singular god like explanation.
Wha?


Bra do you even reason?

Pantheism, atheism, I really can't find a valid reason to make a distinction as pantheism simply seems to say the definition of 'God' is nature, and atheists certainly believe in nature. So the only difference is becoming what we describe the word 'God' as? Heck, sounds like the end of organised religion as we know it.


Accept nature can't explain the existence of nature.

That's my point. It should not be the only reason for deciding between the two. There's no reason to think we are anything other the the only hole in a large flat desert.
Yes it should...

A person is murdered, there is a knife in their back. The knife has the fingerprints of a person called Alan.

We draw up two random possible theories, just as an example...
1) Alan stabbed the victim from behind
2) Alan threw the knife, which bounced off a wall and then stabbed the victim in the back

The most simple explanation is probably the correct one.


short cuts are not evidence for a conclusion.

Atheist seem to have a hard time understand God did not come.. there was no period of time or space that God did not exist. As a maximally great universal necessary truth means it automatically exists when and where ever possible.

As we seemed to agree, personification is the crux of the issue. So it just seems you have a hard time accepting that personification is less simplistic and therefore less probable?

The argument from theist is simple on this point. You can continue the line of causality back in time till you eventually have to get to an un-caused cause.
Yep. The G.O.D.
Or 'nonexistence'. Nonexistence is uncaused - or rather, HAS to be uncaused (which works out even better logically) and the paradox of nonexistence is the cause of existence.


Existence is contingent on necessity. Are you saying pantheistic nature has to exist?

Scientist don't agree on many of the details either.
Politicians don't agree on many details either. That's irrelevant.
The only reason I mentioned religious people being so internally disagreeing was to explain why I think it's a bad idea for an atheist to debate specifics about religious views with a religious person when the actual debate is over theism in general. I think you'll agree with that. Yet, this is an accident a lot of atheist debaters seem to make and it makes debates way too complex and go off in loads of tangents.

On the other hand, since science can be proven and more importantly disproven, at least with scientists disagreements, there is a scientist who is definitely correct (well, depending on the situation they could all be incorrect). Okay, I think that's enough this tangent...

I think 2 circles is simpler than a almost definitely infinite concentric ones. And I reasonably accept a personal deistic God. the definition of Deist you are using is more from a french and atheist influence from the late 1900's onward
...I drew one circle, but that circle represents the eventual possibility of one universe, specifically ours. But multiverse theory is a requirement as otherwise the argument of "but what are the chances of our universe?" would be valid. The idea is infinite possibility must exist at some point (whether that's God or just inexistence being a paradox which could instead be the considered the entirety of existence - again, a glass half full kinda thing haha) or it'd be infinitely improbable that our universe existed. If infinity universes exist, problem solved, we just "happen to be" in the right one, because it's an impossibility for us to be in a wrong one.


I understand this universe is parallel to others. But the explanation still presumes a multiverse which is a slew more entities than one god.

For that same reason, I think even theists should heavily entertain the possibility of other universes. It's just a bit naive to think that given an eternity, God only ever bothered having one project and it happens to be us, and surely underestimates God.

So yeah, the G.O.D., much like a computer randomly generating infinite amounts of code instantaneously, is host to an infinite amount of possibilities, such as our universe, other universes, or heck, the entire works of Shakespeare. I like to imagine that... just a parallel universe where the entire works of Shakespeare exists on it's own.


Computers don't generate code instantly. Computer's are dumb. They take time (given short amount of time) to spit out results of code.

The atheist has to rely on chance. And at least you admit the most extreme from that acceptance. It means somewhere even in this universe (if it is all by chance) then we should not be surprised to find disembodied minds of quantum entangled energies, or a teapot floating in the asteroid built.

Unfortunately I think that level of faith in what otherwise is considered impossible or improbable odds, is an OCD disorder.

And a final proof to solidify the possibility, is the number pi, a value which has an infinite amount of digits. If you generate the digits and turn it into computer code, it eventually generates the works of Shakespeare. I might actually edit my picture to make the circles all more equal and draw "= pi" next to them! Damn I fee

Good example. An infinite generation of random numbers for an eternity will make all things possible. What's missing is context. You won't be able to say where to find the works of Shakespeare. And the universe is NOT infinite in time or space or energy. A faith in infinite chance is unfounded in reality.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 1:46:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 1:11:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:38:27 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:

**snipped**

That's not true. We know very little about the physical universe and the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. Time as we know it most likely did not exist before the universe began expansion because time and space are relative and gravity affects time. The big bang is just one theory. There are others. As our understanding of particle physics expands so will our understanding of the origins of the universe as we know it. We will never stop learning about our physical universe, but we already know everything there is to know about the God philosophy through ancient books and scrolls written by men who knew nothing of the physical universe and who thought that from horizon to horizon is all that was to "creation".


