Omnipotence

[2PieR]

There is a paradox, "God cannot create a stone he cannot lift" that centres on the definitions of God's omnipotence. If we assume omnipotence means anything logically possible, then the paradox does not obstruct the existence of God.
If we assume it means anything, including the logically impossible, it still provides no obstacle to God's omnipotence. However, it raises the issue, what is omnipotence?
There are three schools of thought:
Omnipotence means being able to do anything, even the logically impossible.
Omnipotence means being able to do anything logically possible.
Onipotence means being able to do anything logically possible and consistent with the being's nature.

This raises greater questions on the subject of a non-religious but purely philosophical figure. So, I challnge any of you to come up with an argument that proves the non-existence of God. If none of you do by the end of the week. Well... we'll see where we stand. And it'll probably be in our houses.

[Cookies]

Gud debate choice! Well there is no proof that god exists or not. Personally i think the evidence that we all evolved and the whole scientific theories are much stronger than the God theory. Because if god exists why does he let innocent people suffer, why do bad things happen to good people???

Not trying to be sac-religious or discourage any bodys beliefs, thats just what i think, heck, no one listens to me anyway! :rolleyes:

[PiesInTheory]

ha, well I listened to you. Well as far as your question from a religious standpoint: Because sin was introduced in the garden of eden all those years ago we all suffer, though that is our own fault (I'm sure you know the story, right?). God doesn't let his children suffer alone though, today we can't have a perfect life or anything but everything is in his plan if you are a believer. You may notice that Christians are some of the most fulfilled and happy people around because it's not about not enduring pain it's about having someone (not necessarily a human) with you the whole way. Anyways...

There is strong evidence to disprove all that science stuff...but I don't have it at hand I have seen it in videos and heard it from many people though and it makes as much sense logically as evolution could.

So in response to the actual topic at hand I feel it is impossible to come up with a completely coherent argument that disproves God because I believe strongly that he in fact does exist.

[Cookies]

Wow someone listened!! :nana: *see how the banana dances*

I don't think that this debate will ever be concluded, because there is too much evidence on both sides. I think in a way believing in god is a good thing, proper christians are usually more optimistic and happy people. But living your life by rules can be a bad thing, following rules and not sinning is unhuman, we only have a short time on this planet and we should enjoy our selves. Not saying that believers don't enjoy them selves, just that the way we are told to live our lives can affect us greatly. :confused: im v confuseld, anyone have any evidence for either of the theories, i don't have proper evidence just my little pieces of hooblah!

[Weeman]

Originally posted by 2PieR
This raises greater questions on the subject of a non-religious but purely philosophical figure. So, I challnge any of you to come up with an argument that proves the non-existence of God. If none of you do by the end of the week. Well... we'll see where we stand. And it'll probably be in our houses.

For this, I shall need the sudden presence of a Babel FIsh, and a conversation with God.

God: I shall not prove my existence, for prove denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.
Me: Ah, but the Babel Fish is your downfall, there is no way that it could evolve by chance, it is proof that you exist, and therefore, you do not exist. QED
God: Arse! *dies*
Me: *goes on to prove black is white, and get killed on a zebra crossing*

[SemiCircle]

(spot the douglas adams fan)
fortunately for god, the babel fish doesn't exist.

the "original sin" solution for the problem of evil is rather crappy, as it removes god's benevolance, and makes him seem rather vindictive. why did he put the tree there in the first place? why couldn't he just forgive them? etc...

a better argument, in my opinion, is the idea that suffering is only what you make of it. if you deal with your problems in a way appealing to god then you are rewarded, on earth or in the afterlife. (actually, this seems to be the polar opposite of what PiesInTheory was saying.)

yes, to err is human. however, a good person feels guilty when he does wrong, and a christian will seek forgiveness from the person he/she has wronged, and from god.

on a lighter note, what do you actually lose by believing in god? look at it this way:
1. you believe in god, and he exists. when you die, you go to heaven.
2. you believe in god, he doesn't exist. when you die, you cease to exist like everyone else.
3. you don't believe in god, he doesn't exist. when you die, you cease to exist like everyone else.
4. you don't believe in god, he exists. when you die, you burn in hell for all eternity.

what do you gain by not believing? and see what you're risking!

[[murray]]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
(spot the douglas adams fan)
fortunately for god, the babel fish doesn't exist.



Damnit beat me to it.

[2PieR]

Originally posted by Cookies
Gud debate choice! Well there is no proof that god exists or not. Personally i think the evidence that we all evolved and the whole scientific theories are much stronger than the God theory. Because if god exists why does he let innocent people suffer, why do bad things happen to good people???

Not trying to be sac-religious or discourage any bodys beliefs, thats just what i think, heck, no one listens to me anyway! :rolleyes:

@Cookies
The best counter-argument to this is that the greatest gift an omnipotent God can give his people is that of free will, with the right to chose between good and evil people are happier than if we had no choice and always did good.
But this is just speculation anyway, Cookies, and it does not even begin to question God's existence.

@All:
Discard the theological conception of God for the sake of this topic, that is an argument that monkeys can have. I want to talk about the "existence of God" , not faith exactly... though that is involved in the human conceptions of god but more the "Omnipotent Being" ideas. Anyone know any good disproofs of God? I really want to test my brain against something.

[SemiCircle]

aaahhh, i see where you're comng from now.

can i play the devil's advocate then?

god's omniscience defies free will. if god knows everything, then he knows how every person will make each descision. if god knows it, then it is predetermined, and hence the descision making is merely an illusion.

[PieKaos]

In response to the original question, in theory it could work, however, He CHOOSES not to make that decision. And as for why bad things happen to good people, I'll rip off an idea from Dan Brown(or as much as I can remember). If you have a child, you love them, correct? Say you buy them a bike. They want to learn to ride it. They get on and start riding. After a while, they get okay at it. They decide they want to ride down a hill. Well, you know that that's not the best idea, since they aren't that good yet. Do you stop them from riding or do you let them go and fall and they'll realize that's a bad idea and won't do it again? Most parents that I know of don't want to coddle their kids. You'd let them ride and they'd grow because of it. That doesn't mean you love them any less. It means that you love them so much that you want them to grow because of their mistakes. That's like God. He loves us, but He knows that learning from our mistakes is the best way. Maybe I'm way off base here but...it makes sense to me.

[PoofBird]

this whole discussion stands or falls with the question: do you think God is a person(personification) with a mind, a will, wishes and hopes and thoughts?

does he make conscious choices? Does he knowingly look at us? Does he judge? Does he know all?

To me, it seems absurd that a supreme entity, that which is greater than us all, that which created the universe, could have such human characteristics.

Abraham was amazad by the complex world and spoke about Jehovah, which means "That which is". It didn't mean "He who is" at first.

this is not meant to disagree with any system of believe, as I see this as something even more mystical and great than a human-shaped God.

Few christians, jews or muslims still believe God is a person. The idea of the fellow with a beard sitting on a cloud is very old fashioned.

Theologians of centuries and millenia ago have debated on this, and of course: we can never really know. Just seems arrogant to me that of all the species on this planet, on all the planets in the universe, God is our father and looks after us (and only). I think it's a compliment to God to give him some more credit: he's behind so much more than just us!

If God were a person, and he were omnipotent, he wouldn't bother with the paradox.
It's a human-constructed logic game, and we cannot even begin to fathom what omnipotence could really entail. There might be a way we haven't thought of yet.
Probably God would smithe us just for asking.

I don't think it's very relevant, because if you persist that it disproves God or omnipotence, you'll just have disproved the Beard Guy Theory, and not the thousands of other ideas.

