Thanks for the infomation!Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
Printable View
Thanks for the infomation!Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
All true, changes nothing. Unless of course the next time you drop a pen it flies up towards the sky instead of falls to the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox
Here is where you show again, a complete and utter lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.Quote:
then you claim that hubble's law is proof of the big bang when all it does is describe the velocity and distribution of the stars in the universe.
I'd like to first point out that I've never stated to have PROOF of any sort, only EVIDENCE which is testable and measurable and stands up to scrutiny. I see now that you haven't been reading my posts as carefully as I gave you credit for, subtlety is lost on you.
I picked up on your lame attempt (and tired argument) to insinuate the atheistic worldview involves any sort of faith whatsoever in any shape or form well in advance and in fact, expected it.
Faith: Belief without evidence. I have twice provided such.
Here is the EVIDENCE (for a third time):Quote:
thats like saying boyles law is proof that i farted when all it does is describe the behavior of gases.
you have yet to explain how a description of current states of the universe, micro radiation and light elements PROVES anything. you are describing the the smell of the fart and trying to pin it on me.
Large Scale homogeneity
Hubble's law and diagram
Abundance of light elements
Pervasive CMB and it's fluctuations
The universes beginning and it's large structure
Age of stars
Evolution of galaxies
Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
The Tolman tests
The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
But I'm not your educator. These are all observable, verifiable, measurable pieces of evidence that exist which support the big bang. Perhaps it is you and not I that needs to study.
I also find it rather revealing of the theistic mindset to always needing or wanting to prove things. Science doesn't aim to prove anything, in fact science WANTS to be wrong, being wrong serves it to be made more right as in for example, the case of Newton and Einstein.
One of the major problems here is the fact that you are afraid of the word faith, worst yet, due to your obvious segregative approach you fail to see how your argument sounds very similar to that of those who beleive in western religions. In fact more often than not, when this discussion is held amongst westerners the arguments from both the scientific and religious sides are often arguing the same points but using different vernaculr.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
It has already been stated within this thread that science can only account(provide evidence) for 5% of our physical universe, which you agreed with. You then proceed to list evidence that supports a theory again that only leads to 5% of the picture.
Your beleif in the 5% of information that science provides as being support for a correct/logical view of our universe is no different than prof zookara stating that the bible is evidence that Jesus is the only path to a correct/logical view of our universe. Seems very akin to faith to me.
Do you really think that 5% of the bible couldn't be verified scientifically?
Gigantic baseless assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulas
Yes, I agreed, you paid close attention to that fact, and not what I suggested while doing so. I'll elaborate. Whether it's 5% of the universe that is observable or 17% doesn't change what science and religion both say about the observable. Science has a more logical, better, more scientifically sound, more true explanation for quite literally everything theism has ever claimed about our universe. Infallible god's word, or antiquated first attempt at science?Quote:
It has already been stated within this thread that science can only account(provide evidence) for 5% of our physical universe, which you agreed with. You then proceed to list evidence that supports a theory again that only leads to 5% of the picture.
Your beleif in the 5% of information that science provides as being support for a correct/logical view of our universe is no different than prof zookara stating that the bible is evidence that Jesus is the only path to a correct/logical view of our universe. Seems very akin to faith to me.
I'll even take it a step further and say science has shown us things about the observable universe that religion has not, and could not. One such thing being the Andromeda galaxy on a collision course with our own, due to collide and cause our annihilation in about 5 billion years or so from now, which in the grand scheme of things is basically like saying tomorrow.
Now let me ask you this, what type of plan is this? What type of creator would make such a plan? Oh right, an omniscient loving one that said to himself "Here, let me create an entire universe just for man's sake and place my most beloved creations on a planet in the midst of a galaxy i'm just going to obliterate tomorrow".
Certainly it can be argued that 5% of the bible can be verified. At the same time, you're forced to say that 5% of any religious text can be verified, which then leaves you with pascal's gambit: which one is correct?! Which god should I worship?! I had better worship them ALL if i'm to avoid each religion's heavenly wrath.Quote:
Do you really think that 5% of the bible couldn't be verified scientifically?
now you are just being silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
Negative.
