Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: ToxicAvenger on December 06, 2006, 12:57:13 PM
-
then we must be able to prove his existance using the VERY set of rules he has used to create this universe.
the end.
true stry!
-
then we must be able to prove his existance using the VERY set of rules he has used to create this universe.
the end.
true stry!
Those are only rules written by man..... not GOD
-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism)
He is perhaps my favorite religious thinker.
Much of Kierkegaard's authorship explores the notion of the absurd: Job gets everything back again by virtue of the absurd (Repetition); Abraham gets a reprieve from having to sacrifice Isaac, by virtue of the absurd (Fear and Trembling); Kierkegaard hoped to get Regine back again after breaking off their engagement, by virtue of the absurd (Journals); Climacus hopes to deceive readers into the truth of Christianity by virtue of an absurd representation of Christianity's ineffability; the Christian God is represented as absolutely transcendent of human categories yet is absurdly presented as a personal God with the human capacities to love, judge, forgive, teach, etc. Kierkegaard's notion of the absurd subsequently became an important category for twentieth century existentialists, though usually devoid of its religious associations.
I am waiting for the Muslim world to join in the existential movement.
-
finite cannot know infinite.
-
ever wonder why the world is rational, that is why mathematics works at all, that is why can we even or assume we can figure out how the world works. seems like the creation is rational to me. "it is astounding that we have mathematics, but even more profound is that mathematics works at all" einstein.
-
Universe is absurd and we are all living in one big comic joke.
For example defects make us strong.
That is how Darwinism works.
We need a large enough gene pool so that adaptation can happen.
If the world was orderly there would be no need for a gene pool.
BTW how is that unifying theory going.
-
then we must be able to prove his existance using the VERY set of rules he has used to create this universe.
the end.
true stry!
What would proving He exists do? God lived among the Israelites, He LIVED among them yet they still rejected Him. There would be no difference in present time.
-
Those are only rules written by man..... not GOD
sooo the law of gravity.....electromagne tism...
the laws of thermodynamics are man made? ::)
-
What would proving He exists do? God lived among the Israelites, He LIVED among them yet they still rejected Him. There would be no difference in present time.
proving he exists would make me believe in him...
and when you say god lived amongst the isralites..you are assuming that christanity is the correct religion...
muslims and the jews believe that jesus ws juuust another human prophet.. :)
-
finite cannot know infinite.
you need to take some physics classes orr at lease read "brief history of time" and some stuff on www.space.com before ya post in my threads mate.. :-\
-
i dont understand knowledge displaces electrons in the human mind, therefore our minds are finite. no one can conceptualize infinite. with hawking i assume you are addressing redshift indicating that the universe is expanding therefore is finite(and is not superheavy indicating a flat fabric of space). blue electormagnetism would be evident if it was not, and ellis's postualation of the theory of singularity would indicate the the universe had a beginning called the big bang in which rapid expansion of space-time was found(i dont like hawking, he has done nothing in science really). however, you-we still cant answer questions of final causes only efficient ones nor can learning about physics help me answer meta-physical and ontological questions.i have already demonstrated why everything is infinite, finite is not possible, there has to be something for space to expand into and nothing cannot create something, thus eternal and infinite. i just dont see any other way around it. i asked someone about eternal matter the other day and they reffered me to ihopb burfications which still dont explain it although i dont know much about it.
i asked you how string theory, or quantum mechanics, now how finite can know infinite with no answer. tell me how finite can know infinite, debate with me, insted of posting links i would honestly love to hear your side of the story as you seem well read. loop quantum gravity is a more promising field.
-
again finite us, cannot know infinite which is all of existence.
-
i dont understand knowledge displaces electrons in the human mind, therefore our minds are finite. no one can conceptualize infinite. with hawking i assume you are addressing redshift indicating that the universe is expanding therefore is finite(and is not superheavy indicating a flat fabric of space). blue electormagnetism would be evident if it was not, and ellis's postualation of the theory of singularity would indicate the the universe had a beginning called the big bang in which rapid expansion of space-time was found(i dont like hawking, he has done nothing in science really). however, you-we still cant answer questions of final causes only efficient ones nor can learning about physics help me answer meta-physical and ontological questions.i have already demonstrated why everything is infinite, finite is not possible, there has to be something for space to expand into and nothing cannot create something, thus eternal and infinite. i just dont see any other way around it. i asked someone about eternal matter the other day and they reffered me to ihopb burfications which still dont explain it although i dont know much about it.
i asked you how string theory, or quantum mechanics, now how finite can know infinite with no answer. tell me how finite can know infinite, debate with me, insted of posting links i would honestly love to hear your side of the story as you seem well read. loop quantum gravity is a more promising field.
1) Why cannot 'finite' us know infinite existence?
2) Why is existence infinite?
3) The universe - space-time- doesn't need stuff to expand in. If it did, it would be expanding in to space, and that would just be (more) universe. Different concepts.
-
ever wonder why the world is rational, that is why mathematics works at all, that is why can we even or assume we can figure out how the world works. seems like the creation is rational to me. "it is astounding that we have mathematics, but even more profound is that mathematics works at all" einstein.
