Oh, if only you could see the fallacies of your argument...then would I believe a god exists! <- Trollface
1) Evidence is the foundation of experience. The accumulation of evidence during one's life lead to one's life experiences. Faith is the belief in something for which there is little to zero evidence. The propensity to believe in make-believe is dependent upon the individual's genetics and environment. Truth and knowledge is the amalgam of supporting and refuting evidence.
To your parent question: DNA testing. I would not want to caught in a situation like that intimate couple that discovered they were siblings.
2) Invisible pink unicorn: Insert pink unicorn into a special metamaterials.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Human domain only encompasses the terrestrial surface of the planet earth.
Santa Claus' north pole already melted. See arctic shipping lanes.
You can't really say that that are contingent to this universe, since you haven't found any of them in this universe.
3) "The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance" <- No evidence to show your hypothesis is true, kind of like the Greek philosopher who said you aren't actually moving because he partitioned the steps into an infinite number of tiny steps and you'll have to take a infinity to go through all the tiny steps.
4) Response to those quotes: Multiverse hypothesis is a possible answer to why this universe has specific constants. Funny how you don't mention how some of those scientists had ideas that were later shown to be incorrect (i.e. Einstein's misconception of quantum entanglement).
5) Things happen because they obey the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Discovering why the 3 laws of thermodynamics are the way they are is being researched. There are an infinite "why does it work" for anything and it might take an infinity to discover all the "why's". It's like trying to explain to a kid why and he keeps asking why in response. As mentioned in previous posts, the reason why we can't explain everything is the limit of technology. The why's of the old generation become the how's of the next generation; and the next generation have new why's.
6) We didn't prove time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Humans just happen to use the Big Bang as an arbitrary starting point for human perceived time, just as people use 0 BC.
7) Chance is the probable outcome of one possibility or more over the other many possibilities. If multiverse is correct, then an infinite universes are coexisting, showing that this universe is not special from all the other possible universes that already exist. your usage of chance assumes this universe is the only universe that exists. Multiverse require god, because the requirement to be an omnipotent being is having the ability to traverse between all the different universes, magic! But again, the multiverse can exist in absence of this make-believe friend of yours.
8)The rest is based on your misconception of probability and erroneous assumptions, so no need to nitpick through to show those conclusions are already false. Not to mention your lack of comprehension of how the scientific method works.
Im not going to argue with you on elementary things. What do you know about science? What do you know about your evolution theory?. You only believe what you want to believe. You will also not overcome truth. Time existed only at the big bang. Time is NOT eternal and is also an illusion. Again, you dont have the foggiest idea of the implications of what you are saying http://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
There are an infinite "why does it work" for anything
Oh hell no. Lol. You saying that acknowledges you will never know the answer, not even in an infinite period of time. Chain link<>link and contradictory logic buddy.
3) "The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance" <- No evidence to show your hypothesis is true, kind of like the Greek philosopher who said you aren't actually moving because he partitioned the steps into an infinite number of tiny steps and you'll have to take a infinity to go through all the tiny steps.
Evidence? Its common sense. We reverse the postulation. No such thing as an infinite number of steps(Its finite), So either that greek philosopher was crazy, or your interpretation of what he said is.
You can keep resisting God, Understand that I dont care what you believe in or what you think you know. I cant emphasize that enough!. God I know cares about you, but my patience is only finite and has reached its end. Someday a random scientist will suggest a monkey with a typewriter created the universe, and you will believe that. But take heart, atleast in a parallel universe there might be a smarter version of you that exists somewhere else(that doesn`t believe in Multiverse lol?).
@EternalWraith: Go
let me ask you a serious question, where do these bias "Scientist" get that the earth was created in 6k years,
The time established in the 7 days was before the heavens and the stars, therefore it could be any time in between a microsecond and a an infinite amount.
@EternalWraith: Go let me ask you a serious question, where do these bias "Scientist" get that the earth was created in 6k years,
The time established in the 7 days was before the heavens and the stars, therefore it could be any time in between a microsecond and a an infinite amount.
Spaghetti and meatballs are the physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain. Based on the sum of our knowledge about this, is there any reason to believe in such a thing?
You know Spaghetti and meatballs are for describing religions and not God. Every religion "is physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain."
George Ellis, and Roger Penrose (ohh noes) I like reading scifi too. (I specially like Penrose scifi about quantum tubes in our brain:D)
Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison. You know all these 3 great man are agnostic.
I like that how most of the quotes are out from context.
