The Ultimate Religious Debate thread thing [Archive]

Slick

6 Oct 2007, 06:48

Bible chat. weeeeeeeee. Some of you don't trust it...Well let me tell you why some people do trust it, including me. Here are a few examples..

1. Historical soundness. You say that half the stuff and people never existed or happened. For example people challenged the idea that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled, ever existed.
Heres a picture of a stone that mentions him. http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/pilate_inscription.jpg
Proper titles of the rulers are used correctly and accurately throughout the bible.

2. Honesty. If the men who wrote the bible were out for their own glory they wouldn't of been so hard on themselves. :p But the bible writers openly admitted their own failures and weaknesses. The Hebrew scriptures often tell of the grumbling and rebellion of their own people. Writers spared no one. Not even the rulers of their nation. The first century Christians acknowledged they were not admired by the world around them but were looked upon as foolish. They also didn't cast Jesus in a 'favorable light' if you will. They reported honestly that he was born under humble circumstances into a working class family.

3. Internal Harmony. With 40 writers, and 66 books, written over the span of hundreds of years... Many of the writers lived centuries apart. Yet they all come together with a harmonious message. Many people today have literally no idea what that is. The over all theme of the bible is the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose for the earth by means of a Kingdom, or a world government.
There are differences in between accounts, yes. Why is this? Well lets say a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonable, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angel of view. Same in this case.

4. Scientific Accuracy. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat or that tangible substances or objects held it in place. Yet some 3,500 years ago the bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Then in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle(or sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) Thats long before people 'discovered' the world is round. In fact, for a time it was even considered it unlawful for the teaching that the world wasn't flat. Long before science learned about the spread of prevention of disease, physicians employed stuff that didn't even work, or even lethal. Not once does the bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Even in the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. Even scientists today agree by looking up at the stars that the universe had a sudden 'birth'.

5. Fulfilled Prophecy. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. Such as the prophecy of the fall of Babylon. About 732 B.C.E., Isaiah wrote under inspiration, a leader named Cyrus would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates that surrounded Babylon would "dry up" and the cities gates would "not be shut" (Isaiah 44:27 - 45:3) Then some 200 hundred years later the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Isaiah even made a bold statement regarding Babylon, that "She will never be inhabited". Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, those words have eventually come true since. People have time after time attempted to rebuild it, but never have accomplished it. And people don't even live where it once was to this day.

This is just some stuff I have found while studying the bible more closely. I'm sorry I couldn't give more lengthy examples, links to stuff, more reasons to trust the accuracy of preservation of the bible, and all the bells and whistles that I wanted to add to this... but it's nearly 2 am, and I'm about to pass out. In fact, I doubt any of you care, or want me to post more tomorrow anyways.

Also, I'm not challenging anyone here, or trying to get in a religious debate. People stated why they don't trust the bible, I'm simple stating why I do. That is all.

MtlAngelus

6 Oct 2007, 07:37

1. Historical soundness. You say that half the stuff and people never existed or happened. For example people challenged the idea that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled, ever existed.
Heres a picture of a stone that mentions him. http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/pilate_inscription.jpg
Proper titles of the rulers are used correctly and accurately throughout the bible.

So from that I can gather that... the bible can sometimes include historical events that are true?
Everyone knows not everything in the bible is made up. The thing is that it's just a book that mixes historical events with fantasy, it's not an encoded message from god.

2. Honesty. If the men who wrote the bible were out for their own glory they wouldn't of been so hard on themselves. :p But the bible writers openly admitted their own failures and weaknesses. The Hebrew scriptures often tell of the grumbling and rebellion of their own people. Writers spared no one. Not even the rulers of their nation. The first century Christians acknowledged they were not admired by the world around them but were looked upon as foolish. They also didn't cast Jesus in a 'favorable light' if you will. They reported honestly that he was born under humble circumstances into a working class family.

So what does that prove anyway? :s
The fact that they weren't out for their own glory doesn't make it true does it?
I could start my own religion pointing myself as a god, but spend most of my life helping people and living in the most humble circumstances, would that make my religion true too?

3. Internal Harmony. With 40 writers, and 66 books, written over the span of hundreds of years... Many of the writers lived centuries apart. Yet they all come together with a harmonious message. Many people today have literally no idea what that is. The over all theme of the bible is the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose for the earth by means of a Kingdom, or a world government.
There are differences in between accounts, yes. Why is this? Well lets say a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonable, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angel of view. Same in this case.

I can't say much about this one because I haven't read the whole thing nor do I intend to, but all I can say is, again, what does this prove?
Also, they write about the same god that they believe in and they write what they are taught by their ancestors of what this god is like.. hmm suddenly it doesn't seem that unlikely for there to be some harmony between the different books.
And even then, I do recall several extracts of the bible that do contradict each other, even tho I can't quote them or waste time looking for them.

4. Scientific Accuracy. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat or that tangible substances or objects held it in place. Yet some 3,500 years ago the bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Then in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle(or sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) Thats long before people 'discovered' the world is round. In fact, for a time it was even considered it unlawful for the teaching that the world wasn't flat. Long before science learned about the spread of prevention of disease, physicians employed stuff that didn't even work, or even lethal. Not once does the bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Even in the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. Even scientists today agree by looking up at the stars that the universe had a sudden 'birth'.

So they got some things right. But they got so many things wrong too didn't they?
I mean I recall the bible refers to the women as inferior in several instances, for example.
Not to mention the countless ridiculous things that happen. Like god creating something that can be "evil" but getting all ****ed and stuff when said thing does actually do "evil"...
Giving his creation the right to choose, but getting ****ed off if it doesn't choose the right option...
Or how it took him several days to build earth but just one single day to create the rest of the universe, which is composed of... yup billions of other planets, suns and stuff... :p

5. Fulfilled Prophecy. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. Such as the prophecy of the fall of Babylon. About 732 B.C.E., Isaiah wrote under inspiration, a leader named Cyrus would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates that surrounded Babylon would "dry up" and the cities gates would "not be shut" (Isaiah 44:27 - 45:3) Then some 200 hundred years later the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Isaiah even made a bold statement regarding Babylon, that "She will never be inhabited". Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, those words have eventually come true since. People have time after time attempted to rebuild it, but never have accomplished it. And people don't even live where it once was to this day.

But you can't prove that it was actually written before it happened, can you? :p
Also, I bet if I went around reading it I could also find prophecies that never fulfilled.

This is just some stuff I have found while studying the bible more closely. I'm sorry I couldn't give more lengthy examples, links to stuff, more reasons to trust the accuracy of preservation of the bible, and all the bells and whistles that I wanted to add to this... but it's nearly 2 am, and I'm about to pass out. In fact, I doubt any of you care, or want me to post more tomorrow anyways.

It's just an old book. People should just get over it.

Also, I'm not challenging anyone here, or trying to get in a religious debate. People stated why they don't trust the bible, I'm simple stating why I do. That is all.
I still don't see how any of the things you have posted can prove anything on why it would be a reliable source or why I should follow it's teachings, tho.

Eyedunno

6 Oct 2007, 08:59

1. Historical soundness. You say that half the stuff and people never existed or happened. For example people challenged the idea that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled, ever existed.
Heres a picture of a stone that mentions him. http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/pilate_inscription.jpg
Proper titles of the rulers are used correctly and accurately throughout the bible.
And the utter lack of evidence of an exodus from Egypt (in spite of the fact that thousands were supposed to have been involved), the lack of evidence of a worldwide flood (and abundance of contradicting evidence), the failure of contemporary historians to corroborate the account of Herod killing all newborns (in spite of a lot of evidence of other, slightly-less-nasty stuff he did that's not in the Bible), and so on and so on?

Edit: Oh, and during his own time, Caesar Augustus was believed to be a god in human form. We know there was an Augustus, so why not start taking this claim seriously too? What about Abe no Seimei in Japan turning tangerines into rats? We know there was an Abe no Seimei. The list goes on and on...

4. Scientific Accuracy. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat or that tangible substances or objects held it in place. Yet some 3,500 years ago the bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Then in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle(or sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) Thats long before people 'discovered' the world is round. In fact, for a time it was even considered it unlawful for the teaching that the world wasn't flat.

'Sphere' is a modern interpolation. It is quite clearly a circle in the original Hebrew, and here's what it's talking about:
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9744/image005fp0.jpg
This is a picture depicting Babylonian cosmology (and many other cultures in the region had a similar picture of the universe). Note the presence of the waters of the deep (which explained to the ancients why the sky is blue) and the firmament (which separates the waters above from the waters below, and had sluice gates to let rainwater flow onto the Earth).

And I'm calling nonsense on the stuff about how long it took for the Earth to be discovered scientifically to be round. The roundness of the Earth was known among educated Greeks and Indians by the fifth century BC.

Long before science learned about the spread of prevention of disease, physicians employed stuff that didn't even work, or even lethal. Not once does the bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.
You're right about this. I'd say that if anything, we need MORE human sacrifice.

Even in the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.
You mean like "quarantining" women who have given birth and not quarantining people with plague (unless it looks like it might be leprosy!)?

Even scientists today agree by looking up at the stars that the universe had a sudden 'birth'.
It's not from "looking up at the stars"; it's from cosmic microwave background radiation, which is not visible to the naked eye. But I'm being pedantic. It's not a "birth" in the sense of the universe not existing, then existing; space and time itself expanded from a point, and continues to do so.

5. Fulfilled Prophecy. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. Such as the prophecy of the fall of Babylon. About 732 B.C.E., Isaiah wrote under inspiration, a leader named Cyrus would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates that surrounded Babylon would "dry up" and the cities gates would "not be shut" (Isaiah 44:27 - 45:3) Then some 200 hundred years later the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Isaiah even made a bold statement regarding Babylon, that "She will never be inhabited". Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, those words have eventually come true since. People have time after time attempted to rebuild it, but never have accomplished it. And people don't even live where it once was to this day.
Most critical scholars think that everything after Isaiah 40 consists of later interpolations.

Edit: Oh, and you can find Muslims who claim that the Quran predicted the moon landing! And let's not forget Nostradamus predicting Hitler! ZOMG!

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 10:32

4. Scientific Accuracy. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat or that tangible substances or objects held it in place. Yet some 3,500 years ago the bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Then in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle(or sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) Thats long before people 'discovered' the world is round. In fact, for a time it was even considered it unlawful for the teaching that the world wasn't flat. Long before science learned about the spread of prevention of disease, physicians employed stuff that didn't even work, or even lethal. Not once does the bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Even in the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. Even scientists today agree by looking up at the stars that the universe had a sudden 'birth'.Y'know what? I was going to be thorough here, but it's easier if I do this:

Plonk (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

3. Internal Harmony. With 40 writers, and 66 books, written over the span of hundreds of years... Many of the writers lived centuries apart. Yet they all come together with a harmonious message. Many people today have literally no idea what that is. The over all theme of the bible is the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose for the earth by means of a Kingdom, or a world government.
There are differences in between accounts, yes. Why is this? Well lets say a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonable, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angel of view. Same in this case.
It's quite easy to achieve consistency if you chuck out the books you don't like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha#Biblical_books_called_apocrypha).

Luther

6 Oct 2007, 10:35

OK, I'm watching this thread very closely. "Debates" about about religion end to become heated very fast.

The commandments:

1 There is no final say but Volcadmins, and it is* final.

*Hehe, Moses never thought to use italics to stress his points.

2 Thou (by which I mean "you") shall not get away with insults to other forum users.

3 I shall not suffer no double posting. Not no how. Nu-uh.

4 There shall be a bunch of other rules which you will not neccessarily be informed of, but you will be struck down mightily if you break them. :eek:*

*LOLZ, Moses never used any emoticons either.

5 You can covet as many oxes as you like.

Ooh, that was wierd timing. A bunch of Jehova's Witnesses just made the mistake of knocking on my door. I was polite because they had their little children with them. Its a good job one of my kids didnt answer the door to them.

6 Play nice or don't play at all.

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 10:56

Good idea, that. I usually end up charging into these things against my better judgement.

thomasp

6 Oct 2007, 11:02

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 11:57

Yay, another religion debate! We now get to watch as people continuously try to prove that God does/doesn't exist by posting scources that isn't actually evidence but that would look nice on someone's facebook journal. Weeee.

Myself, I'm an atheist, but only because I fell I've got better things to do than worry if not worshipping 1 out of 1,000 gods believed to exist is going to screw up my afterlife. And also because I amn't convinced by facebook journals.

Raziel

6 Oct 2007, 12:04

Atheist too here (You may have guessed)

My Father always had a good point about this sort of topic, most (if not all) religions say you will go to hell unless you believe in their religion and only their religion.

That being the case no matter which religion you pick (assuming that they're all true) you go to hell anyway.

Which always made me wonder, is one religions version of heaven anothers version of hell? (Satanists not included in this one obviously)

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 12:08

Which always made me wonder, is one religions version of heaven anothers version of hell? (Satanists not included in this one obviously)
Yeah. People who believe in being reincarnation believe that they'll be going to where most religions believe is hell!

Raziel

6 Oct 2007, 12:19

Yeah. People who believe in being reincarnated believe that they'll be going to where most religions believe is hell!

hehe nice.

AndrewTaylor

6 Oct 2007, 12:29

1. Historical soundness. You say that half the stuff and people never existed or happened. For example people challenged the idea that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled, ever existed.
Heres a picture of a stone that mentions him. http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/pilate_inscription.jpg
Proper titles of the rulers are used correctly and accurately throughout the bible.
Sure, Pilate existed. So did Jesus; this much is a matter of historical record. They lived in Roman times, and the Romans were meticulous record-keepers. We know when things like censuses happened, who ordered them, why, and how they were conducted, so we know for example that the events detailed in Luke 2:1-17 are bunk. They're historically unsound: as I understand it, all historical record says Jesus was born in Nazereth, which makes good sense since his parents came from there and that's where he lived. If the 'gospels' say he was born in Bethlehem then they're either mistaken or...

2. Honesty. If the men who wrote the bible were out for their own glory they wouldn't of been so hard on themselves. :p But the bible writers openly admitted their own failures and weaknesses. The Hebrew scriptures often tell of the grumbling and rebellion of their own people. Writers spared no one. Not even the rulers of their nation. The first century Christians acknowledged they were not admired by the world around them but were looked upon as foolish. They also didn't cast Jesus in a 'favorable light' if you will. They reported honestly that he was born under humble circumstances into a working class family.

...they're lying. But why would they lie? What difference does it make if Jesus was from Bethlehem, or Nazereth, or Meggido? Well, there's a minor problem with the second and third options, which is...

3. Internal Harmony. With 40 writers, and 66 books, written over the span of hundreds of years... Many of the writers lived centuries apart. Yet they all come together with a harmonious message. Many people today have literally no idea what that is. The over all theme of the bible is the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose for the earth by means of a Kingdom, or a world government.
There are differences in between accounts, yes. Why is this? Well lets say a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonable, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angel of view. Same in this case.

...that in Micah 5:2 we learn that the son of God is supposedly to be born in Bethlehem (or rather, to the clan of Bethlehem, which was later retconned in Matthew 2:5-6 to the town of Bethlehem), so Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem or else there'd be no...

5. Fulfilled Prophecy. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. Such as the prophecy of the fall of Babylon. About 732 B.C.E., Isaiah wrote under inspiration, a leader named Cyrus would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates that surrounded Babylon would "dry up" and the cities gates would "not be shut" (Isaiah 44:27 - 45:3) Then some 200 hundred years later the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Isaiah even made a bold statement regarding Babylon, that "She will never be inhabited". Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, those words have eventually come true since. People have time after time attempted to rebuild it, but never have accomplished it. And people don't even live where it once was to this day.

...way that Micah was true.

I skipped over...
4. Scientific Accuracy. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat or that tangible substances or objects held it in place. Yet some 3,500 years ago the bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing". (Job 26:7) Then in the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle(or sphere) of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) Thats long before people 'discovered' the world is round. In fact, for a time it was even considered it unlawful for the teaching that the world wasn't flat. Long before science learned about the spread of prevention of disease, physicians employed stuff that didn't even work, or even lethal. Not once does the bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Even in the Mosaic Law contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. Even scientists today agree by looking up at the stars that the universe had a sudden 'birth'.
...the science one there because it didn't fit my run-on sentence theme, but I think the Creation Museum tells you everything you need to know about this one, and if it doesn't, then the fact that Job 39:9, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, and Isaiah 34:7 all mention unicorns should give you a clue.

kirbySS

6 Oct 2007, 12:52

Am I allowed to make a 'lol scientology' post? I feel it is needed.

pieman280

6 Oct 2007, 13:45

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 13:56

pieman280

6 Oct 2007, 14:02

Ignorance is not a valid excuse for belief I'm afraid.

I must admit that I am ignorant when it comes to a lot of stuff in religion because like I said I've never read the bible, but I think I know enough to get through a debate. although last time I saw a debate happen, it turned into a war on religion.

Yakuza, what is your religion, anyway?

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 14:06

Yakuzaism. I do what I feel is right, human rights and common sense are my bible.

Vader

6 Oct 2007, 14:55

It's irrational. Things are either reasoned or not and if you sink to unreason in any case, you have sunk to unreason.

It's just a small part of the mental blankies such as homeopathy, astrology, religion, crystals and so on. The whole gamut of supernatural crud that blights this world so badly is astonishing and scary.

Welcome to the Unlightenment.

So do you feel people don't deserve comfort when that in which they find comfort doesn't adhere to scientific reasoning?

By extension would you say that people who do find comfort in the 'absurd' don't deserve to be happy on account of not believing absolute fact 100% of the time?

I play games as a form of release and escapism from reality. I don't believe the games are real but I find my immersion in them comforting. Should I stop playing games simply because they're not real?

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 15:23

So do you feel people don't deserve comfort when that in which they find comfort doesn't adhere to scientific reasoning?

By extension would you say that people who do find comfort in the 'absurd' don't deserve to be happy on account of not believing absolute fact 100% of the time?

I play games as a form of release and escapism from reality. I don't believe the games are real but I find my immersion in them comforting. Should I stop playing games simply because they're not real?

I think there's no problem if you realize it's not real, I'm perfectly fine when people resort to the unproven, religion for the most part if that makes them happy, heck, there's even people who need to sink into unreasoning just to be able to cope with life. It's when they think it's real and factual when there's a problem, but then again, if they didn't think it's real chances are, blind belief to god wouldn't help them cope with devastating problems or just insecurity alone, so I wouldn't say believing in god is unreasonable, even if you think it's factual, as long as it makes you happy.

Slick

6 Oct 2007, 16:27

So from that I can gather that... the bible can sometimes include historical events that are true?
Everyone knows not everything in the bible is made up. The thing is that it's just a book that mixes historical events with fantasy, it's not an encoded message from god.

Yet, not saying you, but the idea stated in this thread was that it was historically wrong, and most of it never happened. The fact that people are finding more and more evidence that people and places really did exist proves, well, maybe there is more the Bible then you think. Its easy for people here to say that something never existed in there back yard just because they can't find it. Then its regarded as a fact. FACT. :p But then they finally found it, now all of a sudden it changes the fact.

So what does that prove anyway? :s
The fact that they weren't out for their own glory doesn't make it true does it?
I could start my own religion pointing myself as a god, but spend most of my life helping people and living in the most humble circumstances, would that make my religion true too?

