Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200954 is a reply to message #200942] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 12:42   |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 15:03 |
It's not even probable...there is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.
|
That's not exactly true. Probability is the assumption that things will act a certain way in the future, or similarily, things in the past acted in a predictable manner similar to the immediate present. Based solely on the present, most if not all things I've experienced suggest a universal law of causality. For every action, there is a reaction, and every reaction requires an action. Of course, it's a theory and it is valid because the future has not yet proven it to be truth or not. However, based on this, we have a model by which we can say that the past MAY have been like it is right now. The sample data is as big as I can remember and has remained consistent throughout. Which means by extrapolation I have probability on my side when I say all things are probably caused. That invariably includes the universe, as the universe is comprised by definition of energy. Thus, all energy originated at a single point as a result of some kind of stimulation. I choose to call it God. The proof is based on the same scientific method used to prove simple things like inertia or force. The beauty is that it isn't definiate and is still fallable. Which means while I might be right, there is just a good, if not greater chance that I'm wrong. Which means there is still mystery in the universe for my mind to experience and apply to my understanding. However, as it stands now I can merely say THAT God exists based on my experience, I simply can't tell you how He does, why He does, or what He might be capable of.
| Quote: |
Like you've said, it's nothing more than speculations. What if after your god there is another god and then another,...? The theory just has too many flaws and assumptions. Why does there have to be a first cause? The universe could just exist forever for what I care...
|
Then there is one god, then another, then another. I don't know, or have any recourse to suggest such a thing even is probable. So my position that is that it is merely possible, but infinitely unprovable. I don't try and figure out the nature of what the first cause is like. I only need to be convinced as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow THAT such a cause existed.
As for the universe existing forever, I'm assuming you're talking about the universe having existed forever as opposed to existing forever in the future. To which Aquinas' argument still works because of the TA of Kant. Our concepts of past, present, and future are the means by which our consciousness makes sense of the universe around it. There is no doctrine to suggest that the universe itself must revolve around these concepts. Like warranto said, should the universe have existed forever, then it lends there must be some kind of means to an ends. It must mean that infinity is a tangable construct and not an abstract attributed ONLY to the transcendental. There is so little evidence for this that I can't help but be inclined to think it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean that it ISN'T true, it's merely saying that the chances of it being true are significantly less then the universe having begun at some point. If you can provide enough evidence for a claim, I'd be forced to reevaluate the situation.
| Quote: |
It doesn't need to be causality, tho. I personally think the universe exists forever and is always expanding and decreasing.
|
Why? What makes you think this is more likely then the universe starting at some point?
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200970 is a reply to message #188804] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 14:03 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's not exactly true. Probability is the assumption that things will act a certain way in the future, or similarily, things in the past acted in a predictable manner similar to the immediate present. Based solely on the present, most if not all things I've experienced suggest a universal law of causality. For every action, there is a reaction, and every reaction requires an action. Of course, it's a theory and it is valid because the future has not yet proven it to be truth or not. However, based on this, we have a model by which we can say that the past MAY have been like it is right now. The sample data is as big as I can remember and has remained consistent throughout. Which means by extrapolation I have probability on my side when I say all things are probably caused. That invariably includes the universe, as the universe is comprised by definition of energy. Thus, all energy originated at a single point as a result of some kind of stimulation. I choose to call it God. The proof is based on the same scientific method used to prove simple things like inertia or force. The beauty is that it isn't definiate and is still fallable. Which means while I might be right, there is just a good, if not greater chance that I'm wrong. Which means there is still mystery in the universe for my mind to experience and apply to my understanding. However, as it stands now I can merely say THAT God exists based on my experience, I simply can't tell you how He does, why He does, or what He might be capable of.
|
The whole idea of "god" is based on something resembling an intelligent life form, right? What can possibly make you think that something like that should exist? It's about as probable as the pink unicorns in my front yard that only become visible once the moon explodes. I can understand why people would think that there is a starting poing to the universe, but isn't a
Big Bang that we can't fully understand with our current knowledge of physics a lot more likely than some kind of creature? After all, god is just something people invented in order to explain things that they couldn't themselves.
| Quote: |
Then there is one god, then another, then another. I don't know, or have any recourse to suggest such a thing even is probable. So my position that is that it is merely possible, but infinitely unprovable. I don't try and figure out the nature of what the first cause is like. I only need to be convinced as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow THAT such a cause existed.
