|user created polls & quizzes|
That's not proof, just a hypothesis. Actually, it's a theory because it has yet to be disproven.
I need a sensation title!
I think your great Johan but firstly, there's no way I could keep up with this WITHOUT weed and secondly....a poll without the word "bj" is just a lonely poll.....but I do appreciate your insight! smooches
Dude, You must have had one hell of a 420 day.
I have one of the greatest days of my life!
Leave your comments here please. Even if I can't answer right now. I will!
I bet you have had one of the greatest day's of your life. You have found God.
Great Johan! I commend you for your eagerness to know the truth.
I have something here to add to your 'concept' because I see that these would be somewhat parallel to where you're heading. I have the greatest of confidence that you will be able to grasp these:
A "believer's" worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them. God is transcendent--that is, He is BEYOND the material universe being its Creator. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute. The are absolute because there is an absolute God.
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of 'regressions' of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in 'size' (in its sense) and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. The uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. This uncaused cause is supernatural. (it has to be) By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural. This uncaused cause is God.
The Bible teaches that God infinite in time and scope and is wholly other than the universe of which He created. God is defined as being infinite in size, duration, and power. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Johan, if this is not enough to shock you that the Bible has revealed to me, and all Christians, ALL that you are just NOW discovering...now is th time to read it with all your strength and open-mind.
Take care, my friend.
I've given up on trying to 'find God'. If it's that important that I know God, then God will come to me.
Johan, you also proved to yourself that the universe is finite. Is there an 'edge' at the 'end'? No!
Read your own 'novel' again...Taaddaa! Yes! At the 'edge' of this universe is the complete NON-EXISTENCE! Not void, not space, not nothing...it is the absolute definition of NON-EXISTENCE.
Again, take care, my friend.
This is just like a long, drawn-out version of "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" silliness. A consciousness is not required at all for physics to do what they do. The tree disturbed the air and sent shock waves through the earth whether or not there was an ear, microphone, seismograph, or whatever there to register it. If you never saw the tree upright, would you deny that it probably made a snap, a creaking groan, a swish, and a thud simply because you weren't there? Likewise, the universe is able to do it's thing without any consciousness to get it started or observe its activity. If all the self-aware beings, including your imaginary god were to vanish from the universe, would all matter disappear? Not likely. Pereption isn't necessacerily reality - except for the perceiver. You know, it's usually before the age of two that humans are able to figure out that things don't vanish from existance when they leave their vision. Do you need the universe to play peek-a-boo with you for awhile before you realize it doesn't need you or anyone else to exist?
Now, go feed Schrödinger's cat. It's in that box over there both alive and dead at the same time until you check...
If you would please excuse me, Johan.
Xeno, I see your point. Can you, however, tell me in your most logical way and scientific way, explain the existence of the universe? (just like the way I did above) What do you suppose was that 'uncaused cause' is?
If you lean on Big Bang, where did the matter that exploded billions of years ago come from? Then if you could tell me where the matter of the Big Bang came from; then what brought the 'cause' of "where the matter of the Big Bang came from" into existence. Also, give me an example of an explosion that causes perfect harmony...so perfect that you can compare to the universe, considering the Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant.
Darn, I wish ALL the atheists in the world are here to defend this. Like you Johan, I'm having one of the greatest time of my life! =)
True, there must be an outside force coonecting the two. It seems hard to believe that the universe simply "happened". It's very well arranged, and things seemed to work out perfectly, rotation-wise, that it does seem impossible to just have that happen rather than have it formed that way. Therefore, I believe there must be a perfect creator we call "God" out there, and since he is flawlessly perfect, it's impossible to connect an image with God. Good ballot, by the way.
Well stranger, I have to say that after thinking at this I did recognise that this could mean the universe is finite. But there is more to think about. The only problem that I see, is that in this case God must be finite too. But I leave this for later.
Don't eat the brown acid!
What leads you to think that God must be finite too?
If God is finite, then 'something else' caused Him to exist, then that 'something else' will be caused by infinite 'causes' and regression...which is INVALID, just like the 'error' in the calculator that neither means 'true' nor 'false'...it just CANNOT be. For all of these to be VALID, there is the 'uncaused cause', NOT within the chart of time, space, and matter...and that is God!
Excess: Did you know that it was just recently discovered by scientists what makes the universe to exist? It needs time, space and matter.
And I quote Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning (time), God (uncaused cause) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)."
XENO: you didn't get it. In this universe we don't need to see things happening, for them to exist, 'cause the universe itself has an Allseing Consciens: God. If all living creatures except God would disapper... the universe would still exist. If the Conscience which give birth and suports the universe would disappear, then, yes that would be the end of the universe!