Doesn't support creation. Just because the universe is an extremely complex system and we seem to be along a track towards getting a grasp of it, doesn't mean that it was created. It just means that the universe is an extremely complex system and we seem to be along a track towards getting a grasp of it.
-
There goes usmokepole again.. He brings up vastly complex concepts as if they explain god, yet fails to shows just how they explain the existence of a devine creator.
-
i cant explain or prove god using science they have nothing to do with each other, you can see hints of creator in creation but it takes faith i still need faith to beleive in a first cause, much as you do. i used philosophy to show that infinite exists and nothing never did with multiple people supporting me with a ton of knowledge. you just dont understand it that is all. there would be no point to life if god made it obvious he existed, faith is needed.
as to logical- 1)it is plainly obvious that finite can not describe infinite nor conceptualize it, this is common sense. have finite brain power, room for knowledge one cannot conceptualize what it is to be infinite, you keep picturing an edge, but there are no edges how can something go on forever, i dont know i just know it does. think of a new sense, you cant because your mind cannot fathom it same concept.
2)existence is infinite because nothing cannot create something and finite would disobey this. singularity shows that space-time had a beginning are we to assume that nothign created this. nothign cannot create something, to deny this is to deny physics and common sense. you cant even conceptualize nothing because you try to give it attributes or characteristics. that makes it something, but something is not nothing.
3)you are correct, but the universe is flat, not ballon shaped so it has an edge, now what is at the edge i dont know all i know is that space does not exist, ether is not evident. dark matter does but space is merely a medium by which distances between to points are measured. it has no physical properties, planets, stars are moving apart but space is not expanding it the dualistic sense that space exists apart from its components.
im not trying to prove god exists with three sentences, to run down everything i have read and reasons i beleive would take days and pages upon pages so i choose specific spots to argue when someone makes claim that is all. i cant prove god and you cannot prove the negative, so were stuck. i think it is more probable that god exists. ask me a specific question and i will give a specific answer.
also you you can describe/show infinite to me i think nobel would be knocking at your door. by definition you cannot show infinite.
-
to the physics people who would still bring up a vaccum as proof of nothing=somthing. vaccum is something, and matter-antimatter could be going into other dimensions, much as it is postulated that gravitions do. no physicist is dumb enough to actual support that notion.
heres how i see it, there has to be divinity that is a drive or self purpose, or higher purpose in existence. how can you explain sudden arrival of purposive structures, how decay of isotopes appear to have free will, that is decay randomly for no reason, but purposivly causing decay. either matter is self purpose driven-monism or god inputs purpose. free-will shows that we are not slaves to matter but can overcome drives, purpose etc. bacteria could self replicate from the jump. think about it, it came pre-installed with these structures and drive to replicate, it is purposive. but during meosis, chronmosomes make alturistic seperations(but evolution is not individual) to allow this. purpose is there from the start, auto-catalytic and complexity theory have good answers but computer models are not lab experiments. this is one reason i believe, and the argument is more complex. but how do fields of energy give rise to self reflecting beings, that is all we truly are, the energy fields have to contain the propensity to create sentience period. consciousness cannot be explained. simple experiment think black, now tell me what came first the thought or neural firing(you might say the firing is that fast, some think that this is not possible, na/k channels would require more time although it is debateble) . if you stimulate a region of the brain you never get the same image. that is the brain is the tv and the consciousness the cable.if you turn off the tv and turn it on you get different images but the scene was always playing, much like consciousness .eccles a neuroscientist postulated this and i can post the quotes and paper. the brain is more complex then the universe so it will be a while before there is a definitive answer. stating facts does does nothing, interpretation of the facts is the debate,some interpret purposivness and consciousness as signs of god some dont.
this is just several brief points because camel jocky wants me to prove that a all seeing being, that is immaterial and creator of all exists with science when no one can.
-
i cant explain or prove god using science they have nothing to do with each other, you can see hints of creator in creation but it takes faith i still need faith to beleive in a first cause, much as you do. i used philosophy to show that infinite exists and nothing never did with multiple people supporting me with a ton of knowledge. you just dont understand it that is all. there would be no point to life if god made it obvious he existed, faith is needed.
as to logical- 1)it is plainly obvious that finite can not describe infinite nor conceptualize it, this is common sense. have finite brain power, room for knowledge one cannot conceptualize what it is to be infinite, you keep picturing an edge, but there are no edges how can something go on forever, i dont know i just know it does. think of a new sense, you cant because your mind cannot fathom it same concept.
2)existence is infinite because nothing cannot create something and finite would disobey this. singularity shows that space-time had a beginning are we to assume that nothign created this. nothign cannot create something, to deny this is to deny physics and common sense. you cant even conceptualize nothing because you try to give it attributes or characteristics. that makes it something, but something is not nothing.
