Log in

View Full Version : Something to think about


Concerned_Fundy
June 5th, 2007, 10:31 PM
How can you people not accept that God is real? You say that there is no evidence but in reality the evidence is everywhere. How could something as beautiful as our world just have sprang up out of nothing? And if you still aren't convinced all you need to do is read the Bible! The Bible says God is real and the Bible is the infallible truth. All of you people in the false internet religions (i.e. Googlism, Invisible Pink Unicorn,Discordians, Scientology, and so on) need to abandon your false idols and repent! I would like to remind you of the first commandment- THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY FALSO GODS BEFORE ME- (Notice how I capitalized it for emphasis). You need to reject your false deities or you will suffer an eternity in Hell.
Sincerley,
A Concerned Fundimentalist

Vexx
June 5th, 2007, 11:06 PM
If I believed every book in the world was real, I'd be floating around thinking the magical pixies from the underworld are gonna fly me to the moon.

Anyhow....Have you met God? How can you give me absolute, tangible proof that he is real?

If you only registered to post this....You've wasted alot of your time and mine. :3 It's always quite funny to see people saying stuff such as this.

And....Falso Gods? That's something to remember....

Iduna
June 5th, 2007, 11:08 PM
The world is way too complex and complicated to make a god possible. Think of this: if you were an omnipotent being and able (and in the mood) to create an earth, animals, etc. why so complicated that it has to be evolved? Why chromosomes with ability to mutate etc., etc.!
No, a god would have snipped his/her fingers and there were some water-bags walking around and thinking. No need for organs or cells... what for? It's a god we're talking about.
So your wonderful 'creation' is proof enough for me that it was not created by something, but evolved. :)
Don't let your fear of taking things in your own hand and your fear of dying and be dead come across your intellect and you will be just fine. Nothing to fear here on earth, really. No need for an imaginary friend anymore :D

Vexx
June 5th, 2007, 11:13 PM
hey Iduna!
http://www.iamanatheist.com/ads/iamanatheistad_imaginary.gif
www.iamanatheist.com

Also, they have alot of pretty....funny arguments against God (http://www.iamanatheist.com/arguments.html). You should check it out, Fundy.

Iduna
June 5th, 2007, 11:18 PM
Another soul-catcher, Vexx? Thanks, I'll check it out :D

Concerned_Fundy
June 6th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Lol, I'm just kidding. I just wanted to try my hand at writing a hatemail and see the responses. Im am actually an avid Pastafarian.

Iduna
June 6th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Yes, I thought this. But it's getting so bored with all those sensible people around, that it was too tempting to get some refreshments.
*sigh* where are those fundies, when you need them? (BTW a real fundie wouldn't have called himself that, I guess).
RAmen, brother! :)

AaronD
June 6th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Ah, another one. I was wondering why a fundy would identify him/herself as a fundy. iamanatheist.com is great, by the way. Really amazing.

Vexx
June 6th, 2007, 01:15 AM
Ha ha.....nice.
It seems we're getting alot of FSM followers around here. I'm guessing FSM and CoG are allies? =P

And yes, iamanathiest is hilarious. You should see some of the hatemail that they get...

PotatoeOfDoom
June 6th, 2007, 01:36 AM
Ha ha.....nice.
It seems we're getting alot of FSM followers around here. I'm guessing FSM and CoG are allies? =P

And yes, iamanathiest is hilarious. You should see some of the hatemail that they get...

wow the hatemail they get is so much more... i guess you could call it powerful?
the senders preach about how their "young malleable children are being tricked into turning their back on the lord"
seems people genuinely hate iamanatheist.com, while they only really mildly disapprove of googlism thinking it is some kind of joke

Vexx
June 6th, 2007, 01:39 AM
well....googlism is less known of and there's no proof of a form of holy scripture and whatnot...
while iamanathiest.....Everyone knows what an athiest is and the site also says "congrats, you are now an athiest!" on the front page...which i think contributes alot in this stupid society.
People these days....can't seem to accept each other's choices. -shakes head- It annoys me to no end...

Concerned_Fundy
June 6th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Ha ha.....nice.
It seems we're getting alot of FSM followers around here. I'm guessing FSM and CoG are allies? =P

And yes, iamanathiest is hilarious. You should see some of the hatemail that they get...

I would like to think FSM and CoG are allies but some other Pastafarians are talking about the coming "Holy War" in the FSM forums

Vexx
June 6th, 2007, 03:13 AM
I would like to think FSM and CoG are allies but some other Pastafarians are talking about the coming "Holy War" in the FSM forums

Holy War? Goodness, why would we need that? It's not like we're arguing over land....Like Jerusalem or something....
How about no wars and say we're a little bit like...Friendly competitors? =P

Kokoba
June 6th, 2007, 03:27 AM
I would like to think FSM and CoG are allies but some other Pastafarians are talking about the coming "Holy War" in the FSM forums
Parody religions seem to be much like Highlander, apparently.

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.


Seriously, are there actually Pastafarians who are legitimately upset at our little website? Silliness!

