That'll be interesting...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
That'll be interesting...
>You are looking at it from a 4D standpoint only...
Since I am only turning your numbers back on you I am using whatever "xD" you decide to use.
Any theory that can be used to justify or explain the existence of a supreme creator can be used to justify our existence...meaning that maybe WE are the supreme beings and rulers of the universe and came to be (or have always been) as you suppose this other entity.
Please, please, please come back with "there are a lot of contradictions in that theory and you have no good evidence to support it". ;-)
JB
Since I am only turning your numbers back on you I am using whatever "xD" you decide to use.
Any theory that can be used to justify or explain the existence of a supreme creator can be used to justify our existence...meaning that maybe WE are the supreme beings and rulers of the universe and came to be (or have always been) as you suppose this other entity.
Please, please, please come back with "there are a lot of contradictions in that theory and you have no good evidence to support it". ;-)
JB
Apply Occams razor and we can just get rid of god and simply
POP INTO BEING ourselves. Your arguing that we dont need
a creator at all. What if EVERYTHING just popped into existence
WITHOUT a god present? Hmmmmmmm....
In any case.... I think your argument is hogwash because
you havent a clue what string theory really implies anyway.
I seriously doubt you could explain in DETAIL why string theory being
true allows for a non-created god to exist.
If god doesnt REQUIRE a creator, *** THEN NEITHER DO WE ***.
Did this ever occur to you? Its a simpler solution which
requires fewer entities to explain things.
As for your other posts.... your sounding like a broken record
spewing forth the same old arguments that have been
shot down many times before. Do you realize that saying
the same thing over and over again does not make it any more true?
peace
axeman
POP INTO BEING ourselves. Your arguing that we dont need
a creator at all. What if EVERYTHING just popped into existence
WITHOUT a god present? Hmmmmmmm....
In any case.... I think your argument is hogwash because
you havent a clue what string theory really implies anyway.
I seriously doubt you could explain in DETAIL why string theory being
true allows for a non-created god to exist.
If god doesnt REQUIRE a creator, *** THEN NEITHER DO WE ***.
Did this ever occur to you? Its a simpler solution which
requires fewer entities to explain things.
As for your other posts.... your sounding like a broken record
spewing forth the same old arguments that have been
shot down many times before. Do you realize that saying
the same thing over and over again does not make it any more true?
peace
axeman
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Why? Here's one example of how that might not be true:
1. String theory is true.
2. The space/time theorem of gen. relativity applies to t=0
If the above 2 turn out to be true, then the First Cause does not have to be created. This is distinct and very real possibility. You are looking at it from a 4D standpoint only...
>I look forward to your post! "Survival of the fittest",
>and evolution are two completely different concepts.
Support for that statement can only come through an argument of semantics after which two intelligent people like you and I would mostly likely agree on terms and definitions and move on. I'm comfortable that you and I can agree that weeding out the weak and passing on the strong genes is a foundation of evolution. Call it what you want.
>It is certainly true that in nature, less fit members of a
>species will be less likely to survive. If a gazelle has a bum
>leg, most likely the cheetahs will kill and eat it. How this
>extends to explain how gazelles evolved into hyenas is
>what doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps you are thinking too short term? Who knows.
>The supposedly "simplest" forms of life, like bacteria, are so
>much more complicated than a house that I don't
>understand how one could conclude that a house is more
>likely to spontaneously generate than life.
Perhaps you're assuming that today's simplest form of life is as simple as has ever been. Just a thought (and a rather limiting one)
>My background is biology, and I am fascinated by how
>complex dna is, and how living organisms reproduce.
Can you have any real and sure idea how they might have reproduced eons ago? I know that I can't and that's why I don't believe but rather suppose.
JB
PS. Headed off on a road trip. Don't confuse unanswered questions with impoliteness.
>and evolution are two completely different concepts.
Support for that statement can only come through an argument of semantics after which two intelligent people like you and I would mostly likely agree on terms and definitions and move on. I'm comfortable that you and I can agree that weeding out the weak and passing on the strong genes is a foundation of evolution. Call it what you want.
>It is certainly true that in nature, less fit members of a
>species will be less likely to survive. If a gazelle has a bum
>leg, most likely the cheetahs will kill and eat it. How this
>extends to explain how gazelles evolved into hyenas is
>what doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps you are thinking too short term? Who knows.