So the tree in the woods... has nothing to do with this.
What I meant was this: at the birth of the universe it is required a Conscience. You say the universe has laws of his own! Where from? ANY LOW IN UNIVERSE IS INFORMATION. FOR THE INFORMATION TO EXIST YOU NEED THREE THINGS: THE SUPPORT, THE SENDER AND THE RECIVER. ANY CREATURE OF THIS WORLD, ANY UNLIVING EXISTENCE OF THIS WORLD CAN BE A RECIVER. BUT THE SENDER? For information to exist you need someone to produce here, in an regular, (if not conscient) way. But, how could the information be regular, and so be a law, if there is no order, law, to give the pattern for the regularity of information. And who is the sender? The universe can not be as he is not born yet. He is still waiting for the first kick. So you see, without an outside intervention (that first information) which would make 1 and 0 to interact, the universe can not organize himself. So you need God, at least for the universe to be born. After that God needs not to intervine. After that first intervention, the universe could organise himself, because now there is a pattern: 1 and 0. So we've come back to what I have said: if God doesn't recognise the difference between 1 and 0, then 1 and 0 are not, because they can not interact and so the universe can not appear and would still be pure chaos, non-existance.!
I couldn't write all this in the ballot. I Just suposed that all of you will understand them by analising what I say!
Don't worry about Xeno. Even if he takes Einstein and Newton with him, he won't be able to logically and scientifically answer the question I gave him WITHOUT giving the 'uncaused cause'.
"I DON'T KNOW" is inevitably the atheists'/agnostics' answer as uttered by countless of them in history. While "we" already know the truth, they would rather wait for another trillion years. Pathetic.
Well stranger, I think this brings us to another problem: is God existence and no-existance, or were is God?. Too much for me now! Really, is 24:00 hours here (Romania, CET+1 hour). I got to go to work tomorow, so I have to sleep. see you tomorow 5 or 6:00 CET. Even more proof that I'm sleepy: "is that in this case God must be finite too." The "must" should have been a "could". :-)
Oh and about how Bible storys mach with all this... We WILL talk another time.
=) May you sleep soundly and peacefully, may God hold you in His arms and may you never let Him go.
-God is eternal
There has never been a time when God did not exist. He never had a beginning and will never have an end. Being eternal, God is not bound by time. Having always existed, He sees the past and the future as clearly as the present. With this perspective, He has a better understanding as to what is best for our lives.
- God Is Everywhere (Omnipresent)
It is impossible to hide from Him or to escape from Him - God is personally present everywhere through all time and space. He is not like a 'substance' spread out in a thin layer all over the earth, He is spirit - all of Him is in Timisoara Romania, New York, Kabul, Jupiter, London all at one and the same time.
- God Knows All (Omniscient)
There is nothing that God does not know. This includes not only all raw facts, but also opinions and thoughts. He knows the future, as well as the past and present.
- God Is All-Powerful (Omnipotent)
God's power is UNlimited. He can do anything He pleases, but what He pleases will always be in perfect harmony with His perfect character. The universe is just a glimpse of His power.
- God Is Unchanging(Immutable)
God never changes moods or cools off in His affections or loses enthusiasm. His attitude toward sin is now the same as it was when He drove out the sinful man from the Garden of Eden, and His attitude toward the sinner the same as when He stretched forth His hands and cried, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)
- God Is Sovereign
He has absolute authority and is the one ruler, most superior in position, in the universe.
- God is Truine (Trinity)
The Trinity is the teaching that there exists only one God in all the universe, none before and none after Him (Isaiah 44:6,8) and that God consists of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Father, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, yet, there are NOT three Gods, but one. This indeed causes some confusion even among believers. Let me give an illustration. Time, for example has 3 'components': past, present, and future...but these 3 are all 'time'. Matter's 3 basic components are solid, liquid and gas. With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous. Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time. The same concept goes with God.
It is not proof.it is your need to put a name and reason on the simple science of particals combining.You seem to need to believe there must be something that drives the damn thing.What if it is just happenstance??
'proof that god could exist'. proof that he perhaps exists. That doesn't really make sense, but yes god could exist.... isn't that what everyone thinks (except those who are sure he exists)?
Quinn and Guest, would you mind if you answer for Xeno? Since Xeno completely vanished into oblivion and that you share the same 'faith' with him, it would be appropriate to defend atheism, logically and probably scientifically; and prove us wrong. (Scroll up for the question)
Tommo, are personal experiences proof? It's like: who are you gonna believe regarding the climate of Kabul right now, someone who knows stuff about Kabul, or someone who lives in Kabul?
