48 replies to this topic

[Queztatlapoca]

the past is fixed... chance, probability, odds mean nothing when dealing with the past or present. (and may mean nothing for the future, but thats another debate)

[Megell]

the past is fixed... chance, probability, odds mean nothing when dealing with the past or present. (and may mean nothing for the future, but thats another debate)

There is a probability that things happened in a way to lead to the current trend. meaning that there are good odds that 'historically' (for lack of a better term.) came from this, however we don't know for certian so its a probability thing still.

I don't think I can explain it much better then that. So lets move on.

[Queztatlapoca]

ok, but i believe i know what you are trying to say.

Now back to the issue at hand. You have showed a "proof" for god's existence. I will try to "prove" god doesn't.

First question: Is god perfect?

[Megell]

We don't know that. God is greater then man, but we cannot validate his moral status. Its virtually impossible.

[Queztatlapoca]

ok let me reword that... is god whole or complete?

[Megell]

Well it once again depends on the interpretation. God nessicarily isn't a full and complete being, his power could be reduced and split. Its more or less the fact that we don't know the first thing about him other then he is there.

[Queztatlapoca]

you know he is there, i do not. and couldn't this "greater being" just be a name for all of nature? a label for everything?

[Megell]

It very well could be acftually, but the catch is god has to have a mind. Regardless of the form. That mind might not make any sense to us, but it exists.

[Queztatlapoca]

what if the mind so to speak was the random happenings of the universe. The human mind trying to see purpose amidst chaos

[Megell]

Well argueably it could be, however the odds are just so astronomical for the order we have on the chance of a single cell in a perfect world actually developing. It would basically mean that no matter how unlucky anyone in existance was, they would be incredibly lucky regardless.

In other words, it comes back to the probablity thing, dispite the fact I can't ultimately disprove the fact that the universe spawned itself in this way, I can say the odds of it actually turning out this way are the same league as throwing a unbuilt bike into the air and expecting it to construct itself when it falls to the ground. It could happen mathimatically...

But its about the same odds of a thread tied to an elliphants tail supporting its entire body mass. Close to nill.

[Queztatlapoca]

The human mind trying to see purpose amidst chaos. I repeat myself. Sometimes things just happen. The human mind needs order to function correctly.

The bible says god made man in his image. But it is my belief that man made god in our image.

[Megell]

Err circular arguement much.

Not sure if you realized this, but you just made a contradiction. If god is the universe like you imply, and the universe is chaos, and then we are part of the universe and we create god in our image, therefore god has to be chaotic as well.

Therefore we should look at him as unorganised, therefore the common term is lost.

Basically, if the universe is unorginized, chaos, we a condraticing force; order. Baically the arguement cancels itself out. (Ask for further clarification if I'm not making much sense, Its almsot impossible to explain.)

[Queztatlapoca]

ok...umm...human perception makes us see things ordered. our brain tricks us into seeing structure where there may be none. What i was trying to say was god is a construct, made by man, to put order and understanding where there was none.

[Megell]

But this doesn't disprove god, just merely suggests three trends. He exists, hes and idea, or he is dead.

[Queztatlapoca]

unicorns are ideas, do they exist?

[Megell]

But god is not a unicorn.

Idea is such a broad term, lets narrow it down to the idea of god. Tell me, what concepts best define what a god is?

[Queztatlapoca]

a god and the idea of god are two seprate things. But god (the christian version anyways) is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-knowing.

[Caseyweederman]

Or, just to keep the whole set together, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Let's look to carbon dating? One of the four pillars of the evolution theory.
This here piece of carbon is at least a hojillion kabillion years old. I know this because I am mad geologist and I know that dinosaurs lived that long ago. Now I will produce a crazy silly mathematical function for the age of carbon and fit it around my preconceptions.
Holy cow! Chernobyl, eh? "nuclear tests and Chernobyl affect verification of age"
So we have to CHANGE THE ARBITRARY UNDERLYING MATHEMATICS because there were a FEW THINGS WE HADN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
So, gee, like solar wind? puppies dying? Eclipses? Heck, all the radiation we throw through our bodies constantly in favor of entertainment (think of it, thousands of radio and television channels, millions of cell phone conversations, passing through your body right now). If what happened at Chernobyl changes the carbon dating equation, it's not perfect.

Last note: Science is not bad, science is good. But evolution is not science.

[Rytiko]

"The observable (or visible) universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The comoving distance to the edge of the visible universe is about 46.5 billion light years in all directions from the earth; thus the visible universe may be thought of as a perfect sphere with the earth at its center and a diameter of about 93 billion light years.

~~~~~

There are probably more than one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe."

As the two equations can obviously NOT be accurately combined (Mars may have/have had micro-organisms, and is hardly the perfect environment), I won't use it. And even if they were, there's still a decent chance.... And I'm seriously wondering where you calculated your odds of a planet capable of sustaining life forming. Source, please?

One hundred billion GALAXIES, each with countless numbers of solar systems within them. So, in short, your argument fails. It is very possible that the universe developed at least one planet capable of sustaining life on its own.

I won't, however, argue the existence of a deity. Not the Christian God necessarily, but a God none the less. If we believe in M Theory, which explains the origin of the universe, we must go back further still in a world unbound by our laws to discover the origin of the "Molecules" of M Theory. It's an endless cycle, which will eventually be lasily explained by a simple "Our laws don't apply there" statement. Which I am unsatisfied by.

@Casey - What the hell? Chernobyl was a MASSIVE amount of radiation. Granted, a few billion years in the sun is probably just as bad, if not worse, however does that change the fact that the bones were found, and present themselves in a trend? If you see a pattern, do you normally make conclusions based on said pattern, or do you convince yourself "No, no that can't be right. This is the trick of some underground mastermind to make us not believe in God!", or "No. It's entirely possible that creatures with almost identical bone structures share no relation at all."??

If you do, then I severely question your skills of inquisition. Also, just to address this, I don't think the dinosaurs and ape-men were on the internet, watching television, or playing video games. That was completely random and almost entirely unrelated to your point. The radiation of today is far greater anyway, with the changes in the O-Zone layer and our use of it. We're probably exposed to hundreds of times more radiation in 20 years than older creatures were in an entire lifetime.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention - They would not have been exposed to the sun for billions of years. They'd have been covered up by the many layers of sediment that we found them under. Millions? Most likely. Billions though? Very improbable.

[Caseyweederman]

That's what I was saying, Chernobyl was a huge amount of radiation. How many other countless causes have there been that could affect the calculations? How can something so inaccurate be trusted?
And as for your "missing link", you'd be hard pressed to actually come up with one that... hrm... wasn't faked.

A tableu was made, a recreation of this ancient half-monkey half-man. It was detailed intricatly. The man himself, wearing rough furs, wielding a bone or club. His dog, barely domesticated. And his wife, and his cave. Proof! shouted the world. The proof we've fought so hard for! This is the proof that our lives have no meaning.
You may have heard of this man. He was named the Nebraska Man. Everything he was - man, wife, dog, cave, club - was "recreated" from one single "man-like" tooth. So the tooth was placed under scrutiny. It turned out to be a pig's tooth, probably only dead for fifty years.

Considering that this whole evolution thing has supposedly gone on for millenia, wouldn't there be a whole lot more evidence in the way of failed strands and "missing link" fossils?