Well look at it. 40 people who never met each other, some have not even read what others have already written... all write something that is in harmony with itself. If you set up a bunch of people to write a story, but don't tell them what the other is writing, chances are the story will not even come close to being harmonic. The fact that 40 some people did this, at different times, different places, etc. and yet still flows together leads some to believe in "all scripture is inspired by God". If this was indeed a fake book, like you claim, it should of been easy for other religions, people, who or whatever to do the same. And what I mean is to have different writers over large abouts of time agree on something. But today, not so much. Hell scientists today can't even agree on whether eggs are bad for you or not. They said they were at one point, but then they were good... and then bad, then good. Not so agreeable is my point.

Also, they write about the same god that they believe in and they write what they are taught by their ancestors of what this god is like.. hmm suddenly it doesn't seem that unlikely for there to be some harmony between the different books.
And even then, I do recall several extracts of the bible that do contradict each other, even tho I can't quote them or waste time looking for them.

One person told me that Jesus was walking away from Jerusalem. Where in another book of the bible, it says that he is entering Jerusalem. OMG THAT MENS EVERYTHIN IS WRON EVER IN BIBAL. Do some research before jumping to such conclusions. When the Romans took over Jerusalem, they built a newer Jerusalem. Why would they do that? Well, after attack the city a lot of damage was done, and they wanted to set up a new ruling place. So why not just build another city just outside of old Jerusalem and just call it Jerusalem? The Romans where known to assimilate other cultures into their own. So, my point is, instead of contradicting eachother, it more or less pinpoints exactly where Jesus was at the time that people recalled and wrote it down in there respective books.
So they got some things right. But they got so many things wrong too didn't they?
I mean I recall the bible refers to the women as inferior in several instances, for example.
Not to mention the countless ridiculous things that happen. Like god creating something that can be "evil" but getting all ****ed and stuff when said thing does actually do "evil"...
Giving his creation the right to choose, but getting ****ed off if it doesn't choose the right option...
Or how it took him several days to build earth but just one single day to create the rest of the universe, which is composed of... yup billions of other planets, suns and stuff... :p

The Bible does not refer to women as being inferior, as if they are a 'low life' or something. In fact the bible states that women should be set apart, and be assigned special honor.
God never created evil. He gave all of his creation free will. In the garden of Eden if you recall Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Bad. Does that mean they didn't know what was good and bad? No, they knew God told them not to do it. However because of free will, they chose to eat from that tree, therefore rejecting Gods right to decide what is best for Mankind, and selling the rest of us into sin, which leads to death. Yeah, great choice on our part. If God came down and smacked the cigarettes out peoples mouths because it IS bad for you and it truly IS for your benefit... don't you think people would be just a little bit mad? Why, because people think they have so called "rights".

But you can't prove that it was actually written before it happened, can you? :p
Also, I bet if I went around reading it I could also find prophecies that never fulfilled.

I can't personally, no. That is where faith plays a part. But prophecies that are being fulfilled today can help you to trust that the ones from the past are legit.

I still don't see how any of the things you have posted can prove anything on why it would be a reliable source or why I should follow it's teachings, tho.
Ya know, thats your opinion, and I respect that. But I can just as easily say the same thing about what people claim as facts today. Like the Big Bang theory, and evolution, etc.

Sorry I couldn't go deeper than this, I really could, and I wanted to get to everyones posts too. But right now I'm running very late for something and I'll have to get back with you all later if this thread even exists when I get back. :p

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 17:41

I think there's no problem if you realize it's not realHehe, reminds me of the way I cross my fingers and find some wood to touch when I'm desperately willing England not to lose a wicket. Of course I know it doesn't affect the outcome, but every ball the partnership keeps going makes me feel happier.

pieman280

6 Oct 2007, 18:43

through out time many civilizations have beleived in mighty beings known as god(s). I believe a lot in the bible is true but since I don't go to church, I wouldn't really know. maybe there are some flaws in the bible, but I don't think someone would lie aboutt the stuff in the biblebecause if you think about it no one would spend all their time into making a big book that's not true. that just doesn't make sense. I think the first bible was made by some one who was truthfull, and wanted to get his opinions on how the world was made spread across the world. Some stuff might not make sense, but I bet 85, no, 90% of it is true.

What makes more sense a random explosion or a powerful man. you decide, but I have already decided.:)

I'm not saying anyone's religion is wrong, it is a choice in life and I think niether side will ever be proven.

AndrewTaylor

6 Oct 2007, 18:51

if you think about it no one would spend all their time into making a big book that's not true. that just doesn't make sense.

That'd be why the woman in Waterstone's looked at me funny when I asked where the fiction section was.

I'm not saying anyone's religion is wrong, it is a choice in life and I think niether side will ever be proven.

The truth is never a choice. One history is true and all others are false. To work out which one is true, we need to use evidence and reason. You don't get to pick your favourite.

I think there's no problem if you realize it's not real, I'm perfectly fine when people resort to the unproven, religion for the most part if that makes them happy, heck, there's even people who need to sink into unreasoning just to be able to cope with life. It's when they think it's real and factual when there's a problem, but then again, if they didn't think it's real chances are, blind belief to god wouldn't help them cope with devastating problems or just insecurity alone, so I wouldn't say believing in god is unreasonable, even if you think it's factual, as long as it makes you happy.

I would add to that "...as long as you're not a jerk about it". If you try to apply your crook to other people then you should have it taken away from you.

To be honest, though, I think the "I NEED RELIGION" angle is oversold. I think it's a tiny grain of truth around which religious people have built a huge pearl of comforting lies. I'm not convinced that a delusion can ever be a necessity. I don't think it actually solves anyone's problems -- I think it's a workaround.

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 19:22

through out time many civilizations have beleived in mighty beings known as god(s).

Yes, you'd also be surprised how many things different religions of ancient civilizations share of the figure of Jesus, the apostles, his birth and a bunch of other things, there's also strong evidence suggestion Jesus is nothing else than the Sun the most interesting object in the world from a purely simplistic point of view, it's no coincidence many civilizations pay tribute to this "entity".

I believe a lot in the bible is true but since I don't go to church, I wouldn't really know. maybe there are some flaws in the bible,

There's not just some flaws, someone posted a link earlier, I think it was PaulPower, I suggest you take that a look, it's a great read.

but I don't think someone would lie about the stuff in the bible because if you think about it no one would spend all their time into making a big book that's not true. that just doesn't make sense.

Why not, being a novelist is an awesome job. There's no technical differences between the Bible and Lord of the Rings, I remember once a university teacher brought this up, don't recall if he was fired for it.

I think the first bible was made by some one who was truthfull, and wanted to get his opinions on how the world was made spread across the world. Some stuff might not make sense, but I bet 85, no, 90% of it is true.

Again, the link I mentioned should "prove" otherwise. The best answer you should adopt is, "the bible is purely methaporical, which in the end, is the only "logical" answer from a scientific point of view, and still, it doesn't serve as a totally valid answer.

What makes more sense a random explosion or a powerful man. you decide, but I have already decided.:)

Define "sense", because the big man does make sense. Noah, on the other hand, doesn't, why didn't he bloody swat the mosquitoes I wonder?

I'm not saying anyone's religion is wrong, it is a choice in life and I think neither side will ever be proven.

I guess we'll just have to wait and hope.

To be honest, though, I think the "I NEED RELIGION" angle is oversold. I think it's a tiny grain of truth around which religious people have built a huge pearl of comforting lies. I'm not convinced that a delusion can ever be a necessity. I don't think it actually solves anyone's problems -- I think it's a workaround

Oh, I do agree.

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 20:13

oh no, a debate over religion.

Well now I beleive in god although I've never actually read the bible, I have heard a lot of the stories. I just don't see were it makes sense that the big bang actually happend so I think god created us and we are all of god's creatures.
If a god (or even more luckily, your God) created the universe, then science is false. However, if science were false, it doesn't apply that any god, your God, all gods or any subset thereof, created the universe. Here, you've argued that because explanation A doesn't work for you then explanation B is valid for all. Whatever the truth of the universe is, this kind of reasoning is fallacious. (A true implies B false, B true implies A false, however, neither A or B false implies B or A true.)

The big bang makes sense in that it is the best description of our current observations that we have. It's not complete, there are some things that need tweaking but it's damn good. Its ultimate problem is that it cannot explain what kicked it off in the first place (abiogenesis vs. evolution). This is a big problem. However, applying god/gods/God to it doesn't answer the question either because even if he/she/they/some-of-them created the universe, then what created him/her/them?

At heart, the scientific explanation and the supernatural explanation suffer exactly the same problems regarding abiogenesis. However, the scientific explanation has the benefit of data.

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 20:23

So do you feel people don't deserve comfort when that in which they find comfort doesn't adhere to scientific reasoning?
Absolutely not, but how old were you when you forgot about your imaginary friend?

By extension would you say that people who do find comfort in the 'absurd' don't deserve to be happy on account of not believing absolute fact 100% of the time?
This is merely what you imagine that I would think. It therefore contains no argument at all... there's nothing I can respond to. Sorry.

I play games as a form of release and escapism from reality. I don't believe the games are real but I find my immersion in them comforting. Should I stop playing games simply because they're not real?
You answer your own point here: "release and escapism from reality," and "simply because they're not real." Homo Ludos.

Mr. Right

6 Oct 2007, 20:48

..............Sorry I couldn't go deeper than this, I really could, and I wanted to get to everyones posts too. But right now I'm running very late for something and I'll have to get back with you all later if this thread even exists when I get back. :p

Bravo!! (clap clap clap)!!!
I believe a lot in the bible is true but since I don't go to church, I wouldn't really know maybe there are some flaws in the bible, but I don't think someone would lie aboutt the stuff in the biblebecause if you think about it no one would spend all their time into making a big book that's not true. that just doesn't make sense. I think the first bible was made by some one who was truthfull, and wanted to get his opinions on how the world was made spread across the world. Some stuff might not make sense, but I bet 85, no, 90% of it is true.

2. There are no flaws in the bible. just because you don't understand everything it says doesn't mean that its not true. I don't know anyone that understood the bible the first time they read it. It take's lots of studying and I am 110% that its true.

and to the others that think the bible is phoney baloney.....Today the bible is the largest seller of all books published. ha ha still the number 1 seller, why? cause its the truth.

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 20:57

Bravo!! (clap clap clap)!!!

2. There are no flaws in the bible. just because you don't understand everything it says doesn't mean that its not true. I don't know anyone that understood the bible the first time they read it. It take's lots of studying and I am 110% that its true.

and to the others that think the bible is phoney baloney.....Today the bible is the largest seller of all books published. ha ha still the number 1 seller, why? cause its the truth.

Damn, the religious debate was going so far so good, but then... :(

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 21:09

I just don't see were it makes sense that the big bang actually happend so I think god created us and we are all of god's creatures.
Personally, I believe the universe wasn't actually created by anything, but that it just always existed; as if time only applied in it, but not to it.
As for a big bang, I believe that that would have only formed part of the universe, not all of it. And that there wasn't just one.

Damn, the religious debate was going so far so good,
You were reading the posts in the thread, right?

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 21:10

What makes more sense a random explosion or a powerful man. you decide, but I have already decided.:)Random explosion every time for me. Trying to explain organised complexity with even more organised complexity is self-defeating, and is for me about as philosophically satisfying as the "turtles all the way down" hypothesis.

quakerworm

6 Oct 2007, 21:13

If a god (or even more luckily, your God) created the universe, then science is false.
how in the world does that affect science? the only way that science breaks down is if
a) god is infinitely complex. (ergo, cannot be explained by science)
b) god is constantly interfering with everything.
c) god interferes with things in an unpredictable way.

according to most religions, gods tend to let most things happen on their own, or just don't exist. either of these are consistent with observation. whether or not god has created existence, and even if god gave existence a few nudges since, really has no impact on science as long as we can assume that things are mostly just coasting now.

AndrewTaylor

6 Oct 2007, 21:16

Damn, the religious debate was going so far so good, but then... :(

Yeah, there's nothing quite like religion to bring out the stubbornly irrational sides of people. "If you think it's not true you haven't understood it properly" -- it's preposterous, but the best bit is when they couple it onto the "strict mystery" to make one crazy logical runaway train. (I almost said "juggernaut", but that would have been one of the strangest and most specific mixed metaphors ever so I rethought it.)

The "Strict Mystery", for those as don't know, is a thing a Pope invented once to get out of a corner. Papal Infallibility ("Anything the Pope says is true, even if he used to be a Nazi") had been established by some dogma, and a Pope had said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously one single entity and three separate entities. A lot of people pointed out that this was logically impossible because one does not equal three, and they were, of course, entirely correct. So the Vatican decreed is a "strict mystery", which is something which cannot be comprehended (except presumably by God).

So essentially, the official Vatican position is that things which make no sense can nevertheless be true, in which case the laws of logic and reason do not apply and that means... well, if the universe is not required to make sense then it doesn't by any reasonable standard exist and if you think it does you must be crazy.

It's the same argument theologians use to discredit Richard Dawkins -- "he hasn't studied our particular choice of interpretation of this particular fairytale so how dare he say he's got a better idea?"

I'm paraphrasing.

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 21:17

Random explosion every time for me. Trying to explain organised complexity with even more organised complexity is self-defeating, and is for me about as philosophically satisfying as the "turtles all the way down" hypothesis.
The only thing I can think of is that, as an omnipotent god, he was able to wish himself into existance. How a non-existant thing is supposed to be able to do that, I don't know, but it still beats any theory I have for how a particle(s) is supposed to spontaneously exist.

AndrewTaylor

6 Oct 2007, 21:22

The only thing I can think of is that, as an omnipotent god, he was able to wish himself into existance. How a non-existant thing is supposed to be able to do that, I don't know, but it still beats any theory I have for how a particle(s) is supposed to spontaneously exist.

This reminds me of a great comeback to the ontological argument:
We define 'God' as the greatest possible object of thought. Now if an object of tought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist, is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, since, otherwise, another, still greater, would be possible. Therefore God exists
The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist. Ergo, God does not exist.

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 21:28

...and a Pope had said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously one single entity and three separate entities. A lot of people pointed out that this was logically impossible because one does not equal three, and they were, of course, entirely correct.
So... what, whenever I separate an object into two parts, it's fine, but it's physically impossible to separate it into three parts?

We define 'God' as the greatest possible object of thought.
Whoever said this deserves to be shot. No, not the actual argument, just this line alone.

Edit: Hang on a minute... man, I haven't once said "I am God, ergo, God exists!" Damn, I'm losing it...
:p

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 21:31

how in the world does that affect science...
Because if one or more gods created the world, then the world is not subject to reason and thus all science is false. (The theory of science requires, axiomatically, that the universe is reasonable.)

...according to most religions
Religion, just as every human endeavour, is subject to the whims of the gods.

Slick

6 Oct 2007, 21:42

The "Strict Mystery", for those as don't know, is a thing a Pope invented once to get out of a corner. Papal Infallibility ("Anything the Pope says is true, even if he used to be a Nazi") had been established by some dogma, and a Pope had said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously one single entity and three separate entities. A lot of people pointed out that this was logically impossible because one does not equal three, and they were, of course, entirely correct. So the Vatican decreed is a "strict mystery", which is something which cannot be comprehended (except presumably by God).

So essentially, the official Vatican position is that things which make no sense can nevertheless be true, in which case the laws of logic and reason do not apply and that means... well, if the universe is not required to make sense then it doesn't by any reasonable standard exist and if you think it does you must be crazy.

Mainly because the Pope doesn't know what hes talking about.. Same goes for every other self appointed person who claims to be a messenger of God, that teach what the Bible does NOT even say. The trinity isn't even in the Bible. The main problem with people today is they believe what they are told almost instantly, and they never LOOK for themselves. People who teach what their version of the bible is to people and end up misleading thousands was even foretold IN the bible. The way to distinguish those people from what the bible teaches is by their fruitage, or by their works. Sending people off to war in the "name" of God (which nobody takes the time to even learn), is hardly Christian at all.

But enough is enough. I realize whatever I say is not going to convince you people of anything. Just like no matter what you say is going to convince me. Really, all this is doing is creating a whole lot of drama (for some) and its not getting anything anywhere. I have no problem defending what I believe in, and neither should any of you. But people openly mocking this are getting on my nerves. If anyone would want to know more or are interested in the Bible, or want to talk to me about stuff more, PM me. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time talking here any longer.

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 21:52

Keep it civil, please.

Disagreeing with someone is fine. Pointing out what you think are the fallacies in someone else's thoughts is fine. Robust debate is fine.

Name calling is not.

Plasma

6 Oct 2007, 21:52

But enough is enough. I realize whatever I say is not going to convince you people of anything. Just like no matter what you say is going to convince me.
...even moreso in this thread than normal. Here, people aren't even making an attempt to try to convince the others that there is/isn't a god, like regular religious debates do. Instead, it's just loads of people going "you're an idiot because you do/don't believe in a god!".

Because if one or more gods created the world, then the world is not subject to reason
...what?

Slick

6 Oct 2007, 21:59

Keep it civil, please.

Disagreeing with someone is fine. Pointing out what you think are the fallacies in someone else's thoughts is fine. Robust debate is fine.

Name calling is not.
Sorry about that, it slipped. :p

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 22:06

...what?
If god/God/gods-or-some-subset-thereof created the universe, then they may have created the universe to be, specifically, not subject to reason and, therefore, in those universes science is false (as it axiomatically requires the universe to be reasonable.)

However, as we can never know whether our universe has been created to be reasonable or not (ineffability and all that), science is, by definition, false because the axiom is no longer axiomatic.

@slick: no worries.

quakerworm

6 Oct 2007, 22:33

If god/God/gods-or-some-subset-thereof created the universe, then they may have created the universe to be, specifically, not subject to reason and, therefore, in those universes science is false (as it axiomatically requires the universe to be reasonable.)
it doesn't matter. science isn't meant to be right 100% of the time. it does not require the universe that behaves reasonable always. consider, newtonian laws of motion. they are false. we know that these equation fail, but they are reasonable most of the time, and so we use them.

if we have been observing the world around us for a long time, and it has yet failed to behave reasonably, we might as well assume that it will stay that way until it fails. perhaps, if there is a god, one day he will step in and turn everything upside down. then, we will have to work everything out from scratch. until that time, science works regardless of whatever deities might have created the world.

edit:
Pope had said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simultaneously one single entity and three separate entities. A lot of people pointed out that this was logically impossible because one does not equal three, and they were, of course, entirely correct.
you should know enough modern algebra (consider Z2, 1+1+1=1) and enough quantum (consider entanglement of three states) to not think of this as such an irrational statement.

Raziel

6 Oct 2007, 22:46

and to the others that think the bible is phoney baloney.....Today the bible is the largest seller of all books published. ha ha still the number 1 seller.

Give Rowling some time pretty sure Potter will overtake eventually.

Ever thought that the reason the Bible has sold 6bn copies is because churches replace copies etc as with the Gideon hotel services?

