Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.

[Radical Plato]

S0 WH0 CREATED G0D? Y0U C0NTRADICT Y0URSELF BY SAYING  THAT S0METHING MUST  HAVE CREATED THE QUANTAM FLUCTUATI0NS BUT IGN0RE THE ANSWER 0N WH0 CREATED G0D? THE LAWS 0F PHYSICS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN C0ME FR0M N0THING. A UNIVERSE FR0M N0THING EQUALS N0 NEED F0R G0D.

END OF THREAD

[deceiver]

Dawkins is as ignorant as O'Reilly. Natural sciences are based on a unspoken axiom that Universe is regular, ie. if apple falls on a ground 100 times it will fall every time. We do not know and are in fact obviously unable to build axiomatic system that may be "behind" the Universe. Everything we can have is some mathmatical model based on few assumptions. It works in practice but doesn't make us any closer in the search for the "higher truth".

Some of you claim that there is answer somewhere and that we will find it eventually - unfortunatelly, it's not that obvious for me either. Let's take computer for example. There are certain problems which computer cannot solve and it's not becouse they're not fast enough, we lack memory, or whatever - we can't solve them becouse it's impossible. Those are simple problems like "given program S will it stop?". Proof that it's impossible to create program answering this question is very simple. Also we can prove that there are real numbers for which it's impossible to build program which for number i gives you it's i-th digit. Actually majority of real numbers are like that.

Those facts give me an intuition that in the quest of exploring universe we're in deep shithole. I think there are certain problems we just cannot solve and are not designed to solve. There are some questions which simply cannot be answered and I deeply believe that most of questions are like that.

[Radical Plato]

Those facts give me an intuition that in the quest of exploring universe we're in deep shithole. I think there are certain problems we just cannot solve and are not designed to solve. There are some questions which simply cannot be answered and I deeply believe that most of questions are like that.

But isnt the staement "It cant be Answered" an Answer

[deceiver]

But isnt the staement "It cant be Answered" an Answer

It's an answer to different question - can this question be answered?

[Radical Plato]

It's an answer to different question - can this question be answered?

No its not.  Because the answer to "Can this question be answered?" is "Yes"

[farrellzach]

Did O'Reilly really say that?

There is a reason for the Moon and the Sun...

His argument then changes to "How did the moon get there? You can't explain that."

[johnnynoname]

I hate to be a asshole but this thread doesn't disappoint in how predictable it is

[johnnynoname]

btw, not to add on to the predictable pile that is this thread but I just, really, find it laughable at how these very smart men with several decades of Ivy league education amongst are pining away at telling us that something isn't there.



It's like, you know that there is Cancer and AIDS....how about you use your smarts to fix that and then work on telling us that something isn't there

[Swede!]

It's only on American forums a thread like this grows to 10 pages lol (soon to be). And ironically probably Afghanistan forums also if they have any lol

[ob205]

So let us assume there is a God, which one is it?  Can it be all of them?  Allah, Jesus, Hindu, etc.

Are they all the same and only came about from different regions of the world?

Why do some religions believe theirs is the only true way?  (Born agains calling Mormonism a cult)

[deceiver]

No its not.  Because the answer to "Can this question be answered?" is "Yes"

Rofl you're an idiot.

Some questions specify in itself what kind of object should be an answer. If there is no such object then "no such object" isn't an answer, coz it's different kind of object.

[tbombz]

No, only those who clearly refuse to read what's being written and spit out the same thing again and again and again and again. Like tbombz.

That is what happens. Study quantum mechanics.



For the last time, it's meaningless to apply causal and temporal ordering relationships to the Universe itself. Time is a prerequisite for words like "always" and "at some point" and "at some time." Time is a property of the Universe itself. Time, as we understand it and live it doesn't exist outside of the Universe. So words like "at some point" and "at some time" are meaningless outside of the current context of existence -- the Universe.


Creation isn't a prerequisite. You waive your hands around frantically and claim that it is, but your only supporting evidence is you screaming "it's either eternal or it was created." I say NONSENSE.