You say the hypothesis for a naturally created universe is evident by residual energies and stuff. I think that just makes it a possible hypothesis, that is if it really does account for ALL the evidence.

And i would like to see what residual energies you are talking about. could you provide a link.

I was referring to cosmic microwave background radiation. I assumed you would know this considering it seems to be an interest of yours judging by your past debates...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

I think if you read the preserved record of what ancient men and women wrote down you would see that horizon to horizon was not the whole of creation at all.

Their understanding of the universe and even the world around them was limited to their experience. If you have proof that they held advanced knowledge please provide a link.

It is more likely that we will learn that the known universe is simply another perceived horizon and that there is something beyond. However that something will be measurable and tangible. It is still the simplest explanation to our existence in comparison to filling in our lack of understanding with a complicated deity. How many times will it take for us to broaden our horizons, realize that what we thought wasn't there must be controlled by God, only to find there is much we don't know and that God was there only to fill in the mysterious blanks?


I think god controls what we know and don't know. So having a predictive explanation of things verified by repeatable consensus of controlled laboratory experiments or video games programed by scientist... does not remove the God I believe in from reality.

Why would God want to control what we know and don't know? Certainly that would go against the philosophical God concept of free will. Do you believe that we have no free will?

If you really look at it, bornofgod's explanation of existence is as plausible as the biblical account of creation and the eventual rapture. It's as likely and as unlikely. Both are a philosophical construct. It is no different and yet intelligent people like you, will not see it for what it is. Maybe there is a higher purpose, but so far man made concepts of deities fall short explaining existence.

I'm unaware of bornofgod's explanation. I would say that there are details that are better explained by a deity then natural occurrence.

There in lies the problem. You cannot explain away or prove physical existence with philosophy.

Such as the non uniform expansion of the universe. The constants of the universe being what they are. The appearance that the universe is inevitable to produce life.

Here are 7 theories of how life "dna" possibly came to evolve on Earth and elsewhere. I'm sure you are familiar with these theories. All of them are more plausible than the intervention of a magical deity with an agenda for the human species.
http://m.livescience.com...

I'm not sure where you live, but here the sky is beautiful and clear tonight. I can see the smoky cloud of stars that make up our view of the galaxy in clear brilliance. Do you ever look up and realize that what we see is a tiny piece of what's out there? Have you ever imagined yourself on a planet light years away and thought about what the sky looks like from that point of view? Our tiny view is relative and the universe is massive. Do you really think that a magical deity made it all for us and is controlling our very existence?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 1:50:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 1:23:44 AM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:07:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Then you have no problem accepting that something does not to be created. The universe is physical.. energy/matter. For the energy to rearrange itself from a uniform motion means it needs an unbalanced force external to the physical entity in question. Conservation of motion.
Hmm, what?


Conservation of momentum. We know the universe is changing from the time of the big bang. We also know that the changes it is undergoing are not uniform. Hence why science is speculating on 65 - 78% the universe being some invisible force. What are they doing? trying to put religious concepts in science books now?

Most would say the laws of logic, are not contingent on the laws of nature. But some would say the laws of nature are at least compliant to the laws of logic.
Really? I'd have to say most are wrong then. Our laws of logic are directly based on laws of nature - existence as we've only ever known it.

Maybe you referring to human consideration of logic. What makes mankind think it is capable of rational discourse, when it is fairly evident people are irrational.
I don't see what (some) people's irrationality has to do with anything...

Oh, it feels like you're getting a bit riddlish on me now.

No my point was you are arguing for the human consideration of logic and nature "existence as we've only ever known it."

You have a problem with the building. Say we found an object on Mars, and some think it is made by aliens and some say natural. The technology is super advanced almost indistinguishable from magic.

Aside from cultural memory, what are measurements that could be taken to fairly decisively conclude in "Intelligent agent made it"?
Definitely riddlish... What makes said technology almost indistinguishable from magic?
What is the technology?
Obviously, it really matters what it actually is if we're to try and think about what we have to do with it to make conclusions about it...

And it sounds like simply a bad example anyway. You're suggesting something inexistent with no cause and then asking me how we should conclude what the cause of it is? Obviously, if it has no cause, it has no cause. It's an impossibility because this is a story you're making up, not a real case of a strange phenomena which actually has a cause.