Infinite universes doesnt mean you will have Santa Claus thats an imagination of the complex beings in this universe as you said before. You know real numbers can be divided infinite times... but you wont get Santa Claus at any division.
Anyway as long you want to find the source of the universe, you have to find one for god too. You wont solve it just by making god Infinite/timeless or other attributes any other source could have the same attributes... If you want to reason that the universe is fine tuned and it must be fine tuned by a god, than why do you think the only method for that a complex being or multi universes, like what about that these are the only "tunes" by a universe can be created... There might be methods we cant even imagine. Also it goes back again to who fine tuned than god? And what god is that needs to "fine tune" things... A god which limited by the "laws" of basic forces of physics.
I believe what the evidence shows and science is about gathering evidence. You don't overcome the truth, the scientific evidence leads you to the truth.
To your flawed time argument: “Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.” http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html Maybe you should actually look up all the conceptions of time in physics instead of reading one article and misrepresenting the research. Behold, the laymen's encyclopedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Conceptions_of_time
There may have been another universe prior to our universe. If multiverse is correct, some of the other universes may have already existed before the existence of this universe.
"Oh hell no. Lol. You saying that acknowledges you will never know the answer, not even in an infinite period of time." You are so laymen to misinterpret my words. It would take an infinity for any explanation that is supported by evidence to reach 100% probability.
"Evidence? Its common sense. We reverse the postulation. No such thing as an infinite number of steps(Its finite), So either that greek philosopher was crazy, or your interpretation of what he said is." Look up what the Greek philosopher said and interpret it yourself. People used to also say it was common sense for earth to be the center of the universe, but then scientific evidence changed that flawed "common sense" view. You divide the step infinitely to arrive to an infinite number of steps (keep halfing the step and the result for an infinite amount); that Greek philosopher sure believed he knew it was common sense. There's really no such thing to show that "common sense" = truth/fact/what ever. It's all about evidence. In the absence of evidence, you just have faith/religion.
"You can keep resisting God, Understand that I dont care what you believe in or what you think you know. I cant emphasize that enough!. God I know cares about you, but my patience is only finite and has reached its end. Someday a random scientist will suggest a monkey with a typewriter created the universe, and you will believe that. But take heart, atleast in a parallel universe there might be a smarter version of you that exists somewhere else(that doesn`t believe in Multiverse lol?)." If you don't care, then you wouldn't make such a flawed effort to reply to my posts. You can simply ignore me, but your ego and arrogance causes you to continue to reply, just as mine caused me to reply to you. A scientist may suggest that, but does he/she have the evidence to support it? And you don't see any parallel in having faith in the words of bronze age humans? It's very possible that there is a parallel universe where I am a stupid religious nutjob.
In conclusion, you obviously have a flawed comprehension about physics.
If you're of the mind that your knowledge of the universe is incomprehensibly small, adopting what appears the most logical position is a ludicrous notion.
EternalWrath - I'd like to thank you for taking your time to write up your argument in such a detailed post. Liked, for that reason. I haven't read all of it, but I'd like to refute the multiverse section.
Quote:
There is actually Zero evidence for multiverse theory, and ultimately it doesn`t lead to the answers we are looking for. It cant even answer itself, and never will.
Here's the thing: there is no "one" multiverse theory. These theories usually arise from the need to solve other unrelated problems in science such as reconcile quantum physics with general relativity, or solve problems in cosmology. You on the other hand seem to think that some scientist is sitting there in a lab crafting theories that are totally opposite to yours just so that he can piss off creationists. This is false. Again, science is humble. It attempts to let reality tell the story, whereas religion tries to tell the story about reality.
Quote:
Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature.
Electrons were untestable one day, that does not mean they are untestable now. The next generation of gravity wave detectors could potentially test multiverses. Dark energy itself could be a sign of parallel universes. As I explained in another reply:
Quote:
From what I understand, dark energy, which makes up something like 75% of the matter/energy content in the universe, is nothing more than higher dimensional objects called branes interacting with our universe. That's why no scientists can identify what dark energy is made of, it doesn't actually exist in our 3d space, but it does have a gravitational effect on our 3d space. The dark energy fuels the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, so it is increasing and it will eventually come to dominate. When dark energy is highest, it means that these branes are more energetic, and this forces them to collide, creating a big bang. Then they settle down, and wait for it to happen again. This process repeats, ad nauseum.
According to this hypothesis, the "braneworld" is the prime mover.
