First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
The Universe, god can't have created it
13196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 5/27/09
that was complete garbage that does not even come close to proving God doesn't exist.
I would try to explain it but I doubt it would ever get through to you. Anyway it seems as though a lot of other people have tried as well.
Posted 5/30/09
see there is stuff that we humans are trying to find out about but that doesn't mean that human can made this universe ~ yes it's a God creation ~
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 5/30/09
You cannot prove a negative.
1100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99 / F
Offline
Posted 5/30/09
It's the biggest mystery we humans can't explain..
21493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / None Of Ur Biz
Offline
Posted 5/31/09
Never though a god made this world, galaxy, or universe, in the first place well at least not just one.
62201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Michigan
Offline
Posted 5/31/09

leviathan343 wrote:

You cannot prove a negative.

I posted this on the other page. There is a way to prove a negative. In logic, it's a rule known as negation introduction.

There are also rules for proving existence (for-some), universality (for-all), and non-existence (for-all-not). Non-existence is a pretty tough proof to work out in practice when we're not talking about mathematics or numbers.
7007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M
Offline
Posted 6/1/09 , edited 6/1/09
Whatever entity or entities created life simply created a force which he/she/it/they then released into our universe to take shape as it would and to evolve on it's own. Planetary, atmospheric, and environmental conditions contributed to the wide array of forms that life came to inhabit.

The Earth was not created first, nor was our galaxy. The hebrew word for earth, erets, is actually considered to mean land, ground, or world. This can refer to all planets and all galaxies being created in the same process or time period.

Furthermore, the length of the "days" referred to in the Bible are subject to interpretation as well. Since Man was created on the sixth day, the days prior to his creation cannot be days by his/her human standard. The Bible says that, to God "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand is years is as a day". The creator is not bound by Time, and those days may well have been billions of years by our standards.

The theory that the creator(s) are too busy or too occupied to pay attention to any individual world is absolutely ludicrous.

Firstly, to say that the creator is too preoccupied to pay attention to our world implies two things:

1: That there is, in fact, a creator.
2: that there are, in fact, other worlds to be preoccupied with.

There are most certainly other worlds that support life. According to this theory, however, each of them, respectively, is created, and then promptly abandoned due to either poor planning or excessive workload.

The Big Bang is the theory on how the Universe was created; not necessarily how life was created. The mathematical impossibility mentioned in an earlier post applies to the spontaneous generation of life on Earth from "primordial ooze". In modern times, even some notable scientists agree that it is simply impossible for life to have generated spontaneously, and are willing to allow for the possibility of a divine act.

I do not favor any particular religion, I am essentially an agnostic. I do, however, favor the idea that the Universe was created by an intelligent force, whether it be God, a cosmic force, or a gaseous anomaly. :)

There will always be disorder in the Universe as it is the natural state of all things within it to move from order to disorder. If there were no intelligent force behind it all, the Universe would long ago have fallen into complete chaos and ceased to exist...

"What hath God wrought?"
1844 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In The Abyss
Offline
Posted 6/1/09
Why would the creation matter at all? God has never made sense now nor in the past so why care of what order he supposedly created the existence of everything? If he's omnipotent like people say, then why would he give a damn to common sense and logic? He created it, he can destroy that logic, or so it would be thought.
48789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / ewan ko
Offline
Posted 6/1/09
I still believe God..
21 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/09
if god cannot create the whold world included universe
if god cannot greater then Logic, science, and other things.
if god cannot do what human cannot do.
if god cannot greater then what you can think.
Then I can tell you, God just a human.. he cannot mean anythings.
so, just because of God can greater then ALL what human can do , think...
so I can worship him.
so he can be my GOD
Bible say God will give you something you never feel it, see it, listen and even think of..

God can call God just because he can do What you cant do. and the most important is, he created you!!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09

crazykl45 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

You cannot prove a negative.

I posted this on the other page. There is a way to prove a negative. In logic, it's a rule known as negation introduction.

There are also rules for proving existence (for-some), universality (for-all), and non-existence (for-all-not). Non-existence is a pretty tough proof to work out in practice when we're not talking about mathematics or numbers.