Doesn't make sense either huh?! =)
Not all atheists think the same thing. Thats like saying a muslim should give youre argument cos you do believe in a God.
stranger7800 - right.... now read this slowly.....
you said 'I'm shure that at least, is a proof that God could exist'.
So I said ' well, that doesn't make sense. How can there be PROOF that he could POSSIBLY exist'. You cannot have proof of a possibility.
And even if you could, the proof would only show that God possibly exists, which we know allready.
SOOOOO.... what are you trying to prove exactly?
A big correction, that wasn't my statement.
wolf nipple - he said that....
Johan Moritz - Look at all my abusive messages sent to stranger by mistake!! And say you're sorry too cos you caused this.
Stranger - What can I say... Rate em as negatively as you like.
Who sent what? I don't see any messages in my inbox, or whatever you call it. Anyway, I would really like to hear how a logical atheist explain the 'enigma' posted above for Xeno:
"Can you, however, tell me in your most logical way and scientific way, explain the existence of the universe? (just like the way I did above) What do you suppose was that 'uncaused cause' is?
If you lean on Big Bang, where did the matter that exploded billions of years ago come from? Then if you could tell me where the matter of the Big Bang came from; then what brought the 'cause' of 'where the matter of the Big Bang came from' into existence. Also, give me an example of an explosion that causes perfect harmony...so perfect that you can compare to the universe, considering the Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant."
Click on my name.
*sigh* I get that "long words" error again when I try to post my reply...
It's most likely some excessive punctuation marks; also possibly too much characters. The comment box is limited in size, just like the unuverse. =)
I'll try posting in chunks...
Xeno, have you compiled your response? I really hope so, I'm eager to hear it.
I didn't 'completely vanish into oblivion'. If I did, you would all cease to exist! I have an art show starting on the 30th and have to produce work more than I need to try to explain why a universe without a god is cleaner and more logical than with one. I just poke around here when I hit a creative block or need a break.
Can you, however, tell me in your most logical way and scientific way, explain the existence of the universe? (just like the way I did above) What do you suppose was that 'uncaused cause' is?
It doesn't NEED explanation! It just is. You're so hung up on there needing to be a consciousness behind it that nothing is getting through.
...there's more IF I can get the text entry box to not choke on it!
If you lean on Big Bang, where did the matter that exploded billions of years ago come from? Then if you could tell me where the matter of the Big Bang came from; then what brought the 'cause' of "where the matter of the Big Bang came from" into existence. Also, give me an example of an explosion that causes perfect harmony...so perfect that you can compare to the universe, considering the Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant.
Who can say for certain? Best logic would be that it has always been in existence.
No one knows for sure, but it isn't imprudent to suspect that a Big Bang is basically the result of the Big Crunch that preceded it.
An example of the perfect harmony? You're living in it! If the system was flawed, it would cease and probably long before we ever came along, but eternity being so ungraspable by the mind, who can contemplate where we are in the "timeline" of the universe? That in no way implies conscious intervention. That's just what you want and/or have been brainwashed into believing by religious indoctrination. Just like that "fine tuning" you bring up. There is no "fine tuning". That implies a controller. Also, this "cosmological constant" nonsense was dropped by Einstein after evidence indicated the universe was expanding. You may feel free to drop it too. It was a force he hypothesized to contain a steady state universe. It's been modified since then, I guess, to be a gravitational force associated with energy dissipated throughout the "vacuum" of space which I suppose makes sense since there isn't likely to be any true vacuum anywhere within the confines of the universe. And it or something like it, say dark matter, is needed to "close" the universe. To support a closed, cycling universe, it makes more sense to accept it has the proper mass because it just couldn't be one without it than to say it's because some "god" used his slide rule and measuring cups to get the recipe just right. Basically, the universe is the biggest example of survival of the fittest. If it wasn't fit, it would have died. No god has to exist at all for that to work.
For some people it just has to be a god that has always existed instead of the universe being eternal. You want to make it some "god" that always existed. Why? Skip that irrational step since there is absolutely zero evidence that has ever been scientifically observed, measured, or in any way whatsoever mildly hinted at by anything detected. If something turns up, fine, it might be something to believe in but at this point in time there is zilch, nada, zip. If something has to have always existed, why does it need to be some cognizant "god" thing? Are the religious so short of imagination that they can't accept things can occur without a directive from a consciousness? Hell, that's the way MOST things work! Arggh! It's exasperating having to have this argument all the time. Philosophy is not science; it's just making shit up out of nothing and pontificating on it. Theology is pretty much half of what philosophy is. Take your pick which half.