It's like saying: imagine you found a dead body and it looks completely devoid of a cause of death, how do you know who killed him?

Well, look for evidence... but since this is a made up example, there is no murderer and no cause of death, hence no evidence.

I don't need another demonstration of Hamza's loopy logic, thanks...

No I did not state in my example there is no evidence. I clearly said some thing it is natural and others think intelligently designed. I am asking how do you discern the difference?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 2:10:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 1:46:36 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/17/2015 1:11:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:38:27 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:

**snipped**

That's not true. We know very little about the physical universe and the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. Time as we know it most likely did not exist before the universe began expansion because time and space are relative and gravity affects time. The big bang is just one theory. There are others. As our understanding of particle physics expands so will our understanding of the origins of the universe as we know it. We will never stop learning about our physical universe, but we already know everything there is to know about the God philosophy through ancient books and scrolls written by men who knew nothing of the physical universe and who thought that from horizon to horizon is all that was to "creation".


You say the hypothesis for a naturally created universe is evident by residual energies and stuff. I think that just makes it a possible hypothesis, that is if it really does account for ALL the evidence.

And i would like to see what residual energies you are talking about. could you provide a link.

I was referring to cosmic microwave background radiation. I assumed you would know this considering it seems to be an interest of yours judging by your past debates...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...


The CMB radiation is the evidence confirming the big bang. It is evident of a universal emission of high energy quanta a couple hundred thousand years old. It is evidence from an event that happened after this universe was created.

It is not residual information for or of.. quote you jody "the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. "

I think if you read the preserved record of what ancient men and women wrote down you would see that horizon to horizon was not the whole of creation at all.

Their understanding of the universe and even the world around them was limited to their experience. If you have proof that they held advanced knowledge please provide a link.


It wouldn't be advanced knowledge if it was known back then. There is knowledge that was known by ancient mankind and are now forgotten and have not been replicated by modern man. Do you want me to list those?

They described the world around them using the tools they had, and the words they knew. No different than today.

The reply was a rebuttal to you saying they only knew of horizon to horizon. In books like the bible and others you see people speak of the 7th heaven or the veil was removed... Sometimes they outwardly speak of other worlds and other peoples. Their cosmology was elaborate and more complex than your representation.

It is more likely that we will learn that the known universe is simply another perceived horizon and that there is something beyond. However that something will be measurable and tangible. It is still the simplest explanation to our existence in comparison to filling in our lack of understanding with a complicated deity. How many times will it take for us to broaden our horizons, realize that what we thought wasn't there must be controlled by God, only to find there is much we don't know and that God was there only to fill in the mysterious blanks?


I think god controls what we know and don't know. So having a predictive explanation of things verified by repeatable consensus of controlled laboratory experiments or video games programed by scientist... does not remove the God I believe in from reality.

Why would God want to control what we know and don't know? Certainly that would go against the philosophical God concept of free will. Do you believe that we have no free will?

Sorry for the confusion. I am saying God controls everything. Whether we are able to explain the forces or event in natural terms or not God is aware and set about a system to govern those forces. Our understanding doesn't not remove the creator from the creation.


If you really look at it, bornofgod's explanation of existence is as plausible as the biblical account of creation and the eventual rapture. It's as likely and as unlikely. Both are a philosophical construct. It is no different and yet intelligent people like you, will not see it for what it is. Maybe there is a higher purpose, but so far man made concepts of deities fall short explaining existence.

I'm unaware of bornofgod's explanation. I would say that there are details that are better explained by a deity then natural occurrence.

There in lies the problem. You cannot explain away or prove physical existence with philosophy.

Such as the non uniform expansion of the universe. The constants of the universe being what they are. The appearance that the universe is inevitable to produce life.

Here are 7 theories of how life "dna" possibly came to evolve on Earth and elsewhere. I'm sure you are familiar with these theories. All of them are more plausible than the intervention of a magical deity with an agenda for the human species.
http://m.livescience.com...

I am aware of all those. If you would like to have a discussion on the implausibility of a purely natural emergence of life, I'd be happy to.


I'm not sure where you live, but here the sky is beautiful and clear tonight. I can see the smoky cloud of stars that make up our view of the galaxy in clear brilliance. Do you ever look up and realize that what we see is a tiny piece of what's out there? Have you ever imagined yourself on a planet light years away and thought about what the sky looks like from that point of view? Our tiny view is relative and the universe is massive. Do you really think that a magical deity made it all for us and is controlling our very existence?