3)you are correct, but the universe is flat, not ballon shaped so it has an edge, now what is at the edge i dont know all i know is that space does not exist, ether is not evident. dark matter does but space is merely a medium by which distances between to points are measured. it has no physical properties, planets, stars are moving apart but space is not expanding it the dualistic sense that space exists apart from its components.
im not trying to prove god exists with three sentences, to run down everything i have read and reasons i beleive would take days and pages upon pages so i choose specific spots to argue when someone makes claim that is all. i cant prove god and you cannot prove the negative, so were stuck. i think it is more probable that god exists. ask me a specific question and i will give a specific answer.
also you you can describe/show infinite to me i think nobel would be knocking at your door. by definition you cannot show infinite.
- Why is faith needed?
- 'It's just common sense that finite cannot know infinite' ? Well, that's real convincing. Seriously, can you construct a valid argument showing why this is the case? And what do you mean by infinite or finite anyway? I assume if you're saying the one cannot know about the other, then you have a definition of the two.
- So on the one hand, you accept physics in saying that to say that nothing cannot create something, yet on the other you say that physics can never explain God because it is somehow finite? Kinda contradictory don't you think? Further, there is a theory floating around that the so-called big bang has its origins in a so-called big crunch. This does not imply that nothing created something. Further, if this wasn't the case, nothing can only not craete something in our conception of space-time. Yet, if there was nothing before the big bang, there would not be nothing, in something. There would merely be nothing. Who knows what could and couldn't happen here? The laws of physics which we have only apply to our current universe.
- I have no idea what you're saying here- sorry :-\
- Infinite= not finite.
-
to the physics people who would still bring up a vaccum as proof of nothing=somthing. vaccum is something, and matter-antimatter could be going into other dimensions, much as it is postulated that gravitions do. no physicist is dumb enough to actual support that notion.
heres how i see it, there has to be divinity that is a drive or self purpose, or higher purpose in existence. how can you explain sudden arrival of purposive structures, how decay of isotopes appear to have free will, that is decay randomly for no reason, but purposivly causing decay. either matter is self purpose driven-monism or god inputs purpose. free-will shows that we are not slaves to matter but can overcome drives, purpose etc. bacteria could self replicate from the jump. think about it, it came pre-installed with these structures and drive to replicate, it is purposive. but during meosis, chronmosomes make alturistic seperations(but evolution is not individual) to allow this. purpose is there from the start, auto-catalytic and complexity theory have good answers but computer models are not lab experiments. this is one reason i believe, and the argument is more complex. but how do fields of energy give rise to self reflecting beings, that is all we truly are, the energy fields have to contain the propensity to create sentience period. consciousness cannot be explained. simple experiment think black, now tell me what came first the thought or neural firing(you might say the firing is that fast, some think that this is not possible, na/k channels would require more time although it is debateble) . if you stimulate a region of the brain you never get the same image. that is the brain is the tv and the consciousness the cable.if you turn off the tv and turn it on you get different images but the scene was always playing, much like consciousness .eccles a neuroscientist postulated this and i can post the quotes and paper. the brain is more complex then the universe so it will be a while before there is a definitive answer. stating facts does does nothing, interpretation of the facts is the debate,some interpret purposivness and consciousness as signs of god some dont.
this is just several brief points because camel jocky wants me to prove that a all seeing being, that is immaterial and creator of all exists with science when no one can.
Just because we can't explain something using science, doesn't mean that we will never be able to, or that it is will never be possible to.
Our current state of knowledge does not imply that it is not possible to extend that and explain deeper concepts.
-
ok, listen pay attention desribe infinite using mathematic say pi, you cant sorry casue it would take eternity to do it. i beleive this is a valid test, simply write out infinity, . whats funny is i say you cant conceptualize infinity and you tell me to contruct a experiment showing infinity, i CANT. just write out every possible digit for me.
-faith is needed because you dont know what happened before the big bang, what caused it to change, why there is something,if there is a multi-verse if a pink unicorn caused the expansion of space-time. go read what atheism is, it is juxtaposition of theism why is one a faith and the other not.
-i dont care what the facts say interpretation is were god or no god comes in. to know god is to be god, you cant understand a new sense just like you cant understand what it means to be non-local, omipotent etc since you are not.
your catching on, nothing never existed the big crunch, osicllating models etc might be correct, al i know is nothing never was.
-
- You're refuting yourself horribly. You're telling me that I can't define or conceptualise what infinity is, yet you have already jumped to the conclusion that it's mathematical, that it's writable, and everything else you said about it.
I just gave you a definition/description. Infinity= not finite. Limitless. Boundless. I don't need to use numbers to describe that. I just used words.
- That's true, I don't know what happened before the big bang. However, that's not to say that it is impossible to know, or that we will never know. Further, that also doesn't imply why faith is necessary. I don't know what the lottery numbers drawn on Sunday will be- do I need faith for that, too?
- Why can't we understand that, or get to the point where we will be able to understand it? Further, by saying that we can't understand it, you've inadvertently understood it yourself- you've told us a bit about the nature of it- it's incomprehendable to us, and so you've understood a bit of it. Do you see this contradiction, too?