He creates a stone that in one of his infinite forms he could not lift, he exists simultaneously in another form which can lift it. God is not subject to the temporal nature of time.
He encompasses time, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Time is a line, God exists through out it, slicing in and out of it's fabric.
Your argument is faulty.
Space time is physical, contrary to what some would like you to believe and as a fabric, it can be warped which means logical contradictions, probabilities and paradoxes are all completely meaningless.
As for square circles,
Quote:
Can God make a square circle? Not within the constraints of the geometry that we usually mean when using the words "square" and "circle". But look carefully at the phrase "...we usually mean..." -- it refers to the body of knowledge classified as common sense. It's important to notice that this phrase state a limitation, and conveys a restriction upon God's action, based entirely upon a human way of thinking. To say that God has to think the same way we do is a very severe limitation - one that most of us would never ascribe to God, once we take note of how limited our own minds are.
Setting aside the differences between various languages, all human beings convey ideas to one another via language, which is rooted in culture and thought, and which has some inherent assumptions. When everyone has the very same set of assumptions lying beneath their processes of thought and language, what is called common sense is subject to the condition known as general bias. As Lonergan[2] has discussed, "Common sense... is incapable of analyzing itself, incapable of making the discovery that it too is a specialized development of human knowledge ..." The way out of general bias involves "...confronting human intelligence with the alternative of adopting a higher viewpoint or perishing."[3]
The language of mathematics is particularly well-suited to taking an upward step and adopting a higher viewpoint. In mathematics, assumptions are not hidden but are plainly stated up front. The very fact that it is abstract releases mathematics from the presuppositions of everyday thinking. The purpose of the example given here is to illustrate how adopting a highe=r viewpoint overcomes the bias that leads us to think God is limited in some way.
The question at hand is "How do you make a square circle?" As we usually mean these terms, you can't. But mathematics allows additional meanings, and the combination of all those meanings comprises the higher viewpoint.
Changing Coordinates
In the ordinary realm of everyday thought, we customarily live with a perception of nature given by Euclidean Geometry; that is the natural state of our culture, language and thought patterns. If we stay in that realm, then it is impossible to make a circle square. But we can add a new structure of thought, a higher viewpoint: once we step up to the level of Analytic Geometry, then in Cartesian coordinates (x, y) the circle is defined by
R^2 = x^2 + y^2 (1)
where R is a fixed number. Alternately, still within Analytic Geometry, we can convert to cylindrical coordinates (r, =A2), using the transformation x =
r cos=A2 and y = r sin=A2, and write =20 r = R for all values[4] of =A2, -=BC =BE =A2 =BE +=BC (2)
In these drawings, the one on the left is most definitely what we customarily call a circle, because we automatically think in terms of Cartesian coordinates. Implicit in looking at that figure is an x-y coordinate system superimposed upon it. That's simply the way humans think, how we ordinarily understand things. In Analytic Geometry, equation (1) above describes it correctly.
But now consider the drawing on the right [a square], and superimpose upon it a coordinate system in which the horizontal coordinate is the angle =A2, ranging from a limit of -=BC on the left to +=BC on the right; and the vertical coordinate is the radius r. Let r = zero denote the line across th= e bottom and r = R denote the line across the top. Equation (2) states that a circle has r = R for all possible values of =A2 and that's exactly what is shown in the right-hand drawing. With the coordinates labeled in this way (cylindrical coordinates), the drawing on the right most definitely defines[5] a circle.
Of course you will object, "Hey, that's not what I had in mind!" and that is precisely the point. You didn't think of it because of a priori limitations that are part of your customary outlook, your standard condition. Human beings carry around with them all sorts of limitations of thought, culture and language.
Dealing with Limitations
In mathematics and physics, we frequently defer to authority. For many arcane items, we read a proof or a derivation once, nod in agreement, and then just look it up whenever needed. The interested reader can find an example of this turning-to-authority in the appendix. The point made there is that either adopting a higher viewpoint or resorting to authority gives you the right answer. Of course, you have to have confidence in your authority for that path to work. Similarly, when you step up to a higher viewpoint, your confidence in that transition must be built upon some knowledge base that includes the recognition that your previous viewpoint was insufficient.
