U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 03-24-2011, 09:23 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
8,492 posts, read 3,997,336 times
Reputation: 2729

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I know .. and since a little tiny poor thing like a watch must have been made by someone .. then what do we say about the whole universe ??!!!!

I will tell you ... not someone or something .. this is huge so it must be made by someone with a power beyond any imagination called as God
Care to restate your opinion as to why this "must" be the only possible answer? Other than to justify your personal beliefs, of course.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2011, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
7,884 posts, read 4,748,809 times
Reputation: 1527
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I know .. and since a little tiny poor thing like a watch must have been made by someone .. then what do we say about the whole universe ??!!!!
I will tell you ... not someone or something .. this is huge so it must be made by someone with a power beyond any imagination called as God
You'd save us both a lot of needless typing if you were to actually read what I'm saying. Watches, houses and paintings do not appear naturally in nature, therefore it quite obvious that they require a maker. On the other hand, the universe is not artificially created as is a watch or a house...it requires no 'maker'.

I appreciate that English is not your first language and as I said earlier, I commend you for attempting to converse in a language that is not your mother-tongue (I certainly wouldn't attempt it) but if you aren't FULLY understanding the language that is being spoken then we are just going to go around in circles.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 10:02 AM
 
5,412 posts, read 2,028,949 times
Reputation: 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
The same idea not the same work ... ever heard of that befor ?
Yes I have, which is exactly WHY I was able to tell the posts I was talking about were plagarism. I have no problem with people presenting pascals wager, or the watchmaker argument. I do have a problem with them passing it off as their own ideas/work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I promes i will if you just tell me who made that watch in "Watchmaker" argument
I already did. The point of the argument is to find something we know is designed by people, and then with a massive non-sequitur simply declare that therefore everything else is designed too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
Why do you hate the word "rules"
You are just being deliberately trolling and facetious now in order to derail the points I am making. I am merely pointing out that the word does not convey the idea I am trying to express, and that other words are better. There are no "rules" or "designs" on display here. Things are just the way they are in our universe, like the hole in my analogy, and things within that universe, like the water in the hole, are constrained by that. No rules. No designs. No systems. Just constraints. It is us that SEES them as "rules" because that is how we think as a species.

You alas do not have a good enough knowledge of English in order to play the word games you are attempting here. Simply choosing to use the word "rule" does not allow you to automatically assume there is a "rulemaker" for example. If word games are all you have to offer... and no actual evidence... then you would be better off trying your word games in a language you can actually speak with any proficiency.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 10:52 AM
 
Location: PA
563 posts, read 481,636 times
Reputation: 225
Squall-Lionheart, I may have missed the answer somewhere. Have you stated what the first thing to exist was?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 1,562,435 times
Reputation: 243
Nozzferrahhtoo

]Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Do you maintain that there was always something in existence then? How old is it?

Can you find me espousing such a notion anywhere? What I am saying is clearly the opposite to that in that I am saying the word "always" is inapplicable to the conversation because it is a word based on time.Always" is a word based on time, and nothing we know now suggests that "time" existed "before" the big bang... or that "before" even makes sense

All we know is that a singularity of infinite density and energy expanded, and in that expansion dimensions like "up", "Down" and "time" were realised

The "origin" or nature of that singularity is still a mystery to us, though we are making massive progress in understanding it. We know next to nothing about it... and like all things we know little about people are happy to insert their "god of the gaps" into the conversation and act like such a move is legitimate or honest.

RESPONSE:

>> ..singularity of infinite density and energy expanded..<<

Then you are saying that matter and energy are eternal. Alternatively, they were self-created. But how can anything be self-created, preexist to bring itself into existence?

Last edited by ancient warrior; 03-24-2011 at 01:19 PM.. Reason: Removed [CENTER] and [SIZE]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 04:52 AM
 
5,412 posts, read 2,028,949 times
Reputation: 2058
„Warrior“

Firstly the quote function is not difficult to use correctly. Could you please have the decency to check your posts before or just after you post them to make sure they are formatted correctly so the rest of us can read them. That post above is a mess, please fix it.

Secondly when you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Then you are saying that matter and energy are eternal
You dishonestly put words in my mouth as no, I never said those words. I said that the term “eternal” may not even apply… which is the complete opposite of what you just claimed I said.

Where I come from it is considered polite (and honest) to reply to what someone has actually said. Anything else where I come from is called a lie.

The problem with words like "eternal" is that they are temporal. They need "time" to make sense. The singularity of infinite mass and density is in a state for which we have no reason to think "time" was an attribute. Until we as a species find a way to discuss that, and conceptualize it, any conversation of where everything "came from" is nigh impossible and non-sensical. Our language is simply too "time" based to achieve it, and whatever language we find to frame it in will likely not be time based, but something very much akin to the language of mathematics.