- No, I didn't say nothing never existed. You misunderstood what I meant. You say that if there is a God, he is not of this world and so obeys different laws to us, and is incomprehensible to us. Fine. However, if the universe has its origins in a different system (nothing) which is also not of this world, then equally, it could obey different laws, just like your postulation of a God. So, whilst it might appear that nothing cannot produce something in this universe, that might not hold for another.
-
- You're refuting yourself horribly. You're telling me that I can't define or conceptualise what infinity is, yet you have already jumped to the conclusion that it's mathematical, that it's writable, and everything else you said about it.
I just gave you a definition/description. Infinity= not finite. Limitless. Boundless. I don't need to use numbers to describe that. I just used words.
- That's true, I don't know what happened before the big bang. However, that's not to say that it is impossible to know, or that we will never know. Further, that also doesn't imply why faith is necessary. I don't know what the lottery numbers drawn on Sunday will be- do I need faith for that, too?
- Why can't we understand that, or get to the point where we will be able to understand it? Further, by saying that we can't understand it, you've inadvertently understood it yourself- you've told us a bit about the nature of it- it's incomprehendable to us, and so you've understood a bit of it. Do you see this contradiction, too?
- No, I didn't say nothing never existed. You misunderstood what I meant. You say that if there is a God, he is not of this world and so obeys different laws to us, and is incomprehensible to us. Fine. However, if the universe has its origins in a different system (nothing) which is also not of this world, then equally, it could obey different laws, just like your postulation of a God. So, whilst it might appear that nothing cannot produce something in this universe, that might not hold for another.
haha infinity is a mathematical concept, and an abstract deduction from mathematics, what do you think GUT theorists are multiplying. your theorem infinite=not finite still isn't a conceptualization. you cannot show what infinite is and defining infinite with finite, is like defining black with white, they have to be defined apart and seperate to make sense. defining infinte with the use of finite does me no good i can conceptualize finite by looking at my skin. i see no examples in daily life of infinite.
2)yes- if you buy a ticket you can believe or not beleive it is the winning numbers, you have faith that those numbers are correct even though you have no proof. just like you have no proof there is no god, your faith is that he doesnt exist. atheism is a counter to the faith theism for simplicity.
3)i dont understand infinite, or nothing, or eternal. but i accept they exist based on the axioms i outlined. i cant coceptualize non-locality in quantum physics but i accept it happens and i can do experiments to prove it. infinte is never-ending size, no borders, this is a good definition yet i dont understand it because my brain is finite.
4)laws cannot operate on nothing, by saying laws operate on nothing you are defining nothing with characteristics making it something. god is something, operating outside the laws, nothing cannot operate outside the laws or with different ones because nothing never existed and has no characteristics, thus laws have no effect.you cant conceptualize nothing, dont try to just accept nothing is mutually exclusive with something.
anything else?
-
- Infinity is not just a mathematical concept, just as counting isn't just a mathematical concept.
- It makes perfect sense. Just because it isn't the definition you're not looking for, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I can understand it. Why can't you? Do you know what infinity is? If you don't- as you must be forced to admit- then how can you tell people how it can't be defined? I don't really care if it does you good or not. If you can't grasp it, that's your problem :-*
- Just because you see no examples in daily life of infinite, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or at least that it isn't definable. You see no examples of the big bang in your daily life, or of black holes. Does this mean that they are not definable, or that they don't exist?
- So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it. Would you say that this is an accurate, or common-sensical process to embark on? Let me give you another example. You believe that the sky is red. You can't prove this, but you believe it. Similarly, you believe that the Earth is flat. Would you say that faith in these concepts is a good idea?
- If you don't understsand these concepts, then stop using them. The very fact that you're using them in a certain fashion implies that you have a certain belief about them. Which means that you have- or think you have- understanding of them. Your brain also isn't red. Does this mean you can't understand red? Your brain also isn't a black hole. Does this mean you can't understand what a black hole is? Seriously, this is not a good path to go down.
- That's what you think. Prove it, for things outside this universe, or for things before this universe. Further, defining nothing by attributing it characteristics, doesn't imply that it is something. However, you're right- nothing is something- it is nothing. You must think dialectically, my friend- not on such a mechanical, isolationist plain. Everything is interconnected.
' dont try to just accept nothing is mutually exclusive with something'
This is exactly what you're doing when you say
'by saying laws operate on nothing you are defining nothing with characteristics making it something'
Anything else....?
-
- Infinity is not just a mathematical concept, just as counting isn't just a mathematical concept.
- It makes perfect sense. Just because it isn't the definition you're not looking for, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I can understand it. Why can't you? Do you know what infinity is? If you don't- as you must be forced to admit- then how can you tell people how it can't be defined? I don't really care if it does you good or not. If you can't grasp it, that's your problem :-*
- Just because you see no examples in daily life of infinite, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or at least that it isn't definable. You see no examples of the big bang in your daily life, or of black holes. Does this mean that they are not definable, or that they don't exist?
- So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it. Would you say that this is an accurate, or common-sensical process to embark on? Let me give you another example. You believe that the sky is red. You can't prove this, but you believe it. Similarly, you believe that the Earth is flat. Would you say that faith in these concepts is a good idea?