Science is "incapable" of answering that question in the same sense that humans are "incapable" of being potatoes. Science deals with nature and its laws; not fairytales. It provides the answers when you ask the right questions.

You again assert that "there must be an answer" implies god. I call bullshit. Why god and not something else? "Oh," you'll say "whatever it is, it's god." That's the problem when you're refusing to provide concrete non-circular definitions of words and insist on debating nebulous concepts that, by your own admission, are incomprehensible.

god is whatever created the universe. if the universe wasnt created, then there is no god. if it was created then there is a god.

 time applies to anything we talk about. if you say time cant apply, then your saying something outside of the universe exists, and for that to be true there must be something SUPERNATURAL (aka god). 

S0 WH0 CREATED G0D? Y0U C0NTRADICT Y0URSELF BY SAYING  THAT S0METHING MUST  HAVE CREATED THE QUANTAM FLUCTUATI0NS BUT IGN0RE THE ANSWER 0N WH0 CREATED G0D? THE LAWS 0F PHYSICS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN C0ME FR0M N0THING. A UNIVERSE FR0M N0THING EQUALS N0 NEED F0R G0D.

god, by definiton, is "the creator". asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor. but asking "what causes quantum fluctuations" is perfectly logical.  laws of physics say quantum fluctuations can cause particles to pop into existence.. but where does the quantum fluctuation come from? at what point in time did they start happening, and why ?     (quantum fluctuations are not supernatural, and therefore are subject to questions about their true nature.. whereas something supernatural can not be questioned because by defintion the answers are outside of our reach. )

So let us assume there is a God, which one is it?  Can it be all of them?  Allah, Jesus, Hindu, etc.

Are they all the same and only came about from different regions of the world?

Why do some religions believe theirs is the only true way?  (Born agains calling Mormonism a cult)

if god exists, god is not allah, jesus, yahweh, or any other. god is god. people throughout time have believed there must be a god and have created their own stories about him. but they didnt have any idea what god truly is, they just made shit up. but  surely, if god does exist, it doesnt matter what you call him or what religion you subscribe to, if any, whenever you speak to "the heavens", your speaking to god.   

this is not rocket science people

[avxo]

time applies to anything we talk about. if you say time cant apply, then your saying something outside of the universe exists, and for that to be true there must be something SUPERNATURAL (aka god).

Time is a property of the Universe and applies to everything that is contained within it. You are the one that keeps using terms like "before" and "some point" to indicate temporal relationships as something that exists separately from the Universe. Temporal causality -- or causality as we understand it -- is meaningless outside the framework of spacetime.

god, by definiton, is "the creator".

That's not a definition. You assume that a creator is necessary, and then you define 'god' (whatever that is) as the necessary creator. That's a fallacy known as begging the question. You may want to consider attending a introductory course in logic at your local Community College.

asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor.

So your argument boils down to this: "I assert that everything needs a creator, therefore the Universe needs a creator." And then, you immediately turn around and yell "I assert that the creator doesn't require a creator." Sorry tbombz, you can't have it both ways.

[suckmymuscle]

god, by definiton, is "the creator". asking "who created the creator" is non sequitor.

  So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is that you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[avxo]

Great post. suckmymuscle speaks the truth!

[Skeletor]

 So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is thart you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Well, he did provide an empirical definition of anal sex. 

[James28]

Wow, it's 2011 and we're still discussing religion? 

[The_Leafy_Bug]

and leafy if you truly think there was something valuable in that video direct me to the segment and ill watch it, or just write it down in your own words. i assure you though, there is nothing you can find anywhere in any video or any scientific discovery that will ever provide information to indicate that science can find an "answer" for the origin of the universe.  by its very defintion science is incapable of doing so.

Ok so then why say it is God because we don't know the answer? I like talking tea pot better. If we are going to use our imagination to fill in what we don't know then why not use a tea pot?

[CARTEL]

it's called believing in facts backed by proof, or the best theory available. call it what you want.

it's not a religion. religion is faith based. you believe blindly in some fairytales. most likely because you grew up with it and your parents taught you so. and you're too stupid to think for yourself.