Alice Shade
June 6th, 2007, 06:17 AM
Well, we had a hateful comment or two from pastafarians on the Hatemail Forum.

Frankly, I don`t see any means or reasons to fight.

PotatoeOfDoom
June 6th, 2007, 06:39 AM
i think there should be a kind of "middle site" between CoG and CoFSM. kind of merge them into a seperate forum.

Alice Shade
June 6th, 2007, 06:46 AM
And who`s gonna host that, pay for that, maintain that?

It`s a tough work, actually.

There should does not particularly answers "how", you know?

PotatoeOfDoom
June 6th, 2007, 06:49 AM
oh yeah didnt think of that...
hmmm idk=/
maybe in a few months-years someone will decide it's a good idea and act on it

Alice Shade
June 6th, 2007, 07:04 AM
That`s the whole problem with people saying - "There should be."

There should be hosting, to provide for whatever "there should be".

PotatoeOfDoom
June 6th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Well who knows. Maybe this site will become as popular as myspace or something, and people will NEED more forum space.

Alice Shade
June 6th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Well, when this happens, we`ll think about it, y`know? ^_^

Tabitha
June 6th, 2007, 12:03 PM
I am pretty sure the hatemail from pastafarians is just joking.
We have just as much evidence in our god as everyone else (well, slightly more, we do have a graph ;P)
I am sure we can sort of get along - in an "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of way ;P

Wallis89
June 6th, 2007, 12:10 PM
Well we from the CoG don't get bothered by pasta loving fundies cause we know we are right.

If someone with to much pasta in his/her brain don't understand it I'm joking ;).

Fallen Hero
June 6th, 2007, 12:52 PM
All I see happening is both sides starting to call each other names and laugh..

Iduna
June 6th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Ha ha.....nice.
It seems we're getting alot of FSM followers around here. I'm guessing FSM and CoG are allies? =P
.

Yep, two 'religions' who don't fight, isn't that a prototype? :)
I said it before somewhere: let's sent the FSM and google out for a date :D
google gives the informations and the FSM pasta, beer and strippers!

Iduna
June 6th, 2007, 03:21 PM
Pastafarians who want a 'holy war' with you guys will personally get slapped with wet spaghetti by me!
I know how to handle wet spaghetti, I had a goo teacher ;) And I know some very good frying-pan-duelists, so no problem here :)

Serpentes
July 23rd, 2007, 05:08 PM
I pray that this post is Sarcastic...

Googlist720
July 23rd, 2007, 11:42 PM
Those damn fundamentalists... lol. No, really. How do you know that the Bible is the infallible truth? We won't really know until the end of time in which, according to you guys, a bunch of winged fairies are going to come and blow trumpets to make the world end. Hmm... we'll see about that.

MvT Cracker
October 1st, 2007, 12:54 AM
How can you people not accept that God is real? You say that there is no evidence but in reality the evidence is everywhere. How could something as beautiful as our world just have sprang up out of nothing? And if you still aren't convinced all you need to do is read the Bible! The Bible says God is real and the Bible is the infallible truth. All of you people in the false internet religions (i.e. Googlism, Invisible Pink Unicorn,Discordians, Scientology, and so on) need to abandon your false idols and repent! I would like to remind you of the first commandment- THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY FALSO GODS BEFORE ME- (Notice how I capitalized it for emphasis). You need to reject your false deities or you will suffer an eternity in Hell.
Sincerley,
A Concerned Fundimentalist

1 matter and energy are real they can be proven
2 evolution is real there are bones (matter) and fossils that prove it
3 I can write anything in a book and you would beleive it :icon_rolleyes:
4 as for heaven and hell where is it why can't we see it
5 your going to say we have a soul but science cannot prove we do but why can science prove that when you die its just cells that die and your heart stops and blood stops flowing and everything that you have learned or become has just died roting away in the ground nothing lasts forever some things last longer than others
6 what good has come from believing in a god wars killing stupid fights like this one on the internet
7 you might say what good has come from google when I was in alot of pain I found out what was causing it and found a forum with some of the best nicest people you could meet that helped me
8 I don't think there were any "gods" before your "god" so we are not before "me" "him"

MvT Cracker
October 1st, 2007, 01:16 AM
Those damn fundamentalists... lol. No, really. How do you know that the Bible is the infallible truth? We won't really know until the end of time in which, according to you guys, a bunch of winged fairies are going to come and blow trumpets to make the world end. Hmm... we'll see about that.

if the world is suppose to end by "god or gods fairies" why did "god create the world" :icon_confused:

MvT Cracker
October 1st, 2007, 04:12 AM
We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

if you do not why did you join us?
and why do you try to change us when we do not try to change you?

littleteapot
November 25th, 2007, 07:43 PM
One can believe in God without believing that God loves all human beings, sends some of us to heaven, damns the non-believers, and validates various scriptures.

Wallsy
November 26th, 2007, 07:24 AM
One can believe in God without believing that God loves all human beings, sends some of us to heaven, damns the non-believers, and validates various scriptures.

Yes, but that solves nothing. You're still believing arbitrary bits of religious texts without the evidence to back them up.