Just a thought

AndrewTaylor

6 Oct 2007, 23:00

it doesn't matter. science isn't meant to be right 100% of the time.
Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. That's what science is for.

it does not require the universe that behaves reasonable always. consider, newtonian laws of motion. they are false. we know that these equation fail, but they are reasonable most of the time, and so we use them.
Newtonian laws are an approximation to the truth. They are what the underlying quantum equations say you should expect to happen, on a large scale. They're not strictly accurate, but that's known and understood, and the fact that they're not strictly accurate and the quantum equations that underlie them are right 100% of the time.

if we have been observing the world around us for a long time, and it has yet failed to behave reasonably, we might as well assume that it will stay that way until it fails. perhaps, if there is a god, one day he will step in and turn everything upside down. then, we will have to work everything out from scratch. until that time, science works regardless of whatever deities might have created the world.
Keep working on that idea and eventually you'll come up with the Problem Of Induction, mere centuries after Hume. Yes, science is based on inductive reasoning.

The problem is that once you accept an idea like "God Made It" you end up with a massively complex and powerful being for which no explanation exists, and then you're trapped in a universe where reason doesn't apply, and suddenly Hume is the least of your existential concerns.

you should know enough modern algebra (consider Z2, 1+1+1=1) and enough quantum (consider entanglement of three states) to not think of this as such an irrational statement.
I choose to assume this is sarcasm.

So... what, whenever I separate an object into two parts, it's fine, but it's physically impossible to separate it into three parts?
Okay, let's make this simple for you. Take The Chipmunks: Alvin, Simon and Theodore. They are three separate entities. There's a group called "The Chipmunks" which includes them all, but they're separate. Now let's take Aladdin Sane, Ziggy Stardust and David Bowie. They're all the same man. They are different aspects of the same entity. I'll wager you've never seen them all in a room together.

The point is that the "Unity of the Trinity" doctrine explicitly states that the Trinity is simultaneously three aspects of one entity and three separate entities. Probably it was introduced to stop people arguing over which it was.

Mathematically, this means that you can define a set of The Trinity, and it has a one-to-one mapping to the set of Chipmunks and to the set of David Bowie. From here it is trivial to prove that one equals three, and since that's a contradiction, the initial assumption must be wrong. So either maths is wrong or Catholicism is wrong. Or, it's a strict mystery, but then as I say you're living in a universe that you can't be sure exists.

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 23:08

it doesn't matter. science isn't meant to be right 100% of the time*.
I agree with you in that science isn't meant to be right, but it does matter fundamentally.
it does not require the universe that behaves reasonable always. consider, newtonian laws of motion. they are false. we know that these equation fail, but they are reasonable most of the time, and so we use them.
Yes, but this doesn't address my point. If a creator created the universe, then he/she/it/subgroup, etc., could have created the universe such that Newtonian descriptions are fairly good up until your 55th birthday, and not a second longer. Or until Amy Winehouse is no longer number 1 in the UK charts. Or until I grow a fourth chest hair. We would not and cannot know what these triggers are and therefore the universe becomes scientifically unpredictatble.

Science has the axiom of predictability. If that isn't an axiom, then science is false. A creator can create an unpredictable universe. Therefore, if our universe is created, science is false.

f we have been observing the world around us for a long time, and it has yet failed to behave reasonably, we might as well assume that it will stay that way until it fails.
Assume? I'm sorry, I though we were discussing science.
perhaps, if there is a god, one day he will step in and turn everything upside down.
...doesn't have to step in, could have created it to be that way at the start...
then, we will have to work everything out from scratch.
...until the day after your 55th birthday...
until that time, science works regardless of whatever deities might have created the world.
Nope. Science works because the deities defined it to work... until your 57th birthday or my fourth chest hair or whatever.

Edit:

It is meant to be exact, within exact error bars, though.

quakerworm

6 Oct 2007, 23:43

Assume? I'm sorry, I though we were discussing science.
all of the fundamental axioms of science are assumed, so yes we assume. that is all we do.

all of our models are a result of observation. we absolutely cannot be certain that everything we have learned so far will remain this way forever. fundamental constants can shift. conservation laws can become violated. even if you do not allow for any outside force, our current laws allow for this. according to stat mech, our seas might start boiling for no reason whatsoever. according to quantum, our own planet might tunnel into a nearest black hole. all of these things can happen, but they are unlikely, and that is why science keeps working.

creator, if one exists could have put in a "timer" to break everything down at some point. but best we can tell this has not happened in a few billion years. why should it happen right now? statistically, the odds of that are zero. therefore, just like the odds of things breaking down on their own now and not a billion years ago are zero. so as long as things keep behaving consistently according to our observations, we are good with science, regardless of who might have done what at creation.
Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. That's what science is for.
congratulations on entirely missing the point of science. there is no way for us to prove that anything we derive from science is correct. if science was meant to be always right, it fails automatically on its own principles. we allow for errors in science for that very reason, and try to minimize them whenever we can.

and just as a note, we actually know every single theory we use to be wrong. newtonian physics fails outright. quantum mechanics diverges. general relativity doesn't have a quantum theory to go with it. electrodynamics takes no account of general relativity, and hence maxwell's equations are wrong. statistical mechanics is, well, statistical. so we really have no theory that actually works. if being correct was part of science, we have gone very, very wrong somewhere.
I choose to assume this is sarcasm.
not at all. there are many things i don't like about christianity, but i see no problem with an entity being one and three at once. consider three spin-1/2 particles in an entangled all-up + all-down state. you have a magnetic contribution of three spins, but if you try to measure the spin of each particle, you'll find that you can only do it once, and the other two particles will already be "measured". so there is really only one spin-1/2 state there. so trinity would merely need to be a maximum entangled superposition of states for the pope's "one and three" thing not to be a contradiction, but just a poor wording of the "facts".

yakuza

6 Oct 2007, 23:57

Thing is, all these unexpected shifts would, in the end, be explained by a scientific explanation as they have so far, the day they don't is the day science does fail to be always right, but the end product of science is to be always right, and serve as final proof for human judgement. All the equations that have been proven wrong are not flawed science, are just flawed human criteria. Even if science is a man invention. In essence, science is always right in the sense that when a law of science is wrong, the same mistake will serve as a product to generate another law that covers such mistake and takes it into account, science is never wrong, it fixes itself when it's broken, it's dynamic, and that's what makes it useful and productive. Note that by right I don't mean absoulte truth, right is as right as it gets.

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 23:58

all of the fundamental axioms of science are assumed, so yes we assume. that is all we do.
I'm sorry but axioms are not assumptions. An assumption is something that is taken to be true; an axiom is something that is required to be true for the subsequent argument to be *sound*. Very different things there.

Edit:

Axioms are foundations. Assumptions are results

Edit II:
quakerworm edited his post massively between me reading it and responding to it. This may have changed the argument.

quakerworm

7 Oct 2007, 00:02

yakuza, our ability to correct for errors is always present only if the universe if finite. if it is infinite, we cannot predict all possible changes, and therefore, the universe might have a "timer" we cannot predict which will change everything very suddenly and throw our science out of the window.

conversely, if the universe is created by god, and god is not infinitely complex, we can use science to predict actions of god, allowing us to use our science.

so there really is no difference between "there is an omnipotent god" and "there is an infinite 'outside' to our universe". neither of these can be proven right or wrong, and we are, therefore, at the mercy of the chance, regardless of where it comes from.

and no, the fact that all our science models are wrong does not have to have any human factor in it. we might have a situation where there are infinitely many correction terms that we have no way of predicting, making any scientific model inherently incorrect. we'd like to believe that there is an ultimate theory of everything out there, but there doesn't have to be one.
I'm sorry but axioms are not assumptions. An assumption is something that is taken to be true; an axiom is something that is required to be true for the subsequent argument to be *sound*. Very different things there.

Edit:

Axioms are foundations. Assumptions are results
and how do you know that axioms are true? that's right, you assume they are, because by definition, axiom cannot be proven.

DGF

7 Oct 2007, 00:13

"Gameplay may change during online play"
its on all the games I've played with online and people have keep in mind that there are some immature people in this world

parsley

7 Oct 2007, 00:24

and how do you know that axioms are true? that's right, you assume they are, because by definition, axiom cannot be proven.
You're right and wrong in the sense that axioms cannot be proven. You're bang on with in unprovable nature of axioms, but that's *why* they're called axioms. It's baked into the word.

Axioms are *requirements*, whereas assumptions are *results*.

Plasma

7 Oct 2007, 00:43

Take The Chipmunks: Alvin, Simon and Theodore. They are three separate entities. There's a group called "The Chipmunks" which includes them all, but they're separate.
A bit loose, but that's an example.
Nobody said that the one entity was the same type of entity as the three, just that the three persons were the one god. It's 1a=3b, not 1=3.

Eyedunno

7 Oct 2007, 01:26

Mainly because the Pope doesn't know what hes talking about.. Same goes for every other self appointed person who claims to be a messenger of God, that teach what the Bible does NOT even say. The trinity isn't even in the Bible.
I always get a kick out of this kind of argument because, well, who compiled the Bible? If you said the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, you're right. So they had the authority to decide on which books made it into the Bible, but the other things they have done are not to be trusted because they're not in that Bible. :)

AndrewTaylor

7 Oct 2007, 02:07

all of our models are a result of observation. we absolutely cannot be certain that everything we have learned so far will remain this way forever.
Well done, you just rediscovered the Problem Of Induction. I knew you'd get there.

congratulations on entirely missing the point of science. there is no way for us to prove that anything we derive from science is correct. if science was meant to be always right, it fails automatically on its own principles. we allow for errors in science for that very reason, and try to minimize them whenever we can.
That's my point too: science is meant to be right 100% of the time, and that's why we throw out any hypotheses that aren't, just like we threw out Newton's Laws (although we keep them on in a sense, knowing as we do that they're not really quite right, because it's convenient to do so).

Yes, there's nothing to say that what we know of science is necessarily right even 1% of the time, but it's meant to be and the way you phrased it sort of implied otherwise. It did to me, anyway. I may have misinterpreted it.

not at all. there are many things i don't like about christianity, but i see no problem with an entity being one and three at once. consider three spin-1/2 particles in an entangled all-up + all-down state. you have a magnetic contribution of three spins, but if you try to measure the spin of each particle, you'll find that you can only do it once, and the other two particles will already be "measured". so there is really only one spin-1/2 state there. so trinity would merely need to be a maximum entangled superposition of states for the pope's "one and three" thing not to be a contradiction, but just a poor wording of the "facts".A bit loose, but that's an example.
Nobody said that the one entity was the same type of entity as the three
Yes, they did. That's pretty well exactly what they said. If they'd said "God is the name given to the group of the father, son, and ghost", then that would be fine, like the Chipmunks, or had they said "God, Jesus and the Spirit are all the same person" that would be fine, like Bowie, but they quite explicitly state that both those things are true, and that is why it's nonsense.

This is an insane argument anyway, because the Church admitted it was nonsense by inventing the "strict mystery" -- even if you can defend the statement, the Church can't, and they're still pushing the idea that nonsense can be true just because they say it is. (And the Pope can't have made a "poor wording" of the facts because he's supposed to be sodding infallible!)

so there really is no difference between "there is an omnipotent god" and "there is an infinite 'outside' to our universe". neither of these can be proven right or wrong

From a scientific point of view, those statements are not true, and nor are they false. What they are is meaningless. Nothing can meaningfully exist outside the universe because that is the definition of "universe", so the second statement is meaningless, and any being that doesn't have any effect on the universe doesn't in any meaningful sense exist, so the first statement (implicitly: "there is an omnipotent but undetectable god") doesn't mean anything either.

They're statements which, whether true or false, don't actually affect the reality that we can observe. Their truth or otherwise is irrelevant to everything ever.

It might, theoretically, be the case that on some higher level those statements have meaning, but right here and right now, they're at best necessarily irrelevant.

I always get a kick out of this kind of argument because, well, who compiled the Bible? If you said the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, you're right. So they had the authority to decide on which books made it into the Bible, but the other things they have done are not to be trusted because they're not in that Bible.
There are loads of books that didn't make the cut as well, aren't there? I feel sure I've seen an X-Files episode about one of them.

pieman280

7 Oct 2007, 03:47

or even more luckily, your God

even if he/she/they/some-of-them created the universe, then what created him/her/them?

I have no Idea were you got the "Your God" thing from. you act like I have some personal god whigh once again I have no idea were you got that from.

The thing I think is most flawed of all in both sides is what caused either one of them to form. an eplosion doesn't make any sense and niether does some magical all mighty being. For some reason this never changes my mid at all.

just because you don't understand everything it says doesn't mean that its not true.

Once again I said I have never read the bible! I've never done more to a bible than just look at the cover, although I might get one soon...

quakerworm

7 Oct 2007, 07:30

Axioms are *requirements*, whereas assumptions are *results*.
1) axiom: every universe is created by a god that exists.
2) axiom: we live in a universe.
3) from 1 and 2, there exists a god that created our universe.

that is so much better than assuming result 3 from the start.

axioms, rather than direct assumptions, are needed for one reason only. by showing that your axioms are non-self-contradicting, you show that everything derived from them is self-consistent. yes, that is a bit better than what most religions do, but these are still assumptions at the end of the day.

Moiz575

7 Oct 2007, 09:45

Luther

7 Oct 2007, 10:57

All of you i think should relax. we are all entitled to our own beliefs and each and every one of us thinks that they are right and everybody else is wrong. Now im not saying that you should stop or anything.........just calm down a little. this is supposed to be a forum for WORMS OPEN WARFARE 2 REMEMBER.

I think this is a pretty civilised discussion so far. Everyone seems relaxed to me.

By the, not all of us think that we're right and everyone else is wrong. Personally I doubt that I'm right about much at all, except what its like to be me.

Moiz575

7 Oct 2007, 11:30

I was just saying......

parsley

7 Oct 2007, 11:36

I have no Idea were you got the "Your God" thing from. you act like I have some personal god whigh once again I have no idea were you got that from.
I apologise if I've misunderstood you.
Well now I beleive in god...
That's why I thought that you believed in your god: the one the you believe in as opposed to the dozens and dozens of other gods that millions of other people believe in.

Once again, I can only apologise if I've got things wrong.

The thing I think is most flawed of all in both sides is what caused either one of them to form. an eplosion doesn't make any sense and niether does some magical all mighty being. For some reason this never changes my mid at all.
I agree with you that causation is a problem for both explanations, but remember that the big bang is what happened after time 0: it's an explanation of how the universe came to look as is does to us now, not an explanation of its moment of creation (the maths falls apart at time 0).

AndrewTaylor

7 Oct 2007, 14:22

1) axiom: every universe is created by a god that exists.
2) axiom: we live in a universe.
3) from 1 and 2, there exists a god that created our universe.

that is so much better than assuming result 3 from the start.

axioms, rather than direct assumptions, are needed for one reason only. by showing that your axioms are non-self-contradicting, you show that everything derived from them is self-consistent. yes, that is a bit better than what most religions do, but these are still assumptions at the end of the day.

Yeah, but the thing is that the axioms for science are things like "inductive reasoning holds" and "reality can be measured", whereas your first one is A Pretty Big If. Science uses the bare minimum set of axioms required to make sense of the universe -- the kind of axioms where if any one of them isn't true then reality is absurd and there's no point doing anything at all, science, religion, or otherwise.

Sure, Hume would say they're no more valid than religious axioms, but Hume was a twerp.

Eyedunno

7 Oct 2007, 14:50

AndrewTaylor

7 Oct 2007, 15:23

I tend to use the name Hume as a shorthand for the-problem-of-induction. It bothers me; it's like argument from Buttons and Mindy.

I don't really know anything else about Hume.

pieman280

7 Oct 2007, 15:32

All of you i think should relax. we are all entitled to our own beliefs and each and every one of us thinks that they are right and everybody else is wrong. Now im not saying that you should stop or anything.........just calm down a little. this is supposed to be a forum for WORMS OPEN WARFARE 2 REMEMBER.

I think everyone is calm so far although talking about religion in this type of way feels weird.
something tells me this debate isn't going to end any time soon.

I apologise if I've misunderstood you.

Thank you:)

FeXd

7 Oct 2007, 16:45

Sure, Hume would say they're no more valid than religious axioms, but Hume was a twerp.

Haha I definitely loled.

quakerworm

7 Oct 2007, 19:59

Yeah, but the thing is that the axioms for science are things like "inductive reasoning holds" and "reality can be measured", whereas your first one is A Pretty Big If. Science uses the bare minimum set of axioms required to make sense of the universe -- the kind of axioms where if any one of them isn't true then reality is absurd and there's no point doing anything at all, science, religion, or otherwise.

Sure, Hume would say they're no more valid than religious axioms, but Hume was a twerp.
of course. that is my reasoning as well, and this is why i am a physicist and not a priest. however, just because these axioms are required for us to make any sense out of anything, it doesn't mean they hold. there might, very well, be no sense to any of it, and you have to keep it in mind. this is why science should never be used as an argument against religion. the two never actually contradict each other. they are based on different axioms, and therefore, cannot compete on anything other than the 'quality' of the axioms.

this is also where the argument touches on what i was saying about existence of god not being a factor on validity of science. if it was, then science and religion contradict each other, and that can only happen properly if we chose the common axiom set.

as for hume, yeah, he was a twerp. but show me a philosopher who wasn't. at least, hume tried to stay consistent. i cannot say the same for these who tried to sink hume's arguments. you have to look no further than kant with his "synthetic a priori", which really is just a silly way of trying to get around the fact that we have no way to establish an axiom set.

AndrewTaylor

7 Oct 2007, 21:10

of course. that is my reasoning as well, and this is why i am a physicist and not a priest. however, just because these axioms are required for us to make any sense out of anything, it doesn't mean they hold. there might, very well, be no sense to any of it, and you have to keep it in mind. this is why science should never be used as an argument against religion. the two never actually contradict each other. they are based on different axioms, and therefore, cannot compete on anything other than the 'quality' of the axioms.

this is also where the argument touches on what i was saying about existence of god not being a factor on validity of science. if it was, then science and religion contradict each other, and that can only happen properly if we chose the common axiom set.

That's in interesting take on NOMA. (See this debate is so old all your arguments have names already ;))

Well, I'm not sure I completely agree -- I mean, ultimately, there has to be an objective reality. There's a God or there's not, and when you pare it right back, "science" is really any study by any sensible method to discover what that reality is, whereas religion isn't. Religion is just mindless adherence to any one given idea. It involves no attempt to find the truth, it just involves shouting at people until they accept your version of events.

As a tool for knowing what's what, science is the only one that stands a chance. You can argue a strong defence for religion on the grounds that it helps people and comforts people and so forth, but where it contradicts science it's just plain wrong, because science is an experimentally derived truth, and religion is just angry people shouting.

quakerworm

7 Oct 2007, 21:50

don't get me wrong. i am not defending religion. i am defending science. the problem is that when people start taking science as some ultimate truth, science becomes just another religion, and i do not want to see that happen.

even if there is an objective reality, which is arguable in the first place, but is a good thing to assume at least as a model, it doesn't mean you can define it in any way. you should be familiar with at least some mathematical problems that cannot be proven. you have a proposition, it is strictly true or false, but there is no way to prove whether it is true or false, and that later fact can be proven. what do you say if problem of what is and what is not a part of objective reality turns out to be such a thing? and again, that's assuming that there is one. so in that case, do we scrap science, or do we just keep using it because it works?

the beauty of inductive reasoning in science is that while it is completely inductive, the statistical odds of it failing now are practically zero, regardless of what we may or may not presume about the existence of objective reality, it being created by chance or higher beings, or even in the limit of absolute nihilism. the only thing we need to assume without any real basis is consistency of our knowledge, which is a big one, if you think about it, but without this one assumption we are stuck completely.

i would also like to caution you about saying that science is the only tool. we don't know that. it is the best one we have figured out, but it doesn't mean that it is the best one overall. for all we know, there could be a store of all knowledge about the universe somewhere, and we just haven't figured out how to tap into it. granted, such a thing would contradict our science, but we've gone over that already.

and just to throw in a last bit of perspective, flat earth was also an experimentally derived truth. you can go from science to religion in a flash, and you have to be very critical about your own knowledge to avoid that.