I do not think we're the only life made. And what I see from the human race, it would not surprise me if God put a lot of distance between us and our universal brothers and sisters. I think our existence is that small, that insignificant and that short. But having an interest in every corner of creation would not be a strain for an all knowing all powerful God.

In fact i think such a God would care and love for all life, big and small, here and beyond us.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 2:32:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 2:10:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 1:46:36 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/17/2015 1:11:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:38:27 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:52:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:27:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:14:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 11:11:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:55:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:40:20 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/16/2015 10:30:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/16/2015 9:03:35 PM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:

**snipped**

You say the hypothesis for a naturally created universe is evident by residual energies and stuff. I think that just makes it a possible hypothesis, that is if it really does account for ALL the evidence.

And i would like to see what residual energies you are talking about. could you provide a link.

I was referring to cosmic microwave background radiation. I assumed you would know this considering it seems to be an interest of yours judging by your past debates...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...


The CMB radiation is the evidence confirming the big bang. It is evident of a universal emission of high energy quanta a couple hundred thousand years old. It is evidence from an event that happened after this universe was created.

It is not residual information for or of.. quote you jody "the ideas we have are supported by relics from an early universe and maybe even some that predate the known universe in the form of residual radiation. "

All speculation. The big bang theory is just one of the theories that are more plausible than a deity consciously and magically creating the universe. Please provide you sources for CMB radiation.

I think if you read the preserved record of what ancient men and women wrote down you would see that horizon to horizon was not the whole of creation at all.

Their understanding of the universe and even the world around them was limited to their experience. If you have proof that they held advanced knowledge please provide a link.


It wouldn't be advanced knowledge if it was known back then. There is knowledge that was known by ancient mankind and are now forgotten and have not been replicated by modern man. Do you want me to list those?

Please, with where it written as well.

They described the world around them using the tools they had, and the words they knew. No different than today.

The reply was a rebuttal to you saying they only knew of horizon to horizon. In books like the bible and others you see people speak of the 7th heaven or the veil was removed... Sometimes they outwardly speak of other worlds and other peoples. Their cosmology was elaborate and more complex than your representation.


I think god controls what we know and don't know. So having a predictive explanation of things verified by repeatable consensus of controlled laboratory experiments or video games programed by scientist... does not remove the God I believe in from reality.

Why would God want to control what we know and don't know? Certainly that would go against the philosophical God concept of free will. Do you believe that we have no free will?

Sorry for the confusion. I am saying God controls everything. Whether we are able to explain the forces or event in natural terms or not God is aware and set about a system to govern those forces. Our understanding doesn't not remove the creator from the creation.

No, our understanding of science and the universe does not negate the possibility that there is a higher cause. This is where I am misunderstood as an agnostic. I do not see where the physical universe must have a creator and that evolution of life isn't possible without intervention from a conscious deity. Neither of these things if proven by science should negate the possibly of a higher being. It would only negate the stories of creation in popular religious writings. You say that you are deist, yet you cling to Christian concepts. I am puzzled by this.


I'm unaware of bornofgod's explanation. I would say that there are details that are better explained by a deity then natural occurrence.

There in lies the problem. You cannot explain away or prove physical existence with philosophy.

Such as the non uniform expansion of the universe. The constants of the universe being what they are. The appearance that the universe is inevitable to produce life.

Here are 7 theories of how life "dna" possibly came to evolve on Earth and elsewhere. I'm sure you are familiar with these theories. All of them are more plausible than the intervention of a magical deity with an agenda for the human species.
http://m.livescience.com...

I am aware of all those. If you would like to have a discussion on the implausibility of a purely natural emergence of life, I'd be happy to.

Sure. In another thread.

I'm not sure where you live, but here the sky is beautiful and clear tonight. I can see the smoky cloud of stars that make up our view of the galaxy in clear brilliance. Do you ever look up and realize that what we see is a tiny piece of what's out there? Have you ever imagined yourself on a planet light years away and thought about what the sky looks like from that point of view? Our tiny view is relative and the universe is massive. Do you really think that a magical deity made it all for us and is controlling our very existence?

I do not think we're the only life made. And what I see from the human race, it would not surprise me if God put a lot of distance between us and our universal brothers and sisters. I think our existence is that small, that insignificant and that short. But having an interest in every corner of creation would not be a strain for an all knowing all powerful God.

In fact i think such a God would care and love for all life, big and small, here and beyond us.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."