Wallsy.

littleteapot
November 26th, 2007, 02:38 PM
My point was that you can believe philisophically in an abstract creator without believing in all the religious stuff. I believe its called Deism.

Wallsy
November 26th, 2007, 03:54 PM
My point was that you can believe philisophically in an abstract creator without believing in all the religious stuff. I believe its called Deism.

Yes, but why would you? It has all the drawbacks of religion and none of the advantages (such as they are).


Wallsy.

littleteapot
November 26th, 2007, 09:34 PM
Yes, but why would you? It has all the drawbacks of religion and none of the advantages (such as they are).Some would say that it is more reasonable to believe that some eternal force created the universe than to say that the universe itself is eternal. The big difference between Deism and religion is that there is massive evidence that God doesn't try all that hard to make life easy for humankind.

littleteapot
November 27th, 2007, 02:36 AM
First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is a big hint that the universe has always existed.Science concerns itself not with fact, but with probabilities and practicalities. Furthermore, energy might have been released or transferred from this creator.

Wallsy
November 27th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Some would say that it is more reasonable to believe that some eternal force created the universe than to say that the universe itself is eternal.

That solves nothing. You say the universe can't have always existed, so something must have made it. So where did that thing come from? Surely it can't have always existed either? And if there universe didn't exist (the universe being "everything there is"), where was it? Surely it itself would have been the universe, and in "creating" the universe it didn't actually create it, just changed it a bit?


Wallsy.

littleteapot
November 27th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Science concerns itself with knowledge, and unlike any religion (save religions such as Googlism or Satanism), knowledge through research.But science never considers something to be absolutely true, and science doesn't focus too much on knowledge that humans can't exploit. Obviously the creation of the Earth by a divine being that we have no control over and can't detect isn't very exploitable information, so there is no point in incorporating any divine beings into scientific laws and theories.That solves nothing. You say the universe can't have always existed, so something must have made it. So where did that thing come from? Surely it can't have always existed either? And if there universe didn't exist (the universe being "everything there is"), where was it? Surely it itself would have been the universe, and in "creating" the universe it didn't actually create it, just changed it a bit?God is eternal, having neither a beginning, nor and end and never changing. But the universe changes all the time. To me it is easier that there is something that never changes and regulates things that change than to believe that the ever changing universe has existed eternally.

Wallsy
November 28th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Obviously the creation of the Earth by a divine being that we have no control over and can't detect isn't very exploitable information, so there is no point in incorporating any divine beings into scientific laws and theories.

So, if God is completely undetectable, how can you say He exists? Things that exist can be detected — that's pretty much the definition of existence. If it has absolutely no effect on anything, it's not there.


To me it is easier that there is something that never changes and regulates things that change than to believe that the ever changing universe has existed eternally.

So you think that things have a higher chance of being true because you find them easier to understand?


Wallsy.

littleteapot
November 28th, 2007, 09:10 PM
Science is a methodology where logic is applied to observations of physical evidence. The laws of thermodynamics have no effect on God, since God isn't physical.

God does affect things around us, but it's a one-way ticket. We can't change God in any way, and thus the existence of God is impossible to discover through the scientific method and impossible for humankind to use.

I don't think that God exists because it makes the universe easier to understand. I just think that the universe has a beginning simply because everything in it is constantly changing whereas God is unchanging. Something can remain constant without cause, but every change is caused by something.

littleteapot
November 28th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Nobody (yes that includes me) knows whether or not there is a divine force that regulates the universe. But some people believe it to be true, and it's not just mindless obedience to this organized religion or that one. How do you think people know that there is no reason to believe in God.

littleteapot
November 28th, 2007, 10:56 PM
Common sense?What do you base your common sense on?

littleteapot
November 29th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Education, research and logic. What do you base your common sense on?The fact that I've never seen anything that is truly random. And I've never seen any evidence that anything is truly random. And I've never heard anyone argue that anything is truly random other than the creation of the universe.

littleteapot
November 29th, 2007, 03:02 AM
The "random" results in coin flips, die rolls etc. is really caused by almost uncontrollable factors about the flight of the coin or the dice. As evidence, I have seen someone who could cheat a die roll--he could choose the result with about 75-80% accuracy. If you could calculate the exact motion of a coin in the air, you could predict the result of the flip. The only reason you can't is that it is impossible to predict this in the 2 seconds a coin is aloft.

Wallsy
November 29th, 2007, 03:17 PM
God does affect things around us

When? Which things? We don't need to be able to effect God to measure the effects of his actions, just as I don't need to be able to effect microwaves to see how hot they made my dinner. (OK, I can start and stop the microwaves, but assume for the sake of argument that they're just constantly flowing through some place and I just sit my dinner there to heat it and take it away when it's done).