God knowing all doesn't have to be a paradox.
He could know all possible choices we could ever make, including all possible outcomes. It's up to us to make the right one.
The idea of free will is defined by the structure of the biblical world. If we hadn't free will and this is all just a big clockwork going to the end, God would have made us perfect saints. But where's the point in that, when you're God?
No, the point is to create beings that can make decicisions on their own, be it good or evil, and then hope they'll do the right thing. You give him teachings, prophets and your only son. Some of them learn a bit, most of them fuck up from time to time, but still you hope it will be allright in the end.

[SemiCircle]

none of this explains the presence of hideous diseases and earthquakes and the like.

i always thought that jehovah, or yahweh, or however you want to spell it, meant "i that am". note first person.

(yes, they are the same word, even if they are spelt differently in our alphabet. first of all, the vowels are a guess. the arameic script left them out. next, when it was transliterated into latin, the romans had a sot of bother because they don't have a letter y, so they put an i, which they also used for a j. when the medieval monks came to read it they saw "ihvh." they didn't know then that the roman letter v was pronounced as a w, hence they read jhvh rather than yhwh. you try to pronounce jhvh. now try yhwh. see why we put the vowels in as they are?)

[freddiestarfish]

Originally posted by SemiCircle

4. you don't believe in god, he exists. when you die, you burn in hell for all eternity.

what do you gain by not believing? and see what you're risking!



that technically (i think, im not a beleiver) isnt true, as if you dont beleive in "god", you can still go to heaven if you are not an "evil" person, and i think that you should live life to the full, not to bother about risking there being a "god", if "god" was a nice "person" they shouldnt mind you having fun, and doing what YOU want to do.

[PoofBird]

there'll be a lot of innocent children and generally good and righteous men and women, now and in the past, who have never heard about our >insert god of choice<, or choose to believe the god their ancestors taught them about and still lead fruitful lifes... and they'll all burn in hell?

If Semicircle's point 4 would be true, I would deny that God at that very instant. I would think that God was a power-crazy fool and was not worthy of any worshipping.

[SemiCircle]

well, owing to popular demand, if you like you can read points 3 and 4 as "deny the existance of god" rather than "don't believe in god."

it's meant as an anti-atheism jibe, rather than a pro-christian one.

[PoofBird]

that sounds a lot better, Semicircle.

still, i coulnd't agree with a god who'd kill and torture those who deny him.
Atheists can be better people than devote christians, and the other way around as well.
A personified God who lets believe or denial weigh heavier than good deeds, doesn't seem like a very nice person.

"Ok, in theory you abided with all my commandments, led a good life, helped the poor, healed the hungry and fed the ill, but you denied my existence and will therefore burn in Hell!" (not even commandment one as the denying keeps him from having other gods, though he may have broken commandment 2 which is a silly one which we have all broken when we doodle or take a photograph)

sorry God, seems a bit harsh.

Note that I don't believe God to have any such harsh opinions. Or any opinions at all (at least not that we can understand).
also, I do not deny the existence of God, but deny the idea of him being a person having questionable rules.

[KualaLumpur1997]

I don't believe in God, mainly due to the teachings of David Icke, but here is one argument for his existence that I read somewhere...

Assume God exists, then we may call Him an existing God. Now either there is an existing God that exists or an existing God that does not exist, but to say that an existing God does not exist is illogical, so we have to accept that God exists.

[freddiestarfish]

that dosnt actually prove anyhting
thats just someones logic.
if there was a god, it wouldnt be logical.

[SemiCircle]

you can refute that one without using hardcore logic. it's all to do with the indefinate article.

compare the statements "a pigeon cannot fart" and "a pigeon is flying around my bedroom"
the first is a statement about pigeons in general, like your statement about existing gods. if it is true then when you see a pigeon, you will know that it cannot fart. (apparantly if you mix an alka-selzer tablet in with the breadcrumbs then they explode. never tried it myself.)
the second is a statement about a particular pigeon. it doesn't refer to every pigeon, like the previous one.
now think about the existing gods again. your statement says that an existing god exists. this is true: if a god exists, then he is an existing god, like the farting pigeon. it does not necesitate that god exists.
alternatively look at it like this: you could use that argument to prove that anything at all exists. for example, you could say that an existing unicorn exists. since it's clearly not necessary for a unicorn to exist, the argument is flawed.

isn't david icke the one who thinks that lizards secretly control the world?

[PoofBird]

Originally posted by SemiCircle

isn't david icke the one who thinks that lizards secretly control the world?

the very same! who claims the Windsors and Rothschildts rape and kill little children, and drink their blood to stay young and healthy (as they are lizards, it's logical really)

[SemiCircle]

in which case, is he really such a good person to dissaude someone from believing in the existance of god? what did he say? "god doesn't exist for this reason, and by the way, lizards rule the world and mars is hollow and aliens shot jfk because he found out about elvis' tail."

(should the plural of rothschild be rothschildren?)

[KualaLumpur1997]

David Icke is a wise man, and has several published books. Please do not badmouth him, for his message is far more persuasive for me than anything in the Bible.

[PoofBird]

Originally posted by KualaLumpur1997
David Icke is a wise man, and has several published books. Please do not badmouth him, for his message is far more persuasive for me than anything in the Bible.
I'm not badmouthing, I am quoting.

He has many ideas in many fields. Some may be true.
The ideas stated above are of a raving lunatic.

[SemiCircle]

you're serious?! goodness.

ummm, i don't know what to make of this. i shall have to look more deeply into his 'teachings' to see what it is that you find so believable. he always struck me as being a bit of a fruitcake.

just because he has published books, doesn't make him, well, sane. publishers will take anything if they think it'll sell: icke is well known, so people will buy. [/condescending bastard]

[KualaLumpur1997]

I know publishers publish anything, but if someone deeply Christian buys David Icke's first book, reads it, and then dismisses its contents as a whole lot of crap, they're not going to think "Ah, yes, I shall buy another" - his books sell because there are thousands, possibly millions, out there who take him seriously, and I, daft as it may seem to many of you, am one of them.

[PoofBird]

a direct question to you, Kualalumpur


do you take his theory on blood drinking reptilians governing the world seriously?

[SemiCircle]

rightho. i have browsed mr icke's website. my opinion of him has not changed.
he is clearly paranoid. he really needs to use occam's razor a bit. his thought process seems to be (for example): the CIA funded the taliban, the taliban went all extreme, america made war on the taliban, so the whole thing was cooked up by transdimentional lizard-men. did it never occur to him that it was all an almighty cockup?

why are they lizards, anyway?

[perp]

just a quick thing about an earlier point made by poofbird

"Ok, in theory you abided with all my commandments, led a good life, helped the poor, healed the hungry and fed the ill, but you denied my existence and will therefore burn in Hell!"

if we spent the day together and even though you tried to made conversation with me (obviously asuming the existant of god for this argument) and i ignored you all day, would you then invite me back to your house? (not for anything kinky:twisted:)

i think the same would apply to a god, why would he invite us into his perfect heaven if for our entire lives we have either ignored him or not not believed in him at all.

i also think this may apply to the world on a whole for the whole "why is there evil in the world" etc, the majority of the world denies his existance, why should he help.

I dont want to go off topic about Icke though cos he's a funny little fellow :)

just thought i'd post anyway, now i shall go back to my secret cave!

[William Wallace]

Wiccans believe the is a nameless Spirit that watches over this rock orbiting the sun. They believe that evil is nameless, Anything bad that you do now, you WILL pay for it in this life, and that reincarnation is possible. There is an afterlife, called the Summer Land, a place of rest.

It is logical to think that there is no hell, but rather, what you send out comes back by three., and that you will atone in this life. :nana: :nana: Ok. good.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by Weeman
For this, I shall need the sudden presence of a Babel FIsh, and a conversation with God.