AndrewTaylor

7 Oct 2007, 23:34

i would also like to caution you about saying that science is the only tool. we don't know that. it is the best one we have figured out, but it doesn't mean that it is the best one overall. for all we know, there could be a store of all knowledge about the universe somewhere, and we just haven't figured out how to tap into it. granted, such a thing would contradict our science, but we've gone over that already.

Well, that depends on definitions. If someone thought up a different way to critically evaluate the universe, I'd call that science -- the word just means "knowledge".

and just to throw in a last bit of perspective, flat earth was also an experimentally derived truth. you can go from science to religion in a flash, and you have to be very critical about your own knowledge to avoid that.

Well in fairness, the Earth is flat, to a useful approximation. Its curvature is negligible for virtually any practical application. It's as flat as Newton's Laws are true.

Luther

8 Oct 2007, 00:03

To hark back to an earlier sub-topic, I was just reading Stephen Fry's latest blog, on the subject of fame. He talks about people using Arcane Factoids as ways of approaching him. One particular example he gives:

"‘Did you know that the V-sign comes from the archers at Agincourt?’ I have given up replying, ‘no I didn’t know that, and the reason I didn’t know it is because it isn’t true.’ People like to believe their derivations and origins, no matter how wrong they are."

So, there we go. If Fry says its not true them it really isn't true.

quakerworm

8 Oct 2007, 00:06

Well, that depends on definitions. If someone thought up a different way to critically evaluate the universe, I'd call that science -- the word just means "knowledge".
ah. so you are saying that if we define science as the best method for obtaining knowledge, then the best method for obtaining knowledge is indisputably science. i can't argue with that, but i must add that in this case, we do not know what science is, and that makes things a bit complicated.

my main point is that current scientific method is not necessarily the best one. as long as we agree on that, the rest is semantics.
Well in fairness, the Earth is flat, to a useful approximation. Its curvature is negligible for virtually any practical application. It's as flat as Newton's Laws are true.
i wouldn't say 'for every practical application' in the age of air travel and gps, but yeah. as long as you don't make a religion out of it. just like you shouldn't make a religion out of any scientific theory. i know a lot of people who think that big bang is the only way the universe could have started. considering how poorly we still understand cosmology, you are only slightly better off betting on big bang than on the hand of god.

KRD

8 Oct 2007, 07:42

i know a lot of people who think that big bang is the only way the universe could have started. considering how poorly we still understand cosmology, you are only slightly better off betting on big bang than on the hand of god.

The difference being that science makes it a point to investigate matters further and adapt its theories each time new evidence is discovered. Most religions make it a point not to. That's what does it for me and makes me feel those taking the scientific approach are more than just slightly better off as far as turning out to be right in the end goes.

quakerworm

8 Oct 2007, 08:48

The difference being that science makes it a point to investigate matters further and adapt its theories...
science does, but most people, unfortunately, don't.
those taking the scientific approach are more than just slightly better off as far turning out to be right in the end goes.
being right about what? if you want to predict what will happen, yes, bet on science. if you want to know why it works that way, you are in equally bad shape with either. one thing that people tend to forget or not realize in the first place is that science doesn't answer any 'why' questions.

- why does the apple fall down and hit newton on the head?
- because it is attracted to earth.
- why is the apple attracted to earth?
- because it is in earth's gravitational field?
- why is there a gravitational field?
- because the earth's mass causes curvature in local space-time and the apple travels along the geodesic.
- why does the earth's mass curve the space-time?
- because it does. go away.

you will eventually run into this problem with any theory. none of them explain things completely, and it should be evident that none of them ever will, no matter how complex they get. you'll always end up with 'because it works this way, as seen from countless experiments' as your final answer.

wave

8 Oct 2007, 10:10

science does, but most people, unfortunately, don't.

being right about what? if you want to predict what will happen, yes, bet on science. if you want to know why it works that way, you are in equally bad shape with either. one thing that people tend to forget or not realize in the first place is that science doesn't answer any 'why' questions.

- why does the apple fall down and hit newton on the head?
- because it is attracted to earth.
- why is the apple attracted to earth?
- because it is in earth's gravitational field?
- why is there a gravitational field?
- because the earth's mass causes curvature in local space-time and the apple travels along the geodesic.
- why does the earth's mass curve the space-time?
- because it does. go away.

you will eventually run into this problem with any theory. none of them explain things completely, and it should be evident that none of them ever will, no matter how complex they get. you'll always end up with 'because it works this way, as seen from countless experiments' as your final answer.

but surely the approcah of asking questions is better than just saying 'God done it' approach, which is basically the same as saying 'i don't know'. Nobody Knows that God exist they just believe it. True nobody knows what created the universe (maybe big bang) but these are the questions that scientist ask and want to find out answers to. But alas we may never know, but many people find it better to look and try to find out rather than just to say 'i don't know'.

quakerworm

8 Oct 2007, 10:34

but surely the approcah of asking questions is better than just saying 'God done it' approach
approach for what? if you are trying to understand 'why', no, it isn't better. either way, you'll end up with a logical equivalent of 'god done it'.
nobody knows what created the universe (maybe big bang) but these are the questions that scientist ask
no self-respecting scientist will try to scientifically figure out what created the universe. that is beyond the scope of science. scientists try to figure out what might have been going on within the first fractions of the second from big bang primarily to gain better understanding of space, time, and various forms of matter. if big bang happened, it tells us a lot about how things should behave now. but question of why big bang happened is not something that can be answered by scientific method. you still have your pick of hand of god, random fluctuation, or mathematical inevitability.

pieman280

8 Oct 2007, 11:45

saying 'God done it' approach, which is basically the same as saying 'i don't know'. umm.... no

People don't use "I belive in God" as a replacment for "I don't know" they believe in god for a reason, they believe he created the world. the whole bible wasn't created as an excuse for not knowing

Nobody Knows that God exist they just believe it.

That's the same for every theory, like the big bang, we don't have enough information yet for any theory.

yakuza

8 Oct 2007, 12:49

wave

8 Oct 2007, 13:54

umm.... no

People don't use "I belive in God" as a replacment for "I don't know" they believe in god for a reason, they believe he created the world. the whole bible wasn't created as an excuse for not knowing

That's the same for every theory, like the big bang, we don't have enough information yet for any theory.

thankyou for re-iterating what i already said. Nobody knows god exists that they just believe it ,is common ground we can all agree with. However i guess the question really is 'what is god?' if you are saying that god is everything ie the universe and so on then i may be able to agree with some of what you people are saying, however if you say God is the just the christian form of god and is some sort of giant beautiful man in heaven, lol, then the idea of God is pardon my english B#llsh't.

But at the moment the big bang and its mystery is the only thing that supports the idea of God, but given thats its such a massive concept it makes the debate very interesting.

But to abandon question would be foolish, some interesting questions are;-

1) what is God? Is God the universe?
2) Who created God?
3) Why does God exist?
4) Why did it create the universe if it did at all?

quakerworm

8 Oct 2007, 14:00

People don't use "I belive in God" as a replacment for "I don't know" they believe in god for a reason, they believe he created the world. the whole bible wasn't created as an excuse for not knowing
*cough*genesis*cough*
That's the same for every theory, like the big bang, we don't have enough information yet for any theory.
lets compare the evidence. evidence for god - none. i'm done comparing.

and don't give me any miracle stuff. you started comparing existence of god to a scientific theory, so lets test it as a scientific theory. to have evidence for existence of god we need a critical experiment with reproduceable results.

got nothing? thought so.

Luther

8 Oct 2007, 15:16

Science relies on testable statements. Religion does not. Science does not make statements about what something is, it talks about how things behave. Religion must not be tested, by decree. Science is all about testing itself.

All in all they're two completely different things, doing completely different jobs.

robowurmz

8 Oct 2007, 17:23

*cough*genesis*cough*

lets compare the evidence. evidence for god - none. i'm done comparing.

and don't give me any miracle stuff. you started comparing existence of god to a scientific theory, so lets test it as a scientific theory. to have evidence for existence of god we need a critical experiment with reproduceable results.

got nothing? thought so.

Hang on a moment. Who says there isn't evidence for God's existence?
For instance, "The Missing Day". Scientists couldn't work out why there seemed to be a missing day now and again, instead of the usual 365.25 days a year. (You can google this, I am not lying :p) So this guy comes up and he says that the answer is in the Bible. The scientists are confused about this, and he goes on to explain;

In the old testament, there was a guy who did not beleive, and he wanted to test God. He said to one of the Prophets "Get God to do something to prove to me he exists."

The next day, the Prophet came back and he said that God was going to move the sun forwards 10 degrees just after noon. The man was not pleased. "The sun moves forwards anyway! Ask Him to move it BACK 10 degrees."

This he did. That accounted for about 8 hours of the day being shifted back, causing a skip now and again every 2500 years or so. The rest of the hours were accounted for by another incident, in Exodus, where God turned the afternoon into night at Egypt, to punish the Pharoh for keeping Israelites as slaves.

Plasma

8 Oct 2007, 17:30

however if you say God is the just the christian form of god and is some sort of giant beautiful man in heaven, lol, then the idea of God is pardon my english B#llsh't.
Only little kids think that. Proper adults don't think of him as human.

lets compare the evidence. evidence for god - none. i'm done comparing.
There's about as much evidence to suggest a God exists as there is to suggest the universe exists by any other theory.
Get over it.

Eyedunno

8 Oct 2007, 17:47

Only little kids think that. Proper adults don't think of him as human.
But He loves you. Except when you don't follow His commands. That makes Him sad, and occasionally angry. And He's conscious and intelligent. Please enlighten me, where does the human projection stop? At His level of power and knowledge? Cuz it would seem to me that Galactus and the Watcher have those things covered.

yakuza

8 Oct 2007, 17:57

Hang on a moment. Who says there isn't evidence for God's existence?
For instance, "The Missing Day". Scientists couldn't work out why there seemed to be a missing day now and again, instead of the usual 365.25 days a year. (You can google this, I am not lying :p) So this guy comes up and he says that the answer is in the Bible. The scientists are confused about this, and he goes on to explain;

In the old testament, there was a guy who did not beleive, and he wanted to test God. He said to one of the Prophets "Get God to do something to prove to me he exists."

The next day, the Prophet came back and he said that God was going to move the sun forwards 10 degrees just after noon. The man was not pleased. "The sun moves forwards anyway! Ask Him to move it BACK 10 degrees."

This he did. That accounted for about 8 hours of the day being shifted back, causing a skip now and again every 2500 years or so. The rest of the hours were accounted for by another incident, in Exodus, where God turned the afternoon into night at Egypt, to punish the Pharoh for keeping Israelites as slaves.

I was surprised no one used the bible as a evidence of god's existence so far, so, let me ask you, are you using the bible as evidence of god's existence?

AndrewTaylor

8 Oct 2007, 18:22

Hang on a moment. Who says there isn't evidence for God's existence? For instance, "The Missing Day". Scientists couldn't work out why there seemed to be a missing day now and again, instead of the usual 365.25 days a year. (You can google this, I am not lying :p) So this guy comes up and he says that the answer is in the Bible. The scientists are confused about this, and he goes on to explain;

In the old testament, there was a guy who did not beleive, and he wanted to test God. He said to one of the Prophets "Get God to do something to prove to me he exists."

The next day, the Prophet came back and he said that God was going to move the sun forwards 10 degrees just after noon. The man was not pleased. "The sun moves forwards anyway! Ask Him to move it BACK 10 degrees."

This he did. That accounted for about 8 hours of the day being shifted back, causing a skip now and again every 2500 years or so. The rest of the hours were accounted for by another incident, in Exodus, where God turned the afternoon into night at Egypt, to punish the Pharoh for keeping Israelites as slaves.

Er, no, it's because 365.25 is also an approximation. I bet you can't get God to repeat his little sun-moving trick. In any case, God inserting a few hours thousands of years ago, even if it was true, wouldn't explain extra hours appearing now.

To humour you, I did Google it, and would you look what site came up top?
http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp (http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp)

Seems familiar...

you are only slightly better off betting on big bang than on the hand of god.
Your main point is fair but this snippet isn't. There's heaps of evidence for the Big Bang and not a shred for God.

mark2

8 Oct 2007, 18:29

How did this go from worms to about how the universe started?

parsley

8 Oct 2007, 19:30

Hang on a moment. Who says there isn't evidence for God's existence?
For instance, "The Missing Day"...
Unfortunately, evidence is not the plural of anecdote. It's a lovely story, certainly, but you could, with little more than a sextant, a reasonably accurate clock and a dollop of mathematics, demonstrate it's falsehood.

Luther

8 Oct 2007, 20:14

In the old testament, there was a guy who did not beleive, and he wanted to test God. He said to one of the Prophets "Get God to do something to prove to me he exists."
The next day, the Prophet came back and he said that God was going to move the sun forwards 10 degrees just after noon. The man was not pleased. "The sun moves forwards anyway! Ask Him to move it BACK 10 degrees."
I had no idea that Jehova did requests. I'd have thought that the "prophet" might have explained about the Earth orbiting the sun, not the other way round. Maybe that would have been too "scientific".

where God turned the afternoon into night at Egypt, to punish the Pharoh for keeping Israelites as slaves.
Wow, thats quite some punishment. I do a similar one with my kids. Straight to bed with no supper! By the way I bet the inhabitants of Bairiki were a bit bemused that day, when it suddenly got sunny at 2AM. They're the guys who live on the other side of the planet to Egypt.

pieman280

8 Oct 2007, 21:57

wave

8 Oct 2007, 22:28

I would like to question the Big Bang:

If it is an explosion, then how did it creat instead of destroy
What the heck caused the explosion, if there was nothing to begin with
were did this theory come from to begin with. doesn't it seem a little random to just one day think an explosion caused life.

if someone answers all of these questions in a reasonable answer the they get a cookie:p

and one last thing... I know little to nothing about the big bang theory but what if god created the big bang which created the universe?

but pieman i already have questions for you! The answers to your questions are nobidy knows, but that doesn't mean god did it! If god created the big bang, they what created god? Also what is god?

Id would be easier and more helpful if God was defined, has anyone ever done that?

Is God the big bang? If so did he make the big bang board games on my macbook?

Plasma

8 Oct 2007, 22:37

If it is an explosion, then how did it creat instead of destroy
Explosions demolish, but they don't destroy. Although the intense heat and fire can destroy anything suspectable to instense heat or fire.

What the heck caused the explosion, if there was nothing to begin with
That's just it: for the Big Bang to have actually happened, there had to have been some very small object(s) there beforehand. That's why the Big Bang is not an actual theory of how the universe was created itself.

were did this theory come from to begin with. doesn't it seem a little random to just one day think an explosion caused life.
The theory came from that all observed planets seem to be slowly moving away from one point.
Also, the Big Bang only made planets and such. Life was said to be started some other way.

and one last thing... I know little to nothing about the big bang theory but what if god created the big bang which created the universe?
Like I said, the Big Bang isn't an actual theory of how the universe was created itself, just how it took it's current form of planets and galaxies. So yes, there's a good chance that if a god created the universe, it was with the Big Bang, unless you're a creationist (ie. God made the world starting with the garden of Eden)

Alien King

8 Oct 2007, 22:44

If it is an explosion, then how did it creat instead of destroy
What the heck caused the explosion, if there was nothing to begin with
were did this theory come from to begin with. doesn't it seem a little random to just one day think an explosion caused life.

I seem to recall something about a theory satiting that the universe has pretty much always been there. One day the universe will stop expanding and will all go back to a point of singularity and the whole buisness will start again. This process has been going on for infinity. Or something...

Then again, I seem to recall something about there being too much dark energy for the universe to collapse in on itself and therefore it would continue expanding for infinity.

Besides, what's wrong with the idea of an explosion creating instead of destroying? If the universe is closed (Big Crunch -> Big Bang), then all the previous matter is then expelled out again. Anyway, explosions don't actually destroy - they just expell energy.

Life came a long time after the explosion. It required a lot of complicated things to happen first (amino acids -> proteins and such).

Then again, my entire post may be abosulte crap as I have little to no idea what the hell I'm going on about, so feel free to criticise it and correct the large amount of errors it is probably riddled with.

Plasma

8 Oct 2007, 22:49

I seem to recall something about a theory satiting that the universe has pretty much always been there. One day the universe will stop expanding and will all go back to a point of singularity and the whole buisness will start again. This process has been going on for infinity. Or something...
Hey, that was my theory!
Only, except for the 'point of singularity' part. I believe there were multiple explosions throughout the universe.

pieman280

8 Oct 2007, 22:50

but pieman i already have questions for you!
Oh sorry, I thought those questions were for anybody. once again, sorry. It's best you ask someone who has picked up a bible, but I'll answer you with as much as I know:

No one knows what created god, same for the big bang I guess.

If by define God you mean what he does then I'll say this: I believe he created us all and gave us life, he created good and evil along with this whole world. when I was little I thought he controlled what people think but I don't believe that any more. if you mean define god as in what he looks like then I have no idea:confused:

I hope this was helpfull, if not then ask more questions.

Edit: I know little to nothing about the big bang. the only thing I know is it's an explosion, that's one of the reasons I believe in god; I don't know enough about the big bang

I really need to look it up sometime.

Alien King

8 Oct 2007, 22:55

I personally find it a littler harder to accept the fact that an all powerful being/beings created all life pretty much around us, everwhere. Especially when said deity is said to have created the entire universe.

I think I could accpet the idea of life on Earth being created by a race of aliens or something, but that's sort of beside the point.

And as far as I can tell, good and evil is something we have created.

GhostToast

8 Oct 2007, 23:03

...I think I could accpet the idea of life on Earth being created by a race of aliens or something, but that's sort of beside the point...

this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're the king of the aliens...would it?

pieman280

8 Oct 2007, 23:07

I personally find it a littler harder to accept the fact that an all powerful being/beings created all life pretty much around us, everwhere. good and evil is something we have created.

it is a little weird that powerfull being(s) created earth.

The good and evil thing is a little hard to explain, but we did create it but yet at the same time god did. like I said it's a little hard to eplain... if I can even remember it, I think I forgot about the explaination to that.

AndrewTaylor

8 Oct 2007, 23:27

Edit: I know little to nothing about the big bang. the only thing I know is it's an explosion, that's one of the reasons I believe in god; I don't know enough about the big bang

I really need to look it up sometime.

If you don't mind me saying, that's a pretty stupid reason to believe something. I don't know much about geography but I don't assume therefore that it isn't true.

You're allowed to withhold a decision until you've done the proper research, you know.

pieman280

8 Oct 2007, 23:30

If you don't mind me saying, that's a pretty stupid reason to believe something. I don't know much about geography but I don't assume therefore that it isn't true.