Like I said before, there's no reasoning with the brainwashed "faithful" who believe because they've been trained like good lab rats and just want something to be. Wishing won't make it so. In the total absence of any evidence of "god" whatsoever AND the evidence against same I, like anyone who has common sense and pays attention to it, do not believe the fairytale. You believers can ramble on all you want, but you have nothing realistic to offer so you're not going to change my mind. Personally I'm fine with the religious having their myths. If that makes them comfortable in the world, that's cool - as long as no one tries to force it on me. The problem is, too many fanatics think their "god" wants them to convince others. You're free to believe what you want and I'm free to believe it's bunk. BTW, If you're expecting the perfect argument from me based on physics and so on, you're out of luck. I'm definitely no authority. I didn't even bother with college and haven't read any texts on physics in ages. I'm going on what I recall from days of yore and simple common sense which I feel beats a repeated fairytale any day. I'm not even sure why I feel I need to defend science and reason. It's not like I really care all that much. And that's all I have to say about that.
I figured it out. It was choking on my paragraph breaks for some reason.
Art show, impressive!
Ok, go ahead. I just think that's so cool. =)
BTW, I would like to add that I'm impressed with the ability of johan_moritz and
stranger7800 to stick to their convictions with intelligence (even with the religious bent) and composure. It's also cool that you ask questions and listen instead of just spouting rhetoric. I find that admirable and on this site full of blathering racists and filthy-mouthed idiots. I'm actually here more for casual entertainment and nostalgia than heavy stuff, but it's nice to have a mix.
We will tackle this one by one...by one, for I see a lot of booboos! Oops. Science and Physics have laws (not theories, i.e. Big Bang & Macroevolution) and we will mention them here. Oh no, I forgot, I'm out of luck! Oh well, let's try anyways because you made a lot of good points. You said: 'Who can say for certain? Best logic would be that it has always been in existence.'
If you're not certain, your atheism would be plainly 'faith'. If it has always existed, it will go against the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, am I correct? For it to be eternal, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone, somewhere in between the 'no beginning' and our present time. But we are still here. So that's already false! Second, for the universe to be eternal, you will need scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? What do scientists have? NONE! ZERO! ZIP! (sorry, I had to borrow your terms) Explain this to me. Prove me wrong on this! If on your first few words, you're already screwed, why would we have to carry on and tackle the rest? Well, I'm considering it.
I'm honored to discuss our differences. You are one pleasant man as well. Dennis here, nice to meet you!
Xeno said" 'An example of the perfect harmony? You're living in it!'
You misunderstood my question, my friend. Since Big Bang (or probably something else) is what you're holding onto, I was asking for an example of an 'explosion' that would bring perfect harmony, so perfect that you can compare it the universe. Aren't explosions meant to destroy? To scatter things into chaos? Sometimes, even to cause 'non-existence' of the matter it destroys...right?
Hey stranger, how many hours have you spent here today?...I have spent several just reading what you are writing. Are you fresh enough to reply to a new atheist? Or should we leave it for tomorrow? Let me say that I like your style (and also Xeno's and Johan's
Maybe, we shouldn't really discuss science and physics then. I apologize. Honestly, I'm not putting myself above you. True, I'm probably miles ahead of you in science, but when it comes to art, you can easily kick my ass on that field. That's just the way it is. Some are excellent on one subject, some are not. Fair enough?
But since you sound very logical, let's lean on logical, and rational things. I can deal with that.
Xaman, I'm addicted to defending God! It's just a must for me. If I can at least make 'someone' think deep enough and be convicted to actually consider what I'm trying to say, by all means, I'm willing to lay down my life for it. Jesus is the perfect example of this. But I'm not even worthy to bow down at His feet.
Well stranger I think as deep as I can every day (that's my work), but I doubt it that you will be able to convince me, (neither do I think I will convince you by the way) so if that is your only motivation I better leave now so you won't waste your time. But If you want some intellectual exercise I'm ready.
For instance, you asked for an explanation the 'uncaused cause', but you didn't gave such an explanation, you just give it a name!
On the other hand, how could we prove (or disprove) the existence of God?
Indeed, how could we prove the existence of you or me? Perhaps you (or me or somebody else) are just dreaming all of this? Perhaps we are just imagining all of this while we really are patients in a mental institution?. No way! There is no possibility to prove anything outside the mathematical universe, which by the way, is disjoint with this world we live... not even physicist can prove thing about this universe...
Physicist works with models, mathematical models of reality (whatever that is). But every educated physicist knows that these models are just models. They can prove a lot of things about their mathematical models, but not a single thing about this universe.... The believe that these models describe our reality is and will always be an act of FAITH! Should I continue?