God: I shall not prove my existence, for prove denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.
Me: Ah, but the Babel Fish is your downfall, there is no way that it could evolve by chance, it is proof that you exist, and therefore, you do not exist. QED
God: Arse! *dies*
Me: *goes on to prove black is white, and get killed on a zebra crossing*
That was excellent. Just excellent.

[SemiCircle]

it's not his. read douglas adams, hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
it's not his. read douglas adams, hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

Yes, I know. That's why it's excellent. I love Douglas Adams, he's my favorite author...and one of my favorite people. Too bad he's dead.:(

[Pod]

whats QED mean? :(

[Destrukto]

Quod est demonstrandum

"That has been proved' in Latin

[SemiCircle]

not quite. "demonstrandum" is a gerund, a verval noun. (or is it a gerundive? i'm never too sure aobut that. meh, they work the same way.) it sort of means the act of demonstration. however, when combined with "it is", "est" it can be used to denote necessity. so "quod est demonstrandum" would mean "which must be shown".
if, however, it were "demonstratum" (note the difference), then it would mean what you said originally, "what has been shown".
if instead we substitute "erat" for "est", we can make the tense past, and it would then mean "which had to be shown", which also sounds possible.

i don't know whether the first or second or third is true. either we missuse the acronym, or it doesn't stand for what we think it does. which would you prefer?

[PoofBird]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
not quite.

someone pwnded Destrukto? :D

[HempMonkeyJwk]

I deny God. A God cannot exist. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. All of Science and Math is based on this and only this assumption. If it is not true then 2 + 2 = 5 or 7 or any object. All Science and Math falls apart if the Statement 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed' is incorrect. Energy is another word for 'Amount of Existence'. To Have 0 Energy is to cease to exist.
So lets Electrify that fence a large number of people seem to be on at this time. The fence between Science and Religion. Knowledge and Belief. Matter and Illusion. If energy cannot be Created or Destroyed, then there cannot be a ‘Creator’, by definition. Why? Because the actual meaning of 'Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed' is EXISTANCE cannot be Created or Destroyed.

Also, people quite often say the old phrase of 'you cannont prove or disprove god and you never will be'

this stikes me as odd....as the only kind of entity one cannont prove or disprove is one that is non-existant. To interact with reality is to be real. To be real is to be capable of being within the grasp of science.

This does NOT mean one is imoral. if i hear that one again im just going to relax and ignore them :P

[PoofBird]

Not many scientist will say we know the Truth...
Our scientific knowledge are theories and models, that describe the known universe in a way we can use it... doesn't make it true

If you deny God with your Energy story, you are also denying the Big Bang theory...

You are contradicting both Church leaders as leading scientists.

The Big Bang is also a story of nothing becoming something, and in many ways is just as esoteric as any religious belief.

Following your idea, we would have to say that the universe has always existed, and always will.
This is contradicted by a lot of astronomic evidence.


Do not expect to solve theological problems with high-school science

[Destrukto]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
not quite.

QED

QED is an abbreviation for Quod Erat Demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)

I fucked up my quote and my translation...

It was a gerund, of that at least i was sure...

Also, people quite often say the old phrase of 'you cannont prove or disprove god and you never will be'

this stikes me as odd....as the only kind of entity one cannont prove or disprove is one that is non-existant. To interact with reality is to be real. To be real is to be capable of being within the grasp of science.



This is not entirely true...
Imagine two theoretical machines, the Without Input Machine(WIM) and the Without Output Machine (WOM).

The WIM would be a machine that only produces output, but doesn't need input...
This is actually the model Aristotle used to describe God, the Immobile Mover...
This kind of God would be knowable though his Output...

Now imagine the WOM. It receives input but does not have ANY output...
Black holes seem to approach this, but they do have output, because they have a gravitational effect, and are thus knowable...
If God were a true WOM, he would be unknowable...
Granted, it would be a pretty useless God, not being to give any output, but theoretically it's sound :D

Furthermore, you say that to be real is to be within the realm of science...
What science you mean is the exact sciences...
There are a lot of branches of science that don't deal in hard facts.
Take history, take psychology, take parts of biology.
Parts of science that only can give approximations and never hard facts...

And then there are parts of existence that lie totally out of the field of science by default...

These are the "why" questions...
Science doesn't deal with "why" questions, it deals with "How" "when" "where" or "quantifiable" questions.
"Why" is not one of those and thus does not belang to the field of science, and theorists have long since aknowledged that...

[squealpiggy]

David Icke is a wise man, and has several published books

Haha so does Dick Francis!

If God doesn't exist then how come you know his name!?

OK here's an outlandish theory on the omnipotence and omniscience of God:

Assume that God is infinite. Assume that God remembers everything. To be omniscient, God does not need to know everything at any given point in space/time. God needs to remember everything in the context of infinity. Clothes wearing computer using monkeys are not infinite and can therefore never really understand infinity. So by that rationale we can never understand God, because our frame of reference (that is:- a finite lifetime) is utterly alien to God's frame of reference. So God knows all in the context of infinity but in the context of now God is still working it out, trial and error!

I have to say I was quite amused by HempMonkeyJwp who used the "God can't exist because scientists said so" argument. In North America they do Math. In Britain we do Maths. We do more than one, so that makes us better! :p

[HempMonkeyJwk]

too poof bird.

Not many scientist will say we know the Truth...
Our scientific knowledge are theories and models, that describe the known universe in a way we can use it... doesn't make it true.

That’s because instead of reaching for some 'higher truth' or other poop. Science is working from the ground up. ''Build your way of thinking on this''. Also, Science is based on Evidence, logic and Statistics. If a scientific 'fact' is shown to be incorrect....its because ANOTHER scientist came along and showed it not to be the case.

If you deny God with your Energy story, you are also denying the Big Bang theory...

You are contradicting both Church leaders as leading scientists.

The Big Bang is also a story of nothing becoming something, and in many ways is just as esoteric as any religious belief.

Following your idea, we would have to say that the universe has always existed, and always will.
This is contradicted by a lot of astronomic evidence.

I have personally gone to many lectures on advanced physics which show (with evidence from analysis of black holes) that this universe is not the end-all of all existence. The 'big bang' theory is not something to me that makes sense in and of itself. Advanced P-Brane theory dictates that the energy that transformed itself into this universe came from previous universes as their P-Brane's collided.

Following my Statement the OMNI-verse has always existed, and always will.

Do not expect to solve theological problems with high-school science

Its not even 'high school'. its the most basic fundamental core of scientific method/knowledge/etc. That’s why its so irrefutable.

the only counters to the statement I made were either

a) I am a Shictosprenic so .'. two opposing things can exist at the same time

b) I am a firm believer in the meta-physical so no matter what you say im just going to blurt 'do you really know you exist?'

Blimy! when I came here I expected just lots and lots of PIE quotes

oo, just read destructo's post

These are the "why" questions...
Science doesn't deal with "why" questions, it deals with "How" "when" "where" or "quantifiable" questions.
"Why" is not one of those and thus does not belang to the field of science, and theorists have long since aknowledged that...


A) what makes you assume something has to be created to exist and .'. is made by a 'creator' with a 'purpose' which leads on to...

B) what makes you think that there is an inherient WHY behind anything (exculding of course man-made objects...like the computer i am using right now)

I have to say I was quite amused by HempMonkeyJwk who used the "God can't exist because scientists said so" argument. In North America they do Math. In Britain we do Maths. We do more than one, so that makes us better!

Maths and Logic and Stastistics (the core of science) are true no matter where you come from. Maths would be the first language we would speak to an alien race for example (if we survive long enough to meet any that is).

To deny my statement is to deny all science and maths and logic. Because the Statement ' Energy cannont be created or destroy' is the VERY HEART AND CORE of science. EVERYTHING stems from that statement.