You're allowed to withhold a decision until you've done the proper research, you know.

I have a lot of other reasons, but I felt like that was the time to say only one of them.

AndrewTaylor

8 Oct 2007, 23:40

That shouldn't be one of them.

Edit: oddly enough, "not knowing enough about the scientific explanation" is the reason atheists give for people believing in this stuff -- it's utterly bizarre to see it used as an argument for the defence.

quakerworm

9 Oct 2007, 02:09

Hang on a moment. Who says there isn't evidence for God's existence?
to have evidence for existence of god we need a critical experiment with reproduceable results.
key word, reproduceable. you only provide questionable accounts of past "experiments". by this measure, we have free energy and cure for cancer.
Your main point is fair but this snippet isn't. There's heaps of evidence for the Big Bang and not a shred for God.
the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god, but it's still shakey. we have some background radiation distribution not accounted for, there is a drift in the red shift from some galaxies, and then there is a suspicious lack of anti-matter. granted, there is a model in string theory that explains that last bit, but we are still very far from testing it. experimentalists still struggle with quark-gluon plasma, never mind conditions where you have baryon-lepton transitions.

in short, there are a lot of lose ends in big bang. fewer than in most alternative theories, but lack of alternatives doesn't mean that you have to completely accept the theory. it's a good model for now, but it will be heavily reviewed, and we might very well end up with something that looks nothing like big bang.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 09:08

I love the human obsession with "Why?". Human beings ask the question "Why?" and when presented with the answer "Because," decide it isn't good enough and start to come up with their own ideas, be they Big Bangs or Big Beards. Why, really, does it matter where we came from or why we exist? How does knowing where we, and the rest of existence, came from make any difference on where we will ultimately be heading?

People can't accept the idea that "Things just happen, what the Hell". They have to try and figure out why these things happen. I think, really, that rather misses the point entirely of living.

wave

9 Oct 2007, 10:08

Luther

9 Oct 2007, 11:31

i think i am right in saying that the idea that the big bang will reverse and that the universe will shrink back on itself into the 'big crunch' has now been disproved or shunned by most scientists because the rate of of our universe expansion just keeps on accelerating.
So, instead we plunge forwards into ever increasing entropy and a frozen death. Good news!

A newer theory suggests that we do not live in a 'Universe' but a 'multiverse' where possibly an infinite amount of universes exist. Galaxies (our galaxy is the milky way) spread out from the big bang point and different galaxies may collide with different galxies from other big bangs, what happens in these collisions between galxies from separate universes i don't know.
Thats not a theory, its a series of meaningless words.

pieman280

9 Oct 2007, 11:31

the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god

there is support for god, it's probably all in the bible. if you mean support as in people supporting it then you're wrong as churches support god, I don't see any buildings created to express the big bang...

thousands of people go to church and it's all to support who they think created them.

Luther

9 Oct 2007, 11:43

The Big Bang was not an "explosion". Thats just a way to describe it to little children. It was, at best, an expansion, although its not possible to visualise the event since time and space were it's products, not it's environment. You cannot have a "cause" for the event, since time did not exist before it happened.

Its fine if you want to say "I dont believe it happened because I dont understand it". Science would agree with you. The scientific method never asks you to believe in anything. It simply asks you to test your theories.

yakuza

9 Oct 2007, 12:05

yakuza

9 Oct 2007, 12:06

Flossy B.

9 Oct 2007, 12:22

Peeling

9 Oct 2007, 13:04

science doesn't answer any 'why' questions.

- why does the apple fall down and hit newton on the head?
...
- why does the earth's mass curve the space-time?
- because it does. go away.

You were more or less right apart from the last line. The correct scientific response is:

"We'll get back to you on that."

People can't accept the idea that "Things just happen, what the Hell". They have to try and figure out why these things happen. I think, really, that rather misses the point entirely of living.

To pursue scientific enquiry is to admit that a) we don't know everything, and b) what we don't know might be important. It might not be the point of living, but it is the reason we can have this conversation without having to hoot it directly from one tree branch to another. I'd call that a net gain.

Then again, maybe it is the point of living. Certainly we do it on a personal level all day, every day from the moment we're born. We take our experiences, analyse them, and use the information we glean as a reference to guide our future in a desirable course. Science is just taking that one step further: "maybe if we analyse things even more closely we can learn things that help more people - everyone, even."

thomasp

9 Oct 2007, 13:11

810Damage

9 Oct 2007, 13:15

WTF ^^^^wow:eek:

MtlAngelus

9 Oct 2007, 13:29

there is support for god, it's probably all in the bible. if you mean support as in people supporting it then you're wrong as churches support god, I don't see any buildings created to express the big bang...

thousands of people go to church and it's all to support who they think created them.
Errr you're missing the keyword here:
the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god
Let me highlight it for you.
the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god
the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god
the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god
evidence to support

So yes religion have plenty of mindless supporters, but no it doesn't have a bit of evidence to support it.

wave

9 Oct 2007, 13:33

So, instead we plunge forwards into ever increasing entropy and a frozen death. Good news!

Thats not a theory, its a series of meaningless words.

er no its not, it IS a theory. Perhaps if you stated what you don't understand about it?

It basically points to the idea that there wasn't just one 'big bang' but many big bangs.

MtlAngelus

9 Oct 2007, 13:40

Well for it to be a theory they should have some sort of evidence of it. Like the big bang comes from the observation that the universe appear to be expanding.
So for that to be a theory, they should have some evidence of other big bangs happening, which as far as I'm concerned, there isn't.

It's as if I said that my theory is that a giant monkey in diapers created the universe just for kicks. You can't prove it wrong, but I have no evidence for it. It's just something I choose believe then, not a theory. Kinda like god.

Daz555

9 Oct 2007, 13:56

A newer theory suggests that we do not live in a 'Universe' but a 'multiverse' where possibly an infinite amount of universes exist. Galaxies (our galaxy is the milky way) spread out from the big bang point and different galaxies may collide with different galxies from other big bangs, what happens in these collisions between galxies from separate universes i don't know.
That is really hypothesis at the moment, rather than theory. It is important to separate the two.

Examples of hypothesis:

"God created the universe."
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe."

Example of theory:

"Organic life on Earth has evolved through the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation."

Akuryou13

9 Oct 2007, 15:00

er no its not, it IS a theory. Perhaps if you stated what you don't understand about it?

It basically points to the idea that there wasn't just one 'big bang' but many big bangs.what I think he means is that there is so little proof, explanation or logic behind that theory that it basically doesn't constitute being called anything but a series of meaningless words.

there's absolutely no way with today's technology to prove that even a tiny, infantessimal part of that theory is even remotely true. it's no more provable than god. not to say that there's no REASON to belive we're in a multiverse, but only in the same way that there's reason to believe there's a god.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 15:32

there is support for god, it's probably all in the bible.

Anyone else find this immensely funny?

if you mean support as in people supporting it then you're wrong as churches support god, I don't see any buildings created to express the big bang...

You're right. It's not like there are scientific research centres or anything like that.

thousands of people go to church and it's all to support who they think created them.

Thousands of people have been to watch Deal or No Deal being filmed to support what they think might be entertaining. This just goes to show that what people think is not always what's right.

Raziel

9 Oct 2007, 17:10

Why, really, does it matter where we came from or why we exist? How does knowing where we, and the rest of existence, came from make any difference on where we will ultimately be heading?

Because if we knew for example that we came from God, it would give us an insight into where we go when we die, heaven hell etc.

however if the Big Bang theory is correct (Which is about logical enough for me to believe, more logical than God anyway) then we also know where we're going, into nothingness.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 17:23

Because if we knew for example that we came from God, it would give us an insight into where we go when we die, heaven hell etc.

however if the Big Bang theory is correct (Which is about logical enough for me to believe, more logical than God anyway) then we also know where we're going, into nothingness.

I have to dispute that. The presence or lack thereof of some kind of creative force doesn't really support or detract from the idea of a possible afterlife. What if, for example, there is a God, and his name is Leonard and he created the Universe within a reasonable time frame at a reasonable cost, but to save money he decided not to create an afterlife?

Technically, I don't believe in God. At the same time, I don't not believe in God. My personal view is that there might be some kind of entity that created everything, but if there is I don't think it's that guy people have written about in the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other holy book to care to mention. Most religions have a "rule" that if you don't believe in God then you're basically going to Hell. In Christianity this rule trumps all others, so even if you're a kind person with a good moral compass and you live a selfless life, but you don't believe in the Christian God, then you're going to Hell no matter what. That doesn't make sense to me. I refuse to believe that any logically-thinking God, or creative force or whatever, would have such an ego about themselves. I write Jump Leads, but I don't care if people thank me for it or send me fanmail. So long as people are reading and enjoying it, I'm happy. Everything else is secondary.

And whether or not God exists doesn't really make any difference to whether or not we go somewhere when we die. There may still be another plane of existence that our consciousness transfers to when we pass away. After all, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered, and what is consciousness if not a form of energy? I'd like to believe it goes somewhere. Maybe not to Heaven, or Summerland, or Mecca, but... somewhere.

Plasma

9 Oct 2007, 17:28

i think i am right in saying that the idea that the big bang will reverse and that the universe will shrink back on itself into the 'big crunch' has now been disproved or shunned by most scientists because the rate of of our universe expansion just keeps on accelerating.
Hmm... a quick search says "yes, but the reason why is unknown".
...Well, that was intensly unsatisfying.
Although I'm still going to follow my theory based on that nobody knows what's causing it. It's likely that it could go away or have a reverse effect...

A newer theory suggests that we do not live in a 'Universe' but a 'multiverse' where possibly an infinite amount of universes exist. Galaxies (our galaxy is the milky way) spread out from the big bang point and different galaxies may collide with different galxies from other big bangs, what happens in these collisions between galxies from separate universes i don't know.
I really don't know how people can say 'multiverse'. It completely defies the actual definition of 'universe'.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 17:45

I really don't know how people can say 'multiverse'. It completely defies the actual definition of 'universe'.

Only for a given value of "universe". For a starters there's the [Many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)] which states that for each action we take, every single possible outcome is played out in a parallel universe which could exist but might not. So far as we're concerned there is only one universe - hence universe - because we have no way of traveling to these so-called "alternate universes" (although the term "alternative universe" would be more grammatically accurate) or even finding out if they actually exist. It's an interesting hypothesis and one that my mind has obsessed over for over a decade.

yakuza

9 Oct 2007, 18:01

Yes, for instance, if we knew that there was a parallel universe were dogs could talk in Hebrew and providing there are no dogs who can perform such action in our universe, it'd still be literally right to say Hebrew speaking dogs do not exist. As the most universal words, such as "ever" or "existence" we take for granted only relate to our universe, by rule.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 18:06

Unless you're studying quantum mechanics. or a [philosopher (http://www.lspace.org/books/dawcn/)].

wave

9 Oct 2007, 18:18

The likelihood grows that we are ALONE in a godless and meaningless universe (which is ever expanding into cold and darkness), get over it.

10 points to him who guesses where the first part of the sentence is quoted from.

thomasp

9 Oct 2007, 18:46

We are not alone in the universe. How can we be alone when we don't even exist?

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited.

Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero.

From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

So you see, maths Engineering maths has disproved science AND religion.

AndrewTaylor

9 Oct 2007, 19:01

the evidence to support big bang isn't all that great. it's better than none for god, but it's still shakey. we have some background radiation distribution not accounted for, there is a drift in the red shift from some galaxies, and then there is a suspicious lack of anti-matter. granted, there is a model in string theory that explains that last bit, but we are still very far from testing it. experimentalists still struggle with quark-gluon plasma, never mind conditions where you have baryon-lepton transitions.

in short, there are a lot of lose ends in big bang.

True. It's not complete, but it's likely. Partly because it accounts well for a number of known facts, and partly because it's intuitively more reasonable that a tiny thing appeared and exploded than that a universe appeared all at once, which it pretty much the only logical alternative.

there is support for god, it's probably all in the bible.

There's "support" for homeopathy in the journal "Homepoathy" -- but alas propaganda doesn't count.

So you see, maths has disproved science AND religion.

That's not maths -- that's engineering. Mathematicians would never round.

nobody knows what's causing it. It's likely that it could go away

...and we're back on Hume.

thomasp

9 Oct 2007, 19:15

That's not maths -- that's engineering. Mathematicians would never round.

Good point - that makes it even better :D (especially as I'm studying an engineering degree) But the mathematicians would surely have to appreciate that a finite number divided by infinity tends to zero, so is virtually zero.

And to conclude, following on from Andrew's post, I leave you with this inequality(ish):

Engineers > Science, Religion

Alien King

9 Oct 2007, 19:40

AndrewTaylor

9 Oct 2007, 19:55

Although, if there are an infinite number of planets, then an infinite number of them must be have some degree of life on. Also, an infinte number would be totally uninhabited.
Or am I missing something fundamental regarding infinity?

Yes, you are: if you had infinite ducks would an infinite number of them be giraffes?

In any case, there isn't an infinite number of planets.

Plasma

9 Oct 2007, 20:35

Hume... Hume...
* Sir Alec Douglas-Home, (July 2, 1903 – October 9, 1995), British Prime Minister
* Allan Octavian Hume, (1829-1912) British administrator in India
* Andrew Hamilton Hume (1762-1849) Australian superintendent of convicts and farmer [1]
* Andrew Hume Australian convict and leader of final failed attempted to rescue Leichhardt's expedition [2][3][4]
* Basil Cardinal Hume, former Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
* Brit Hume, journalist best known for his work on Fox News
* David Hume, (1711-76) 18th-century Scottish philosopher
* David Hume of Godscroft, 17th c. Scottish historian
* David Hume (explorer), Southern African explorer
* Desmond David Hume, a fictional character on the television series Lost
* Gary Hume, British artist
* Alexander Hamilton Hume (1797-1873) Australian explorer
* Iain Hume, Canadian footballer
* John Hume, Northern Irish politician
* Joseph Hume (born, January 22, 1777) British political reformer during the Enlightenment
* Martin Andrew Sharp Hume (1847-1910) English historian, born Martin Andrew Sharp
* Sir Patrick Hume, or Home (1641-1724) Scottish statesman
* Rob Hume, English ornithological writer
* R. E. Hume, author and Indologist
* Tobias Hume, (possibly 1569 - April 16, 1645) English composer, viola player and soldier.
Can you please identify your Hume from that list?

Yes, you are: if you had infinite ducks would an infinite number of them be giraffes?
YES!
Had you said 'not including the ones in zipper costumes', then it might have been a little different.

AndrewTaylor

9 Oct 2007, 20:37

Might it be the Hume I was talking about before?

I mean I know you can't prove that because I was talking about him before I'm likely to be talking about him now, but...

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 20:39

There's a Universe somewhere where we are discussing Donald Q. Hume, the creator of modern cheesecake standards.

Plasma

9 Oct 2007, 20:42

There's a Universe somewhere where we are discussing Donald Q. Hume, the creator of modern cheesecake standards.
Well, that universe is this one then, thanks to you!

Seriously, that guy rocked!

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 22:21

Except he's entirely fictional. In this universe, at least.

Blinx

9 Oct 2007, 22:39

I don't believe in God.
I share the same views as Ben, there might be one, but I almost certainly don't believe that the Bible etc dictate what he believes etc.

The fact of the matter is, Religion is a safety blanket and some sort of moral compass for those who have no idea to function in society without some sort of rules applied to their life.
Why do people have to believe in God?
"Thank God, you're better!", as someone said to me.
I said, "No, thank's to my body, meds and nurses for looking after me. God have nothing to do with it".

He might have.

But he also might have been the cause of my illness?
It's abit of a paradox.
So whatever.
Believe in what you want.
But I can safely say, that I believe in myself, because no-one is going to hold your hand through this life.

Squirminator2k

9 Oct 2007, 23:14

I think it was Kevin Smith who said that humanity took a great idea and built a belief system around it.

quakerworm

9 Oct 2007, 23:17

Can you please identify your Hume from that list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

pieman280

9 Oct 2007, 23:30

Gee, this thread sure got derailed. xD

But since the creation of the universe / god seems to be the topic now, I don't know what to believe in. What if it's ALL wrong?

(By the way, I'm new here. Hai.)

Hi:) This thread got derailed a few pages back from slick correcting someone about the bible and then they correncted hi, then it just took over from there.

You're right. It's not like there are scientific research centres or anything like that.

You're misunderstanding what I mean:rolleyes: The whole building that those scientists work in is not dedicated to the big bang.

Most religions have a "rule" that if you don't believe in God then you're basically going to Hell. In Christianity this rule trumps all others, so even if you're a kind person with a good moral compass and you live a selfless life, but you don't believe in the Christian God, then you're going to Hell no matter what. That doesn't make sense to me. I refuse to believe that any logically-thinking God, or creative force or whatever, would have such an ego about themselves.[/i].

I never got that rule that religions have. That is just something that doesn't make any sense at all. there are few things that I know come from the bible and don't mak any sense at all like this one. My friend told me that the Bible says ghosts don't exist and I think that is the worst thing anyone might have put in a bible.

another thing... where did the myth come from that hell was full of sharp rocks and lava? what if it's actually so cold you almost freeze instantly? I don't see how people thought hell was a lava like area, it could look like anything!

AndrewTaylor

10 Oct 2007, 00:04

You're misunderstanding what I mean:rolleyes: The whole building that those scientists work in is not dedicated to the big bang.

Okay, then, we'll play it that way.

Show me a building devoted entirely to Genesis Chapter One Verse One.

Squirminator2k

10 Oct 2007, 00:17

another thing... where did the myth come from that hell was full of sharp rocks and lava? what if it's actually so cold you almost freeze instantly? I don't see how people thought hell was a lava like area, it could look like anything!

That's in the Bible. The Bible also gives dimensions for the exact amount of space that Heaven occupies and while I can't remember the exact details, it is notably smaller than the surface area of the Moon (and, as Andrew has just pointed out to me via GoogleTalk, the dimensions given for Noah's arc, amongst other things, are equally useless).

Of note is the fact that you earlier mentioned that proof of God's existence lies within the Bible, but you've also stated that there are things in the Bible that don't make sense and, as Andrew and I have determined, it is also full of unviable information. How, then, can we take some parts of the book that we like and quote those saying that the Bible is absolute, but then ignore the inaccuracies and wholly offensive and outdated material such as the appropriate age at which it is acceptable to kill your children for bad behaviour, the rules and guidelines of slavery, and a man's right to offer his wife's life in exchange for his own freedom?

Edit: I'm beginning to think that the Team17 Forum needs a Debate & Discourse board for threads of this nature. We could shut down Avatar Absurdity to make room.

AndrewTaylor

10 Oct 2007, 00:31

pieman280

10 Oct 2007, 01:08

That's in the Bible. The Bible also gives dimensions for the exact amount of space that Heaven occupies and while I can't remember the exact details, it is notably smaller than the surface area of the Moon (and, as Andrew has just pointed out to me via GoogleTalk, the dimensions given for Noah's arc, amongst other things, are equally useless).