I didn't give the 'uncaused cause' a name. The Bible I believe in, did. You see, I was once an atheist (as most of them know) and having studied science for a long time, my belief and everything that I stated here were once without the Bible verses, but I now intermingled them with my scientific notions, and found out that my 'scientific notions' and the God of the Bible are in perfect concurrence!
Stephen Hawking also gave it a name, he named it: 'primordial pea'
It's true, I am not kidding!
Xaman said: 'On the other hand, how could we prove (or disprove) the existence of God?'
By the same principles mankind use to prove the existence of anything: reason, logic, and personal experience. I guess you didn't quite grasped the logic and reasoning I have stated at the beginning of this ballot. Here's the deal: I can no more prove to you that I love my family that I can prove to you that God exists. If you are CONVINCED in all your heart and mind that I do NOT love my family, no matter what I present or say to you will be deemed invalid by your thinking. The problem is your presupposition that I am a 'lunatic' and not whether God exists or not. I have posted numerous statements on reason and logic as the way to conclude to the existence of God, but you will always reject it, while you, or any atheists here, have NOT defended the eternal universe, by reasoning, logic, or even by using physics and science.
Now that you mention it stranger, I saw your user page (UCLA right) and I was certainly confused about your position about these issues... but several hours later I just forgot and assumed you alway were a believer.
I agree on the dinosaurs as well! =)
That was my point above! Religion and Science have a very peculiar feature in common! They both rely on faith!
Xaman, are you able to answer my 'explosion' query a while ago?
It just really puzzles me that people like you would actually believe that an 'explosion' brought this magnificent universe into what we have now. Let me site some examples (assuming you're very knowledgeable in science and astronomy. Can you explain to me how the Fine Tuning is possible to occur a propos an explosion? Do you know the maximum deviation in the cosmological constant is so unimaginably difficult to occur by chance, and yet you all say that "it's just that way"?
Which one? the one about the perfect harmony? I don't think so, At least I would need you to define 'perfect harmony' and also I will need you to tell me why do you think that our universe is a perfect harmony. But I can tell you that the physicist have several models (not all in agreement) that explain the evolution of the universe, the appearance of energy and matter and galaxies etc... again these are models and their only merit is that they seem to match and explain the reality or at least what we (or some of us?) think is reality.
BTW. I have never thought you are a lunatic!
Here's one example of perfect harmony. (as I posted on a previous ballot):
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.
You see, 1:10^120 represents the maximum deviation from the cogent values that would either stop the universe from existing now because of not having matter, or be inapt for any form of life to exist. My friends, this is tremendously difficult to imagine! I will just give you an illustration as given by Stanford University Mathematical Organization:
1 part in 10^120 is such an incredible balance that it is extremely hard to visualize. This analogy might help: Cover the entire land area of all the continents of Earth with dimes all the way up to the moon; a height of about 239,000 miles. Then, do the same, piling dimes to the moon on a billion other Earth-sized planets. Paint one dime red and mix it into the piles of dimes then blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^120!!!
Well then, isn't that amazing that atheists say "it's just that way!" I say NO WAY! That is too intense and too powerful to relate to a chaotic explosion, don't you agree?
Oh yeah! The cosmological constant is a great mistery of today's Science. Of course the cosmologist can not yet answer that question, but they are working hard on it. Now it is worst (did you know?) because they found that it seems that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate!
Oops I wrote mistery
Guest_16c91, I have the answer for you as well, as I previously posted on an old ballot. Been there, done that. I will get to that in just a minute. My question, why do you always blame the wickedness of men, and suffering on God? Could it be the 'evil one' who's causing all those sufferings?
Oh the devil! Are you the kind of believer who believes in hell or the other kind?
Also, Xaman, here's a simple one, how can an eternal/infinite universe 'expand'? It's just invalid, isn't it? Now, what do we have here: looks like everything is against the 'eternal universe' notion. Are you just gonna wait there for another trillion years when you have the 'other' option of believing in a supernatural, all-powerful God?
Aargh! Or if I, and the Bible, is wrong...what would I get if I go back to atheism (which would be another INVALID)? What does your side promise? Or offer?
Xaman said: 'Oh the devil! Are you the kind of believer who believes in hell or the other kind?'
Oh yes, there's good and there's bad. There's God and there's the 'evil one'. To deny the existence of one is to deny the other as well.
Here are some other examples of perfect harmonious universe to be apt to support life:
- gravitational force constant
if slightly larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
however, if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.
These are IMPOSSIBLE to occur coincidentally...all at the same precise manner. What's giving these capabilities to our universe, Xaman?
Majority of my materials here are my own. Though a lot are compiled, yes, in my word documents. What does that prove? Does that prove that I am wrong? No! Does that prove that you are more intellectual and logical? No!