- If you don't understsand these concepts, then stop using them. The very fact that you're using them in a certain fashion implies that you have a certain belief about them. Which means that you have- or think you have- understanding of them. Your brain also isn't red. Does this mean you can't understand red? Your brain also isn't a black hole. Does this mean you can't understand what a black hole is? Seriously, this is not a good path to go down.
- That's what you think. Prove it, for things outside this universe, or for things before this universe. Further, defining nothing by attributing it characteristics, doesn't imply that it is something. However, you're right- nothing is something- it is nothing. You must think dialectically, my friend- not on such a mechanical, isolationist plain. Everything is interconnected.
' dont try to just accept nothing is mutually exclusive with something'
This is exactly what you're doing when you say
'by saying laws operate on nothing you are defining nothing with characteristics making it something'
Anything else....?
ahah, it is ironic that your name is logical.
1)i have said that you cannot conceptualize infinity, just like you cannot conceptualize a new sense, something foreign to experience like non-locality is impossible to grasp. i too know infinity exists because of mathematical abstractions in the plantonic sense that have specific axioms, but i dont KNOW what it is to be infinite, because my brain cannot fathom it. a definition of finite, would be contained or with edges, or barriers, can be measured. ex my body is finite as my skin is the endpoint. now a definition of infinite is boundless, no barriers. there are no examples therefore your concept of infinity while correct is a mere abstraction. you do not understand infinity truly i am sorry, no human can truly know infinite just like they cannot know what it means to be in two places at once. however, from mathematical axioms based on the validity of previous assertions i accept that infinite exists. i never said it never existed it does, but i cant properly describe it using our finite language. give an example of infinite, there is no concrete understanding of infinite only abstract, much like mathematics.
2)here are some definitons of faith from wiki
-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
-confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love
-Belief without evidence
-A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise.
so as you see you have faith with no evidence that god does not exist, much like you have evidence that your lottery ticket IS the winning ticket without proof. funny thing is you and other atheist argue with me without having knowledge in anything your talking about. hell, according to you, your beleif isnt faith when using concrete definitions it is. yes, if you dont know something, but beleive it to be true, like i will wake up tommorrow that is faith. what is so hard to comprehend?
3)i can see red, i know intimately what red is, i can view it. anything you can experience you can conceptualize, what is at the horizon of a black hole, were does stuff go when sucked in a black hole. your using examples of concrete things to justify the abstract, this is called ill-logic. you cant see infinite, nor can you imagine timelessness, but they exist as abstractions with axioms based on logic. stop making dumb arguments. you dont even know the difference as to why i can understnad the concept RED and cannot conceptualize concretely INFINITE. i have examples of red and black holes, they are perceivable, infinite is not. please do not make another dumb argument, i cant bare to keep repeating myself to atheist who dont know mathematics, nor philosophy, nor what there faith stands for.
4)look nothing is you still dont have a grasp of what nothing is. your question is like asking, what about if there is a different type of infinite, or black. if there was a different type of infinite do you know what it would be called, well i know based on gradeschool logic that it is something different not inifinite. if you say "what about nothing existing or being able to allow something to come from it under different laws" you are mistaking what you think is nothing. to say there is a different type of nothing one we do not know, is defining that nothing by difference or contrast to our nothing, making it something. once you give nothing characteristics that allow it to DO something it is no longer nothing. i meant to say "dont try to conceptualize, accept them as mutually exclusive"(ive said this on four threads now). once you start defining how laws operate on nothing or nothing creating something , your nothing has know become a something, thus invalidating your argument. nothing given eternity cannot create something. go to avantlabs for a better discussion, as you are just not grasping the logical and philosophical ramifications of your language. law dont operate with nothing, the laws of this unverse dont nor would the laws of a hypothetical universe, its like saying what if there was a different type of infinite that did not go on forever, you have changed what it means to be infinite, it is a ill-logical fallacy, and if you cant see this you should change your username.
im being a dick, because you, sandy and others make dumb points over and over, while others have understood what i say and keep making me repeat myself with dumb arguments. this was something you said
"So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it" yes this is actually the definition of faith, do some research. why should i have to defend if a different type of nothing exists? this question is convaluted and self-defeating, can you see why. what if there was a different type of black? THEN IT WOULDNT BE THAT TYPE OF BLACK BUT ANOTHER MAKING IT DIFFERENT WITH NO RELEVANCE TO OUR ARGUEMENT. nothing can not have variant forms, just like infinite cannot, and saying things like what if we had this sixth sense etc etc which is what your asking me to conceptualize doesnt hold water.
every atheist pay attention
if you say everything needs a cause then there is a infinite regression of causes, making this something(life) not possible. so logical something needs to be eternal, but based on science this unverse is not, therefore it had a creation a cause. the only way for anything to exist is for something to exist that has always existed and is uncaused. could be another universe, god, a bunny rabbit i dont know but some non-thing outside of time(hence uncaused)created us.