Uh, who said I belong to a faith.

You are arguing that science can explain everything. Who is to say that a God didn't make it that way.

Your proof is your faith in science, their proof is their faith in God. I'm just saying you are both sanctimonious assholes.

[MAXX]

Uh, who said I belong to a faith.

You are arguing that science can explain everything. Who is to say that a God didn't make it that way.

Your proof is your faith in science, their proof is their faith in God. I'm just saying you are both sanctimonious assholes.

you must belong to either or. and since you say I'm wrong, then you believe in some kind of creator/god/what ever.

[CARTEL]

you must belong to either or. and since you say I'm wrong, then you believe in some kind of creator/god/what ever.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying why are both sides so friggin uptight about indoctrinating everybody else?

People suing City's to take down crosses that have been up for years or getting rid of Christmas decorations. There are bigger problems to worry about.

[tbombz]

Time is a property of the Universe and applies to everything that is contained within it. You are the one that keeps using terms like "before" and "some point" to indicate temporal relationships as something that exists separately from the Universe. Temporal causality -- or causality as we understand it -- is meaningless outside the framework of spacetime.

time is always meaningful, unless something outside of space-time exists.  by your own admission. because time doesnt apply to anytihng but space-time. so if time dosnt apply, then its something outside of space time to which it doesnt apply.  therefore we can either always use temporal language or something outside of time exists (ie the SUPERNATURAL)


That's not a definition. You assume that a creator is necessary, and then you define 'god' (whatever that is) as the necessary creator. That's a fallacy known as begging the question. You may want to consider attending a introductory course in logic at your local Community College.

god= "the creator". that is a definition. unicorn= "flying horse with a single horn on its head" <-- also a definition.  i dont assume a creator is necessary. i have said time and time again, either the universe is uncaused and there is no god OR the universe was caused by god. there are two options. god is not logically required, for the option of the uncaused universe is also a possibility. 


So your argument boils down to this: "I assert that everything needs a creator, therefore the Universe needs a creator." And then, you immediately turn around and yell "I assert that the creator doesn't require a creator." Sorry tbombz, you can't have it both ways.

no, my argument is this. in fact its not an argument but a fact. either the universe was created, or it was not. period.

  So you are basically using the term "God" as a metaphor for the first cause. Why do you even need God for that? It is a logical necessity that the cause-and-effect chain is broken when we are talking about derivative branches in axiomatic systems. Why? Because in all derivative systems there is a starting axiom from which all following concepts derive from. In mathematics as well as computer language, this the acceptance of the concept of quantity(the number 1) and nothing(the number zero) Reality is a derivative process since all of complexity derives from more simple things, such as in molecules deriving from more simple atoms and complex molecules like the DNA deriving from more simple ones like nucleic acids. Likewise, all mass in the Uiniverse derived from a singularity billions of years ago because the Universe is expanding in all directions so it came from a focal point in the past. God is not necessary because it is an a priori logical necessity for a first cause to exist in any derivative system like our reality. The first cause can be seen in two ways: nothing more than a logical(axiomatic) necessity in a logically derivative process like our reality, or the first cause is not really the first cause but an effect of a previous cause, which makes it not really the first cause and brings us back to point one: that the first cause is simply an a priori condition for anything(even the thoughts that allows us to have this discussion in the first place) to exist. This does not require God, just like you can define any axioms you want and create your own mathematics with them that is only valid if you accept those axioms as true. Your problem, 'Tbombz", is thart you don't have a working definition of anything.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

"first cause", "god", same difference.  an uncaused cause, "the first cause", is supernatural if it is truly uncaused. if there is some cause, then it isnt the "first cause", and it isnt god.  your wrong when you say a first cause is necessary, infinite regression is possible. your actually making an argument for the existence of god, the same argument saint thomas aquinas used to try and prove gods existence. but the argument fails. luckily for you. 