>The supposedly "simplest" forms of life, like bacteria, are so
>much more complicated than a house that I don't
>understand how one could conclude that a house is more
>likely to spontaneously generate than life.
Perhaps you're assuming that today's simplest form of life is as simple as has ever been. Just a thought (and a rather limiting one)
>My background is biology, and I am fascinated by how
>complex dna is, and how living organisms reproduce.
Can you have any real and sure idea how they might have reproduced eons ago? I know that I can't and that's why I don't believe but rather suppose.
JB
PS. Headed off on a road trip. Don't confuse unanswered questions with impoliteness.
Quote from axeman:
In any case.... I think your argument is hogwash because
you havent a clue what string theory really implies anyway.
I seriously doubt you could explain in DETAIL why string theory being
true allows for a non-created god to exist.
You underestimate my powers, grasshopper. For you see, I have Stephen Hawking doing the work for me. As I've pointed out before (yes, like a broken record), Hawking found that if you run the equations of relativity back to t=0, then time and space was created at t=0! Shazaam, the need for a created Creator goes away. Time becomes merely an "invention" of the First Cause.
Can I prove this? No. Can we run the equations of relativity back to t=0? Probably not. But that's okay, I'll use anything to win an argument.
No - just kidding! My point is this: science cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that the First Cause must be created.
Think about it: it's a little hypocritical for you to argue that the First Cause must be created since the typical materialist believes in a self-existing "multiverse". The lifelong (almost orgasmic) fantasy of the atheist is to find that Mother Nature is an infinitely old broad...
And how does this apply to anything you are asserting???
Even if we assume this is TRUE.... where is the REQUIREMENT
for GOD to be the first cause?
Where is the evidence that god IS the first cause?
The simpler solution is.... at T0 the universe popped into
existence WITHOUT gods.
peace
axeman
Even if we assume this is TRUE.... where is the REQUIREMENT
for GOD to be the first cause?
Where is the evidence that god IS the first cause?
The simpler solution is.... at T0 the universe popped into
existence WITHOUT gods.
peace
axeman
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
You underestimate my powers, grasshopper. For you see, I have Stephen Hawking doing the work for me. As I've pointed out before (yes, like a broken record), Hawking found that if you run the equations of relativity back to t=0, then time and space was created at t=0! Shazaam, the need for a created Creator goes away. Time becomes merely an "invention" of the First Cause.
Can I prove this? No. Can we run the equations of relativity back to t=0? Probably not. But that's okay, I'll use anything to win an argument.
No - just kidding! My point is this: science cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that the First Cause must be created.
Think about it: it's a little hypocritical for you to argue that the First Cause must be created since the typical materialist believes in a self-existing "multiverse". The lifelong (almost orgasmic) fantasy of the atheist is to find that Mother Nature is an infinitely old broad...
Quote from axeman:
And how does this apply to anything you are asserting???
Even if we assume this is TRUE.... where is the REQUIREMENT
for GOD to be the first cause?
Where is the evidence that god IS the first cause?
The simpler solution is.... at T0 the universe popped into
existence WITHOUT gods.
peace
axeman
Aaahhh, but we both believe that there is a First Cause. The question is "Is that First Cause intelligent or not?"
I ask this question, "How do we know how smart Mother Nature is?"
Well, we don't. That's why I don't understand why you guys aren't Weak Agnostics instead of Weak Atheists...
Hey, wait a minute! I was just listening to celtic music and smoking incense - that's what all us mystics do instead of smoke and drink - and it hit me!
You guys believe in almost infinitely more self-organization than I do! I mean I'm impressed that the universe has organized into clouds, molecules, galaxies, planets, etc. but you guys take the statistical cake.
Let me post a hypothetical story:
"Once upon a time an Evil Scientist took some old automotive, watch, computer, VCR and camera parts and laid them out on a table. He decided that this would be his greatest invention - he would build a robot and then train it to destroy mankind.
But to his amazement, the parts started putting assembling themselves together! It was almost as if there was a magnetic force drawing the pieces together and organizing them into a Borg-like structure.