-
to wrap up the faith thing if you dont know something and beleive it to be true this is faith, that doesnt mean it is not true it just means you dont KNOW it IS true. do you follow. i believe that sweden exists because others have said it does, i havent been there, so i have faith it does exist, based on others. .i have friends who are atheist who are much smarter then me and i have a hard time arguing with them, i dont have all the answers, i have no problem with you faith, i have a faith with no concrete evidence, but i think there are more reasons to beleive then not to beleive. thats why i cannot force or say your faith is dumb, because all i have at the end of the day is faith and if im not wrong isnt this what the bible says is that only way to god. i have read mountains of material from all sides, i have concluded that there is a god, can i prove it NO.i can provide probable evidence.
forgot to ask.anything else?
-
another thing i find funny is that you think you can conceptualize concretely or graps infinity more then in an abstract sense. hahahah you are the next einstein.
-
ahah, it is ironic that your name is logical.
1)i have said that you cannot conceptualize infinity, just like you cannot conceptualize a new sense, something foreign to experience like non-locality is impossible to grasp. i too know infinity exists because of mathematical abstractions in the plantonic sense that have specific axioms, but i dont KNOW what it is to be infinite, because my brain cannot fathom it. a definition of finite, would be contained or with edges, or barriers, can be measured. ex my body is finite as my skin is the endpoint. now a definition of infinite is boundless, no barriers. there are no examples therefore your concept of infinity while correct is a mere abstraction. you do not understand infinity truly i am sorry, no human can truly know infinite just like they cannot know what it means to be in two places at once. however, from mathematical axioms based on the validity of previous assertions i accept that infinite exists. i never said it never existed it does, but i cant properly describe it using our finite language. give an example of infinite, there is no concrete understanding of infinite only abstract, much like mathematics.
2)here are some definitons of faith from wiki
-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
-confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love
-Belief without evidence
-A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise.
so as you see you have faith with no evidence that god does not exist, much like you have evidence that your lottery ticket IS the winning ticket without proof. funny thing is you and other atheist argue with me without having knowledge in anything your talking about. hell, according to you, your beleif isnt faith when using concrete definitions it is. yes, if you dont know something, but beleive it to be true, like i will wake up tommorrow that is faith. what is so hard to comprehend?
3)i can see red, i know intimately what red is, i can view it. anything you can experience you can conceptualize, what is at the horizon of a black hole, were does stuff go when sucked in a black hole. your using examples of concrete things to justify the abstract, this is called ill-logic. you cant see infinite, nor can you imagine timelessness, but they exist as abstractions with axioms based on logic. stop making dumb arguments. you dont even know the difference as to why i can understnad the concept RED and cannot conceptualize concretely INFINITE. i have examples of red and black holes, they are perceivable, infinite is not. please do not make another dumb argument, i cant bare to keep repeating myself to atheist who dont know mathematics, nor philosophy, nor what there faith stands for.
4)look nothing is you still dont have a grasp of what nothing is. your question is like asking, what about if there is a different type of infinite, or black. if there was a different type of infinite do you know what it would be called, well i know based on gradeschool logic that it is something different not inifinite. if you say "what about nothing existing or being able to allow something to come from it under different laws" you are mistaking what you think is nothing. to say there is a different type of nothing one we do not know, is defining that nothing by difference or contrast to our nothing, making it something. once you give nothing characteristics that allow it to DO something it is no longer nothing. i meant to say "dont try to conceptualize, accept them as mutually exclusive"(ive said this on four threads now). once you start defining how laws operate on nothing or nothing creating something , your nothing has know become a something, thus invalidating your argument. nothing given eternity cannot create something. go to avantlabs for a better discussion, as you are just not grasping the logical and philosophical ramifications of your language. law dont operate with nothing, the laws of this unverse dont nor would the laws of a hypothetical universe, its like saying what if there was a different type of infinite that did not go on forever, you have changed what it means to be infinite, it is a ill-logical fallacy, and if you cant see this you should change your username.
im being a dick, because you, sandy and others make dumb points over and over, while others have understood what i say and keep making me repeat myself with dumb arguments. this was something you said
"So basically, whenever you don't know something, but believe it, you have faith in it" yes this is actually the definition of faith, do some research. why should i have to defend if a different type of nothing exists? this question is convaluted and self-defeating, can you see why. what if there was a different type of black? THEN IT WOULDNT BE THAT TYPE OF BLACK BUT ANOTHER MAKING IT DIFFERENT WITH NO RELEVANCE TO OUR ARGUEMENT. nothing can not have variant forms, just like infinite cannot, and saying things like what if we had this sixth sense etc etc which is what your asking me to conceptualize doesnt hold water.
every atheist pay attention
if you say everything needs a cause then there is a infinite regression of causes, making this something(life) not possible. so logical something needs to be eternal, but based on science this unverse is not, therefore it had a creation a cause. the only way for anything to exist is for something to exist that has always existed and is uncaused. could be another universe, god, a bunny rabbit i dont know but some non-thing outside of time(hence uncaused)created us.
Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you left out the personal BS and kept to arguing points. Maybe this is difficult for you, but I've tried to treat you with respect and argue your statements point-by-point. You don't see me making fun of your username, so try to return me the same curtesy.