Wallsy.

littleteapot
November 29th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Then what about radioactive decay? Random enough for you?It's still not random, it's just unpredictable for humans. There are factors that cause an atom to give off radiation, the factors just change too quickly for someone to predict it happening. Just because you can't discover the cause of something doesn't mean it's random.When? Which things? We don't need to be able to effect God to measure the effects of his actions, just as I don't need to be able to effect microwaves to see how hot they made my dinner. (OK, I can start and stop the microwaves, but assume for the sake of argument that they're just constantly flowing through some place and I just sit my dinner there to heat it and take it away when it's done).God affects all things, if he exists, and if he exists, the world would still work the same way, which is why the presence of a God has no use to us, and therefore science has no reason to explore creation. Also, God isn't physical and science is purely focussed on the physical laws of the universe.

AaronD
November 29th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Also, God isn't physical and science is purely focussed on the physical laws of the universe.

You've obviously never delved into any of the quantum sciences. Science isn't just concerned with how, it's also concerned with why.

littleteapot
November 30th, 2007, 09:00 PM
Then what causes the factors to change, and why do some atoms decay in a couple of seconds when it takes others of the same kind billions of years regardless of the time of the formation of the atom?I don't know but I would assume it has something to do with the collisions of particles in the nucleus or maybe the momentum of particles being enough to overcome the strong and weak forces.

littleteapot
December 1st, 2007, 04:43 PM
Sub-atomic particles do not behave in the same way that matter we can interact with does.I said I have no idea, but its stupid to assume that because you don't know the reason, there is no reason. I gave a couple of possibilities, but I have no doubt that SOMETHING causes matter to decay despite the fact that I don't know the reason.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, another reason I believe God exists is human consciousness.

GeoffBoulton
December 2nd, 2007, 02:10 PM
I said I have no idea, but its stupid to assume that because you don't know the reason, there is no reason. I gave a couple of possibilities, but I have no doubt that SOMETHING causes matter to decay despite the fact that I don't know the reason.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, another reason I believe God exists is human consciousness.

Radioactive Decay (http://scied.gsu.edu/Students/Cox/radiocas.htm)

Finding out the reasons is easy if you look. The argument regarding randomness is not about HOW particles decay but WHEN they decay.

All animals have a given level of intelligence. Intelligence gives rise to consciousness. The only thing in dispute are the levels of each, and how they relate to human intelligence and consciousness, that have been attained by animals, not that they exist.

The problem for religions then becomes one of man being only slightly better than some of his relatives in the animal kingdom rather than being somehow 'chosen' for special treatment.

Even the idea that we are 'better' than animals is subject to debate as we can only measure 'consciousness' from our own, very limited, perspective. We cannot even understand some of the basics of how our own minds work let alone those of animals!

littleteapot
December 2nd, 2007, 07:30 PM
When does an atom decay? When it satisfies the conditions of radioactive decay. Some elements/isotopes are considered radioactive because their atoms are more susceptible to radioactive decay. Just because it is very hard to predict the nature of individual atoms doesn't mean that their decay is random.

How does science explain how you see the world through the consciousness of a certain person?

littleteapot
December 2nd, 2007, 07:40 PM
There is no way to predict the decay of an atom. We can only predict half-life, but that doesn't tell us anything of the decay of individual atoms.Which means that science hasn't progressed to the point where we can predict whether individual atoms will decay. A half-life is the amount of time in which each atom of an element has a 50% chance of decomposing. You say that I don't know how it works so I say the wizard must have done it, but you think "I don't know how it works, so it happened on its own."

Oh, by the way--my view of consciousness is not that consciousness must have been created by God, but that since consciousness isn't completely physical, its possible that other things could be beyond physical as well.

littleteapot
December 2nd, 2007, 08:28 PM
Wrong. Completely wrong. Half-life is when around 50% of the atoms in the material will have decayed. It says nothing at all about the chance. It should be obvious, considering that atoms in a radioactive material decay constantly and not in bursts as it would if half-life were a time when atoms had a 50% chance of decaying.Radioactive decay happens in short bursts, but there are so many that it appears to be constant.

littleteapot
December 2nd, 2007, 09:27 PM
If radioactive decay happens in bursts, then a Minigun in full auto fires in bursts.No, a minigun intentionally fires bullets one after the other. A radioactive doesn't choose to eject one particle at any point in time like a minigun does. Each atom has a chance to eject a particle randomly.

sudikics
December 3rd, 2007, 01:28 AM
I wish I had seen this thread sooner, I would have loved to have participated in most of this..

Anyway, here's what I have to say on randomness:

First off, radioactive decay is completely and utterly unpredictable. I know that this had been stated, but I wanted to reiterate it.

Second, if you really want random, try math. Seriously.

Quick, what is the 98th decimal place of (the imaginary part of the 28th non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function, raised to the (0.123444528*e*phi) power and put in base 19)?

Before you answer, you probably (hopefully) have absolutely no idea of the answer. And let me tell you, sure it is predetermined, but before the answer is known, and I am very sure that that calculation has never been done on this planet, any guess has no statistical significance relitive to pure chance, a.k.a. randomness.

In short, it's random.


Oh, btw, I'm gonna calculate it, and anyone else who's in the mood, we can check answers later.

EDIT: got the answer, pm me if you want it.