|
Well, that's just your feeling. I just don't see why a chain of actions and reactions should even come to sudden halt. It kind of defeats the purpose of it, don't you think?
| Quote: |
As for the universe existing forever, I'm assuming you're talking about the universe having existed forever as opposed to existing forever in the future. To which Aquinas' argument still works because of the TA of Kant. Our concepts of past, present, and future are the means by which our consciousness makes sense of the universe around it. There is no doctrine to suggest that the universe itself must revolve around these concepts. Like warranto said, should the universe have existed forever, then it lends there must be some kind of means to an ends. It must mean that infinity is a tangable construct and not an abstract attributed ONLY to the transcendental. There is so little evidence for this that I can't help but be inclined to think it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean that it ISN'T true, it's merely saying that the chances of it being true are significantly less then the universe having begun at some point. If you can provide enough evidence for a claim, I'd be forced to reevaluate the situation.
|
No, I said "exists" on purpose, because that means past, present and future.
If for every action there is a reaction, then why should that chain stop at some point? Why should there be something that didn't come from a previous action? There is no proof for either of the theories and since it's beyond the current level of human knowledge, both are equally probable.
| Quote: |
Why? What makes you think this is more likely then the universe starting at some point?
|
My feeling, just like your feeling tells you that there is a starting point. None of them is more likely than the other, tho. What however is extremely unlikely is that there is a god in any shape or form.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200978 is a reply to message #200970] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 14:15 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:03 |
The whole idea of "god" is based on something resembling an intelligent life form, right? What can possibly make you think that something like that should exist?
|
It doesn't have to be intelligent. I have no recourse to suggest that the God that probably caused the universe into being is intelligent or not. So I don't pretend to speculate.
| Quote: |
Well, that's just your feeling. I just don't see why a chain of actions and reactions should even come to sudden halt. It kind of defeats the purpose of it, don't you think?
|
Because for every movement, evidence suggests a mover. Nothing can simply come into motion on its own. To suggest that it can is doing exactly what you're accusing me of: assumption of something you have no proof of. It's interesting that you mention purpose. Aristotle did some very interesting work on "purpose". Have a read.
| Quote: |
No, I said "exists" on purpose, because that means past, present and future.
If for every action there is a reaction, then why should that chain stop at some point? Why should there be something that didn't come from a previous action? There is no proof for either of the theories and since it's beyond the current level of human knowledge, both are equally probable.
|
The question isn't why can't there be an action prior to every reaction, it's how such an action can occur. Science, physics, and everything euclidian about our universe suggests it is impossible. That doesn't mean it actually IS impossible, but it suggests that it is not probable that such a thing defined our universe. You're purporting a theory based on science and evidence, but the long term past doesn't seem to coincide.
| Quote: |
My feeling, just like your feeling tells you that there is a starting point. None of them is more likely than the other, tho. What however is extremely unlikely is that there is a god in any shape or form.
|
Have a read of this. It's a bit complicated and pretty long, but it establishs a firm foundation that one certainly IS more likely then the other based on the definite existence of a priori abstracts that do not necessarily follow the laws of physics, but defininately do play crucial roles in experience.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #200982 is a reply to message #200945] |
Thu, 25 May 2006 14:37 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 |
Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven.
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
|
Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement!
At one point in time, no had any proof of the following:
1 Billion dollars
Anything at the molecular level
The shape of North America (or any landmass)
The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun
electricity
motor vehicles
the wheel
etc.
A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201023 is a reply to message #200982] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 01:23 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 16:37 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 |
Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven.
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
|
Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement!
At one point in time, no had any proof of the following:
1 Billion dollars
Anything at the molecular level
The shape of North America (or any landmass)
The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun
electricity
motor vehicles
the wheel
etc.
A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered.
|
Ouch. I thought you were a bit more clever after your first post.
I said that it doesn't make sense to assume something exists than you have no proof whatsoever for. I didn't say it doesn't exist, because that's impossible to find out. Get the difference? So yea gj obliterating something I haven't said, genius.
I'm saying that assuming that there is a planet with pink unicorns which are high on glue is nuts, because there is no proof whatsoever. I can't however say that it doesn't exist for sure. Exchange the unis with god and you get the picture.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201047 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 07:53 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how.
It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing.
Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case?
I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201050 is a reply to message #201042] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 08:32 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 09:23 |
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to waste my time making a longer post.