Of note is the fact that you earlier mentioned that proof of God's existence lies within the Bible, but you've also stated that there are things in the Bible that don't make sense and, as Andrew and I have determined, it is also full of unviable information. How, then, can we take some parts of the book that we like and quote those saying that the Bible is absolute, but then ignore the inaccuracies and wholly offensive and outdated material such as the appropriate age at which it is acceptable to kill your children for bad behaviour, the rules and guidelines of slavery, and a man's right to offer his wife's life in exchange for his own freedom?

Edit: I'm beginning to think that the Team17 Forum needs a Debate & Discourse board for threads of this nature. We could shut down Avatar Absurdity to make room.

Yes, I've said to trust the bible yet distrust it all at the same time. I think the answers to some of the things are in the bible but some of the "rules" don't make any sense.

About the new section: great idea!:) I'd like to talk about new and interesting things with all of you.

Shutting down avatar section: NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! I use that section and so do a lot of other people. there are other sections that waste a lot of space but the av. area isn't one of them.

quakerworm

10 Oct 2007, 02:12

Interestingly, the Vatican (who have as much authority as anyone to rule about what made up places are like) is now of the opinion that Hell isn't place but a "state of mind", so any images you have of it are just metaphor.
that actually makes a lot more sense to me than the 'standard' christian hell. i have talked to a few non-denominational christians who view the bible as the ultimate source of information, but happily ignore everything that the church says. well, they believe that the hell is not a place of torture, but just a place 'away from god', which they think is sufficiently bad to be avoided. naturally, all persons not acknowledging god, or worshiping some different god, would end up there, along with any number of sinners.

Akuryou13

10 Oct 2007, 02:56

My friend told me that the Bible says ghosts don't exist and I think that is the worst thing anyone might have put in a bible.really? cause I was thinking the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is pretty much the worst thing in the bible. but hey, that's just me. last time I was involved with genocide I had a bad experience, what can I say?

Eyedunno

10 Oct 2007, 03:39

I never got that rule that religions have. That is just something that doesn't make any sense at all. there are few things that I know come from the bible and don't mak any sense at all like this one.
They make perfect sense to nonbelievers. Religions that offer big rewards to followers and big punishments to infidels get more followers than those that don't. And no, I'm not saying there was a conspiracy and somebody just tried to think up a religion that would suck people in. I'm saying that if Christianity (or Islam, or whatever) threatens nonbelievers more than Zoroastrianism, more people will eventually follow Christianity. Then, within Christianity, sects develop, and the sects that appeal to people most get more members. And among the sects with many members, the ones that encourage people to have as many children as possible (no abortion, no birth control, and the role of women is as brood mares) can sustain their growth better than those without. And so on and so forth until you have religions like Christianity and Islam that seem designed to take over the world, even though I don't believe anybody intentionally designed them like that.

My friend told me that the Bible says ghosts don't exist and I think that is the worst thing anyone might have put in a bible.
Heh, I doubt that's really explicitly said in the Bible (after all, Elijah and Moses do come down to party with Jesus), but that would be something I'd agree with. I don't believe in ghosts, and it would take a similar kind of evidence to get me to believe in them as it would to get me to believe in god(s).

really? cause I was thinking the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is pretty much the worst thing in the bible. but hey, that's just me. last time I was involved with genocide I had a bad experience, what can I say?
Eh, that's nothing. What about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering? Or Lot offering his virgin daughters to the horny Sodomites? Or those same daughters getting dad drunk so they can lose their virginity to him? Or Elisha using his mojo to summon bears to maul the forty-some kids who made fun of him? These are stories that never seem to make it into those Illustrated Bible Stories for children, I should say.

FutureWorm

10 Oct 2007, 03:50

this thread is the worst thing ever
That's in the Bible. The Bible also gives dimensions for the exact amount of space that Heaven occupies and while I can't remember the exact details, it is notably smaller than the surface area of the Moon
you're going to have to cite your source on this, because i can't ever remember reading it

Eyedunno

10 Oct 2007, 05:28

you're going to have to cite your source on this, because i can't ever remember reading it
He already cited his source, but if you need more specificity, it's in Revelation 21 and 22.

quakerworm

10 Oct 2007, 06:00

He already cited his source, but if you need more specificity, it's in Revelation 21 and 22.
i might be missing something, but revelation 21:10 says
et ostendit mihi civitatem sanctam Hierusalem
if that is supposed to be heaven, why is it referred to as jerusalim?

Eyedunno

10 Oct 2007, 06:45

i might be missing something, but revelation 21:10 says

if that is supposed to be heaven, why is it referred to as jerusalim?
Yeah, it's the concept of the New Jerusalem. It's clearly a supernatural place where the righteous dead live again and so on in the context of the passages, and thus it corresponds with heaven. I would hold that John of Patmos was wigging out on something when he wrote that whole book though.

Akuryou13

10 Oct 2007, 07:21

Eh, that's nothing. What about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering? Or Lot offering his virgin daughters to the horny Sodomites? Or those same daughters getting dad drunk so they can lose their virginity to him? Or Elisha using his mojo to summon bears to maul the forty-some kids who made fun of him? These are stories that never seem to make it into those Illustrated Bible Stories for children, I should say.well, I've not actually read through the bible, so I mostly got the "Illustrated Bible Stories for children" version where everything is happy and nice and god loves all. those stories, however, definitely DO rank along side the genocide verse.

I really WOULD love to know what the bible said before it was translated 50-some-odd times.

Eyedunno

10 Oct 2007, 07:40

I really WOULD love to know what the bible said before it was translated 50-some-odd times.
Translations are part of it. Then there's the fact that most of the material (excepting most of the epistles and a few other things) was almost certainly transmitted by word of mouth for decades or centuries before being written down. Then there's the likelihood of interpolations to advance agendas either in society or in that religious community (the entire book of Deuteronomy is possibly an example of this - it's said to have been "found" long after it was supposedly written). And so on and so forth. :)

MtlAngelus

10 Oct 2007, 09:45

Meh. It's a long boring book. And there's this recurring character, god, he's a jerk.
Like once he was like "Hey dude kill your son or I'll be ****ed!"
And you know, god is like all powerful and stuff, so the other dude didn't want him to be ****ed.
So the other dude was like "Oh.. ok... :(" and was so sad and about to kill his own son, and then god was like "Hahaha just kidding dude, relax!"
I mean, seriously, who does that? :mad:

Blinx

10 Oct 2007, 10:03

Translations are part of it. Then there's the fact that most of the material (excepting most of the epistles and a few other things) was almost certainly transmitted by word of mouth for decades or centuries before being written down. Then there's the likelihood of interpolations to advance agendas either in society or in that religious community (the entire book of Deuteronomy is possibly an example of this - it's said to have been "found" long after it was supposedly written). And so on and so forth. :)
Yes. But think about it. Word or mouth entails exaggeration most of the time. Ever played Chinese whispers? It seems your telling me "God's" word, passed down via word of mouth, is also viable for exaggeration like the exchange of chinese whispers?

Melon

10 Oct 2007, 11:08

This thread is fantastic. I just wish I had something interesting to add to it though.

In case anyone was wondering, my beliefs are the same as Blinx and Squirminator's, and it makes us agnostics, if you wish to use the correct term.

Run

10 Oct 2007, 14:42

this thread should have been 5 posts long

and look what happened

look

just look

Eyedunno

10 Oct 2007, 16:00

In case anyone was wondering, my beliefs are the same as Blinx and Squirminator's, and it makes us agnostics, if you wish to use the correct term.
Sure, but just for the record, a lot of people use the term agnostic as if it's a kind of middle ground between theism and atheism. It's not. Most people who like the label "agnostic" are atheists who don't like the term atheism or mistakenly think that has to do with absolute certainty that there is no god (though there are agnostic theists too - most honest theists will admit to not knowing for sure, but they're much less likely to use the agnostic label to describe themselves :) ). Personally, I don't know for sure whether or not there are three-inch foam rubber hummingbirds flying around Alpha Centauri and playing the Hallelujah Chorus on tiny kazoos. I'll almost certainly never know for sure. But that doesn't mean that I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "maybe!" if somebody tells me they've received revelation that such hummingbirds actually exist. :)

this thread should have been 5 posts long

and look what happened

look

just look
:D
Well, you know. Never bring up religion or politicsDescartes in polite conversation, as it won't remain polite for long.

Oh yeah. And vote Ron Paul.

quakerworm

10 Oct 2007, 16:07

I really WOULD love to know what the bible said before it was translated 50-some-odd times.
well, the latin version of the bible is already closer to the original. like, the aforementioned passage in king james' that says, 'thou shall not suffer a witch to live' is actually 'maleficos non patieris vivere'. now, 'maleficos' can mean different things, but 'witch' is a very poor translation. litterally, it means someone who does bad things. by the time this was written, however, it probably ment any form of dark sorcery. witchcraft falls much closer to passages about worshiping false gods than to this particular line.

now think about the witch trials and all of the people getting killed because of this little error. now think how many there probably are in the whole book.

if you want to get really close to original, your best bet is to learn hebrew. of course, that will only help with the old testament. new testament was written primarilly in greek, though, i suspect, knowing modern greek will not help you all that much in understanding them.

Akuryou13

10 Oct 2007, 16:27

well, the latin version of the bible is already closer to the original. like, the aforementioned passage in king james' that says, 'thou shall not suffer a witch to live' is actually 'maleficos non patieris vivere'. now, 'maleficos' can mean different things, but 'witch' is a very poor translation. litterally, it means someone who does bad things. by the time this was written, however, it probably ment any form of dark sorcery. witchcraft falls much closer to passages about worshiping false gods than to this particular line.

now think about the witch trials and all of the people getting killed because of this little error. now think how many there probably are in the whole book.

if you want to get really close to original, your best bet is to learn hebrew. of course, that will only help with the old testament. new testament was written primarilly in greek, though, i suspect, knowing modern greek will not help you all that much in understanding them. doesn't much matter what version I read today, as it's all been retranslated many, MANY times over the course of history from and into languages we may not even know existed, much less be able to accurately translate. on top of that much of it was, as mentioned before, word of mouth. which would add a whole dimension of nonsense on top of the already babblefished original stories. what I would like is to see a copy of the bible as it was whenever it was first compiled. see the stories and meanings in their original format before being twisted by kings with their own agendas.

Luther

10 Oct 2007, 16:59

doesn't much matter what version I read today, as it's all been retranslated many, MANY times over the course of history from and into languages we may not even know existed, much less be able to accurately translate. on top of that much of it was, as mentioned before, word of mouth. which would add a whole dimension of nonsense on top of the already babblefished original stories. what I would like is to see a copy of the bible as it was whenever it was first compiled. see the stories and meanings in their original format before being twisted by kings with their own agendas.

Perhaps you should try to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls.

thomasp

10 Oct 2007, 17:08

This thread has now been split from the "Inappropriate flag" in the WOW2 forum, which can be found here: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34438

AndrewTaylor

10 Oct 2007, 17:52

Eh, that's nothing. What about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter as a burnt offering? Or Lot offering his virgin daughters to the horny Sodomites? Or those same daughters getting dad drunk so they can lose their virginity to him? Or Elisha using his mojo to summon bears to maul the forty-some kids who made fun of him? These are stories that never seem to make it into those Illustrated Bible Stories for children, I should say.

At least those are humans being scum -- you should read the book of Job, where God decides to torment this guy for no reason. (In fact he lets Satan do it, but that's as good as doing it himself.)

Run

10 Oct 2007, 20:49

:D
Well, you know. Never bring up religion or politics in polite conversation, as it won't remain polite for long.

Oh yeah. And vote Ron Paul.

gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooold staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandard

Akuryou13

11 Oct 2007, 01:12

Perhaps you should try to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls. I get the feeling the results of that venture would NOT be fruitful for me.

robowurmz

11 Oct 2007, 07:49

Eyedunno

11 Oct 2007, 09:02

Metal Alex

11 Oct 2007, 09:23

Today the bible is the largest seller of all books published. ha ha still the number 1 seller, why? cause its the truth.

Saw this on page 1, and before reading anything more, I had to quote it...

Harry potter must be real too, shouldn't it?

parsley

11 Oct 2007, 11:43

yauhui

11 Oct 2007, 12:24

RELIGIONS ARE JUST BELIEVES. Rawrr!

Akuryou13

11 Oct 2007, 14:50

RELIGIONS ARE JUST BELIEVES. Rawrr! Mind = Blown :eek:

yauhui

11 Oct 2007, 15:01

Blown Mind = Just a fantasy.

Akuryou13

11 Oct 2007, 15:15

Blown Mind = Just a fantasy.I simply have to congratulate you! you're by far the most competant homoerectus I've ever heard of!

Metal Alex

11 Oct 2007, 15:30

RELIGIONS ARE JUST BELIEVES. Rawrr!

wow... owned all believers with just 4 words...

Aku, you have a decent rival now.

yauhui

11 Oct 2007, 15:37

homo erectus or homoerectus?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=homo%20erectus
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=homoerectus

quakerworm

11 Oct 2007, 15:54

The thing I find most ridiculous about the "Big Bang" theory is that it completely (or at least, partly) contradicts the laws of science itself. Science states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So then, if there was nothing there, how did it get enough energy to explode? Also, once (nothing) exploded, it was a mix of gases, so they say. Well, you tell me how gases swirling in an ever-largening vacuum can possibly turn into carbon to make the dust to make around a billion or so planets and stars.
1) laws of physics do not necessarily apply to pre-big bang 'time'. we cannot talk about what happened before big bang, because there is no way to study it. for all we know, energy was already there.

i also don't think that big bang was the proper 'beginning' of the universe. it is merely the origin of all statistical time-flow trajectories. it doesn't mean that this is where universe is created, but merely the 0-point for time. so you'd view it as the origin of creation of stars and galaxies, but not of the universe as a whole. the universe as a whole, most likely, simply exists, and you cannot talk about its creation, since it encapsulates time.

note that this is not all that different from god simply existing according to john 1:1.

2) to answer your questions about where carbon comes from, here is the rough outline.

ambient hydrogen and helium gather to form a star. pp-chain reactions begin producing more helium. helium fuses further into other components, one of which is carbon, as seen in tripple-alpha process. once heavier elements are present, the cno-cycle allows to burn hydrogen faster. when the star burns off most of its hydrogen, it collapses, which sometimes leads to the thermo-nuclear explosion of the carbon core, resulting in a supernova explosion. supernovae are responcible for all heavy elements in planets. our sun and planets around it have formed from the supernova remnant of some older, much larger star.

Star Formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation)
pp-Chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain_reaction)
Tripple-Alpha Process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process)
CNO Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle)
Supernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova)
Supernova Remnant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_remnant)

And as for that, it's a challenge presented by Satan. Satan actually says something along the lines of "Yeah, if he's such a good follower, he won't desert you if he loses everything...I bet that he does leave you! Let me torment him to prove my point."

However, Job didn't leave. And he was cured of the sores, his wife had another 11 sons, he got all the cattle, sheep and land back, and got more riches than he had before. You missed that bit out somewhat.
so if somebody kills your favorite pet, but then buys you a new one, you wouldn't be ****ed?

Akuryou13

11 Oct 2007, 16:08

homo erectus or homoerectus?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=homo%20erectus
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=homoerectusI can see where the complexities of that conundrum baffled you, but I have all confidence that, given time, you'll be able to puzzle out that answer yourself.

AndrewTaylor

11 Oct 2007, 18:35

And as for that, it's a challenge presented by Satan. Satan actually says something along the lines of "Yeah, if he's such a good follower, he won't desert you if he loses everything...I bet that he does leave you! Let me torment him to prove my point."
I know that. God allowed Satan to kill a load of people and animals in order to win a bet. Even if I believed in him I hope you'd forgive me if I chose not to worship the lunatic.

However, Job didn't leave. And he was cured of the sores, his wife had another 11 sons
Oh, well that's okay, then!

he got all the cattle, sheep and land back, and got more riches than he had before
...and his eleven dead sons? What's in it for them, exactly? And all his dead slaves (which God didn't mind that he had)? And his dead animals?

AndrewTaylor

11 Oct 2007, 23:04

umm.... Everyone's a believer for something whether you have a religion or not. take my dad for example, he believes in the big bang.

Equivocation fallacy.

Belief in something for which there is evidence is not the same thing as belief in a religion or something else that you can't support.

MtlAngelus

11 Oct 2007, 23:59

Equivocation fallacy.

Belief in something for which there is evidence is not the same thing as belief in a religion or something else that you can't support.
Before pieman replies, AT meant support with some sort of evidence.

pieman280

12 Oct 2007, 01:17

I deleted my post because I found something wrong with it. I thought yauhui said "RELIGIONS ARE JUST BELIEVERS" but I re-read it and found he actually said "RELIGIONS ARE JUST BELIEVES" sorry that I got it mixed up.:o

But I still disagree with it.

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 02:00

pieman280

12 Oct 2007, 02:03

Akuryou13

12 Oct 2007, 03:18

i disagree either way. i don't believe in anything. i don't believe in god, or the big bang. i do not believe in the existence of what i see, or even my own existence. i assume some things to be true if they seem likely or beneficial to assume, otherwise, i would not be able to make decisions at all, but by no measure do i believe in any of them.I'm lost, you don't believe existence itsself is actually real? then what DO you believe? if life itsself doesn't exist in your mind, then what are we that can look and percieve what is around us? even if we were the imaginations of a mad being of another dimension we would exist in some format, and he would have to exist to be imagining us.

not believing in existence doesnt' make any sense at all.

yauhui

12 Oct 2007, 04:39

i believe that life is just a dream.

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 04:44

I'm lost, you don't believe existence itsself is actually real? then what DO you believe?
i don't believe in anything.
better?
not believing in existence doesnt' make any sense at all.
alright. lets try it your way. prove to me that something exists.

yauhui

12 Oct 2007, 04:57

me. :::::::

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 05:36

you cannot prove that. you might be convinced of it, but you have no way of convincing me, much less constructing a sound proof of it.

Squirminator2k

12 Oct 2007, 06:52

Oh, let's not get all metaphysical. Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." And I think I am, therefore I am. I think.

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 08:45

metaphysical? i don't think you are even using the term right. if i'm denying existence of everything, then everything metaphysical is included. besides, i do not think it is appropriate to discuss metaphysics until we have a good enough hang on physics, which we don't.

as for descartes, he was not very bright. at least, as far as philosophy goes. other than cartesian doubt, he contributed nothing useful to philosophy. he did, however, contribute a whole bunch of fallacies, cogito ergo sum being one of the biggest. going from 'i think' to 'i exist' is a huge leap in logic. there are several ways of showing this. the most direct and formal is that you are making an assumption that something capable of thought must exist. while this might feel intuitive, there is absolutely no reason to assume that, and there is nothing to derive this from. it is merely an observation, and therefore, can be as false as any other result from observation.

you might not be convinced by this. you are probably thinking, 'well, how can there be thought without something existing?' let me give you an example. let us consider what actually is the cause of the thought in our best understanding. i hope that you, unlike misguided descartes, will not insist on existence of a metaphysical soul to provide for thought and free will. if we can agree that the state of neurons and relevant chemical potentials and gradients fully describes a state of mind, with dynamics of these states describing consciousness and thought, next logical step is to consider a simulation of such states. a machine simulating dynamics of such systems will also be capable of thought. now, consider a mathematical model of this simulation. it is a fully deterministic model, and therefore, there is a strictly predefined outcome to the model. since the outcome is already predetermined, we can view the model as already containing the thought. finally, the last step, we take out anything 'material' from the equation.

now imagine that within that model we include behavior of matter, etc. we, now, no longer need a material world. the very fact that a non-self-contradicting model describing the world could be constructed tells you that inhabitants of that world will perceive their own existence, without it actually being so. they cannot not perceive it, since that is part of the model. and, of course, there is no existence, because all you have is an abstract model.

i'm not saying that this is how it works. i cannot verify it one way or another. but you have to agree that this resolves a lot of issues. where did the universe come from? nowhere. it doesn't exist in the first place. why this world and not some other world? no reason, other than requirement that this world must have sentient life. otherwise, there is no-one to sit and chat about the nature of the world. i don't exist. you don't exist. world doesn't exist. now the issue of creation can take a back seat, and we can concentrate our efforts on understanding how things work now. even though they don't exist.