[squealpiggy]

First off there's no such thing as scientific "fact". Any theory or law relies on continual evidence. Should this evidence fail then the theory etc is "disproven". There is no evidence for or against the existance of a supreme being although occam's razor would suggest that the supreme being didn't exist.

If you are of a more metaphysical persuasion then you may accept that as people do not see the world according to how it is but according to how they percieve it to be (for evidence on this look at this picture:
http://www.coolmath.com/images/cube.gif
It is a cube. Of course what we see is not a cube but experience makes us percieve it as such). This means that "reality" is in fact filtered when percieved by people. So if one person believes in God then God exists within their perception of the world (or "reality tunnel"). This means that God of course exists, because people believe in Him/Her/It. The question is not "Does God exist?" but is in fact "When God exists, what is it?".

[SemiCircle]

i can't be arsed to read all the rubbish on metaphysics here. (sorry if this sounds offensive to those people who posted the rubbish. i am an offensive sort of guy.) however, i will have my say, and a lot of it will have already been said (woo! future perfect passive!)

let's start at the begining. the laws of science are empyrical (sp?), ie they are based upon obsevations and measurements. this in turn means that they are constantly beng slightly rewritten as more obsevations are made. every time something unexpected happens, the laws of science change. take, for example, gravity. before newton, people thought tat things just wanted to go down. they didn't know why, they just knew that things liked going down. lots of philosophers pondered on it, but no "law" was agreed upon. then newton came along, and said, "aaah, it's the attractive force between two massive bodies. it works both ways, etc, etc. so the law of gravity was created. then along comes einstein, and he says, "wel, gravity isn't really that, but it sort of works a bit like that. it's a warping of space-time, that makes a body's path curve towards another massve body, and other such stuff. it was all rather complex, and i don't actually get it. and i never have to :). then along comes the whole quantum stuff, and it gets even harder, and here i get lost.
my point is that the law changed, as observatons were made. before nuclear physics, people thought that energy was conserved. then they split the atom, and it seemed that they got energy from nowhere, but in fact it was mass-energy that was conserved all along, not just energy. so the rule is in fact, "energy is conserved, except when..."
what does all this have to do wth god? well, god can be seen as the layman's explanation of everything. a child says "why is the sky blue?" and daddy says "because god made it blue." alternatively, it can be used by the scientist in a similar way, but on a much more meaningful level. he asks himself "why is the universal constant of gravitation *whatever it is*?" and he answers himself "because that is how god made the universe."

and, to open up another line of debate, it could be viewed that the rules (note not laws; i mean the basic unified rules that we cannot hope to comprehend) of physics are fine-tuned to allow the creation of life. i, as a believer in god, can say that god made the rules like this so that life could exist. in effect, if the universe was randomly made, then the rules would be slightly different, and so life perhaps couldn't have developed, and so we wouldn't be here. that we ARE here is thus evidence that they WERE manipulated to allow us to be here, and so god exists.

[squealpiggy]

Hang on a minute, if you have just apologised for sounding offensive and explained it by stating that you are an offensive person then you are in essence apologising for your own existance. In doing so you are stating that your existance is an abberation, a "glitch" in the fabric of the universe, and if God is omniscient then there should be no such glitch, therefore you have, by apologising for your very essence proved that God does not exist!

[Destrukto]

Originally posted by HempMonkeyJwk
A) what makes you assume something has to be created to exist and .'. is made by a 'creator' with a 'purpose' which leads on to...

B) what makes you think that there is an inherient WHY behind anything (exculding of course man-made objects...like the computer i am using right now)

I do not assume something has to be created to exist and do not believe there is a why. I was merely saying these questions do not belong to the realm of science as science has no tools to answer these kind of questions... nor does it make these questions to it's area of expertise...
I am an agnostic...
The creation-myth cannot be disproven but the fact is that most evidence points to evolution being the best theory we have today... Something from nothing is a philosophical faux pas, as it leaves us with more problems than you start out with...
Apply Occams Razor (Plurality should not be posited without necessity) and go for the answer that leaves less of a mess you started out with. :D

that we ARE here is thus evidence that they WERE manipulated to allow us to be here, and so god exists

Called the "Anthropic Principle".
This is the same thing as a waterpuddle thinking that the neat hole it lies in was made exactly to that shape, because IT has that shape...
That we are here merely proves just that: that we ARE here...nothing more...

[HempMonkeyJwk]

let's start at the begining. the laws of science are empyrical (sp?), ie they are based upon obsevations and measurements. this in turn means that they are constantly beng slightly rewritten as more obsevations are made. every time something unexpected happens, the laws of science change. take, for example, gravity. before newton, people thought tat things just wanted to go down. they didn't know why, they just knew that things liked going down. lots of philosophers pondered on it, but no "law" was agreed upon. then newton came along, and said, "aaah, it's the attractive force between two massive bodies. it works both ways, etc, etc. so the law of gravity was created. then along comes einstein, and he says, "wel, gravity isn't really that, but it sort of works a bit like that. it's a warping of space-time, that makes a body's path curve towards another massve body, and other such stuff. it was all rather complex, and i don't actually get it. and i never have to . then along comes the whole quantum stuff, and it gets even harder, and here i get lost.


ok. most of what you have said was true, Infact some of it was spot on. But i dont think you are quite grasping the concept

ALL of science and math and scientific/mathamatical-logic works on the principle that Energy (level/amount of existance) cannot be created or destroyed.

ALL OF IT

If there is one single fact. This is it. Its not something that can be changed or edited or adujusted. The only reason science Exists AT ALL is because of that statement. Its the only law left when things break down into Quantum mechanics (which then leads on to String Theory)


what does all this have to do wth god? well, god can be seen as the layman's explanation of everything. a child says "why is the sky blue?" and daddy says "because god made it blue." alternatively, it can be used by the scientist in a similar way, but on a much more meaningful level. he asks himself "why is the universal constant of gravitation *whatever it is*?" and he answers himself "because that is how god made the universe."


Dont even start me with God-Of-the-gaps

Destrukto I do not assume something has to be created to exist and do not believe there is a why. I was merely saying these questions do not belong to the realm of science as science has no tools to answer these kind of questions... nor does it make these questions to it's area of expertise...
I am an agnostic...
The creation-myth cannot be disproven but the fact is that most evidence points to evolution being the best theory we have today... Something from nothing is a philosophical faux pas, as it leaves us with more problems than you start out with...
Apply Occams Razor (Plurality should not be posited without necessity) and go for the answer that leaves less of a mess you started out with. :D


Science (and the Athesistic/Agnostic viewpoints that come from it) dictates that there questions do not HAVE answers because they are something that is created with in the persons mind. Not something that actually reflects reality.

And my statement of Energy(existance) cannont be created or destroyed was something i said when I was in year 6. i got 400 lines for ''hindering the other students ability to learn'' for bringing it up when my primary school teacher talked about newton and his ' for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction''.

its damn simple, i like it that way.
And yes it 'does' make more problems than it solves. but thats life! its about how you deal with those problems and live your life that counts. Not what happens when you Die or how many things you can deny and how many things you can believe

[squealpiggy]

The creation-myth cannot be disproven but the fact is that most evidence points to evolution being the best theory we have today

Then there's the platypus :P

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/images/platypus.gif

[Destrukto]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Then there's the platypus :P

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/images/platypus.gif

Very well suited to it's environment :)
To disprove it, find me an animal that isn't...;)

Science (and the Athesistic/Agnostic viewpoints that come from it) dictates that there questions do not HAVE answers because they are something that is created with in the persons mind. Not something that actually reflects reality.