He beamed with joy as decades of tedious research and labor were being vaporized before his very eyes. Unfortunately, the little robot grew in size, strenth and intelligence and quickly subdued the Evil Scientist with a paralysis-inducing mixture of Ajax and Thai Peppers and quickly turned him into the first cyborg of his newly formed Evil Empire..."
Hey, I think I'll write a script. But here's the thing. This story seems far-fetched - a bunch of parts that "magically" self-assemble.
Yet, that is essentially what you guys believe? What am I missing here?
You guys believe in almost infinitely more self-organization than I do! I mean I'm impressed that the universe has organized into clouds, molecules, galaxies, planets, etc. but you guys take the statistical cake.
Let me post a hypothetical story:
"Once upon a time an Evil Scientist took some old automotive, watch, computer, VCR and camera parts and laid them out on a table. He decided that this would be his greatest invention - he would build a robot and then train it to destroy mankind.
But to his amazement, the parts started putting assembling themselves together! It was almost as if there was a magnetic force drawing the pieces together and organizing them into a Borg-like structure.
He beamed with joy as decades of tedious research and labor were being vaporized before his very eyes. Unfortunately, the little robot grew in size, strenth and intelligence and quickly subdued the Evil Scientist with a paralysis-inducing mixture of Ajax and Thai Peppers and quickly turned him into the first cyborg of his newly formed Evil Empire..."
Hey, I think I'll write a script. But here's the thing. This story seems far-fetched - a bunch of parts that "magically" self-assemble.
Yet, that is essentially what you guys believe? What am I missing here?
Not true.... if you read carefully I said: IF WE ASSUME THIS IS TRUE...
and continued from there.
I do not BELIEVE in a first cause. I am undecided. Im aware
of some of the hypothesis, but not aware of a proof anywhere.
But lets continue ASSUMING a first cause is true for the sake
of argument.
Notice that it is yet ANOTHER ASSERTION to state that the
first cause ***IS*** intelligent.
What is the evidence for this? We have none.
So even if you ASSUME a first cause TRUE, there is no reason
to believe that it is intelligent. There is NO requirement
for it to BE intelligent.
And to reiterate from a previous post: We may in fact BE
the first cause, thus NOT requiring any gods to explain anything.
Introducing another entity, like god, violates Occams Razor.
peace
axeman
and continued from there.
I do not BELIEVE in a first cause. I am undecided. Im aware
of some of the hypothesis, but not aware of a proof anywhere.
But lets continue ASSUMING a first cause is true for the sake
of argument.
Notice that it is yet ANOTHER ASSERTION to state that the
first cause ***IS*** intelligent.
What is the evidence for this? We have none.
So even if you ASSUME a first cause TRUE, there is no reason
to believe that it is intelligent. There is NO requirement
for it to BE intelligent.
And to reiterate from a previous post: We may in fact BE
the first cause, thus NOT requiring any gods to explain anything.
Introducing another entity, like god, violates Occams Razor.
peace
axeman
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Aaahhh, but we both believe that there is a First Cause. The question is "Is that First Cause intelligent or not?"
I ask this question, "How do we know how smart Mother Nature is?"
Well, we don't. That's why I don't understand why you guys aren't Weak Agnostics instead of Weak Atheists...
Think about it. Here is the chronology:
1. 3.8 billion years ago: Rocks, dirt, maybe a little lava, etc.
2. Molecules begin magnetically putting themselves together in highly ordered, organized fashion.
3. 530 million years ago: Organic structures have self-organized so efficiently that 70 major animal phyla have exploded onto the planet in just a few million years.
4. 2004 A.D: The little bastards are taking over the planet! Now there's these supercomputing ape men walking around subjugating the planet and killing each other off every decade or two.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this is that different from my Evil Scietist story.
so I ask the question: why would you believe the universe would have such incredible self-organizing and self-ordering properties?
1. 3.8 billion years ago: Rocks, dirt, maybe a little lava, etc.
2. Molecules begin magnetically putting themselves together in highly ordered, organized fashion.
3. 530 million years ago: Organic structures have self-organized so efficiently that 70 major animal phyla have exploded onto the planet in just a few million years.
4. 2004 A.D: The little bastards are taking over the planet! Now there's these supercomputing ape men walking around subjugating the planet and killing each other off every decade or two.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this is that different from my Evil Scietist story.
so I ask the question: why would you believe the universe would have such incredible self-organizing and self-ordering properties?