Seems like a practitioner of classical logic.

Negation introduction doesn't address the issue of proving something; that's why I didn't include it. It's merely inference drawn from following a proposition into absurdity, and one where only p and q are considered valid propositions to be included. It doesn't start with the proposition itself.

A personal preference.
62201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09

leviathan343Seems like a practitioner of classical logic.

Negation introduction doesn't address the issue of proving something; that's why I didn't include it. It's merely inference drawn from following a proposition into absurdity, and one where only p and q are considered valid propositions to be included. It doesn't start with the proposition itself.

A personal preference.


Yep. I have a background in math and philosophy.

Negation introduction doesn't address the issue of proving something? I don't know about that, I've used it lots of times in academic settings to make an argument.

As you seem point out, it's just not proving what we think it does. It shows our beliefs, definitions, and axioms can't all be true at the same time. Really useful in math, less useful everywhere else.
------------------------------------
In terms of this thread topic, a proof of this form might have worked. As it stands, no valid argument was made. I kind of wanted to give people at least some idea about how to make a point and have it stick.
55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09
May i point out that religion and science never should be at war, one does not nescessarily negate the other, for example they managed to prove a while back that the plagues in egypt of moses time was in fact explainable due to a volcano, a disease and nature (and also the red sea being a mistranslation in fact it was supposed to be read reed sea aparently which is a swamp in the Nile delta it was supposedly a tidal wave that washed away the pharoahs men just after the jews made it across the swamp). Here's the question i pose to everyone here.... "We explained the plagues and what caused them, so why is it any less of a miracle?" Understanding a miracle does not take anything away from it, when i saw this explanation i was actually amazed, because the fact it all happened when it did was a miracle.

The last pope was actually a believer of evolution, and to be honest i dont see why its so offensive to the christianity, technically the garden of eden story hints at evolution and this original sin nonsense is just the hook on the line, i would like to pose another question to you all, "If god is omnipotent, wasn't he aware of the snake tempting eve? And if so, why did he let it happen?" Just cause the bible said god created us in his own image doesn't necessarily mean it happened overnight why can't he have taken time to refine the process, just a suggestion but, how do we know god's perception of time isn't different to our own? when it says it took 7 days how do you know thats not in god's perception of time, which to us could span millenia? I mean no humans were there to witness the period of creation after all.

Religion feigns depth and yet never asks questions, religion is important in many peoples lives and, although i am not actually religious myself, i don't aim to tell others what to believe and what not to believe, but if asked i'll offer my opinion. On a side note, however, i would like to point out if christians choose to bash homosexuals, you should try following the other 'commandments' in that book of the bible like no wearing mixed fibre clothing etc. Also (i know this only applies to catholics) the pope himself is, technically, an affront to god as he is a false Idol that is worshipped by many and goes against jesus' teachings, let me ask why the pope requires his own palace and country when he should be using that money to save lives of starving africans and so forth, so what if they aren't christian? The bible never says "help not lest ye be christian", does it? Neither does it say "help only those that ye convert or have promise to convert". I'm just saying don't preach what you don't follow.

Science and religion have never truly been at war it's just stubborn old men who refuse to consider possibilities (on both sides). Plus most scientists i work with and know, believe in god to some level, the deeper we delve the harder things are to explain it's not that far fetched to see some guiding hand in everythings existence and evolution.

In terms of god here's an image i often get. Imagine god is a scientist on a larger plain of existence than our own i.e. we are naught but atoms to him, what's to say we aren't simply existing in a petri dish on a macro-plain(think thats the right term :/) he may have created our atom or simply altered it. Isn't it posible that there are universes contained in atoms on our plain? That every atom is another universe simply smaller than our own? Theoretically god could just be a human or something similar on a plain of existence so huge we cant comprehend that created us with science of some description, how do we know that by altering atoms or genes we dont ecome god's to smaller universe's. If that's the case does god know he created us or became our god, etc? The miracles that alter our universe could simply be a scientist maintaining his experiment to prevent collapse or failure. Think about that.