However to answer your questions about things being self created I heartily recommend you read, or go to You Tube and listen to, the works of Laurence Krauss on the subject. We very much are on the road to discovering how things can be self created, come from essentially nothing, and more. It is very difficult stuff to understand however. There are concepts in that video like the fact that if you add together all the energy in the universe you get a result of ZERO. Which means the universe is essentially in summation “nothing”. This makes a good joke of the "something from nothing" argument as essentially what we got is nothing from nothing. There is just a whole lot of that nothing. (Ok physics jokes are only funny if you understand them).

A good analogy is to imagine you have 2 bank accounts. In the first you get an overdraft of 1000 dollars. You put that into the other. So now in one you have 1000 dollars. In the other you have -1000 dollars over draft. Essentially you have no money. None. But if you go to the ATM for the first bank you can take money out. So you DO have money. You just got "something from nothing" even though you STILL HAVE nothing.

It is a lose analogy but it is a good starting point. It is possible to literally have money, and have no money, at the same time. The mathematics of matter and energy in our universe is in many ways similar to that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,986,824 times
Reputation: 3631
Default A litany of contradictions and buffoonery!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

1. If you read my orignal post on this thread, you will recall I presented that as one of two alternatives.*

Either matter is eternal or something else is.

2. The definition of God is the first cause of all that exists. If for one moment there was absolutely nothing in existence, there would always be nothing in existence. If not true, where did anything come from?
You artificially constrain yourself with the limited intellect of our species. You also limit your numbers of options (*"that of one of two alternatives..."), and then concoct illogical and limiting "definitions" to suit your arguments. Wonderful!

My simple argument, "The Cat and The DVD Player", points this out by noting that simply because a well-developed species [felis..domesticus] cannot possibly understand the details behind something that nonetheless "IS", [as in: my intelligent cat Dottie listening to me try to explain to her how my existing laser DVD player actually works...] does not mean such a complex item doesn't exist, or that it's therefore, "obviously!", the necessary result of magical or supernatural forces.

I know it's hard for the devout, who stubbornly imagine they are made in the image of an all-knowing god, thus must be the end-all and be-all of any reasoning quest. So, if they conclude that "Something cannot have come from nothing! End of discussion!" ; then of course there must be a God! [...who, oddly, apparently did make something out of nothing!] You don't question this conundrum, you just bow down to the East, listen to the loudspeakers wailing the morning prayer, and somehow accept it all as fact!]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

Do you maintain that there was always something in existence then? How old is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
I don't know, and anyone who claims to know doesn't really know either.
Bingo! But at least we open-minded thinkers try to figure it out logically, and we accept the obvious evidence that is right there in front of us!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

How do you propose to prove that time is only a "dimension"? Or is that an assertion without evidence?
Answer: actually, we now know [via the Scientific Method's application] that time is just another measurable and variable dimension. It may or may not have "existed" before some prior singularity event, which also may or may not have been the first and only occurrence of this type.

Problem: You are limiting your thinking, such as it is, to the obvious constraints of our human intellect, just as my cat is limited by her brain power. To her, I am obviously a God, as is my DVD player. Of course, at least I listen to her insistent "prayers [meow... meOwwwWWW!!] and then feed her, something the Abrahamic God refuses to do...... [Where IS that Gran Marnier™ soufflé? I WANT IT NOW!"]

A few highlights from the Nozz's mind that bear re-affirmation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
....I am saying the word "always" is inapplicable to the conversation because it is a word based on time.

"Always" is a word based on time, and nothing we know now suggests that "time" existed "before" the big bang... or that "before" even makes sense.

All we know is that a singularity of infinite density and energy expanded, and in that expansion dimensions like "up", "Down" and "time" were realised.

The "origin" or nature of that singularity is still a mystery to us, though we are making massive progress in understanding it.

Time is already treated as a dimension in science.

Applying the concept of time to such states really is an "assertion without evidence" because we have no evidence that it is applicable. It simply is a massive assumption that no one has any basis to make to apply concepts such as causality to non-time based states.
However, they prefer to continue to make such limited assumptions because ...

1) their favorite explanatory religious websites, which provide their endlessly ineffective talking points, tell them to do so, and..

2) such over-simplified buffoonery allows them to remain intellectually static and secure in their beliefs.

Witness:

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
You miss the main point !!!

There must be a system to organize everything .. that is the miracles of creation... but if you cant' even distinguish "causes" from "causative" then i have nothing else to say to you .
Yes, but the system you refer to is not necessarily some godly invention of the human mind. The very simple biochemical system that initiated life and that allowed for it's slow but eventual complexities is not that of a Godly inventor who "Poofed" it all together in a week. There's no evidence for that, the consequences are not predictable, and the evidence is all around us for less and less complex predecessors.