Why did you dodge and avoid my question earlier? I told you, I am giving you the answer to your question, but I only have two hands with the ability of typing at 60wpm. I know, I'm pathetic at typing. =(
If I tell you that I'm a member of godandsciencedotorg in Pasadena, California, would you believe me? Of course not! Now quit being immature and let's carry on.
How then, do you judge 'good' and 'evil'? On what principle do you weigh the good things against the bad things? To deny God's existence, you'll have to deny the existence of evil. What do you call the act of Adolf Hitler, the Green River Killer, Pol Pot, and O.J. Simpson (yes, you read it right, O.J.)?
I am a believer also stranger: the kind of believer that believes in Science. I do recognize that this is an act of faith. But those who believe in Science have plenty of miracles every day to feed their believes: All the current Physics rest on *only*two main models: The standard model of particles(quantum theory and the like) and general relativity (gravity and relativity) and every where you look you see the that these two models works perfectly and describe the apparent reality with exquisite precision, every time you turn on your computer, all the predictions of the quantum work together to switch on and off every transistor within your CPU precisely in the perfect order to make it work, all of these exactly as predicted by the theory. Everyday you can see the sun fusing its hydrogen at the pace described by the model. liberating the perfect amount of energy and neutrinos --as predicted by the model-- and all the planets and the moon circling exactly at the pace predicted by general relativity. with its perihelions preceding also as predicted... Enough miracles? ...
There is more here too!
It's god's game stupid. He make the rules of the game. So if the creator wants you on the other side, he'll kill you from this game on earth. If you wanna make your own rules,create a video game by yourself. Then the characters in your game will live and die by your rules. Also build into your game, characters that question your rules that you put forth into your game.
Xaman, what have you proven? You have just analyzed what those 'miracles' are, NOT what caused them. The computer did not exist by itself...not in a gazillion years. It was 'designed' and 'created' by men. How much more logical and rational is it to believe that the universe, which is a gazillion times more compicated than a computer, existed by itself? Yup, you heard me right...there's a Designer and a Creator!
The computer, for example, if we use your theory, we will have all the components and materials and cables needed for the computer to be made, and put them all in a huge box. Then using your theory, we will probably use a high powered fan, a high-temperature soldering device, and a couple explosives then give it 15 billion years...what do we have? Yes! The perfectly evolved and 'created' computer!
On the other hand, if we use the 'God concept', a computer geek with a few equipment and tools needed will 'create' the computer. It would probably take him a few weeks, but NOT 15 billion years, that's for sure.
Now, which one is your pick?
You know what, your opinions and guesses are interesting, but you have not shown me a convincing proof that the universe "just happened". NONE! ZERO! ZIP! (as how an old friend say it)
Xeno said"It doesn't NEED explanation! It just is." O, my God Xeno: this is FAITH! ATHEIST FAITH! CACH YOU LATER GUY'S. GOTTO GO. TOMMO, I'M ON YOU! :-)
I will answer that tomorrow. Goodnight!
***Stranger asked: What does your side promise? Or offer?
That's why I listed those Science miracles.
**Stranger said: These are IMPOSSIBLE to occur coincidentally.
Come on Stranger! you are a MSc from UCLA! surely you took some lessons on probability right? you should know that in a infinite probabilistic space every event can have probability zero, but every event can however occur! In the finite case (but big enough) you can have a similar efect... for instance, take the example of the dimes: Let's number all the dimes from 1 to 10^120, pick one at random, say the one with the number:
WOW!! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!!?? you picked exactly that one! Well let me tell you: the chances are exactly 1 in 10^120. That didn't make it impossible right?
**Stranger said: but you have not shown me a convincing proof that the universe "just happened". NONE! ZERO! ZIP!
As I said, absolutely nothing can be proved outside the mathematical world. I didn't even tried to give such a proof. You didn't even tried to give me a proof of the existence of God neither... In both cases, I guess, there were too many ideas to write, too few time to do it.
Good night. I go on vacations tomorrow so see you next Tuesday.
Don't get too excited, Johan. "Faith" that the universe exists is nothing like faith in an invisible magic guy. There's evidence of the former. It's like my faith that a heavier than air object will fall if I drop it versus someone's faith that a magic thing made the universe in 6 days and made man from dirt and woman from his rib and so on. That's just nutty, to be frank.