Finally if you're going to omit negation as a method of proving something then our law system is flawed, as is religions arguement against evolution the only defence that religion uses is negation so you've kinda shot yourselves in the foot right there. One of religions favourite tactics is explain how an eye came to exist, we cant, yet, cause the chances of the exact order of the necessary components is astronomical, it's like having a monkey type on a typewriter forever till it types an exact set sentence in english, however if we made it type the sentence on a computer and everytime it got a character in the right place it was saved, pretty much anything becomes possible.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 6/2/09 , edited 6/2/09

crazykl45 wrote:


leviathan343Seems like a practitioner of classical logic.

Negation introduction doesn't address the issue of proving something; that's why I didn't include it. It's merely inference drawn from following a proposition into absurdity, and one where only p and q are considered valid propositions to be included. It doesn't start with the proposition itself.

A personal preference.


Yep. I have a background in math and philosophy.

Negation introduction doesn't address the issue of proving something? I don't know about that, I've used it lots of times in academic settings to make an argument.

As you seem point out, it's just not proving what we think it does. It shows our beliefs, definitions, and axioms can't all be true at the same time. Really useful in math, less useful everywhere else.
------------------------------------
In terms of this thread topic, a proof of this form might have worked. As it stands, no valid argument was made.


I just don't count it because of the way it goes about proving the proposition. Officially I don't care, I just don't count it off-hand.

Negation introduction is hard to use in a typical situation. Generally there are too many factors for it to work cleanly. Even the proposition "God doesn't exist" implies so much you can't cover it all with a sweeping argument map. You can only address every single instance or claim at a time.

Lack of proof/evidence is a legitimate pseudo-argument, one I use quite often.
55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/2/09

Toby- wrote:

You know we had this incredibly intresting lesson a few days back. My teacher was talking about the scientific chance of materia being created from nothing, the chance was so small that in reality, it's impossible. Thus, the chance of big bang being something possible, is impossible. I usually just tell myself that God is beyond my understanding. He is something so far superior that I'll never be able to comprehend the mere fact.

This is one out of many reasons why I am a Christian, I believe that God created the universe because he is the only one capable of doing something impossible. Sometimes we just got to stop thinking about it, and stop arguing what created us.


I must thank you first and foremost i was wondering if a closed minded type person would appear in this conversation, let me ask you this if the big bang is impossible due to statistics why is god possible? It is also highly statistically unlikely that god exists yet you believe in that ideal, you're arguement turns round and bites it's own behind almost straight away. Here's another statistic, due to the enormity of the universe and the randomness of genetic recombination to ever create your exact genetic code is statistically as unlikely as the big bang theory, if not more so, so why do you exist? because god did it? but wait, he's also statistically as unlikely, hence using your theory, he is impossible too, hence you don't exist.

Your theory proves the lack of anythings existence and proves almost everything to be wrong without evidence. Just because something is statistically unlikely doesn't mean it's wrong, hypothetically, lets say you are sitting in your room and your mum is murdered down stairs yet you hear nothing, the perpetrator leaves no evidence of another presence in the house and you were alone in the house with your mother at the time. Your dad comes home and finds your mother dead and calls the police, who arrest you under suspicion of being the guilty party as your fingerprints are all over the house and you were the most likely to have commited the murder as you and your mother did not get along, if we used your theory since you were statistically more likely to be the culprit you are guilty and the cops do not search for any other evidence or suspects. Is that a fair judgement? The answer is you were innocent but if your theory was accepted universally you'd be seen as guilty as that would be the logical way to think.

Statistics can't show what will happen or did happen in history, it can guess but nothing more. Science isn't much better but we do have some degree of evidence and we work to figure out more and more every day.

Also if you can't comprehend god or anything he does how can you say there is a god or even know of him?

Your theory isn't wrong it's grammatically retarded simply because its statistically unlikely doesn't disprove it, the word you were looking for was not impossible it was improbable. Also if god can do something it's not impossible, now is it? Else he couldn't do it either.

I'm sorry to say this but your final sentence is to deny even what the bible says, the bible says we ate the fruit of knowledge and started to delve into the who, what, where, why and how of everything. It is human nature to ask questions, and i ask you but one favour, read the book 1984 by george orwell, then tell me that questions are bad.

I look forward to your retort.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.