HackerMan

12 Oct 2007, 10:52

OK... ill make this short and simple. Annoyed many of you may be. But honestly what do you expect from a religious debate....

point 1: Why is there a religious debate on a mostly WORMS/Team17 based forum.

Point 2: The bible is simply a book. Written by man. During the same days, that people believed the world to be flat.... that answers itself.

Point 3: The bible is simply guidelines on how to live your life, and be the best person to your fellow man.

Point 4: Or religion is just an excuse for people to believe there is something after death. (which we all want. to exist somewhere forever????)

Point 5: Right now, i can write a story book, about my life, and my friends, and how we did all these great things and miracles...

And now all i need to do, is bury my book underground. or in a cave, and in about 2000 years time, when its discovered. I WILL BE THE NEW RELIGION.

I say, live your life to the fullest, respect your fellow man, dont kill, dont steal, just dont be a BAD person. And try to benefit the evolution of man and the world...

I've said enough.

(im trying to believe there is someone out there, but i and no one else can label him/her/it so i wont call him/her/it GOD or ALLAH or BUDDAH.)

We will only find out, when our day to die comes...

oh and by the way i thought the only gods wormers believe in are "CONCRETE DONKEY" "BUFFALO OF LIES" hehe

Akuryou13

12 Oct 2007, 14:36

metaphysical? i don't think you are even using the term right. if i'm denying existence of everything, then everything metaphysical is included. besides, i do not think it is appropriate to discuss metaphysics ..........ome other world? no reason, other than requirement that this world must have sentient life. otherwise, there is no-one to sit and chat about the nature of the world. i don't exist. you don't exist. world doesn't exist. now the issue of creation can take a back seat, and we can concentrate our efforts on understanding how things work now. even though they don't exist.your analogy at very least is completely nonsensical, and I can't understand your entire point because of how you chose to describe it. you're saying to imagine a machine that has a predetermined set of instructions of how everything within happens, and then take away the machine. that makes absolutely no sense. you can't have something and then NOT have something. besides, it's all irrelevant, because we DO exist. I can touch something, and feel something, and therefore I exist. at least in some form I exist. that's not an opinion, simply fact. not an "I think, therefore I am" sort of thing, just fact as far as fact can reach. I understand that you're saying we have no idea HOW things work, but saying that nothing exists just doesn't make any sense. there's no evidence to contribute to that logic, and, in fact, there's very little logic there at all.

I'm not saying you're stupid for believing it, I'm just stating my opinion of it that it doesn't make sense. though do feel free to continue the attempt to further my understanding.

OK... ill make this short and simple. Annoyed many of you may be. But honestly what do you expect from a religious debate....how does one expand one's own mind and more firmly establish one's ideals if not through a calm debate over the big questions of life? how can you truly believe anything if those beliefs are never challenged, and the challenge met with an open mind? if no one ever discussed one's beliefs then there would be no religions, no science, no philosophy. we cannot expect to change someone's beliefs simply by stating our own, but if we do not accept that others have beliefs and hear their reasons for said beliefs, then we cannot, in good conscience, state our own. the pursuit of knowledge is the only known purpose of life itsself, and how does one pursue new knowledge without being able to justify the knowledge they've already been given?

Squirminator2k

12 Oct 2007, 15:33

So let me get this straight, QuakerWorm: You think nothing actually exists, and you think Descartes was "not very bright"?

That is very nourishing.

yakuza

12 Oct 2007, 16:00

'I think therefore exist' only implies subjective existence, which basically means that because I think, according to myself, I do exist, which makes complete sense. Now, I can't prove anyone else that I exist, therefore 'one can only be certain of his own existence' which is completely factual, please remember 'existence' is also a human made word, and literally, because I think, I exist, there's really little else to be added. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to think, never mind question my own existance. I can't prove my existence to others other than my own, I agree.

Akuryou13

12 Oct 2007, 16:03

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 17:22

your analogy at very least is completely nonsensical, and I can't understand your entire point because of how you chose to describe it. you're saying to imagine a machine that has a predetermined set of instructions of how everything within happens, and then take away the machine. that makes absolutely no sense.
then you really didn't think about it. this is exactly how it works. if you have a system with a predetermined outcome, it doesn't matter if the system exists. you still have that outcome in the model of the system. a self-consistent model is sufficient on itself, without needing something that it models to actually exist.

the above is entirely self consistent. yes, it is based on a different axiom set than what we normally use in our every day lives, but it is an axiom set consistent both with itself and with our observation. so you cannot prove that this is not indeed happening, just like nobody would be able to prove that it does.

you can't have something and then NOT have something.first of all, that cannot be proven either, but i'll let it go. the point is that nothing is required to exist at any point. the machine step is only to demonstrate (note, not prove, demonstrate) that our reality can be modeled in a predictable way. the machine doesn't need to be there, because model is self-sufficient.

besides, it's all irrelevant, because we DO exist. I can touch something, and feel something, and therefore I exist. at least in some form I exist. that's not an opinion, simply fact.
oh, bull. prove it. if you exist, prove it. if you can touch something, prove it. you saying it doesn't mean its true. if something is a fact, it can be proven. do it.

not an "I think, therefore I am" sort of thing, just fact as far as fact can reach. I understand that you're saying we have no idea HOW things work, but saying that nothing exists just doesn't make any sense. there's no evidence to contribute to that logic, and, in fact, there's very little logic there at all.

I'm not saying you're stupid for believing it
i don't believe it. i must accept it as a possibility, and it seems a likely one, because it resolves all of the issues with creation.
So let me get this straight, QuakerWorm: You think nothing actually exists, and you think Descartes was "not very bright"?

That is very nourishing.
again, i don't think nothing exists, i just accept it to be possible. if you think it is stupid, then just go ahead and prove that something does exist. once you do, i'll acknowledge the error of my ways, etc. until then, please stay away from such smug comments. they really don't make you sound any more credible, and creeping really close to ad hominem.

AndrewTaylor

12 Oct 2007, 17:31

you are making an assumption that something capable of thought must exist. while this might feel intuitive, there is absolutely no reason to assume that, and there is nothing to derive this from. it is merely an observation, and therefore, can be as false as any other result from observation.

That simply isn't true.

If you really want to take it to such a ridiculous level, then the very concept of existence is basically whatever we want it to be. And given that everyone in the world except you would agree that in order for an entity to do something, that entity must first exist, your argument really stops making any sense. You're working to an insane definition of "exist" that is as useless as it is poorly defined.

Dim though you imagine he was, he had a point: I Think, Therefore I Am.

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 17:53

just because everyone agrees on something, it doesn't make it so. you should know better. i extend challenge to you, then. prove that something exists. don't wave words around. prove it.

as a side note, considering oppinion of people whose very existence is questioned by this position is kind of counterproductive. yes, that is a way to go if you want to construct some set of rules that actually defines existence in meaningful way (because i agree that if nothing exists, the very term becomes meaningless). if that is your goal, and you are ok with making a few assumptions, then assuming that you exist and that others exist is the first logical step. then you can question them to find out what is consistent in everyone's observations and what might be just your imagination playing tricks on you. but it is not a proof, and it doesn't show that things actually exist.

Squirminator2k

12 Oct 2007, 21:49

Prove, Quakerworm, that it doesn't.

I don't think you believe this at all. I think you just have a bit fo a Contrarian streak and you probably thnik this is exceptionally clever. Well done you, and all that. Can we get back to discuss something sensible now?

pieman280

12 Oct 2007, 22:18

Can we get back to discuss something sensible now?

I see what you mean, but I don't think this thread was ever 'Sensible' as it was a thread based off of opinions that can easily turn into a flame war (I'm glad it hasn't, yet) and a lot of people usually get mean or act nasty in threads like this.I admit that I probably have argued in this thread a couple of times and so has a lot of others in this thread. it seems to switch back and forth from debating to arguing very quickly.

AndrewTaylor

12 Oct 2007, 23:08

just because everyone agrees on something, it doesn't make it so.
It does when we're discussing the meanings of words, I'm afraid.

I mean to be polite, but I'm afraid you're talking utter nonsense. Really, you are. It's utter and complete gibberish. I can't effectively argue against it because it doesn't make any points to refute. It doesn't say anything at all. You're just stringing words together. It doesn't mean anything.

You were being quite sensible, too, for a while. Ah, well.

quakerworm

12 Oct 2007, 23:57

Prove, Quakerworm, that it doesn't.
don't need to. i'm not saying that nothing exists. i'm only saying that it doesn't have to. if you insist that something must exist, the burden of proof is on you.
I don't think you believe this at all.
where have you been for the last page or so? that's what i'm saying. i don't believe it. or anything else. i do not believe that i exist, but i do not believe that i do not exist either. it would be silly of me to believe either one when neither can be proven.
It does when we're discussing the meanings of words, I'm afraid.
ok. lets try it your way. you insist that the definition of existence is something that people agree exists. well, i have an imaginary friend bob who says that magnetic monopoles exist. he says he's seen them. now, you might try to argue that bob doesn't exist, and hence, his opinion doesn't count. but it doesn't take a genius to see that there is a problem with this line of thinking. we are defining existence through existence. people that are real decide what is real. well, what if i get together enough people who you say are not real to say that you are all a figment of my imagination, and they are the real ones?

things can be done about it, of course, to reach a compromise. one can examine own memories, consider them as collection of experiences, and state that all experiences are derived from something that exists, whether internally or externally to self. and vice versa, the things exist if they can be, directly or indirectly experienced. one must be careful using such definition, of course, to not misinterpret the cause of experience, and not to assume that bob and his monopoles exist just because you had some bad acid.

if you do this, the only thing taken as an axiom is consistency of own memories. and, in general, this doesn't have to be so. if what i remember now resembles what i will remember in five minutes, i can use the above definition. if i cannot make such a connection, this definition falls apart, and we are back to square one.

it is easy enough to similarly demonstrate that any other definition of existence requires additional axioms to be useful. i also demonstrated a fairly useless definition of existence that does not, and it tells me zip. so any way you twist it, you cannot prove that you or anything else exists without either falling on some fallacy or accepting some set of axioms.

Squirminator2k

13 Oct 2007, 00:14

Y'see, now you're just being a pedantic, argumentative contrarian. You're also making yourself look exceptionally foolish, so my advice would be to quit several posts ago when you were at least putting forth the impression that you might have been able to perceivably reach a point where you could be considered to be ahead.

Your arguments make no sense and fall flat on their own faces. You're saying, basically, that you don't believe in existence or non-existence. So we're here, but we're not here, so we're neither. We're Schroedinger's Reality, or something.

With an attitude and an outlook like that, I'm surprised you can muster the energy to get out of bed in the morning. I'd be calling in to work sick all the time if it were me.

"Hello, it's Ben here."
"Hi Ben."
"Look, I'm not going to come into work today, because I can't be sure it's actually there."
"What?"
"Well I don't believe we exist, and I also don't believe that we don't exist. Consequently I'm not sure I can prove you, my work colleagues or, indeed, my place of work actually exists. So I think I'm going to take a sick day and stay home."
"But how can you be sure your home exists?"
"I can't."
"And how can you be sure your paycheck exists?"
"I can't."
"Well I can, and it doesn't. Not anymore, at least. You're fired."
"You can't fire me! You might not exist! And I might not exist to be fired!"
"Yet here we are. Funny ol' cosmos, isn't it?"
"Can... can I come in and collect my things?"
"Why bother? They might not exist!"
"But I like my thigns! I have a TARDIS on my desk! And a collection of Mr Potato-Heads!"
"But did you? Or do you only remember that you had Mr Potato-Heads?"
"I think I remember that I have Mr Potato-Heads because I have Mr Potato-Heads."
"But how can you be sure?"
"This is getting rather silly now."
"You started it. Or rather you didn't, because you don't exist. Or possibly you do."
"I'm starting to see how utterly ridiculous that viewpoint is now. Therefore, I would like to politely request my job back."
"No. That's what you get for being stupid."
"Oh."

Kelster23

13 Oct 2007, 00:47

Very interesting thread that I've taken I think about an hour to read all the really long posts.

I got this idea when reading those few pages about the big bang theory and the end of time and existence and all that.
There is said to be a gate in Jerusalem that will open at the end of time AS WE KNOW IT. Now that doesn't mean that time will stop, just the time we are currently in. Just think; it's just the time right now, not time completely. And also, just because the bing bang occurred before time began, it doesn't mean that it was before the beginning of all time; just this time.

Just a idea.

Squirminator2k

13 Oct 2007, 00:49

Care to translate it into English to that we mere mortals may partake of your wisdom?

pieman280

13 Oct 2007, 00:56

"Hello, it's Ben here."
"Hi Ben."
"Look, I'm not going to come into work today, because I can't be sure it's actually there."
"What?"
"Well I don't believe we exist, and I also don't believe that we don't exist. Consequently I'm not sure I can prove you, my work colleagues or, indeed, my place of work actually exists. So I think I'm going to take a sick day and stay home."
"But how can you be sure your home exists?"
"I can't."
"And how can you be sure your paycheck exists?"
"I can't."
"Well I can, and it doesn't. Not anymore, at least. You're fired."
"You can't fire me! You might not exist! And I might not exist to be fired!"
"Yet here we are. Funny ol' cosmos, isn't it?"
"Can... can I come in and collect my things?"
"Why bother? They might not exist!"
"But I like my thigns! I have a TARDIS on my desk! And a collection of Mr Potato-Heads!"
"But did you? Or do you only remember that you had Mr Potato-Heads?"
"I think I remember that I have Mr Potato-Heads because I have Mr Potato-Heads."
"But how can you be sure?"
"This is getting rather silly now."
"You started it. Or rather you didn't, because you don't exist. Or possibly you do."
"I'm starting to see how utterly ridiculous that viewpoint is now. Therefore, I would like to politely request my job back."
"No. That's what you get for being stupid."
"Oh."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! this is funny, you need to make things like his more often.:D

AndrewTaylor

13 Oct 2007, 01:11

ok. lets try it your way. you insist that the definition of existence is something that people agree exists.
No, I absolutely do not insist that at all. That's exactly what I don't insist. A large number of people agree that electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder exists but quite clearly it doesn't. The majority of people believe God exists and there's if anything even less evidence to support that. The idea that objective truth can be defined by consensus is exactly what I oppose -- it is nonsense anyhow, since consensus is by definition subjective, and the idea that all truth is subjective is necessarily objective. The fact that you accuse me of thinking anything enough people believe in exists while at the same time accuse Ben of not reading the thread thoroughly enough is actually quite alarming.

My point is that when we get to the level of argument that you rather optimistically imagine you have reached, you have to be scrupulously precise about the definitions of words you use. Personally, my definition of something which exists -- and I believe that I share this definition with most of the scientific and philosophical communities -- is something which can, in principal, effect a change on reality, where reality is the objective world which can be observed, subjectively, by entities which exist. By that definition it is utterly impossible, from my point of view, that I do not exist. (This is a circular definition. It permits the possibility of other realities inhabited by other entities which can observe and affect them, but of course they rather neatly don't exist. This is my way out of the circularity, which I hold to be Good Enough For Jazz. As I say later, I have no inclination to research what smarter men than me have said to escape the circle.)

If you want to use a different definition of "existing" then you have to state that definition first, or else nobody will know what the hell you're talking about. To be honest, though, you're running that risk either way. Any definition of existence which permits non-existing entities to have an effect on the world around you is unhelpful and obtuse. It looks a lot like philosophy, but it's ill-thought out and it's about a millennium too late.

I haven't the time or the inclination to study philosophy in great enough detail that I can explain to you what the current thinking is, but I'm dimly aware of a man named John Locke and something called the Enlightenment, and trust me, the bar's a bit higher since then. You're going to have to do a lot better than hiding behind Hume and shouting "prove it" every time anyone says anything.

quakerworm

13 Oct 2007, 01:33

Your arguments make no sense and fall flat on their own faces. You're saying, basically, that you don't believe in existence or non-existence. So we're here, but we're not here, so we're neither. We're Schroedinger's Reality, or something.
here is where you make another jump. just because i don't believe in either, doesn't mean it is neither. i simply have no way of telling which it is. since i cannot tell which it is, it would be rather silly of me to believe in one of these two, wouldn't it? you, on the other hand, chose to believe that you exist, without any evidence to that fact. i can live with that. most people believe in something or other without any support for it. just keep in mind that it is not all that different than believing in god or any other entity of that sort. though, it is a bit more practical, i'll give you that.
Personally, my definition of something which exists -- and I believe that I share this definition with most of the scientific and philosophical communities -- is something which can, in principal, effect a change on reality, where reality is the objective world which can be observed, subjectively, by entities which exist. By that definition it is utterly impossible, from my point of view, that I do not exist.
consider, nothing exists. => there are no entities that exist. => nothing can be observed by entities that exist. => there is no reality. => reality cannot be affected. => nothing can effect a change on reality. => nothing exists.

ergo, 'nothing exists' is entirely consistent with your definition of existence. ergo, you not existing is consistent with your definition. ergo, the highlighted statement is wrong.

there is no way to define existence without an a priori of some sort. otherwise, any self-consistent definition will allow for nothing to exist. the most practical thing to assume is self-existence, and work your way up from there. so if we are talking about pragmatic philosophy, then yes, sure, we all exist and anything we can observe directly or indirectly also exists. but that does not constitute a proof. it is simply an assumption out of convenience. sort of like assumption that there is no fast factorization algorithm, allowing us to use public key encryption without worrying about it getting cracked. we cannot prove it, but we cannot find an algorithm either, so we assume that our secure communications are indeed secure.

pieman280

13 Oct 2007, 01:46

All Of this "We exist/ we don't exist" stuff is a little weird. You don't need proof in every single thing in life! And if what you're saying is true then how can we prove that we don't exist. we can turn the situation around as easily as you are on us. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm giving you something to think about.

pilot62

13 Oct 2007, 02:03

Sorry to intrude into this argument, but there is plenty of proof I exist. Even if we accept that it is logically possible that my senses are deceiving me, and nothing I perceive is real, you must accept that I need to exist in some form to be able to perceive these things. If I didn't exist I'd know nothing about it, as I wouldn't be able to think or perceive anything, true or not, but I just simply wouldn't be. Therefore that I have the ability to think, which is one of the few things I can be certain of, proves that I must exist. Thus, I think, therefore I am.

AFAIK, that's not a priori, that's a prosteriori anyway.