Conclusion
Too often human beings assume that God is subject to the same limitations we have. Because our ability to think is limited and constrained, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that God is likewise constrained.
Not only can God make a square circle, humans can too. The trick is to adopt a higher viewpoint, to allow your mind to rise above conventional ways of thinking.
some of us could be a little more humble and sound less self righteous in their replies
Why not they all only worship one God as it is? Even if you look at religions like Hinduism, there's all these aspects to their different gods but every god they worship are attributes that the nature of God does indeed display. The destroyers of world (and even galaxies) and what have you. The wisdom traditions of this planet are all paying homage to the same source. Through the course of this thread it seems you have gone from using "proof" and instead changed it to "evidence". These are two different things imo. You will not find "proof" of God anywhere but you will find evidence everywhere if only you have the eyes and the intuition to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
This destroys monotheism, not one god exists but many, but i'll set that aside as it's not the main argument i'm about to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The fact you've given me infinite gods is generous, but only 2 are needed to point out the problem with what you're claming.
God 1: is not omnipotent, by your own admittance, he cannot lift the stone or else why would god 2 even need to exist. This is basically saying the answer to the question is yes.
God 2: Can lift the rock god 1 created. So it follows that god CAN create a stone too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it ANYWAYS. Which renders the question itself contradictory. Since we're copying and pasting articles now, here's one from a christian website:
Your logic is impeccable. The omnipotent paradox has, since it's inception been a straw man argument that crumbles under sufficient rational inquiry, like most other claims for the existence of god. I do applaud you, we're at least on the same page overall.Quote:
About the question "Can God make a rock so big he cannot pick it up?" as a problem for a view of God as omnipotent...
Couple of points here...
First, Omnipotence has historically been understood as the ability to perform any task consistent with His character and essence. (At least that's the classical definition/understanding of it). This would exclude 'things' like...
Re his character:
It is impossible for God to lie (He actually is the one who told us this in the scriptures).Re his essence:
It is impossible for God to break an promise.
It is impossible for God to deny his existence and character (tantamount to lying, of course).
It is impossible for him to split into two essences (a la cell division).(These above statements are beyond the scope of this email.)
It is impossible for him to will himself out of existence.
Secondly, there are some things that we can build pseudo-sentences about, that actually don't end up being 'tasks'...some can be quite comical..."Can God make this question into a declarative sentence?"These 'sentences' seem odd to us, for they look like regular sentences, but they have what philosophers of language call 'ungrammaticality' (cf.Language and Reality--An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, by Michael Devitt & Kim Sterelny, MIT Press, pps.89-92).
"Can God change the subject of this sentence to 'jello'?"
"Can God make this sentence so long that he cannot read it?"
"Can God make the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?"
(for any fellow Alice-in-Wonderland-Enthusiasts out there!)
Then there is another class of sentences in which grammaticality is present, but there are improper referents and relations, similar to the linguists' favorite: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". These sentences (and any questions based upon them like "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have no truth value (neither true nor false)--they just don't have any meaning to BE true or false.
It is into this category that the following sentences/questions fit:
God can make a square circle.It is in this category that the famous "God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it" fits. As a 'sentence' it actually has no meaning, and hence is neither true nor false.
(and the Q-version of it: Can God make a square circle?)
God can make colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
God can make a rock so big it turns into a peach.
God can make a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow 2 parsecs long!
As for square circles, I wasn't going to reply until the author of the article you so kindly presented sent me a copy of the original, including the diagrams, which I would wager aren't pictures of square circles. I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt, if a man can make a square circle, what part of god doing so demonstrate omnipotence, omniscience or any attribute at all?
What you're alluding to is a suspension of the laws of nature (and in particularly language and mathematics) in order to provide evidence of god's existence. Which in and of itself is illogical.
The only time I even mentioned the word proof without prompted to do so is in my reference to the burden of proof, which is with the party making claims that have no evidence. I have not made any claim whatsoever that does not have evidence, yet I went out of my way to provide such, needlessly I might add.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionz
I do not confuse religion with god, a baby is born with no knowledge of god. It is taught, through religion.