That's one theory (if my interpretation of it was correct). But that's not the only theory, and the theory itself is not complete yet. It's premature and scientifically unsound to declare victory for God.
Quote:
Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age
Right, but everyone agrees that the universe coming out of (literally) nothing is absurd. It is highly likely that if it can be caused once, it can be caused again. People are denying this just like they are denying evolution. The cosmological prime origins are the last vestiges of human ignorance, and it is likely that one day they might be solved. Sure it sounds ridiculous, but who could have dreamed 2000 years ago that we would have learned about evolution, medicine and sending probes to other celestial bodies?
Quote:
On Multiverse. Given this belief then, one would also expect to find universes in which Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and the Easter Bunny existed. It would even be logical to believe that there would be at least one universe in which a being such as God existed. So, the multiverse does not get rid of God, but requires that He exist.
This is a fallacy. Grant me for a moment that the multiverse produces universes that only follow the laws of physics. These universes are represented on the number line as [0, 1]. Magic universes lie in the realm of [2,infinity]. There are an infinite number of points between zero and one, and an infinite number of universes can be created. Since no numbers above 2 can be created, it does not follow that God has to exist.
Bottom line, this is 2012. There will always be a naturalistic alternative to supernatural phenomena. The way critical thinking works is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I get lost on the road and call you up, claiming I got a flat tire, that would sound reasonable. Flat tires are common, and I don't have to provide further proof, send you a picture, let you come see it for yourself, etc. If, on the other hand, I told you I was late because I was abducted by aliens, then I would have to do those things because nobody has seen aliens. There are plenty of stories about people who claim to have seen aliens just like there are people who claim to have seen god and miracles, but nonetheless, these are not commonplace/verified events. That's why it has nothing to do with whether I believe if someone has seen a miracle or not. This is how critical thinking works, and it is how I personally build upon my "experience".
ah soo Realistically according to science and the bible the universe took 2465753424.657534 years to make, if that guys Calculations are correct. Hmm Okie I get it, or as he put it, .9 x 10^12 days, So you take that number and divide by 365.
I too believe that there was some force that started it all.
You did answer what I actually asked, but I guess what I meant to ask is: how do you get from a starting force.. to a God/Deity/'Father' that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe in him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I should repent if I don't follow or else he'll punish me, and does all of this for his own glory?
And how did you come to the conclusion of Satan's existence?
I have so many questions :( if Satan exists, he is powerful indeed.
Why would something create life if it had no purpose for it.
I do not accept your personification of said force. And nowhere did I call it a creative force - I don't think it created anything. Mass is energy, the energy was already there IMO (don't ask me where it came from). When I say 'started it all', I only mean something that turned this energy into mass (which apparently had many effects).
From what I can tell, we haven't proved any farther than that.
Why would gravity make things come closer together if it didn't have a purpose for it? Silly question isn't it? Who's to say it 'has a purpose' beyond pure cause and effect? Maybe it just 'does' and there ya go do with it as you will. Shrug.
There's no evidence that life on earth has "special purpose" or was created by something "intelligent".
Springtails are some of the most successful "lower lifeforms". We should also discuss the success of parasites like tape worms and bedbugs.
"This hypothetical creator being must be such a failure to create so many lifeforms, yet, in the end, only to deem most of them unworthy for existence and judged for extinction."
"If humans were designed by an omnipotent being to be the pinnacle of creation, they wouldn't have been so flawed to be susceptible to temptation in The Beginning. The creator would not have been so angry and disappointed if it was omnipotent enough to foresee the future"
"If humans were designed by an omnipotent being to be the pinnacle of creation, they wouldn't have been so flawed to be susceptible to temptation in The Beginning. The creator would not have been so angry and disappointed if it was omnipotent enough to foresee the future"
I believe you just insulted yourself, because you're arguing with a less than two brain-cell lifeform. :)
Hey, it's your faith (belief in something in absence of evidence).
It's the same thing that those Family Radio guys said about May 21, 2011, too. Lol.
If you have faith that Bernie Madoff will turn your investment into profit for you, then go right on ahead.
Man, If God permits, Im going to laugh at you so hard on judgement day. Scoff now all you want;-). One day, you`re going to see lol.