Spontaneous generation was the thought that life originated from non-living objects. For example, flies being created by a slab of rotting meat. This was a widely held scientific belief during its heyday.
My point is that scientific theory is simply nothing more than theory. It may take extensive testing to come to its acceptance as a theory, but it remains nothing but a theory - there is nothing proven in science, because facts in science continually change on a daily basis.
|
I know what spontaneous generation is and I know what you were trying to say...I just don't see how that affects my arguement in the slightest. You might as well have told us that you like zebras..
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201051 is a reply to message #201047] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 08:37 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 |
Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how.
It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing.
Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case?
I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance.
|
Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201053 is a reply to message #201051] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 08:42 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:37 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 |
Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how.
It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing.
Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case?
I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance.
|
Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God.
|
Why do you have to have proof of something to believe in it? That's absolute nonsense. That completely defeats the purpose of faith.
How do you figure it's unlikely? Because science can't prove it? Wake up. There aren't always going to be answers. You can't just go by living on what you do know and refuse to try and stretch your knowledge into the unknown. Get out of your little safety net and try thinking outside the box for once.
Also, why would I assume God did it? Because I... believe in it, maybe? Shocking, I know. Having faith in something is obviously beyond your comprehension.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201061 is a reply to message #201052] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 09:54 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 |
You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it.
|
No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201063 is a reply to message #201061] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 09:59 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 12:54 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 |
You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it.
|
No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous?
|
That post of mine has nothing to do with what I said or in response to your post.
I'm not 100% sure that God exists. I have faith that He does exist, but there's no way to be 100% sure. However, that doesn't shake that I do believe God exists. It's all faith. I had faith that my plane was going to land safely in Greensboro, NC on Friday. If I didn't, I wouldn't have flown, but I had no proof. A number of things could have happened, and the plane could have crashed.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201064 is a reply to message #201053] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:04 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:42 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:37 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 |
Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how.
It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing.
Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case?
I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance.
|
Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God.
|
Why do you have to have proof of something to believe in it? That's absolute nonsense. That completely defeats the purpose of faith.
How do you figure it's unlikely? Because science can't prove it? Wake up. There aren't always going to be answers. You can't just go by living on what you do know and refuse to try and stretch your knowledge into the unknown. Get out of your little safety net and try thinking outside the box for once.
Also, why would I assume God did it? Because I... believe in it, maybe? Shocking, I know. Having faith in something is obviously beyond your comprehension.
|
You can believe in it all you want, just like kids believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, but don't go around telling people that it's the truth, because that is a straight up lie since you don't know that.
How do I figure it's unlikely? Hmm let's see...not a single thing indicates that there is or was a god, your only sources are a couple of books about magictricks that all disagree with each other, written by men just like yourself.
You can have as much faith all you want, but don't tell me that it's a logical or obvious thing, because in fact it is exactly the opposite.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201065 is a reply to message #201063] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:09 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:59 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 12:54 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 |
You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it.
|
No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous?
|
That post of mine has nothing to do with what I said or in response to your post.
I'm not 100% sure that God exists. I have faith that He does exist, but there's no way to be 100% sure. However, that doesn't shake that I do believe God exists. It's all faith. I had faith that my plane was going to land safely in Greensboro, NC on Friday. If I didn't, I wouldn't have flown, but I had no proof. A number of things could have happened, and the plane could have crashed.
|
You can't even be 1% sure for what I'm concerned...all you can have is faith.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201066 is a reply to message #201055] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:15 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:57 |
I just find it funny how people who stand by what science has proven to base their opinions on, yet completely disregard the idea of believing in something that hasn't been proven. What do you think science has done for the past milleniums? It proved or disproved the unknown. People had an idea as to how they thought things worked, and then they experimented and researched. They didn't know if atoms existed. They didn't know that the world was round. It was all an idea, a thought, a question. Then what happened? They experimented and proved the "impossible" to be true. Those who once disregarded any slight probability that the world was a sphere was proven wrong. Why only agree with something after it's been proven. Isn't that a little closed-minded?
Oh, and the same can go for some Christians. The ones who blasphem science. Science only tries to prove or disprove the unknown. It's not going to prove God to be non-existing unless he DOESN'T exist. If God does exist, then he won't be disproven. It's that simple.
|
What makes you think that God exists? Just answer me that...and tell me how it's more likely than pink unicorns in the anus star system.
lol
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 18 15:33:20 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01710 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
. Is there some wikipedia thing that sums it up or something?