Wallsy
December 3rd, 2007, 07:44 AM
First off, radioactive decay is completely and utterly unpredictable.

For now. It's impossible to say whether anyone will ever be able to predict it. You just can't know that.


Second, if you really want random, try math. Seriously.

Quick, what is the 98th decimal place of (the imaginary part of the 28th non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function, raised to the (0.123444528*e*phi) power and put in base 19)?

Unpredictable and random are not the same thing.


Wallsy.

GeoffBoulton
December 3rd, 2007, 12:29 PM
You say that I don't know how it works so I say the wizard must have done it, but you think "I don't know how it works, so it happened on its own."

No, we say "We aren't sure, let's try and find out".

How does science explain how you see the world through the consciousness of a certain person?

Errr... maybe because they each have different brains. Not much mystery there.

How does religion explain animals, with no souls, having consciousness?

sudikics
December 3rd, 2007, 01:32 PM
For now. It's impossible to say whether anyone will ever be able to predict it. You just can't know that.




Unpredictable and random are not the same thing.


Wallsy.

To the first one: Uncertainty Principle. Quantum Mechanics just makes it impossible to know certain things simultaneously, like the energy level AND the velocity of a given photon. Also, how would you be able to discern that futuristic person's "predictions" were not pure chance?

To the second: True. but because equal weight must be given to each of the possibilities, your guess was as good as mine, until I calculated it. To the entire universe, the answer would seem random, and as long as it DOESN'T seem random to anything out there, it's as good as random.

One could use that string as the basis for a one-time pad cipher, no? And it would still be secure, no?

littleteapot
December 3rd, 2007, 08:30 PM
I accept that there are things on this Earth that are as good as random. But nothing is truly random--nothing happens for no reason at all. We know that something must have come out of nothing or existed eternally for the universe to exist, but I'm saying it's easier to believe in a constant eternal being (God) that shapes the universe than to believe that the universe is and has been changing and unfixed forever.

AaronD
December 3rd, 2007, 08:58 PM
So you just admitted that you believe in a deity simply because it's easier. I mean, you don't have to look things up or try to discover explanations or anything, all you have to do is believe that a man in the sky invented it all! Luckily, convenience does not play a part in science, which strives to always question itself so that it may get the right answer and disprove the wrong ones.

sudikics
December 3rd, 2007, 09:22 PM
So you just admitted that you believe in a deity simply because it's easier. I mean, you don't have to look things up or try to discover explanations or anything, all you have to do is believe that a man in the sky invented it all! Luckily, convenience does not play a part in science, which strives to always question itself so that it may get the right answer and disprove the wrong ones.
Isn't somebody's sig? "Faith is the claim of the lazy" or something like that...?

GeoffBoulton
December 3rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
But nothing is truly random--nothing happens for no reason at all.

Prove it!

We know that something must have come out of nothing or existed eternally for the universe to exist

No we don't, that's just your belief based upon your brain's limited capacity to comprehend anything beyond it's pre-set intuitive boundaries.

but I'm saying it's easier to believe in a constant eternal being (God) that shapes the universe than to believe that the universe is and has been changing and unfixed forever.

It's actually easier not to think about it at all. Which is essentially what you're doing by simply believing "God did it, no further investigation needed, end of story".

sudikics
December 3rd, 2007, 10:05 PM
Which is essentially what you're doing by simply believing "God did it, no further investigation needed, end of story".

This argument puts me over the top when I hear it made.

For centuries, scientists have invoked God for explaining what they could not explain:

6000BCE: What makes the bright thing in the sky go up and down? God!

500BCE: Why is pi irrational? God!

1700CE: What keeps the planets in their orbits? God! (This was Sir Isaac Newton, by the way...)

In fact, even today, some scientists say:

2000CE: What decided that our laws of physics would be exactly the way they are? God!


I am completely OK with this, because I get it: they had no other explanation, nd God does nicely in those cases (Plus, it keeps the Church happy ;)).

However: the trouble starts when the next step is taken, that because it has been decided that it is God, that no more research or attempts should be made.

The "no further investigation" part undermines a fundamental pillar of science.




Sorry, had to get that out. The point was made, and I'm pretty sure I just beat a dead horse, and that Wallsy's gonna beat the crap out of every sentence I just said. ;)

littleteapot
December 3rd, 2007, 10:23 PM
Saying God did it isn't the simplest path. You still don't know what God's motives are, how God did it, what does God want to do in the future. It's easy to say the universe always existed. But I am more inclined to believe in God because as far as I have seen change occurs for a reason. What is the reason for the universe in general?

Which ever way you cut it there is a leap of faith. If you say God exists, the leap of faith is, obviously, that God exists. If you say God doesn't exist, the leap of faith is that change can happen for no reason at all. Which one is harder to believe? In my view, the latter is harder to believe.

GeoffBoulton
December 4th, 2007, 10:21 AM
Saying God did it isn't the simplest path. You still don't know what God's motives are, how God did it, what does God want to do in the future.

No, but you can make up just about anything you want as his motives, how he did it, etc. It is what the writers of the bible did and it's still intellectual redundancy.