Ah, just like it reads in Revelations near the end, and then some site Moderator laughed at the damned as they went down into the pit of fire. Seriously EternalWraith, after all the research you've done to try to explain things, you are gonna lower yourself to this level?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@EternalWraith: Go
Oh, if only you could see the fallacies of your argument...then would I believe a god exists! <- Trollface
1) Evidence is the foundation of experience. The accumulation of evidence during one's life lead to one's life experiences. Faith is the belief in something for which there is little to zero evidence. The propensity to believe in make-believe is dependent upon the individual's genetics and environment. Truth and knowledge is the amalgam of supporting and refuting evidence.
To your parent question: DNA testing. I would not want to caught in a situation like that intimate couple that discovered they were siblings.
2) Invisible pink unicorn: Insert pink unicorn into a special metamaterials. Flying Spaghetti Monster: Human domain only encompasses the terrestrial surface of the planet earth. Santa Claus' north pole already melted. See arctic shipping lanes. You can't really say that that are contingent to this universe, since you haven't found any of them in this universe.
3) "The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance" <- No evidence to show your hypothesis is true, kind of like the Greek philosopher who said you aren't actually moving because he partitioned the steps into an infinite number of tiny steps and you'll have to take a infinity to go through all the tiny steps.
4) Response to those quotes: Multiverse hypothesis is a possible answer to why this universe has specific constants. Funny how you don't mention how some of those scientists had ideas that were later shown to be incorrect (i.e. Einstein's misconception of quantum entanglement).
5) Things happen because they obey the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Discovering why the 3 laws of thermodynamics are the way they are is being researched. There are an infinite "why does it work" for anything and it might take an infinity to discover all the "why's". It's like trying to explain to a kid why and he keeps asking why in response. As mentioned in previous posts, the reason why we can't explain everything is the limit of technology. The why's of the old generation become the how's of the next generation; and the next generation have new why's.
6) We didn't prove time didn't exist before the Big Bang. Humans just happen to use the Big Bang as an arbitrary starting point for human perceived time, just as people use 0 BC.
7) Chance is the probable outcome of one possibility or more over the other many possibilities. If multiverse is correct, then an infinite universes are coexisting, showing that this universe is not special from all the other possible universes that already exist. your usage of chance assumes this universe is the only universe that exists. Multiverse require god, because the requirement to be an omnipotent being is having the ability to traverse between all the different universes, magic! But again, the multiverse can exist in absence of this make-believe friend of yours.
8)The rest is based on your misconception of probability and erroneous assumptions, so no need to nitpick through to show those conclusions are already false. Not to mention your lack of comprehension of how the scientific method works.
holy crap my topic done got big.
<Click Here> To See My Epic Single Player Campaign (LifeForceCampaign.com)
@FDFederation: Go
Im not going to argue with you on elementary things. What do you know about science? What do you know about your evolution theory?. You only believe what you want to believe. You will also not overcome truth. Time existed only at the big bang. Time is NOT eternal and is also an illusion. Again, you dont have the foggiest idea of the implications of what you are saying
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
There are an infinite "why does it work" for anything
Oh hell no. Lol. You saying that acknowledges you will never know the answer, not even in an infinite period of time. Chain link<>link and contradictory logic buddy.
3) "The Source is thus eternal and unchanging and as a consequence also self existent, for it is not subject to Time and not bound to Entropy and it is also THE Prime matrix from which all created things have inheritance" <- No evidence to show your hypothesis is true, kind of like the Greek philosopher who said you aren't actually moving because he partitioned the steps into an infinite number of tiny steps and you'll have to take a infinity to go through all the tiny steps.
Evidence? Its common sense. We reverse the postulation. No such thing as an infinite number of steps(Its finite), So either that greek philosopher was crazy, or your interpretation of what he said is.
You can keep resisting God, Understand that I dont care what you believe in or what you think you know. I cant emphasize that enough!. God I know cares about you, but my patience is only finite and has reached its end. Someday a random scientist will suggest a monkey with a typewriter created the universe, and you will believe that. But take heart, atleast in a parallel universe there might be a smarter version of you that exists somewhere else(that doesn`t believe in Multiverse lol?).
@EternalWraith: Go let me ask you a serious question, where do these bias "Scientist" get that the earth was created in 6k years,
The time established in the 7 days was before the heavens and the stars, therefore it could be any time in between a microsecond and a an infinite amount.