- I don't care how many times you've said you can't conceptualise infinity, you still haven't demonstrated this claim. Am I to accept it merely on your say-so? Just because YOU don't know what it is to be infinite, doesn't mean that no one else can. So, a demonstration or proof would be nice, please. (I even asked nicely).
Re abstraction, this is a moot point; whatever you say is an abstraction. Whenever you start talking, you are abstracting. When I refer to the car on the street, I am abstracting it from its environment. This is a very, very weak path to go down for you.
Further, as I have said now multiple times, by asserting why it is not understandable, you have understood it. Seriously, don't go there- it's illogical. You tell me that no human can know inifnity- well, this is a comment on the nature of infinity, even if only dealing with its perceptability. So, it follows that, if we are to take you seriously, then you are understanding what you're talking about. Ie, infinity. Yet how can this be? According to you, no one is allowed to understand infinity ??? ::)
- I accept that definition of faith- I have no problem with it. However, it grossly weakens your stance on God. What distinguishes your faith that God exists from your faith that your girlfriend loves you, or that you'll excrete what you just eat sometime tomorrow? Nothing, really.
It's quite different to knowledge. If I start defining knowledge along the lines of sufficiently justified true belief, then I have more than enough to assert that 'I know the Sun will rise tomorrow.' Just because I can't prove it empirically beyond all doubt, doesn't mean I don't know it. ;)
- You can conceptualise more than experience. That's what thought and imagination is about. I might have only experienced 256 colours in my lifetime. Does this stop me from imagining a 257th? No..
And seriously, just because you can't think of a coherent reply, doesn't mean my arguments are dumb. As far as I'm concerned, you have done nothing to justify any of your claims. You simply repeat them over and over, with different wording. Is this a sensible argument? OK... ::) I'm sure you're the be all and end all::)
- I'm not even going to bother replying to this insulting crap. Re-word it without the bullshit, maybe also make it comprehendable and I'll think about replying. Otherwise, you're wasting my time- I don't need to sit here and be insulted by some internet expert ::) ::)
And if that's how you concluded God, well, God help you mate.
-
i apologize for being a dick, i get carried away with tiny tits on this site. And my syntax is bad, i will try to clean it up. .but its rather annoying to argue a point like "just because you dont understand concretely what infinite is doesnt mean i can". when you create a thought you take up some space in the finite amount of associations between the synapses of two neurons, or three or four. you only have so many of these associations. therefore you cannot know infinite material(or infinite anything including infinite) what it is to be infinite. your definition of infinite=not finite decribes this relationship quite elequently. if your finite, your not infinite therefore you cannot know infinite. your arguing that you can understand the implications of infinite and i accept this, i to know the ramifications.
- i did not say i cant understand the implications of infinite i have said you cannot grasp with examples what infinite is. give me a example that is concrete of infinite if you can not, your argument fails plain and simple. yes i have demonstrated this claim to have a concrete concept is to have an example there are no examples of infinite. i also, have shown why a finite brain cannot know infinite numbers, or cannot no what it means to have no edge. math is based on this, books have been written about this, i dont know why im even arguing it, it is a ludicris point.
-wrong. i dont understand what quantum non-locality is but i accept it based on experiments that can be repeated. i accept infinite based on mathematical axioms.and i accept nothings implications based on logic and reason, plus its juxtaposition from something.
show me a concrete example of infinite.?
show me logically how variant forms of nothing can occur( while not being something).?
and tell me why if nothing did create something why does that first cause not have to have a cause?
please answer these questions.
-
i dont understand knowledge displaces electrons in the human mind,
LMAO....
you started off with bullshit so i wont bother reading the rest...soo you r saying is that the thought process is a form of "oxidation"??? LMAO
robert penrose did some work with microtubules..google it..if you had mentioned that i'd have taken you seriously...but from now on your posts will go ignored ...soo i implore you not to post in my threads on the religion board again
thanx..
-
i apologize for being a dick, i get carried away with tiny tits on this site. And my syntax is bad, i will try to clean it up. .but its rather annoying to argue a point like "just because you dont understand concretely what infinite is doesnt mean i can". when you create a thought you take up some space in the finite amount of associations between the synapses of two neurons, or three or four. you only have so many of these associations. therefore you cannot know infinite material(or infinite anything including infinite) what it is to be infinite. your definition of infinite=not finite decribes this relationship quite elequently. if your finite, your not infinite therefore you cannot know infinite. your arguing that you can understand the implications of infinite and i accept this, i to know the ramifications.
- i did not say i cant understand the implications of infinite i have said you cannot grasp with examples what infinite is. give me a example that is concrete of infinite if you can not, your argument fails plain and simple. yes i have demonstrated this claim to have a concrete concept is to have an example there are no examples of infinite. i also, have shown why a finite brain cannot know infinite numbers, or cannot no what it means to have no edge. math is based on this, books have been written about this, i dont know why im even arguing it, it is a ludicris point.