Stranger, there's far more evidence against the invisible magic guy than for it (everything we have so far to 0) and if you bring the bible into it you really damage your case. Books written by men are the only "proof" to support god and that's mighty weak evidence considering how many deranged or "creative" authors have lived on the Earth. Then there are those who create and manipulate tales to influence and control the populace. I hate to say it but the "personal experience" you've mentioned that turned you away from a scientific view of the cosmos free of occult influence raises an eyebrow here. I think whatever dream, voice, or epiphany you had has welded blinders on you and you just won't accept any logic that shows your god belief to be in error. No matter what sound theories cross your path, they are dismissed by you if they don't include the god factor. It really seems that simple to me. Sure, the Big Bang may be dismissible because of the scope of volume and time involved, but it fits the mold we see pretty well and it doesn't require anyone to flip the switch to turn it on. It just makes more sense than anything else we can determine so far.
That you discard the idea of macroevolution pretty much does it for me. If you deny that, about all you've got is the god thing or the alien thing. I'm more likely to accept the X-Files concept than the magic wand one, but I don't need to do that since we have the fossil record to show us the way. Five demerits for the first "missing link" or "Satan did it to confuse us" comment. There are plenty of "missing links", considering how rare good fossil remains are. How fine a gradation from species to species do you need? Can't you accept that a new trait might be very advantageous or even just attractive to the opposite sex enough to blossom and leave the old model literally in the dust? Or that a drastic change in some environmental factor will obliterate a dominant genetic line and allow a radical recessive to prosper? How someone can look at the changes over time along whatever branch of the evolutionary tree you want to pick and say new species don't come from old is beyond me unless I accept that they've had their brain reprogrammed by doctrine or defect or are just ignorant; and it's quite apparent you aren't ignorant. I'm sorry, but debating with a zealot, even an amiable one is just exasperating to me. I suppose you might see me as a zealot too, but I'm not just following scientific dogma, I question theories, even some old, established ones and, in the nature and spirit of scientific method, I'm ready to move on if a more convincing theory comes along. I will always be of the growing, self-correcting-system school of thought. The idea of picking a god and stagnating is, to me, repellent and sad. And, seriously, that's all I have to say about that. I think I'll try to stick to commenting on polls that ask things like 'what your favorite song of 19xx' or 'what project should movie director so-and-so take on next' and leave polls like this for reading if I'm all out of other things to do.
This is like saying the glass is half empty, you can't have half of nothing. If something is empty it has nothing in it (apart from air and whatever else) so you can't have half of what does not exist. The only reason we believe or try to believe in something is that as a race we are fu**ed. We have been given the gift of free thought and a never ending consciousness and subconcsious. Because we have a limitless supply of thoughts we in ourselves are god. Who's not to say that if we if imagine something (say, imagining an alien)that for that split second of time it actually does,but in relative terms the time it takes for that thought to grow and develop into a fully conscious thought and then die, actually happens somewhere in the limitless possibilities of the universe. Why think inside the box? why think of just our planet?? why did god create us if he did??was he bored or lonely?
The only reason we believe in a god is because we dont believe in ourselves and the abilities of each other. If we came together and imporoved ourselves and each other we wouldn't need a god. We never really needed one anyway coz we EVOLVED! It has been proven.
Chaos theory... that's all i'll say. We don't need to pin anything and everything on GOD. We don't know what caused the uncaused cause, why do we need to know?To work out the scientific formula for the universe you would need it to be the size of the universe. Whats all this shit about the end of the universe?? there is no end... it is infinite!!!! Saying that is like saying the earth is still flat, and even then it was considered blasphomy, the same for evolution. If god is true and the bible covers everything what about dinosaurs???if adam and eve were the only people on earth, the first, Its impossible because of genetic inter-breeding. If the garden of eden did exist, if they had of listened and not been cast out, what would life be like today?? we would be like programmes waiting for a command. That is not free thought and decision and therefore not gods doing. God does not exist. And saying the universe is like a well oiled machine with everything leading to a point or specific moment (signs the movie)is rather arrogant. How the fuck do you know how the universe works??? Take a step back, use your minds expressively and think, do not take 'gods' word out of context because it doesn't make sense. There are too many holes in the theory of creation.And in the theory of science, we do not need to know these things just live our lives with moral dignity and respect for each other, that was gods message, just written for a child to understand, because 2000 years ago we had the intellect and understanding of the world around us like that of children.
Interesting point... but that 3rd party doesn't neccecarily have to be God
I think that this theory can't stand. You will have to manipulate it in order to explain other stuff, but it's possible that I'm missing something. So, I'll just get to the point - How did god created the world - what was before that according to the 0, 1, god system?
I think that every direction you choose has some inner contra dictions, so lets test it...
Non-existence, less then nothing. See my new ballot 29200.