It's easy to say the universe always existed. But I am more inclined to believe in God because as far as I have seen change occurs for a reason. What is the reason for the universe in general?

Prove it has to have a reason! You are making assumptions and claiming facts based upon what you would like to be true. There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

Your arguments consist entirely of "this is what I believe therefore the opposite can't be true because it's not what I believe". Start providing evidence not beliefs.

Hmmmm.... Sounds strangely like religion as a whole doesn't it?

sudikics
December 4th, 2007, 12:23 PM
People are always asking, "Why is the universe just right for life?"

And I think, "What a stupid question! THis particular universe HAD to be right for life, otherwise you wouldn't be there, answering the question!"

The multiverse idea explains this. Just allow probability to alter the priliminary conditions of each single universe, and in only a tiny percentage of them will life be able to emerge. In the ones where it DOES emerge, those beings then ask, "Why was my universe just right?" When the answer is that there's no reason for it NOT to be.

Wallsy
December 4th, 2007, 03:00 PM
To the first one: Uncertainty Principle. Quantum Mechanics just makes it impossible to know certain things simultaneously, like the energy level AND the velocity of a given photon.

This is the current belief. It would be foolish to assume that it will always be believed. It could be proved false at any time.


Also, how would you be able to discern that futuristic person's "predictions" were not pure chance?

The same way you prove any prediction isn't pure chance; repeat it.


it's as good as random.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't make it actually random.


I'm pretty sure I just beat a dead horse, and that Wallsy's gonna beat the crap out of every sentence I just said.

Nope. Why would I do that?


Wallsy.

GeoffBoulton
December 4th, 2007, 07:44 PM
People are always asking, "Why is the universe just right for life?"

And I think, "What a stupid question! THis particular universe HAD to be right for life, otherwise you wouldn't be there, answering the question!"

Why is that hole outside my house just the right size for the puddle that's in it?

This is the same question as "why is the universe just right for life?" it's just on a smaller scale.

Obviously it must be proof of God otherwise the puddle wouldn't have fitted the hole. After all, there must be a reason WHY the puddle fits the hole. :icon_lol:

sudikics
December 4th, 2007, 08:43 PM
This is the current belief. It would be foolish to assume that it will always be believed. It could be proved false at any time.




The same way you prove any prediction isn't pure chance; repeat it.




Perhaps, but that still doesn't make it actually random.




Nope. Why would I do that?


Wallsy.


To the first:

Uncertainty Principle (Wikipedia)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)
"In quantum physics, the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic, but instead is characterized by a probability distribution, and the larger the associated standard deviation is, the more "uncertain" we might say that that characteristic is for the system. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or HUP, gives a lower bound on the product of the standard deviations of position and momentum for a system, implying that it is impossible to have a particle that has an arbitrarily well-defined position and momentum simultaneously."

I highlighted the importnat parts.

To the second: See the first.

To the third: Use the one-time pad cipher as a test for randomness: if it makes the pad cipher completely secure, it must be random. In the math example I gave (the 98th decimal place of (the imaginary part of the 28th non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function, raised to the (0.123444528*e*phi) power and put in base 19)) continuing past the 98th digit, and using that as the key, one would find decryption 100% impossible.

Especially for that particular string, as, so far, there is no formula that gives you Riemann zeros...

I say it's random. Do others think it is random?

Oh, I'll throw this in as well:

Randomness (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random)

The word random is used to express lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability in non-scientific parlance. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.

Sorta sounds "unpredictable," doesn't it?

Unpredictable and random are not the same thing.

littleteapot
December 4th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Prove it has to have a reason! You are making assumptions and claiming facts based upon what you would like to be true. There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

Your arguments consist entirely of "this is what I believe therefore the opposite can't be true because it's not what I believe". Start providing evidence not beliefs.I can't prove anything about the universe's randomness. But I have never seen anything happen on its own for no reason at all. Almost nothing I've seen has said "God doesn't exist" to me. Thus it makes more sense from my perspective to validate that change doesn't occur randomly than to validate that there is no God.

GeoffBoulton
December 4th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Almost nothing I've seen has said "God doesn't exist" to me.

ALL the evidence says that "God doesn't exist" so it's exactly as I said "It's not what I believe so it can't be true".

GeoffBoulton
December 4th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Almost nothing I've seen has said "God doesn't exist" to me.

ALL the evidence that you could possibly see says that "God doesn't exist" so it's exactly as I said "It's not what I believe so it can't be true".

littleteapot
December 4th, 2007, 10:44 PM
ALL the evidence that you could possibly see says that "God doesn't exist" so it's exactly as I said "It's not what I believe so it can't be true".Give an example of a piece of evidence you've found reducing the chance of God's existence.

sudikics
December 5th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Give an example of a piece of evidence you've found reducing the chance of God's existence.
http://cectic.com/comics/051.png

Wallsy
December 5th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Uncertainty Principle (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

This is the current theory. As I said, it would be foolish to assume that it will always be the accepted theory.


I say it's random. Do others think it is random?
...
Sorta sounds "unpredictable," doesn't it?