Sometimes you might need unreality to build a society though...
Some "unreal" concepts seem to be needed though they don't exist.
Justice does not exist, it's a concept that seems to stem from the "common sense" knowledge that it is unwise to adversily affecting your "herd".

its about how you deal with those problems and live your life that counts. Not what happens when you Die or how many things you can deny and how many things you can believe

Couldn't agree more...
As to the existence of God in the last forums I asked the question should not be IF he/she/it exists but rather if it is at all important if he DOES...
Does the way you live hinge on the existance of a Supreme Being and would you live it differently if it existed...
If the answer to that would be Yes I'd be a bit worried...

[squealpiggy]

Science (and the Athesistic/Agnostic viewpoints that come from it) dictates that there questions do not HAVE answers because they are something that is created with in the persons mind. Not something that actually reflects reality.

See my comments about perception vs reality.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

i did, they are basically based on the concept that the the act of perception some how 'add's something to reality and that this is the esence of reality.

The scientific defination of what you said is that it is an image of a cube that is being projected onto a screen using lig......etc etc

Thats truth :weebl:

along with the FACT that Apple pie is by far the Best pie

[squealpiggy]

The best pie is God pie. Non believers are losing out! Mmmmm deities.

[SemiCircle]

Originally posted by HempMonkeyJwk

...ALL of science and math and scientific/mathamatical-logic works on the principle that Energy (level/amount of existance) cannot be created or destroyed.

ALL OF IT...



oh dear.

science is self contradictory, then. the universe exists, does it not? and it is expanding, no? these are observable. that it is expanding implies the big bang theory is correct. if the big bang theory is correct, then there must have been a particular point in the existance of the universe when something was made from nothing, called it the big bang. and at the big bang, this so-called fundamental law of physics was broken. and none of this "the laws of the universe were different then" crap, as if they were different then then why can't they be different in the future?
in addition to this, look at black holes. they absorb energy. they do emit some, but not half as much as they absorb. stuff goes in, it doesn't come out. energy is not conserved again.
plus, stephen hawking himself has argued for the possiblilty of "empty space" spontaneously creating particles, and them then promptly anihilating. i don't understand why he thinks this, but he does, and it seems to deny your theory. (this may be complete rubbish; i don't have all the details to hand. i'll ask my sister, she knows more than me of such things.)

science and maths is actually derived from empyrical measurements and hardcore logic respectively, but the former uses the latter quite a lot. this is undeniable. you couldn't possibly know that energy is conserved without doing experiments and observing that, well, energy seems to be conserved. hence the statement "energy is conserved" is a judgement based on observation, and so nowhere near as fundamental as, say 2+2=4, which is based entirely upon logic and at no point requires you to take a measurement.

and i too know about the god of the gaps. it's shallow, but there's no hole in it. (how's about that for a mixed metaphor?) not really good enough to convince anyone of god's existance, but still impossible to use it to refute him.

squealpiggy, i never said that the universe is perfect. did i? i am most definately flawed, though. and a single imperfection flaws the whole, so the universe must be flawed. oh dear, maybe it'll crack and fall apart. and i, being flawed, could be the focus of this reality-quake. what a scary thought.

destrukto, you're absolutely right about the puddle stuff. mine was a weak argument there to begin with.

there's a type of small, deep-sea dwelling fish, so far down that there's no light at all, and it's the most fantasticly radient shade of blue, for no reason at all. nothing down there could possible ever see it. surely evolution would have taken away its colour?

well, since i think god does exist, i'll look at your question the other way around. i don't think it really makes a difference whether or not god exists, to me. if he exists, then i've been a good person and i go to heaven. if he doesn't, then i've been a good person, and humanity has benefitted from my existance. win/win situation, really.

bollocks, i seem to be much better at shooting down other people's arguments than making my own. i'm a critic, through and through.

[Vivi]

well, lets look at this subject this way... could this guy make this claim?

http://www.theonion.com/onion3317/associatechrist.html

[HempMonkeyJwk]

SemiCirclescience is self contradictory, then. the universe exists, does it not? and it is expanding, no? these are observable. that it is expanding implies the big bang theory is correct. if the big bang theory is correct, then there must have been a particular point in the existance of the universe when something was made from nothing, called it the big bang. and at the big bang, this so-called fundamental law of physics was broken. and none of this "the laws of the universe were different then" crap, as if they were different then then why can't they be different in the future?
in addition to this, look at black holes. they absorb energy. they do emit some, but not half as much as they absorb. stuff goes in, it doesn't come out. energy is not conserved again.
plus, stephen hawking himself has argued for the possiblilty of "empty space" spontaneously creating particles, and them then promptly anihilating. i don't understand why he thinks this, but he does, and it seems to deny your theory. (this may be complete rubbish; i don't have all the details to hand. i'll ask my sister, she knows more than me of such things.)


You know a fair amount. But alas to say you are behind the times.

Ever wondered why Magnetism is so powerful? How could something as small as a magnet over-power the gravitational force of an ENTIRE planet. ill rephrase. How come Gravity is so weak?

well, this is tied into theorys on how black holes seem to 'leak' energy out of this universe. The first thing you have to understand is that this is not the only universe that exists. Also, (now this is really starting to fuck with your head) the 'big bang' didnt really happen as such. All matter and energy is still in the singularity. its the P-Brane moving AWAY from the singularity that gives the apperance of the universe expanding. Kind of like having a shinging light in the middle of a ballon that you blow up bit by bit.

Back to black holes. The idea is that the reason magnetism is so comparitvly powerful to gravity is because it is 'taking' energy from another Sperate P-Brane. Black holes are where we 'lose' ours'. God this is difficult to explain. We 'lose' energy though the black holes because they have such a massive gravitational force (e.g. sinking the P-Brane...a concept touched upon by Einstien...kind of like a heavy ball on a rubber sheet) that they 'sink into' OTHER P-branes (where phyiscs works differently). Thus from our perspective Energy is 'lost'....except it isnt.
Also, The energy that 'made' THIS universe actually came from PREVIOUS universes. When two p-branes from seperate universes touch eachother there is sometimes an event that is the same as a 'freak wave'. How simply because of random movment huge amounts of energy all fall into the same pattern which then starts a cascade reaction. This is where our universe got its energy from.

So, Exsitance (the OMNI-verse) never had a 'beggining' and will never 'end'. The assumption that things have to be created to exist is tied into the assumption that things have to have a begginging and an end to exist at all. A human abstract and incorrect concept.

Also, You dont seem to quite grasp that Energy cannot be created or destroyed is a non-modifiable statement. Its not something that was 'observed'. Its the basis with which you MAKE your observations. If its not true NOTHING science has EVER said has any weight. And the computer you are using right now is either

a) a figment of your imagination

b) just 'happened' to work


say 2+2=4, which is based entirely upon logic and at no point requires you to take a measurement.

And the hardcore logic thats almost purly abstract is based on the Fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If the Energy statement is not true.....then 2 + 2 can = 4, or a bannana, or a Pie, or 7521246557. Becuase there is no longer any constant.

Hense the statement that 'If the statement of Energy (existance) cannot be created or destroyed is false, then all of Maths, Science and mathematical/scientific Logic Breaks down and is meaningless'.

[squealpiggy]

Gravity is a "weak force" according to leading physicists.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

yarr! tis what i said ye scurvy dawg!