Akuryou13

13 Oct 2007, 03:42

consider, nothing exists. => there are no entities that exist. => nothing can be observed by entities that exist. => there is no reality. => reality cannot be affected. => nothing can effect a change on reality. => nothing exists.but on some level we HAVE to exist. something has to give us the impression that we are perceiving things. if not that, then something has to exist to move the universe along. even assuming that my own perceptions are nonexistent, as pilot has just posted, SOMETHING has to be telling me that, or telling the universe that I'm supposed to think that. you've been saying repeatedly that the universe is like a machine, and then you've been saying that it's like a machine with no parts. well you have to pick one, which you obviously cannot do. you're arguing in circles with yourself and your own inability to describe what you claim to not believe. you either say that we don't exist but are in fact part of a machine of sorts that predetermines how our perceived universe exists, or you say that we are not part of a machine, because a machine with no parts cannot and does not exist. you cannot pick both. figure out which one you believe.

this whole argument is entirely pointless because you've said multiple times you don't believe any of the rubbish spouting forth from your own mouth. hell, you don't believe anything. you're completely 100% agnostic. how can you argue and proove a point that you don't even believe in? how can you sit here and tell us that we must think in a different way to accept your beliefs as possible when you can't even say for certain you believe in anything at all?

Kelster23

13 Oct 2007, 06:35

Care to translate it into English to that we mere mortals may partake of your wisdom?

Ha.
What I mean is that just because the Big Bang occurred and time began, doesn't mean that there wasn't time before that. It could just be the beginning of this time. When This Time comes to an end, there will be another time to replace it. Like the minutes in this current string of time will be completely different in another string time.

And about the Gate of Jerusalem, it was said that the gate will open at 'the end of time' AS WE KNOW IT. That does not mean that Gate will open when everything ends, just this string of time.

Hmm. About proof of God's existence, anyone had ever heard of the "Holiest of Holies" in (I do believe it's) Jerusalem?
Never been opened, and still hasn't been. I was watching a documentary about that one, and I can't really remember if they stated the reason or not. And I think another thing would be the Sewer-y System thinger built underneath Jerusalem (Is it?) that two people started, one on one side of the city, one on the other. They couldn't even hear each other, and yet the tunnels met in the middle.
Don't hold me against this though, I'm going by memory right now.

Quakerworm, my non-existent-self is perfectly enjoying my non-existent-purple-Popsicle, while reading this non-existent-thread, made by non-existent-people.

quakerworm

13 Oct 2007, 06:54

but on some level we HAVE to exist. something has to give us the impression that we are perceiving things.
why? you can't just say, 'it has to be this way'. if it really is the case, you should be able to demonstrate it with logical inference. i know, it is difficult to comprehend. my poor wording in attempts to explain how it might work should be pointing to how poorly i can imagine it myself. but it doesn't mean that you have to exist. it really does not.

how can you argue and proove a point that you don't even believe in?
i don't have to believe something to prove anything. if you look carefully, most of the things i'm trying to do is by showing contradictions. it is difficult, sometimes, to prove something true. but to prove something false, all you need is a contradiction, and you're done. you don't have to believe anything to do that.
how can you sit here and tell us that we must think in a different way to accept your beliefs as possible when you can't even say for certain you believe in anything at all?
au contre. i say for certain that i believe in nothing at all. and i'm not trying to make you believe in what i believe, because that cannot be done by very fact that i believe in nothing. i'm merely pointing out contradictions in your reasoning, giving you a chance to revise your own views. whether or not they will end up anything like mine doesn't matter. in fact, i'm fairly sure that they won't be anything even close, but that's probably for the best.

Squirminator2k

13 Oct 2007, 07:00

But you're trying to convince us that nothing exists, so you much believe that on some level.

I think, really, that you're just trolling the thread now. Your entire point has been discussed to death by Philosophers using much more neatly-tied logic than that you've demonstrated. Your arguments are about as structually sound as a bouncy castle made of Jell-O. If I were you, I'd call it a night on this aspect of the debate and move on to something else. you're entire argument against reality existing hinges on "but it might not!" which is not an argument at all - it's a contradiction.

Again - if you don't think anything exists, why do you even bother to get out of bed in the morning? Answer me that.

quakerworm

13 Oct 2007, 08:33

But you're trying to convince us that nothing exists, so you much believe that on some level.
i'm not trying to convince you that it doesn't exist. i'm trying to convince you that it doesn't need to. can you really not see the difference? personally, i don't even care if it exists or not. none of my actions hinge on assumption that it does or does not. but when someone starts constructing an argument pushing off from presumption that something out there exists without even considering the possibility of the opposite, the whole argument becomes unsound.

any argument concerning the nature of the world must begin with establishing an axiom set. every axiom needs to be supported by some reasoning. "i exist" is a reasonable axioms for most arguments based on practicality of such axiom. but you need to understand that this is something that we take as true for the argument, and not something that is necessarily universally true.
Again - if you don't think anything exists, why do you even bother to get out of bed in the morning? Answer me that.
look above. can you spot the answer? because i already had to repeat this point five or six times.

Plasma

13 Oct 2007, 10:29

What I mean is that just because the Big Bang occurred and time began, doesn't mean that there wasn't time before that. It could just be the beginning of this time. When This Time comes to an end, there will be another time to replace it. Like the minutes in this current string of time will be completely different in another string time.
So, in other words, after the universe ends, the time dimension will be completely replaced by another time dimension.
...and what exactly do you base this on?

Hmm. About proof of God's existence, anyone had ever heard of the "Holiest of Holies" in (I do believe it's) Jerusalem?
Never been opened, and still hasn't been. I was watching a documentary about that one, and I can't really remember if they stated the reason or not.Gee, I didn't know you were a Mormon... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies_%28LDS_Church%29)
But if you're talking avout the Arc of the Covenant, well, that was destroyed centuries ago.

yakuza

13 Oct 2007, 11:14

I think it's really naive to say, or believe that one doesn't exist himself. It's basically impossible. I might not be a human, I might not have arms, legs and hair, for all I know I might be a floating brain in the matrix, even if this is a dream, even if I'm just floating energy in space or if I'm only a part of a bigger human being thing, I still exist, and thinking otherwise is not only contradicting, but also inaccurate in all so many levels. I might not be able to see with my eyes or listen or touch things, it might be a product of my imagination, but I'm still the one who has this imagination, it can't be something else, it's me, therefore I exist.

If your only argument is that the word "existence" can be changed in the future when we realize all the laws of the universe are different to those we use nowadays then fine, nothing is certain, but you cannot believe something you can't understand, and there's no way your brain can assimilate the fact that you yourself don't exist, it's virtually impossible.

What would be an example of non existence anyway? If I'm a product of someone else's imagination then I'm sorry, but said person has the power to make things exist only by thinking about them. Maybe I'm a prolongation of someone else's imagination? Wouldn't that mean I'm still him and therefore exist? I really have no clue, please enlighten me with an example.

AndrewTaylor

13 Oct 2007, 12:08

consider, nothing exists. => there are no entities that exist. => nothing can be observed by entities that exist. => there is no reality. => reality cannot be affected. => nothing can effect a change on reality. => nothing exists.

ergo, 'nothing exists' is entirely consistent with your definition of existence. ergo, you not existing is consistent with your definition. ergo, the highlighted statement is wrong.

It's consistent with the definitions but not with the evidence: I know I exist because I can think. That is an action which takes place and therefore some reality must exist for it to do so in, and I must exist in that reality because I'm doing it.

there is no way to define existence without an a priori of some sort. otherwise, any self-consistent definition will allow for nothing to exist.

So you've found an equation with two solutions, but one of them is trival. Physics is full of those; we just pick the non-trivial solution.Then, we very slightly modify the definitions so that the trivial solution is defined out of existence. That's how real life works -- trivial solutions tend to be wrong.

Blinx

13 Oct 2007, 12:28

Deleted due to flaming.

Akuryou13

13 Oct 2007, 15:00

why? you can't just say, 'it has to be this way'. if it really is the case, you should be able to demonstrate it with logical inference. i know, it is difficult to comprehend. my poor wording in attempts to explain how it might work should be pointing to how poorly i can imagine it myself. but it doesn't mean that you have to exist. it really does not. ok, you've proven right here you're not actually thinking through your own argument. why do we have to exist? because actions take place in this reality. actions happen and interact with other actions. we may be simply particles that percieve things the way we want to percieve them, we may be nothing more than the smell of a pile of **** in some alternate universe, but because things happen in this universe and we can observe them, we exist, in some way or another, we have to exist, because we can interact with other things. perception may be scewed and warped to an unbelievable degree, but there IS perception.

whether you accept my inference or not, it IS logical. yours isn't. there's no evidence or reason to believe that nothing exists, but you insist that is the case. therefore, YOU are the one arguing without logical inference. (which btw, is redudant, for future reference. inferrence assumes a logical thought process. I'm not being pedantic, just informing you for your own reference.)

i don't have to believe something to prove anything. if you look carefully, most of the things i'm trying to do is by showing contradictions. it is difficult, sometimes, to prove something true. but to prove something false, all you need is a contradiction, and you're done. you don't have to believe anything to do that.if you don't believe something, and you're merely arguing because you found a flaw that could possibly be there, then you're not arguing, you're being contrary. no one can argue a point that they don't believe is right, at least to some extent. I could argue FOR the complete restriction of humans eating meat, because I can understand the thought process behind not wanting anyone to ever eat meat ever again. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it and can therefore argue the point. I CAN'T however, argue for the mass slaughter of infants as sport because I can't, on any level, understand why anyone would want to do that. I can argue against someone saying it's wrong and tell them they're stupid, but I can't form a logical argument for it, because I don't believe it.

au contre. i say for certain that i believe in nothing at all. and i'm not trying to make you believe in what i believe, because that cannot be done by very fact that i believe in nothing. i'm merely pointing out contradictions in your reasoning, giving you a chance to revise your own views. whether or not they will end up anything like mine doesn't matter. in fact, i'm fairly sure that they won't be anything even close, but that's probably for the best.but there AREN'T contradictions on this line of reasoning. you've yet to point out any, you simply stated that it's possible that nothing exists and then went on to explain that you think that to be the case. you've given analogies, but so far nothing you've said has had any logical reasoning behind it. even you can't list any logic behind your arguments. we've challenged you to do so many times, and you merely challenge our views by chanting it's possible.

thomasp

13 Oct 2007, 15:51

Can we keep this civil please, let's not spoil this thread now with flaming people.

Akuryou13

13 Oct 2007, 16:02

Can we keep this civil please, let's not spoil this thread now with flaming people.oh, sorry. was I flaming? I really didn't intend that. I'll go reread my post and take out anything harsh.

edit: not seeing anything particularly flamey. you'll have to be more specific, thomas.

thomasp

13 Oct 2007, 16:07

I wasn't referring to you specifically Akuryou13 (*cough*Blinx*cough*) - the last page of posts seem to be heading towards the flaming end of the scale, and I'd rather they didn't :)

Blinx

13 Oct 2007, 16:54

I wasn't referring to you specifically Akuryou13 (*cough*Blinx*cough*) - the last page of posts seem to be heading towards the flaming end of the scale, and I'd rather they didn't :)Removed. :)

Eyedunno

13 Oct 2007, 17:52

*Ninja edits post #157*

thomasp

13 Oct 2007, 19:35

I'm not going to close this thread, as it has been (more or less) quite civilised so far and there have been some good arguments.

As for me, I'm kind of "sitting on the fence" with regards to religion. I don't believe that one "being" could have created the universe in a week (well, 6 days), but then again I do study engineering so I prefer the sciencey/physicsy explanation of things rather than the religious explanation, simply because it seems more logical to me and makes more sense.

Kelster23

13 Oct 2007, 20:10

So, in other words, after the universe ends, the time dimension will be completely replaced by another time dimension.
...and what exactly do you base this on?
Nothing. Just a theory I heard about from a book.

Gee, I didn't know you were a Mormon... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies_%28LDS_Church%29)
But if you're talking avout the Arc of the Covenant, well, that was destroyed centuries ago.
No. I don't think it was that.
Try:I think it's this one (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Temple.html)

quakerworm

13 Oct 2007, 21:59

It's consistent with the definitions but not with the evidence: I know I exist because I can think. That is an action which takes place and therefore some reality must exist for it to do so in, and I must exist in that reality because I'm doing it.
you cannot consider evidence before you define which evidence is 'real' and which is not. for that, you need definition of existence. you are still floating in your own circular definitions, and without some other axiom, you don't have a paddle to get you out.
So you've found an equation with two solutions, but one of them is trival. Physics is full of those; we just pick the non-trivial solution.Then, we very slightly modify the definitions so that the trivial solution is defined out of existence. That's how real life works -- trivial solutions tend to be wrong.
again, you are wrong. trivial solutions are never wrong, unless there is a boundary condition preventing them. they tend to be of no interest, that is true, but they are solutions, and must always be kept in mind. many systems have "trivial solution" as their ground state. you forget that, and all your computations are wrong.
but there AREN'T contradictions on this line of reasoning.
so far, the only one to provide actual reasoning is andrew, and his reasoning is not inconsistent with nothing existing. the rest of you blindly cling to cogito ergo sum without even trying to prove it to be the case. i really have nothing to argue against, because there is no argument. once you start at least trying to prove that you exist, i'll have something to argue against. until that point, i really don't even need to do anything. my counter-hypothesis, 'nothing exists', is yet to be disproved.

AndrewTaylor

13 Oct 2007, 23:47

you cannot consider evidence before you define which evidence is 'real' and which is not. for that, you need definition of existence. you are still floating in your own circular definitions, and without some other axiom, you don't have a paddle to get you out.

We've been over this. I know I exist because I think (or at least, perceive myself to be thinking). Something which does not exist cannot think -- it cannot do anything because existence is prerequisite for doing anything. "Nothing exists" is a valid, complete and internally consistent description of a system. But it doesn't describe reality, as is patently obvious from even a casual glance at anything at all.

The crux of my problem with what I generously call your argument is that you disagree that only things that exist can make actions which affect reality. Anything which can affect the universe is something which would need to be considered in a model of that universe. Something which physics would, to be complete, have to describe. By what reasonable definition of "exist" can such a phenomenon be said not to exist? None that I can see. And as long as we're using a definition that doesn't allow for this, cogito-ergo-sum holds.

You keep saying "maybe nothing exists" but you stubbornly refuse to define the word "exists", so nobody can usefully reply to you.

I worry that you have failed to understand that "existence" is just a convenient word we made up to denote a property that we would like to refer to. We can apply it however we like. It's like "energy" -- the conservation of energy law only works because our definition of "energy" includes a wholly arbitrary and made up quantity called "potential energy". The clue's in the title: potential energy doesn't exist. It's quite imaginary. But it makes the equations neater and it feels right so we go with it. But it's no more intrinsically true than a definition that excludes it would be.

And maybe existence is the same way: it's just a label we apply to things we can observe, and things that can't possibly influence us don't get that label. And maybe that's all there is to it. And certainly you could define an equally valid label with the same name and apply it to nothing. But what good would that ever do?

Akuryou13

14 Oct 2007, 02:23

so far, the only one to provide actual reasoning is andrew, and his reasoning is not inconsistent with nothing existing. the rest of you blindly cling to cogito ergo sum without even trying to prove it to be the case. i really have nothing to argue against, because there is no argument. once you start at least trying to prove that you exist, i'll have something to argue against. until that point, i really don't even need to do anything. my counter-hypothesis, 'nothing exists', is yet to be disproved.you're being rather self-righteous here. you're not arguing any more than we are by this quoted statement. you say we blindly cling to cogito ergo sum as a life-line for all our arguments, but you're doing the exact same with "nothing exists". you're not arguing a point, you're arguing a possible idea that you think makes sense, and then giving no reason as to WHY it makes sense. you just blindly chant over and over again that we're all wrong and that you're right. any time someone points this out you either completely ignore the statement, or you make up yet another layer of nonsense to cover yourself. you've even said yourself multiple times that you "don't need to do anything" in this argument, which is possibly the most arrogant form of the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and until you stop that there's no way any of us can possibly reply with our own logical arguments. if you would stop clinging to your nonsensical argument you've not established so far and instead begin to actually explain yourself in a comprehensible manner, rather than simply repeating that we're wrong and not even thinking, then this might go somewhere. if you have no intention of actually saying anything, intelligent or otherwise, and merely wish to speak for the sake of speaking, then go find somewhere else to do it. doing so here will continue this fruitless argument over nothing.

quakerworm

14 Oct 2007, 09:13

We've been over this. I know I exist because I think (or at least, perceive myself to be thinking). Something which does not exist cannot think -- it cannot do anything because existence is prerequisite for doing anything.
none of that follows from your definition of existence. feel free to provide an alternative one if you really think it will resolve the problem.
The crux of my problem with what I generously call your argument is that you disagree that only things that exist can make actions which affect reality.
not at all. this definition of existing works for me, but then you need to define reality. the way you have defined it thus far, i see no proof that anything exists. just a method for determining other things that exist given some existing things. which, i think, is as far as you are going to get with any useful definition of existing. the rest needs to be done from the perspective of pragmatism, rather than on pure logic.

and that's how it really should be. it is useful to assume one exists. it is useful to take definition of reality as something that can be observed. it is useful to say that anything that exists can contribute to reality. from there, you can use formal logic and observation to find other things that exist. but you have to take your own existence as an axiom. it cannot be proven from definition of existence that does not explicitly require existence of self.
I worry that you have failed to understand that "existence" is just a convenient word we made up to denote a property that we would like to refer to.
no, i'm well aware of it. and you may tinker with definition as you like, as long as it follows the general idea of linguistic meaning. the definition you gave earlier is fine in all aspects other than giving you any way to prove that anything actually exists.
And maybe existence is the same way: it's just a label we apply to things we can observe, and things that can't possibly influence us don't get that label.
without a doubt, but this argument isn't limited to existing. any definition of any property will meet the same kind of problems. you cannot demonstrate that something has a certain property without making some assumptions about properties of something else. i cannot prove that grass is green without defining green as property of reflecting certain wavelengths of light, and making some assumptions on my ability to detect said wavelengths. but it is useful to agree on these definitions, so that when i say that something is green, you know what i am talking about.

by the way, andrew, potential energy is far from 'imaginary'. it contributes to object's rest mass, making it a measurable quantity. if that wasn't the case, we'd have no mass defect in nuclear reactions.

AndrewTaylor

14 Oct 2007, 13:29

none of that follows from your definition of existence.

It does when that definition is combined with the evidence of my senses. I'm not trying to prove there's a massive universe out there full of interesting things purely by scrutinising the definitions of words. That would be an ontological argument, and they're stupid.

and that's how it really should be. it is useful to assume one exists. it is useful to take definition of reality as something that can be observed. it is useful to say that anything that exists can contribute to reality. from there, you can use formal logic and observation to find other things that exist. but you have to take your own existence as an axiom. it cannot be proven from definition of existence that does not explicitly require existence of self.

I'm observing me, aren't I? Then I exist.

by the way, andrew, potential energy is far from 'imaginary'. it contributes to object's rest mass, making it a measurable quantity. if that wasn't the case, we'd have no mass defect in nuclear reactions.

I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but either way it doesn't really affect my point and I don't want to be drawn into a side-side-side-argument about things that I'm not convinced either of us properly understand.