By simple extrapolation, if things are less and less complex when we turn back the clock, we eventually arrive at a very simple unicellular organism. Which is, BTW, exactly what we find in the most ancient fossils and sediments. The older they are, the less complex. The later, the more complex. What's so hard about this fact to understand?

So, if we start back a few millenia with the now-mappable DNA of a predecessor species, and track the micro-mutational changes in it's DNA over thousands of generations, what do you suppose we see? Why, speciation, by golly! [See and read: Richard Lenski, 2008: Proof of Evolution]

Imagine that, huh? A simple prediction, based on an hypothesis, works out and proves the validity of that hypothesis. Or gives us clues as to how to improve the hypothesis, or even delete it. But in the end, this allows us to make some rules up about how things actually happened (i.e.: A theory, we call it...)

Get it? (I doubt it, since you do not want to get it... <sigh>)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
The "Watchmaker" argument is useless as proof for a creator of the universe. We know that the watch has to have a creator, a house has to have a builder and a painting has to have an artist. We know it because we know that paintings, watches and houses do not occur naturally....thus, they must have been created by someone. This is not the case with the universe.
Exactly. A watch is an artificial mechanical construct designed by man to meet man's immediate requirements. It does not compete on it's own for an available but unfilled niche, and is completely unable to alter it's own design in order to better fit it's intended use. Not so for DNA in it's natural environment! To incorrectly compare a watch to the genesis of life and it's subsequent means of diversification [Evolution], once it's been explained to the proposer, is an example of stubborn, patent buffoonery, dogmatic intransigence and frankly, abject stupidity.

And yet, here it is again....

Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I know .. and since a little tiny poor thing like a watch must have been made by someone .. then what do we say about the whole universe ??!!!!
I will tell you ... not someone or something .. this is huge so it must be made by someone with a power beyond any imagination called as God
Well, OK! Thanks for making my point for me, squall-lionheart. Of course, when all you can muster is a weak and insufficient argument, I suppose you have to keep repeating it, but.... sorry: that just won't work. We have better armaments! And I know you see this, but you can't agree in public; the fundamentalist religious never can.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2011, 08:21 AM
 
4,821 posts, read 3,636,050 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart View Post
I know .. and since a little tiny poor thing like a watch must have been made by someone .. then what do we say about the whole universe ??!!!!
I will tell you ... not someone or something .. this is huge so it must be made by someone with a power beyond any imagination called as God
So you're saying all huge things must have been made by something more powerful? I guess your god was created by something bigger than it as well. Or maybe your god is really small. Either way, you give us no reason to worship it - on one hand, there's a bigger god who created your god who we should worship, and on the other you've admitted your god is small and insignificant, since if it were big and powerful like the universe, it too would need a creator.

So really, what's your point here? Are you looking to deconvert and want our moral support or what?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 1,562,435 times
Reputation: 243
Nozzferrahhtoo posted:

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Do you maintain that there was always something in existence then? How old is it?

>>Can you find me espousing such a notion anywhere? What I am saying is clearly the opposite to that in that I am saying the word "always" is inapplicable to the conversation because it is a word based on time.Always" is a word based on time, and nothing we know now suggests that "time" existed "before" the big bang... or that "before" even makes sense<<

RESPONSE:

Let’s see. You tell me that there was no time before the Big Bang. Sure there was. There was a “before the Big Bang” and an “after the Big Bang”

And according to the cyclic model of the universe, there is an ongoing series of expansions and contractions. So, we can number these, cycles X+1, X=2, etc. etc. Of course, each of these took measurable time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bounce&printable=yes

Expansion and contraction

According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we might be living in the first of all universes, but are equally likely to be living in the 2 billionth universe (or any of an infinite other sequential universes)

And from the physics folks at Princeton University, you might enjoy this article.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/sciencecyc.pdf

Last edited by ancient warrior; 03-26-2011 at 04:57 AM.. Reason: Got rid of [SIZE]s
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 05:05 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 1,562,435 times
Reputation: 243
[SIZE=5]Nozzferrahhtoo[/SIZE]
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
325 posts, read 44,966 times
Reputation: 127



Nozzferrahhtoo posted:


„Warrior“

Firstly the quote function is not difficult to use correctly. Could you please have the decency to check your posts before or just after you post them to make sure they are formatted correctly so the rest of us can read them. That post above is a mess, please fix it.

RESPONSE:

What post are you referring to?

The only "mess" I noted is when someone used my post before I could edit it.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top