[SemiCircle]

aahh, the truth comes out. you're a physicist, not a philosopher. you take the rules of the universe for granted. i would say you're looking at things the wrong way around. the starting point for any experiment should be what reality does, and not conservation of energy.

this omniverse stuff seems to work, at least superficially. who the hell came up with the term "p-brane" though?

this stuff about magnetism looks like utter rubbish to me, though. are you trying to tell me that magnets seem to create energy? i'm pretty sure they don't. as far as i know, nothing about magnets necessitates that they draw energy from another "p-brane".

maths is in no way relient on physics. maths is a separate entity. whether or not energy can be created or destroyed never entered the mind of, say, pythagoras, when he was working out his theorem. maths doesn't care about energy, maths only cares about maths. it's entirely removed from the real world, unless you want to apply it.

seeing as you seem to know so much, i'm quite suprised that you haven't tried to dazzle me with the nuclear strong force. or even the weak force; now that one needs some explaining.


oooh, just had another thought. are you saying that energy is conserved in the universe, or in the omniverse? if the former, surely you've disproved yourself. and if the latter, how can you prove conclusively that there exists something outside our universe? if you cannot do that, then energy is not neccesarily conserved, as i'm sure you can see.

[squealpiggy]

Working off the principal that energy (and .'. matter) cannot be created or destroyed you should read The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. Interesting!

Also I think that Schrodinger's cat needs to be mentioned. At the moment God is the cat. Because we have no way of knowing that there is a god or knowing that there is not then God is a probability wave which at the same time exists and does not exist. Also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the physical concept that we can never really be sure...

[HempMonkeyJwk]

SemiCircle aahh, the truth comes out. you're a physicist, not a philosopher. you take the rules of the universe for granted. I would say you're looking at things the wrong way around. the starting point for any experiment should be what reality does, and not conservation of energy.

I’m not a physicist. I got a U in physics...but that mainly because I'm dyslexic and have serious problems with Mathematics (and reading and writing...oh my how I love spell check). I am however very Scientifically minded. Also. There are no 'rules of the universe' as such. The only reason you can make a 'rule' is because of your abstract perspective of being sentient. However, using science, mathematics and scientific/mathematic logic to determine 'truth' (also an abstract concept) is something that results in a 'positive feed back' on reality (as in when you do something and its 'true' you get the results you anticipated).

I am not looking at things the wrong way around. The heart and core of science is that Energy (existence) cannot be created or destroyed. The 'conservation of energy' is not the proper correct term. Don’t use it 8P.
anyway, as I was saying. The heart and core of science is that you look at something. You know energy cannot be created or destroyed. .'. you have to be able to say what forms of energy are being converted into one another. If the Energy statement is not true. Science is meaningless. This is not really a discussion point.

this omni verse stuff seems to work, at least superficially. who the hell came up with the term "p-brane" though?

The Omni-verse statement not only works but disproves god logically. Very advanced String theory physicists came up with the term 'P-Brane'.

this stuff about magnetism looks like utter rubbish to me, though. are you trying to tell me that magnets seem to create energy? I’m pretty sure they don't. as far as I know, nothing about magnets necessitates that they draw energy from another "p-brane".

Advanced Physicists have to use exceedingly complex ideas and thoughts on how a magnet is so strong when in comparison to Gravity. There ideas and calculations fit in very nicely with string theory/come off string theory. Its complex. I am not a physicist and am repeating what I have been told when I had discussions with / saw programs on top physicists.


maths is in no way reliant on physics. maths is a separate entity. whether or not energy can be created or destroyed never entered the mind of, say, Pythagoras, when he was working out his theorem. maths doesn't care about energy, maths only cares about maths. it's entirely removed from the real world, unless you want to apply it.

Physics is a branch of science....which stems from the Energy cannot be created or destroyed statement. Mathis *does* rely on the statement. Just in a different more abstract form. The = sign for example. Or how when I say 2 + 2 = 3 or 2 + 2 = 5. You say 'Monkey you are Wrong'. You don't say 'monkey is wrong because the primary school teacher taught me and made me repeat 2 + 2 = 4 100s of times'. You say 'monkey is wrong' because maths is based on the Energy statement.


oooh, just had another thought. are you saying that energy is conserved in the universe, or in the omni verse? if the former, surely you've disproved yourself. and if the latter, how can you prove conclusively that there exists something outside our universe? if you cannot do that, then energy is not necessarily conserved, as I’m sure you can see.

I was saying Omni-verse all along. Infact I think I did it in bold some way up the discussion. You can 'prove it' in the same way that you prove all of science :P. One such thing is to get more and more sophisticated extensions of your senses (e.g. technology, telescopes, etc). And you can look at the rest of science and how well it performs. E.g. Chemistry, biology, etc.

Your dedicated and enjoy attacking things. This is good brain food. not a good as pie though.

Obviously

mmmmm:mmmpie:

[squealpiggy]

The Omni-verse statement not only works but disproves god logically

It is not possible to logically disprove god for the Schrodingers Cat paradox I have outlined above. Also how do you know that God didn't create the omniverse? How do you know that God is not a being so monstrously advanced that you have as much hope of understanding it's world and ideas as the average cockroach has of understanding yours?

[HempMonkeyJwk]

And that is called 'meta-phyiscal reasoning'. A really complex form of 'god of the gaps'.

I should reprase. A 'CREATOR God' cannont exist if the statment 'Energy (existance) cannot be CREATED or destroyed' is true. If the statement 'Energy (existance) cannot be created or destoryed' is false. Then all of science maths and scientific/mathematical-logic is meaningless.

The fense is electified, now chose your side :P

I have also noted that we both logged onto this fourm at about the same time, but at the time of writing you have exactly double the posts i have. :isay:

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by HempMonkeyJwk
And that is called 'meta-phyiscal reasoning'. A really complex form of 'god of the gaps'.

I should reprase. A 'CREATOR God' cannont exist if the statment 'Energy (existance) cannot be CREATED or destroyed' is true. If the statement 'Energy (existance) cannot be created or destoryed' is false. Then all of science maths and scientific/mathematical-logic is meaningless.

The fense is electified, now chose your side :P

I have also noted that we both logged onto this fourm at about the same time, but at the time of writing you have exactly double the posts i have. :isay:

I have no life!

But an omnipotent creator God could create a situation where matter cannot be created or destroyed! It's like that question, if God is omnipotent could he create a rock that was so heavy that he couldn't lift it, the answer is yes. He's omnipotent.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

and also utter bullshit too. I see that arugment as a desperate attempt to cling the ideology. what the phrase again? Never exashabate the situation more than is nessesary? The simplest answer tends to be true? damn i cant remeber the quote

ok, new statement too.

Omni-verse without god. Existance cannont be created or destroyed.

Omni-verse with a self-contridictory God that created something that cannot be created or destroyed.

in both situations the Omni-verse is exactly the same. a 'god' is not nessesary. It is only because of the human abstract concept born of sentience...things have to be created to exist...that the second one is even considered.

The omni-verse is in and of itself complete.

[squealpiggy]

But omnipotence is an oxymoron. For a God to be omnipotent it has to be outside the realms of "reality". But just because it is not reality doesn't make it any less real. Science exists only within certain boundaries thus it's laws, rules and theories only apply within those boundaries. If we are discussing an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God then he/she/it exists beyond those boundaries and also within those boundaries and is therefore both immune and susceptible to those rules. Even if the rules of science could disprove God or the creator or omnipotence convincingly, they could only do so within the constraints in which science operates (ie that which is or can be observed). Beyond those constraints who could tell?

It isn't possible to apply science to philosophy to any great degree, because we are dealing with things that cannot be quantified or observed. And even for the things that can be observed, don't forget Heisenberg, observation changes that which is observed (at quantum level).

Incidentally to be omnipresent one doesn't need to be big, one just needs to occupy all available space, which is only big in relative terms. For an infinite being this isn't a problem.

[HempMonkeyJwk]

For a God to be omnipotent it has to be outside the realms of "reality".

To be outside the realms of 'reality' is to not be real. To not be real is to not exist. Science deals with 'reality'.

basically

if something cannot be proved or disproved to exist, it does not exist by defination, because the only sort of entity that does not interact with reality (and .'. can be proved to exist/not exist) is an entity that is not real.