@Taintedwisp: Go
Ah ye, this actually explains it nicely(Until page 7). I cant verifiably test it myself(Its slightly complex), but the calculations are plausible.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:A--xIsRtNC4J:yadayahweh.com/pdf/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis_Owr.pdf+&hl=en&gl=za&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgC7I18872ixPOlpA2m6jCB7hobLmd91ptesNjiWqg8of_MhOWBMwV21xd-R_DrDbCxPt772_wKq3QNoGE-WSH94ZQ--g032oKSLS3r6KkqsjLBGguFeRA_JWdAJ3ATiv2TTHDf&sig=AHIEtbQiNRgyytuyWsLfOKqo4NbvBgVZQA&pli=1
@EternalWraith: Go Some thoughts, however I found hard to reply to you with that many contradictions you made against your own.
Instead of experience/truth/belief. I will just stick to scientific method. It has pretty good record in predicting things.
You know Spaghetti and meatballs are for describing religions and not God. Every religion "is physical creation of intelligent beings and could never exist outside of a human domain."
George Ellis, and Roger Penrose (ohh noes) I like reading scifi too. (I specially like Penrose scifi about quantum tubes in our brain:D)
Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Thomas Edison. You know all these 3 great man are agnostic.
I like that how most of the quotes are out from context.
Infinite universes doesnt mean you will have Santa Claus thats an imagination of the complex beings in this universe as you said before. You know real numbers can be divided infinite times... but you wont get Santa Claus at any division.
Anyway as long you want to find the source of the universe, you have to find one for god too. You wont solve it just by making god Infinite/timeless or other attributes any other source could have the same attributes... If you want to reason that the universe is fine tuned and it must be fine tuned by a god, than why do you think the only method for that a complex being or multi universes, like what about that these are the only "tunes" by a universe can be created... There might be methods we cant even imagine. Also it goes back again to who fine tuned than god? And what god is that needs to "fine tune" things... A god which limited by the "laws" of basic forces of physics.
@EternalWraith: Go
I believe what the evidence shows and science is about gathering evidence. You don't overcome the truth, the scientific evidence leads you to the truth.
To your flawed time argument: “Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.” http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html Maybe you should actually look up all the conceptions of time in physics instead of reading one article and misrepresenting the research. Behold, the laymen's encyclopedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Conceptions_of_time
There may have been another universe prior to our universe. If multiverse is correct, some of the other universes may have already existed before the existence of this universe.
"Oh hell no. Lol. You saying that acknowledges you will never know the answer, not even in an infinite period of time." You are so laymen to misinterpret my words. It would take an infinity for any explanation that is supported by evidence to reach 100% probability.
"Evidence? Its common sense. We reverse the postulation. No such thing as an infinite number of steps(Its finite), So either that greek philosopher was crazy, or your interpretation of what he said is." Look up what the Greek philosopher said and interpret it yourself. People used to also say it was common sense for earth to be the center of the universe, but then scientific evidence changed that flawed "common sense" view. You divide the step infinitely to arrive to an infinite number of steps (keep halfing the step and the result for an infinite amount); that Greek philosopher sure believed he knew it was common sense. There's really no such thing to show that "common sense" = truth/fact/what ever. It's all about evidence. In the absence of evidence, you just have faith/religion.
"You can keep resisting God, Understand that I dont care what you believe in or what you think you know. I cant emphasize that enough!. God I know cares about you, but my patience is only finite and has reached its end. Someday a random scientist will suggest a monkey with a typewriter created the universe, and you will believe that. But take heart, atleast in a parallel universe there might be a smarter version of you that exists somewhere else(that doesn`t believe in Multiverse lol?)." If you don't care, then you wouldn't make such a flawed effort to reply to my posts. You can simply ignore me, but your ego and arrogance causes you to continue to reply, just as mine caused me to reply to you. A scientist may suggest that, but does he/she have the evidence to support it? And you don't see any parallel in having faith in the words of bronze age humans? It's very possible that there is a parallel universe where I am a stupid religious nutjob.
In conclusion, you obviously have a flawed comprehension about physics.
If you're of the mind that your knowledge of the universe is incomprehensibly small, adopting what appears the most logical position is a ludicrous notion.
EternalWrath - I'd like to thank you for taking your time to write up your argument in such a detailed post. Liked, for that reason. I haven't read all of it, but I'd like to refute the multiverse section.
Here's the thing: there is no "one" multiverse theory. These theories usually arise from the need to solve other unrelated problems in science such as reconcile quantum physics with general relativity, or solve problems in cosmology. You on the other hand seem to think that some scientist is sitting there in a lab crafting theories that are totally opposite to yours just so that he can piss off creationists. This is false. Again, science is humble. It attempts to let reality tell the story, whereas religion tries to tell the story about reality.