You're arguing semantics here. The terms "random" and "inpredictable" as we've defined them in this conversation do not mean the same thing. That fact that they can be used as synonyms is irrelevant.


Wallsy.

sudikics
December 5th, 2007, 12:46 PM
This is the current theory. As I said, it would be foolish to assume that it will always be the accepted theory.




You're arguing semantics here. The terms "random" and "inpredictable" as we've defined them in this conversation do not mean the same thing. That fact that they can be used as synonyms is irrelevant.


Wallsy.


To the first: I am rather befuddles by that argument. You make it sound as if it is only a matter of time until it is proven wrong. Also the way you practically say "It's just a theory" concerns me, as unfortunately this is the general belief of most of (at least) America.

The reason we call it a theory is because it was developed from accepted principles, and in order for it to be wrong, a hell of a lot would have to be wrong as well. Now, true , that doesn't mean it isn't true, but the fact that it has been so sucessful, both it and its decendants, in explaining the universe around us, that there is a very low chance that it is wrong, persay.

To the second: Alright, so, can you, in your next post, just define those two terms as they are in this thread? Because I think it would be fascinating to see how much our definitions very from the rest of the world's. Hell, while we're at it, let's fix Wikipedia!

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
I've already mentioned the Laws of Thermodynamics. Complex lifeforms (like God) don't just spring into existence. It's a long, slow process of Evolution.God isn't a life form. Furthermore, God isn't physical and thus isn't subject to physical rules.

Try giving a fact that has a lower chance of occurring in a world with God than without.

AaronD
December 5th, 2007, 07:35 PM
God isn't physical and thus isn't subject to physical rules.

Then he is conceptual, and exists only as an idea. Ideas can be powerful, but they are spawned from sentience; Ideas do not create sentience; they are created by it.

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 07:44 PM
Then he is conceptual, and exists only as an idea. Ideas can be powerful, but they are spawned from sentience; Ideas do not create sentience; they are created by it.How do you know.

AaronD
December 5th, 2007, 08:28 PM
How do you know.

You just told me.




Oh, and I hate it when people end questions with a period. Nothing big, just a little pet peeve of mine.

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 09:27 PM
I told you that the laws of physical things don't apply to God. But God can still control physical things.

AaronD
December 5th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I told you that the laws of physical things don't apply to God. But God can still control physical things.

No, you said "God isn't physical and thus isn't subject to physical rules." I completely agreed. He's not physical. He's conceptual. An idea. You told me so yourself, by saying that he isn't physical.

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 09:43 PM
No, you said "God isn't physical and thus isn't subject to physical rules." I completely agreed. He's not physical. He's conceptual. An idea. You told me so yourself, by saying that he isn't physical.Something can not be physical and not be conceptual.

AaronD
December 5th, 2007, 10:34 PM
If it's not physical or conceptual, then it's nonexistent. If something is conceptual but not physical, then it exists only as an idea. If something is physical, or physical AND conceptual, then it exists.

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 10:37 PM
If it's not physical or conceptual, then it's nonexistent. If something is conceptual but not physical, then it exists only as an idea. If something is physical, or physical AND conceptual, then it exists.God exists in a place that isn't connected to the observable universe. In the observable universe, God is merely an idea, but the real God affects it without entering it.

sudikics
December 5th, 2007, 10:52 PM
God exists in a place that isn't connected to the observable universe. In the observable universe, God is merely an idea, but the real God affects it without entering it.
Uh, you just said God's not physical, then how can he exist??

I'm confused, or maybe you're contradicting yourself...

littleteapot
December 5th, 2007, 11:24 PM
God exists in a universe other than the physical one.

sudikics
December 6th, 2007, 12:09 AM
I believe we are using two different deinitions of the term, "universe". I'm talking about the region of coordinates in space-time that re defined, that are governed by a certain set of rules. The scientific definition:

(Wikipedia)

The Universe is everything that exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and physical constants that govern them.

Your definition seems to be refering to some form of heaven, which, i am pretty sure, is not a universe.

We've defined God as a concept. Concepts don't "exist" in the same way physical things "exist." You seem tobe confusing this. Because otherwise, you've just completely contradicted yourself, as concepts cannot exist with location.

littleteapot
December 6th, 2007, 12:14 AM
I used the wrong world. By universe I meant realm. God exists in some place that we can't access. Some parallel dimension.

sudikics
December 6th, 2007, 12:17 AM
I would comment that parallel dimension is wrong by the same reasonas above, but lets not get nitpicky, OK? ;)

God is a concept, the idea of a whole undiscoverable realm just makes your story more complicated. Leave it as God is a concept, yet still influences us.

Note that that is not my argument, but yours, as I understand it.

I personally think that that is completely wrong.

littleteapot
December 6th, 2007, 02:47 AM
God is a concept, the idea of a whole undiscoverable realm just makes your story more complicated. Leave it as God is a concept, yet still influences us.First I'm criticized for trying to simplify things, and now I'm too complicated. Modern day physicists are considering the idea of parallel cosmoses (grammer problems?). Science has nothing to prove that there aren't places that can't be reached from our observable universe. I don't see what's so confusing about a God that is in a place we can't access but that can control our world.