Read also my first comment to Xeno. But the point of this idea is not to show how the universe begun, but that Conscience exist in the universe befor lifeforms.
i've just realised i have done a mistake. the third party is not god. the third party is conscience. the consciense of the universe... i don't even dare to say more!
Johan, will there be a new theory?
No! The mistake is outside the demonstration, that we need a Consciense for the birth of the universe. That's what happens when you mixe things! You can notes that the "theory" has two parts: first one, about what was befor the beginning of the universe ( I may have made a mistake here) and the second part about the need for a Consciense for the universe to beginn.
So the conscience is the laws, according which the universe act. God is the factor that set the conscience, and by that, made the universe, which already contained 1 and 0, interact, and the beginning of that interaction marks the beginning of the existence of the universe - right?
why do 1 and 0 need to be acknowledged to exist? thats like saying if a tree falls in a forest, there is no sound because nobody heard it. something can exist without a "party" knowing about it.
This is yet another circular argument for the existence of God. This isn't as original as johan_ moritz thinks it is. The "You can't have a watch without a watch maker." argument is as old as monotheism. I think it's much more logical to conceive the idea that the universe spawned without God. Than to think that God spawned from nothing then created the universe. This is the new argument and the answer to your question - "You can't have a God without a God maker." By the way the last quoted statement is ironic. If somehow you don't grasp postmodern culture then don't even attempt to argue with me. Also Dingleberry hypotheses have to be proven (not disproved) in order to become a scientific law. The burden of proof is always on the Christian as far as I’m concerned. It’s not as if God makes his existence known or anything.
this is a very interesting argument and I agree fully with Johan. ........ WEED ROCKS
Nice philosophy. I'm still not sure, but I've thought about that void thing for quite alot.
To RobinG: I'm not saying all this is new. For some time I realised, that all this 1, 0 and the third part is the "hieros gamos" of the gods in the ancient middle east religions. But you have totaly missed the point. My point is not about who made the universe. Is about what we need for the universe to exist. But I know, I havn't made it clear. My mistake. I mixed things. :--(
Seriously dude, lay off the acid. I've been there man, just stick to the green and you'll be fine.
Interesting ... reminescent of the question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Good question ... would seem to hinge on whether one takes a relatist or absolutist viewpoint.
You may have a point ... I wouldn't say it is "proof" that God exists, but it certainly does provide food for thought.
stranger7800: You make a good point in your April 21 comment re: Causal events. We all view Cause-and-Effect as an axiom in this reality, but ... is there a reality where cause-and-effect does not hold? Such a state could be used to explain God or "the beginnings of a universe."
Before someone asserts that cause and effect *is* fundamental, know that scientists (!) have discovered particles that appear to blink in and out of existence.
Personally, I don't believe either side has come up with "proof." But I think that the unwillingness of both sides to acknowledge aspects of Truth in the others' position is, ultimately, self-limiting.
Very interesting, and I can definitely see where you're coming from. However, and perhaps I'm ignorant and missed something, but the fact that matter and voids exist doesn't prove that God exists. I'm a Christian, so I do believe God exists, but maybe I'm just missing something from the description, which could totally be true. Either way, man, this is very deep, and a commendable ballot. Five stars for you.
ohh great, now i don't know what to think.
someone smoked too much crack
Lets pretend your right for one second then how did the universe get created? it cant come from nothing can it? I mean can a house get built on its own? no thats ilogical you'd need builders and designers and stuff. Plus then theres evelution (which I believe in) if there was no designer then how can something come from nothing?
oops i thought this said proof that god does not exsist, well my last comment goes to all the atheists reading this...
He is? I thought something was wrong....
If ever there was nothing, nothing is all there could ever be.
It is self-evident that there are principles which hold reality together. If there were no absolute or highest principle, then, it seems to me, there could be no subordinate principles. No?
What the hell? DOES NOT COMPUTE comes to mind. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I believe the universe is forever in a loop. Matter expands outward after a big bang but over a long period of time condenses in on itself because of gravity (the same way the Earth was formed as an example). When all matter is condensed together again, it's basically the same as it was before the big bang that proceeded it. All this energy compacted together explodes outward again and continues the exact same cycle all over again.
You make an excelent point jigsaw. To be honest I've never thought about this. However, my problem is the EXISTENCE and not how the universe appeared. That was just a pretext to show that existence is rather an exception and not the rule ( see first comment of griffon007) and also that we need an rational principle in order for the existence to... "exist".
You can not compute? Well, that could have something to do with my english. I was thinking to make another ballot, to put things in order, but I'm not quite in the mood for that.
huh? Are you into chasing bunnies? Cause you just went on one hell of a bunny trail.
Keep thinking, you can't ask the general public for anything regarding intelligence, you'll get idiocy.