Electrons were untestable one day, that does not mean they are untestable now. The next generation of gravity wave detectors could potentially test multiverses. Dark energy itself could be a sign of parallel universes. As I explained in another reply:
That's one theory (if my interpretation of it was correct). But that's not the only theory, and the theory itself is not complete yet. It's premature and scientifically unsound to declare victory for God.
Right, but everyone agrees that the universe coming out of (literally) nothing is absurd. It is highly likely that if it can be caused once, it can be caused again. People are denying this just like they are denying evolution. The cosmological prime origins are the last vestiges of human ignorance, and it is likely that one day they might be solved. Sure it sounds ridiculous, but who could have dreamed 2000 years ago that we would have learned about evolution, medicine and sending probes to other celestial bodies?
This is a fallacy. Grant me for a moment that the multiverse produces universes that only follow the laws of physics. These universes are represented on the number line as [0, 1]. Magic universes lie in the realm of [2,infinity]. There are an infinite number of points between zero and one, and an infinite number of universes can be created. Since no numbers above 2 can be created, it does not follow that God has to exist.
Bottom line, this is 2012. There will always be a naturalistic alternative to supernatural phenomena. The way critical thinking works is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I get lost on the road and call you up, claiming I got a flat tire, that would sound reasonable. Flat tires are common, and I don't have to provide further proof, send you a picture, let you come see it for yourself, etc. If, on the other hand, I told you I was late because I was abducted by aliens, then I would have to do those things because nobody has seen aliens. There are plenty of stories about people who claim to have seen aliens just like there are people who claim to have seen god and miracles, but nonetheless, these are not commonplace/verified events. That's why it has nothing to do with whether I believe if someone has seen a miracle or not. This is how critical thinking works, and it is how I personally build upon my "experience".
@EternalWraith: Go
ah soo Realistically according to science and the bible the universe took 2465753424.657534 years to make, if that guys Calculations are correct. Hmm Okie I get it, or as he put it, .9 x 10^12 days, So you take that number and divide by 365.
So somewhere around that number.
@Taintedwisp: Go I thought universe is still in making.
@EternalWraith: Go
Thanks for post, learned a bunch +1 :)
I too believe that there was some force that started it all.
You did answer what I actually asked, but I guess what I meant to ask is: how do you get from a starting force.. to a God/Deity/'Father' that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe in him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I should repent if I don't follow or else he'll punish me, and does all of this for his own glory?
And how did you come to the conclusion of Satan's existence?
I have so many questions :( if Satan exists, he is powerful indeed.
@TLBarrin: Go
Why would something create life if it had no purpose for it.
I do not accept your personification of said force. And nowhere did I call it a creative force - I don't think it created anything. Mass is energy, the energy was already there IMO (don't ask me where it came from). When I say 'started it all', I only mean something that turned this energy into mass (which apparently had many effects).
From what I can tell, we haven't proved any farther than that.
Why would gravity make things come closer together if it didn't have a purpose for it? Silly question isn't it? Who's to say it 'has a purpose' beyond pure cause and effect? Maybe it just 'does' and there ya go do with it as you will. Shrug.
@Taintedwisp: Go
There's no evidence that life on earth has "special purpose" or was created by something "intelligent".
Springtails are some of the most successful "lower lifeforms". We should also discuss the success of parasites like tape worms and bedbugs.
"This hypothetical creator being must be such a failure to create so many lifeforms, yet, in the end, only to deem most of them unworthy for existence and judged for extinction."
"If humans were designed by an omnipotent being to be the pinnacle of creation, they wouldn't have been so flawed to be susceptible to temptation in The Beginning. The creator would not have been so angry and disappointed if it was omnipotent enough to foresee the future"
Haha. Never cease to amaze me.
Yet again, taking from your @#@$.
@EternalWraith: Go
Like I said, no evidence for creationism.
No evidence you have more than two brain-cells.
Man, If God permits, Im going to laugh at you so hard on judgement day. Scoff now all you want;-). One day, you`re going to see lol.
@EternalWraith: Go
I believe you just insulted yourself, because you're arguing with a less than two brain-cell lifeform. :) Hey, it's your faith (belief in something in absence of evidence). It's the same thing that those Family Radio guys said about May 21, 2011, too. Lol. If you have faith that Bernie Madoff will turn your investment into profit for you, then go right on ahead.
Ah, just like it reads in Revelations near the end, and then some site Moderator laughed at the damned as they went down into the pit of fire. Seriously EternalWraith, after all the research you've done to try to explain things, you are gonna lower yourself to this level?