AaronD
December 6th, 2007, 03:30 AM
And which god might that be, littleteapot?

Wallsy
December 6th, 2007, 07:09 AM
To the first: I am rather befuddles by that argument. You make it sound as if it is only a matter of time until it is proven wrong.

Seems a reasonable assumption. It would be foolish and arrogant to assume that we were entirely, 100% correct about this at this stage. There's so much left to discover; our understanding of the universe is merely an approximation, based on observable evidence.


Also the way you practically say "It's just a theory" concerns me, as unfortunately this is the general belief of most of (at least) America.

When religious morons say "It's only a theory", they mean "You're wrong and I'm right because I'm deliberately misinterpreting your terms". When I say it, I mean "It's only an approximation of the truth and very likely requires more refinements before it will exactly match reality, i it ever can."

Take Newtonian physics. Yes, it seemed to match all theavailableevidence for a while, but it no longer does. That doesn't mean it's not useful, of course, it just means it's not actually correct.


To the second: Alright, so, can you, in your next post, just define those two terms as they are in this thread? Because I think it would be fascinating to see how much our definitions very from the rest of the world's. Hell, while we're at it, let's fix Wikipedia!

As they've been used so far in this discussion, "unpredictable" means "unable to be predicted" and "random" means "occurring without any underlying cause or reason". These aren't the only useful definitions of those words, but they are the definitions that were being used here, and they are clearly not the same thing. Though anything random is unpredictable, being unpredictable doesn't make something random.


Wallsy.

littleteapot
December 6th, 2007, 08:24 PM
And which god might that be, littleteapot?The one that's all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal. The one that created the world but didn't write any bible and doesn't favor humankind.

sudikics
December 6th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Seems a reasonable assumption. It would be foolish and arrogant to assume that we were entirely, 100% correct about this at this stage. There's so much left to discover; our understanding of the universe is merely an approximation, based on observable evidence.




When religious morons say "It's only a theory", they mean "You're wrong and I'm right because I'm deliberately misinterpreting your terms". When I say it, I mean "It's only an approximation of the truth and very likely requires more refinements before it will exactly match reality, i it ever can."

Take Newtonian physics. Yes, it seemed to match all theavailableevidence for a while, but it no longer does. That doesn't mean it's not useful, of course, it just means it's not actually correct.




As they've been used so far in this discussion, "unpredictable" means "unable to be predicted" and "random" means "occurring without any underlying cause or reason". These aren't the only useful definitions of those words, but they are the definitions that were being used here, and they are clearly not the same thing. Though anything random is unpredictable, being unpredictable doesn't make something random.


Wallsy.
You win. I know that sounds like I'm just giving up for the hell of it, but your arguments are sound, and I have no real objections, other than you aproach to science seems rather cynical. Here's one of the deciding factors:

Randomness versus unpredictability (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#Randomness_versus_unpredictability)

"Randomness is an objective property. Nevertheless, what appears random to one observer may not appear random to another observer. Consider two observers of a sequence of bits, only one of whom has the cryptographic key needed to turn the sequence of bits into a readable message. The message is not random, but is unpredictable for one of the observers. One of the intriguing aspects of random processes is that it is hard to know whether the process is truly random. The observer can always suspect that there is some "key" that unlocks the message. This is one of the foundations of superstition and is also what is a driving motive, curiosity, for discovery in science and mathematics.
Under the cosmological hypothesis of determinism there is no randomness in the universe, only unpredictability.
Some mathematically defined sequences, such as the decimals of pi, exhibit some of the same characteristics as random sequences, but because they are generated by a describable mechanism they are called pseudorandom. To an observer who does not know the mechanism, a pseudorandom sequence is unpredictable.
Chaotic systems are unpredictable in practice due to their extreme dependence on initial conditions. Whether or not they are unpredictable in terms of computability theory is a subject of current research. At least in some disciplines of computability theory the notion of randomness turns out to be identified with computational unpredictability.
Randomness of a phenomenon is not itself 'random'. It can often be precisely characterized, usually in terms of probability or expected value. For instance quantum mechanics allows a very precise calculation of the half-lives of atoms even though the process of atomic decay is a random one. More simply, though we cannot predict the outcome of a single toss of a fair coin, we can characterize its general behavior by saying that if a large number of tosses are made, roughly half of them will show up "Heads". Ohm's law and the kinetic theory of gases are precise characterizations of macroscopic phenomena which are random on the microscopic level."

Good job, Wallsy, it's been fun. Oh, but I believe we still agree that for evryday purposes, unpredictability can stand in for randomness, no?

Wallsy
December 7th, 2007, 05:45 AM
Good job, Wallsy, it's been fun. Oh, but I believe we still agree that for evryday purposes, unpredictability can stand in for randomness, no?

Like Newtonian physics; unpredictibility isn't actually randomness, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.


Wallsy.

sudikics
December 7th, 2007, 02:10 PM
True, we got to the moon on that and that alone.