Ok so then why say it is God because we don't know the answer? I like talking tea pot better. If we are going to use our imagination to fill in what we don't know then why not use a tea pot?

i didnt say god did anything. what im doing is pointing out the fact that either god created the universe, or the universe was not created and therefore eternal and uncaused with no origin and no deifnitive answer to its true nature.  not using my imagination and not making any assumptions, just clear and simple logic.

[avxo]

god= "the creator". that is a definition. unicorn= "flying horse with a single horn on its head" <-- also a definition.  i dont assume a creator is necessary. i have said time and time again, either the universe is uncaused and there is no god OR the universe was caused by god. there are two options. god is not logically required, for the option of the uncaused universe is also a possibility.

No, "god = the creator" isn't a definition. A definition provides a description of the nature the scope and the meaning of something. All you've done is provide what you claim is a synonym. If you want to play that game, my next question will be "what is the creator" and you cannot turn around and answer "god" because then you'll have a circular (and therefore useless) definition.

The fact is that your definition, as it stands now, is meaningless.

no, my argument is this. in fact its not an argument but a fact. either the universe was created, or it was not. period.

You assume that it's a fact, but that doesn't make it so. And you insist on using words out of any rational context and I am not going to let you get away with it. Please explain what "created" means divorced from causality. Please explain how you distinguish between the condition where no Universe exists and where a Universe exists, without using temporal references like "before" "at some point in time" and "after" since those terms are meaningless outside of the Universe.

[suckmymuscle]

first cause", "god", same difference.  an uncaused cause, "the first cause", is supernatural if it is truly uncaused. if there is some cause, then it isnt the "first cause", and it isnt god.  your wrong when you say a first cause is necessary, infinite regression is possible. your actually making an argument for the existence of god, the same argument saint thomas aquinas used to try and prove gods existence. but the argument fails. luckily for you.

  The first cause, by definition, is uncaused. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be the first cause. So you using the expression "uncaused cause" is both a redundancy as well as a logical impossibility. And no, this does not prove the existence of God and here's why. Causality is a function of matter. If you define the substrate of reality as matter, and if you accept that matter only came into being with the Big Bang - and all evidence indicates that - then it makes no sense to speak of causality for the existence of matter. Matter contains the condition that allows causality to start, so reality can spring from nothingness without any required cause since the very existence of cause at the conceptual level only exists after the first cause appeared. No God required. And if causality regresses back ad nauseum - if we assume that quantum fluctuations occur linearly and not in parallel fashion which is what would be required for it to function with time - this also doesen't prove that God exists because then you are saying that God is the first cause, since causality itself could not exist without him . So your argument is self-defeating and a complete logical impossibility - an infinite cause-and-effect chain completely precludes the possibility of the existence of God since it removes from God the property of being responsible for creation since there is no first cause making God not God. And you completely misunderstood Aquinas argument. It had nothing to do with that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Radical Plato]

 The first cause, by definition, is uncaused. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be the first cause. So you using the expression "uncaused cause" is both a redundancy as well as a logical impossibility. And no, this does not prove the existence of God and here's why. Causality is a function of matter. If you define the substrate of reality as matter, and if you accept that matter only came into being with the Big Bang - and all evidence indicates that - then it makes no sense to speak of causality for the existence of matter. Matter contains the condition that allows causality to start, so reality can spring from nothingness without any required cause since the very existence of cause at the conceptual level only exists after the first cause appeared. No God required. And if causality regresses back ad nauseum - if we assume that quantum fluctuations occur linearly and not in parallel fashion which is what would be required for it to function with time - this also doesen't prove that God exists because then you are saying that God is the first cause, since causality itself could not exist without him . So your argument is self-defeating and a complete logical impossibility - an infinite cause-and-effect chain completely precludes the possibility of the existence of God since it removes from God the property of being responsible for creation since there is no first cause making God not God. And you completely misunderstood Aquinas argument. It had nothing to do with that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Now lets that be the end of it - God could not possibly exist. And even if he did, it wouldnt change shit.  The Average pesons life will still be just as miserable as it was yesterday.