-wrong. i dont understand what quantum non-locality is but i accept it based on experiments that can be repeated. i accept infinite based on mathematical axioms.and i accept nothings implications based on logic and reason, plus its juxtaposition from something.
show me a concrete example of infinite.?
show me logically how variant forms of nothing can occur( while not being something).?
and tell me why if nothing did create something why does that first cause not have to have a cause?
please answer these questions.
- Yes, fair enough. I guess I badly worded what I was trying to say. When I say, 'just because you don't understand infinity, doesn't mean no one else can,' I mean that- just because you, or any or all of us don't understand infinity (assuming we don't), does not logically imply (of itself) that it is not possible to. Just because person A does not understand concept x, does not mean that it is logically impossible for person A, or any other, to understand concept x. Granted, you are saying that the nature of the particular concept at hand- infinity- implies that this is the case. I don't think you've demonstrated this, however, and I also think that this means that you are saying a bit about the nature of infinity (it's not able to be understood by us), and are hence understanding it.
- I don't think this is a particularly strong point for you, and this is the point I was using the red brain case to argue against. When you say that the brain is a finite piece of matter, and a thought (even though it is intangible) is simply a semblance of electrons in a finite area of space- to this I agree. Yet, I do not think it implies the next step- just because the brain is (physically) finite, doesn't mean it can't comprehend what it is like to be not-finite. So, I mentioned the red brain. The brain is a particular colour. But we are able to comprehend other colours. I think that perhaps you are on a bit of a reductionist track here.
Your other point, however, was strong- we can conceptualise only what we have encountered in experience. I made the point, however, that we can use processes of thought to deduce other concepts which we have not encountered in experience. A person can know two concepts, A and B, and from A and B he can logically deduce the existence or nature of a third concept, C, even though he has not had experience of this concept C.
- Again, just because I cannot point to a particular thing and say, 'that's an example of infinity,' doesn't mean one can't grasp the nature of it. See above paragraph.
- Nothing is something. It is nothing. Nothing and something are not mechanistically, rigidly exclusive concepts, just like objective and subjective are not.
-
some good points, and i glad to see at least your acknowledging my points, just have to flesh out the weak points from the strong i guess. my response is in the atheist thread. because we are arguing on three threads, not being condescending at all.
-
Yes, I'm not trying to convince you at all. I just disagree with your points and am trying to argue against them. We've both made some weak points.
-
LMAO....
you started off with bullshit so i wont bother reading the rest...soo you r saying is that the thought process is a form of "oxidation"??? LMAO
robert penrose did some work with microtubules..google it..if you had mentioned that i'd have taken you seriously...but from now on your posts will go ignored ...soo i implore you not to post in my threads on the religion board again
thanx..
great arguement. you totally refuted me, funny thing is i havent seen you debate one thing nor make one intelligent comment other then read about string theory, read about branes blah blah balh. electrons occupy a particular energy state when mentation is produced. mind is a quantum collasper of potentia into actuality much like the observer effect collapses particle potentials(quanta) into particles(actuality), mind is like a quantum computer, to which hasnt been built yet(for a through analysis read roger penrose road to reality, it even has some math if you can count). there is not an infinite numvber of atoms or even sub-atomic particles in your brain, i could have said neurons, but fundamentally quanta are the real substrate .again care to DEBATE ME or do you wish to remain in your world of ignorance were you can pretend to sound smart but can provide anything other then a copy and paste. shit you havent even done that. and i dont know whats with the dickhead like tone, i said you sounded intelligent and asked you to clarify some points but you come back with bullshit. you dont have a clue about anything your talking about so you keep saying, read this read that, ok so whats your interpretation of it? and what is your point, you havent made one. MAKE YOUR OWN POINT.
-
what your asking by the way is like asking fish to prove water. "someone discovered water but it sure wasnt the fishes" -geingereich
-
what your asking by the way is like asking fish to prove water. "someone discovered water but it sure wasnt the fishes" -geingereich
ROFL. ;D
-
great arguement. you totally refuted me, funny thing is i havent seen you debate one thing nor make one intelligent
blah blah
here is what u wanna read before u come to me with a valid argument
http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm
-
you seem to believe in theories with no testable predictions. like string theory. the graviton is the only prediction i can think of that can be tested anywere close to soon. even that does not directly support the theory.
also, i have a degree in neuroscience, and let me be the first to tell you that noboby knows WHAT consciousness is. people seem to think it is a epiphenomenon of matter(the brain)but either way no proof exists, just theories like your proposing.
www.sheldrake.com
or search rupert sheldrake, its about morphic resonance, and people have used this and holographism to explain storage of memories outside of the brain. similar to jungs collective unconscious. but again this is a theory so stop saying read this read that and give me a interpretation in your own words evidence for your beleif. many have likened mind to a quantum computer, some oppose, what does that prove. i tend to think of consciousnous as a seperate phenomenon apart from the brain, similarly to eccles proposal. however, im not a dualist so i lean towards goswamis view however, unproved it may be. penrose worked with eccles, i read the papers. your point again would be? that penrose has a threory,and others have different theories. i like his theory for sure, avoids homonuclus.
-
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html