Science is one and the same whether god exists or not, because science deals with the world as it is, and the world as it is, is the same world whether or not god exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON
And quantum mechanics is your death nell.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tum-microphone
Physicists have long known that, following the laws of quantum mechanics, objects at the scale of atoms or smaller can exist in multiple simultaneous states. For example, a single electron can move along multiple different paths or an atom can be placed in two different places, simultaneously. This so-called superposition of states should in principle apply to larger objects, as well.
And for the sake of pure amusement, let's assume God manifests himself in the form of electrons or positively charged ions. Have you ever heard of Ionic wind?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Do-It-Y..._wind_thruster
There are ionic thrusters which can lift.
As for omnipresence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension
Space time is it's own dimension.
A different metric is the fourth dimension, which cuts through our 3D universe
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/fourth.html
An entity who can rip through time and space, doing things that are seemingly impossible.Quote:
A 4-D being would be a god to us. It would see everything in our world. It could even look inside your stomach and remove your breakfast without cutting through your skin, just like you could remove a dot inside a circle by moving it up into the third dimension, perpendicular to the circle, without breaking the circle.
A hyperbeing can effortlessly remove things before your very eyes, giving you the impression that the objects simply disappeared. The hyperbeing can also see inside any 3-D object or life form, and if necessary remove anything from inside. The being can look inside our intestines, or remove a tumor from our brain without ever cutting through the skin. A pair of gloves can be easily transformed into two left or two right gloves. And 3-D knots fall apart in the hands of a hyperbeing, much as a 2-D knot (a loop of string lying on a plane) can easily be undone by a 3-D being simply by lifting the end of the loop up into the third dimension.
Quantum mechanics is getting us further and further away from the understanding of the world you cling to.
Things can exist in multiple places at once.
That is a fact.
And I'll take it one step farther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse
The omniverse if it exists, means that all probabilities are utterly meaningless. With an infinite number of universes, every possibility that could be, will be an unlimited number of times over. Which means even lowly little me, would exist in multiple places at once.
Time travel is allowed by the laws of physics also.
Read The Elegant Universe By Brian Greene sometime.
What we're doing with string theory is quite fascinating.
So sorry... but... your arguments are dusty.
There is no God 2, they are one in the same, see previous point above.Quote:
God 1: is not omnipotent, by your own admittance, he cannot lift the stone or else why would god 2 even need to exist. This is basically saying the answer to the question is yes.
Actually, it fits quite well within the laws of nature and the expression of mathematics.Quote:
As for square circles, I wasn't going to reply until the author of the article you so kindly presented sent me a copy of the original, including the diagrams, which I would wager aren't pictures of square circles.
I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt, if a man can make a square circle, what part of god doing so demonstrate omnipotence, omniscience or any attribute at all?
What you're alluding to is a suspension of the laws of nature (and in particularly language and mathematics) in order to provide evidence of god's existence. Which in and of itself is illogical.
Your understanding of both though, seems superficial.
It looks like a square circle, as an expression.
Of course, saying the coordinates and the way they can be used are valid is a matter of opinion.
Just as you're copping out to authority by suggesting the classical understanding of a square circle is the only one, so too am I copping out to authority by saying my understanding of things as simple values and expressions.
The authority you reach toward is rationalistic philosophy, the one I reach toward is empiricism.
I consider mine greater.
As for strawmen, your strawman God which you pretended to base on my reasoning was nothing close to what I had in mind. Similarly, you have no continuity over the classical understanding of the Christian-Judean God.
1. If it actually exists, as I've established it could, your reason means very little.
2. If it's a fabrication, the patriarchs of the church get to define it however they like. It's their intellectual property and you aren't in a position to debate it's definition. You have no authority over the matter and to imply otherwise is ignorant on your part.
/(Quote:
Originally Posted by DiGitalChamberz
That's what I'm saying..
was about to quote that also
I'd be interested to know why you think atheism is outdated.Quote:
Originally Posted by WUnded Fox