Another contridiction about god, now lets go burn some people at the stake.

[squealpiggy]

But then you have the schrodingers cat situation again. If something cannot be proven to exist and cannot be proven to not exist it can be assumed that it either does or does not exist. Therefore it both exists and does not exist until evidence is revealed to the observer pertaining to the existence or non existence of said entity.

If someone has faith in a deity it can be assumed that said deity exists within their mind and within their reality tunnel. Does something exist if it exists only in someone's mind? If not then how did it get into their mind?

Also can science define a mind? Can it "prove" or "disprove" the existence of imagination? It is not quantifiable nor is it observable except for if one's subject is oneself. And if you are your own subject then you have a sample skewed by your own prejudices.

Science can solve a lot of question, for example the famous "paradox" about trees falling in the woods. But it cannot solve one way or another the existance or nonexistance of a supreme being because to do so you have to assume that the supreme being is subject to the same rules that the rest of the universe is subject to. Any being subject to external rules would not be omnipotent and therefore would not be the subject of this topic.

Too much time on my hands...:D

[SemiCircle]

the cat paradox has nothing to do with god. it's to do with electrons. with the god situation, you cannot metaphorically open the box and see whether he's there or not. you have no way of breaking down the probability wave, and so it is all a matter of faith. wheras you can look for the electron, and by finding it you define it, and break down its probability wave. (damn, i need a diagram to explain this one properly. meh.)

you can't prove he does exist by imagining him. you can imagine a unicorn, does that mean a unicorn exists?

we're getting hung up on what is meant by existance, here. can something "exist" outside the universe? surely the universe is defined as containing everything that exists. (shut up about the omniverse. that's science; this is philosophy.) hence if god "exists" in the normal sense of the word, he must be in the universe, in some way, and subject to its rules.

i still maintain that you're looking at the whole problem the wrong way around, hempmonkey...

the scientists write the rules as you see them. scientists are human, and hence fallible. therefore it is more than likely that there is a mistake in the rules, as you see them. any sane scientist will agree, especially one who is trying to prove his own theory about something.
the important thing, which you seem reluctant to acknowledge, is that the rule about conservation of mass-energy (happier?) was made up because scientists did experiments, and it seemed to be conserved in all of them. then things got more complicated, with quantum theory and string theory and whatnot, but still the basis of this rule was expermentation. it may have been a starting point for a whole lot of other theories after it, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be wrong. and if it is wrong then science won't curl up in a ball and accept defeat; no, it'll work around this, and adapt current theories to take into account new evidence, like it always has done.

and maths has nothing to do with physics. if you say "2+2=5" i say "you have either missunderstood the meaning of 2, or +, or =." all these symbols are defined within the confines of mathematics. there is no need for physics.

Advanced Physicists have to use exceedingly complex ideas and thoughts on how a magnet is so strong when in comparison to Gravity. There ideas and calculations fit in very nicely with string theory/come off string theory. Its complex. I am not a physicist and am repeating what I have been told when I had discussions with / saw programs on top physicists.

sounds to me like i know more than you here. you'll either have to come up with some equations or back down, matey. i'm not having any of this "i don't know, it's not MY theory" crap. if you believe in it, you've got support it.

surely if god can exist in the omniverse as a god of the gaps, then god can exist there, and hence he is not refuted.

[squealpiggy]

If a unicorn exists in the mind then it exists. In the mind. Where reality begins and ends is a matter of faith and considering that everything that is percieved is filtered by experience and prejudice there is nothing to say that one person's reality tunnel is more "real" than another.

As for the cat, I know that it was originally to do with wave theory but it is equally applicable to "God" but as you say we have no means of opening the box therefore no way of breaking down the probability wave, thus meaning that and omnipotent being both does and does not exist simultaeneously. It can do this as it is omnipotent:D

[HempMonkeyJwk]

SemiCircle we're getting hung up on what is meant by existance, here. can something "exist" outside the universe? surely the universe is defined as containing everything that exists. (shut up about the omniverse. that's science; this is philosophy.) hence if god "exists" in the normal sense of the word, he must be in the universe, in some way, and subject to its rules.


i will not 'shut up' about the Omni-verse. Universe is the incorrect term if you are dealing with all of reality.. just as ' Conservation of matter/energy' is also the incorrect term.

the scientists write the rules as you see them. scientists are human, and hence fallible.

What, unlike the Infallible priesthood...or the Primary school teachers who force relgion down children's throats.

therefore it is more than likely that there is a mistake in the rules, as you see them. any sane scientist will agree, especially one who is trying to prove his own theory about something.
the important thing, which you seem reluctant to acknowledge, is that the rule about conservation of mass-energy (happier?) was made up because scientists did experiments, and it seemed to be conserved in all of them.

WRONG. You have the Cart before the Horse. Chicken before the Egg. Pie before the Weeble.

then things got more complicated, with quantum theory and string theory and whatnot, but still the basis of this rule was expermentation. it may have been a starting point for a whole lot of other theories after it, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be wrong. and if it is wrong then science won't curl up in a ball and accept defeat; no, it'll work around this, and adapt current theories to take into account new evidence, like it always has done.


No

it

wont

You dont seem the grasp the concept that all of science stems from the Energy statement. It is not something 'created' by scientests who 'could be wrong'. its is where science CAME FROM. Its a statment made long before the scientific method was even devised. Its from Greek times ffs. Every single scientific equation is based on it. ARGH!

ok, how about this. Think of a scientific 'happening' that DOESNT involve the statement Energy cannot be Created or destroyed.

and maths has nothing to do with physics. if you say "2+2=5" i say "you have either missunderstood the meaning of 2, or +, or =." all these symbols are defined within the confines of mathematics. there is no need for physics.

Again. Physics is a BRANCHE of SCIENCE. Which stems from the Energy statement. If there is no constant then when 2 + 2 goes though the '=' sign then it can be converted into anything. Hense mathematics breaks down. It is far more abstract. Agreed. But thats not the point.

you'll either have to come up with some equations or back down, matey. i'm not having any of this "i don't know, it's not MY theory" crap. if you believe in it, you've got support it.

what? you expect me to be able to quote stuff that Steven fucking hawking made? and if i dont then what i say is crap? how about YOU go and fucking read the damned book. Or go to a Steven Hawking lecture that i did. Or watch British documentaries on advanced physics.

surely if god can exist in the omniverse as a god of the gaps, then god can exist there, and hence he is not refuted.

i lable this one 'faith'

Why oh why do you not see that philisophy comes from the human mind and its often incorrect perspectives. Not reality. (other than the fact that the mind is made of matter)

[squealpiggy]

Why oh why do you not see that philisophy comes from the human mind and its often incorrect perspectives

Science comes from the human mind. Unless you have evidence for us of some other source.

I always believed that science is a theology. I always believed that in order for science to be "right" you need to take certain things for granted, just as you do in any faith system. But you come across as a fanatic, as vehement and rabid as any baptist christian. You simply will not accept what even people like Stephen Hawking will freely assert which is that Science doesn't have all the answers! Myself I love all the theoretical physics stuff but I can'nt accept it as fact, just as I can't accept that donkeys can talk and people can fly and a man called Jesus lives in the sky. It's theory pure and simple and theological theory is as valid as scientific theory. Especially in the topic of omnipotence in which field you have ably demonstrated science has no part to play.

Science places limits on what can be done. By definition omnipotence has no boundaries on what can be done. The moment those boundaries exist it ceases to be omnipotence. The most scientific approach to omnipotence is a philological one. Omnipotence cannot be explained in terms of science, unless it is the science of language.

[SemiCircle]

oh, for goodness' sake.

are you honestly trying to convince me that archimedes woke up one morning, said "energy is conserved" and thus science was born? ridiculous.
science is all about working out how the universe works, how existance works. we, being human, have to do this from a human perspective. we have to work out what the rules are. sometimes we get it wrong. we used to KNOW that the earth was flat, and that the sun went around it, and that the sky was held up by a titan named atlas, who got turned into a mountain by perseus, etc, etc. we now know better, but who is to say that even what we know now cannot be wrong, including the conservation of energy.

(and i don't give a hoot about your terminology; i know the law as conservation of energy, that is what i shall call it. ditto the universe. "words mean what i want them to mean."- humpty dumpty)

hey, i'm not arguing against science, i'm arguing against YOU. i believe you have a perverted view of what is meant by science, and i am on a crusade to show you how you are wrong.

if you are convinced by the arguments stephen hawking (or whoever) presents, then you must have understood them. hence you should be able to quote them. it's a fair request.

sorry, what? philosophy comes from the mind, and so is wrong? i know this very well, thank you very much. half of philosophy dissagrees with the other half. they can't all be right. science is much the same. not all scientists agree, y'know.

how about this: imagine, for one moment, that energy CAN be created from nothing. i don't mean that it is suddenly possible, i mean that it has always been possible, hypotheticly. and i don't mean that we are aware that it can be made, i merely mean that it can be, but we don't know it. everything is the same, except that this rule is able to be broken. up until we discover that it can be broken, we believe that it cannot, perhaps even as adamantly as you. how is this reality any different from the 'real' reality?


and now over to the interesting bits: it is far safer to define omnipotence as being able to do anything that is not logicly impossible. it's the cannonball/post thing in another form, really. unfettered power has an annoying habit of being self-contradictory.
i think that mr heisenburg would say that he half exists.:)
indeed, it is impossible to say who is more right, me or you (in a general sense, not about any specific thing). i, being me, can only really trust my own perception. for all i know, you might not even exist in the same way as me. i like to think that the people i meet do exist, though, as it tends to keep me sane(ish).
woo for the red king! (read through the looking glass, if you haven't already.)

[squealpiggy]

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/pics/jabberwocky.jpg

Back on topic, my concept of the individual perception of events means that everyone can be right, God exists, p-branes exist, so do unicorns and whatever else people believe in. They exist in the minds of the believers. All it takes is for one person to believe in something and it exists. So Santa Claus exists to the millions of kids that are told about it. Sure it's tired and drunk parents hastily putting a bunch of gifts under the tree after retrieving them from the garage, but to the kids there are sleighbells and everything! So to christians there's Jesus, to Muslims there's Allah, to Jews there's Jehovah, to Buddhists there's Nirvana, to Hindus there's miscellaenious, to Jedis there's the Force and to HempMonkeyJwk there's science. All equally valid and all taking place in the minds of the believers.

Take the blue pill... innit!

[Sorcha]

This is very good topic, I must say.

I am Christian but being a normal roudy teenager full of obscene questions and doubts, I don't really believe in God. And also being very science orientated, I tend to dis-prove anything religious. I did believe that after death there was nothing, but I read a certain book on people's near-death experiences and their re-counts of what they saw etc. which got me to think twice but I'm an Agnostic, so I was sceptical about them.

I've also come to believe that humans want to believe there is something more than this world. Cos I mean, gosh, if this is as good as it gets... I want out now! But anyway, that's besides the point, I don't really think any sort of God who created us with all these faults would just sit around and let things pass by. Unless, we're supposed to learn something from it, or God has abandoned us. (I don't exactly remember, but there was a covenant between God and humans and it was something along the lines of "Humans treat the world well and God will bless it" which could explain why there is so much suffering.)

I also think that humans need to believe that there is some almighty being who can help us out of all our problems. And some people believe God makes the problems because they deserve it or can learn something from it. I personally believe that life is whatever you make it and only you can affect the way it will turn out. But I guess believing in God isn't a bad thing if it gives you inner strength etc, but I just like to do it by myself because all you need is what you've got, and instead of believing in a supreme being, believe in yourself.

And, of course, there's the whole evolution thing, and I believe that. I'm sure there is some truth in the whole "the world was created in seven days" story, because it would have had to be dumbed down and simplified (alot) for people in the past eons to understand it. It could be a story of how the world was formed over 7 million years, and maybe a million years is just a day to God and maybe in a day apes had evolved into humans but that's just getting rather complicated and I'll stop there.

Anyway, on a further note, I don't believe that one should read the Bible and interpret it literally. I read the Bible and I get a non-religious meaning from it. Parables are good to start with because everyone interprets them differently.

And I shall finish there seeing as I've wasted alot of my time to get my opinion across to alot of people who probably won't be bothered to read it! :rolleyes:

Edit: Just thought I'd add this pic, for all the ladies! ;)
http://urlcut.com/god

[squealpiggy]

First of all you can't really be a christian if you don't believe in God. It's one of the fundamental parts of christianity. Agnostic is a good way to go though, it's the only scientific outlook. To believe that there is a god or to believe that there is not a god are both stances which require faith. To believe it when you see it is one that requires evidence. So well done!

But bear in mind that it isn't possible to disprove god.

[Sorcha]

What I meant to say was, I've been baptised etc etc etc and I go to mass (well... once in a blue moon) but yeah... anyway, I hope that makes sense. I'm supposed to be Christian. :rolleyes:

[squealpiggy]

The last time I went to mass was when my cousin's baby was baptised and I have to say that it is more interesting as a non-believer than it is as a believer. Are you baptised catholic? Because they have different rules. If you are a catholic who doesn't believe in it then you are a lapsed catholic. If you have pissed the pope off then you are excommunicated but you are still a catholic, you're just a damned one.

[tungazzio]

Originally posted by 2PieR
So, I challnge any of you to come up with an argument that proves the non-existence of God.
The thing about this is that, on a human level, it is impossible to prove or disprove god. Quoting Protagoras, 'for every logos a logos is opposed' (logos is interpreted to mean argument in this case). Take the cosmological argument, for example. It deduces the existence of god by using the Universe for evidence - someone must have set the unlikely chain of events moving. This can be countered though, by saying that if everything has a creator (the first of Thomas Aquinas' ways to prove the existance of God), what created god, and why must there be an uncaused cause (the theory of infinite regression)?


A series of questions, for example, that could be used as arguments both ways:

How did life on Earth begin?
Some would say god, others would say the way gases and other atoms mixed, etc.
How did Earth itself begin?
Again, roughly the same answers as before could be used.
What about the galaxy?
As before.

These questions can continue forever, each getting one step higher than the last, until they reach a point past human comprehension.


The main point here, is that anything that can be understood by humans cannot be god, which also means humans cannot prove, or disprove, its existance.


Just so you know, I don't believe in god.

[SemiCircle]

Originally posted by tungazzio
...
Just so you know, I don't believe in god.

far safer to say that you don't believe in the neccesity of god. that way, you don't upset the agnostics.

[squealpiggy]

Agnostics are never upset. They don't believe strongly either way, so they're fine if you do or don't.

How about the concept that God isn't big, God is smaller than the atoms. It's just that God is everywhere at the same time. If God permeates everything (like the Force) then God is everywhere, it isn't necessarily a human personality and a seperate entity.

[SemiCircle]

hempmonkey hasn't posted here for ages. does this mean he's given up?

[squealpiggy]

yay we won! Go us!

[tungazzio]

The thing is, no matter how much you debate, you can't prove it either way. I know for a fact to myself that an omnipotent god doesn't exist, and no matter what other people's arguments are, my view will not change. You can only really be persuaded one way or the other if, no matter how you act, you're not really sure in yourself.

[SemiCircle]

or if your own personal belief structure is based upon a flawed argument. it's quite fun to "do a socrates" and ask someone questions about their beliefs until they say something contradictory.