Support Forums

(06-23-2011, 09:14 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: [ -> ]My point in all this is that there is vintually zero chance that we are here simply because of luck.

"Virtually zero" and zero (for real) are not one in the same. It's a huge leap of logic -- and, indeed, a flaw in it -- to jump from one to the other so readily.

Just because you can't comprehend the size and scale of the Universe, doesn't mean it doesn't operate according to rational laws... Throwing God out as an explanation only serves to show man's limited capacity for understanding things bigger than he.

EDIT:

(06-24-2011, 01:56 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: [ -> ]I am not religious, religion is poison. The etymology of the word religion points to ritual and ritual is a stupid part of religion that I don't follow because it was done away with, with the new testament.

A lot of the things that have been said in this thread are ignorant and stupid, but good God, this is quite honestly one of the most retarded things I've seen on this site yet. That isn't the etymology for "religion" at all.

Quote:Origin:
1150–1200; Middle English religioun (< Old French religion ) < Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō ) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig ( āre ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament) + -iōn- -ion; compare rely

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Re- means again; and -legion means to bind. Religion is supposed to be the way humans rediscover the supernatural and/or higher planes of existence...

It has nothing at all to do with ritual. The roots are completely different. Do you guys do your homework at all before saying things like that? Or is everyone guessing here?

Providence Wrote:"Virtually zero" and zero (for real) are not one in the same. It's a huge leap of logic -- and, indeed, a flaw in it -- to jump from one to the other so readily.

Virtual zero means that there is a very minute chance of a certain outcome, so small of a chance that the actual possibility is said to be zero. The problem with differentiating the two is where do you draw the line? What actually has a zero chance of happening? For every outcome of anything I can make up some absurd explanation that has very little chance and little to no evidence. Besides, how does differentiating the difference between virtual zero and actual zero prove any of what I said to be false? It doesn't. It just differentiates the difference between virtual zero and actual zero.

Providence Wrote:Just because you can't comprehend the size and scale of the Universe, doesn't mean it doesn't operate according to rational laws...

I agree with you. I cannot truly grasp the size and complexity of this universe. I never said that this world doesn't operate according to rational laws. I believe that the world adheres to rational laws and that is only the more reason to believe in a rational designer.

Providence Wrote:Throwing God out as an explanation only serves to show man's limited capacity for understanding things bigger than he.

I also agree with this statement. There are plenty of Darwinists who cannot allow God as an explanation of anything because they have a prior commitment to materialism. This is absurd because they presuppose that God cannot be an explanation and thus choose not to believe what there is evidence for, nor do they want to even begin to review the evidence. This is the willful blindness that I mentioned in previous posts.

Providence Wrote:A lot of the things that have been said in this thread are ignorant and stupid, but good God, this is quite honestly one of the most retarded things I've seen on this site yet. That isn't the etymology for "religion" at all.

Don't use retarded in that context please.
I never said that ritual was the etymology of the word religion. Read the post where I said that more carefully and you will see.

Ace Wrote:I have a degree in Physics, and I can confidentally say that there was something before the big bang. There's lots of other knowledge on Quantum, black holes, matter and antimatter that would suggest other ideas based on the big bang theory.

Okay, I should rephrase: Most physicists and I agree that there was nothing before the big bang. I am not trying to discredit the work you put into getting your degree in physics but you cannot make the claim that time existed because something existed on the quantum level before the big bang. Einstein's relativity explains the universe on a large scale, Quantum mechanics explains stuff on the atomic level. Thus the laws of Einsteins relativity do not need to apply to quantum theory.
But that is beside the point. From what I know of today's physics, information cannot travel through a singularity; no matter what happened "before" the big bang, we can’t detect any evidence from that point, so our knowledge of it is severely limited. Any hypothesis regarding history prior to the big bang is fundamentally untestable, there is no evidence for it, only speculation.

Ace Wrote:Laws weren't created by the universe, they were created by man, who's to say that they are right or wrong?

You are a man. You invented the law of "the laws of man are not necessarily true." Who's to say that that law is true?

Ace Wrote:That is definitely untrue, matter itself is usable to create energy. Matter itself isn't required as an immediate source of energy. Nuclear Fission, and Fusion for example. Fission is a chain reaction, which requires little assists to keep it going, however Fusion is not, although it does provide a more effective way of producing energy in larger quantities.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy in this universe is constant, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You said that matter itself is usable to create energy. That is false based on the first law. However what I think you meant to say was that matter can be turned back into energy. That is true, but when one form of energy changes to another form of energy it does not revert back to the original form of energy. This introduces another law, the law of entropy. The universe has a natural tendency to put things in a disorder. Thus the initial form of energy cannot be turned back into the other form of energy. It requires a cause. If I am at the top of a hill with a wagon, the wagon has gravitational potential energy (one of the many forms of energy). When I push the wagon down the hill the gravitational potential turns into kinetic energy. However the kinetic energy is not going to bring the wagon back up the hill because that requires me to go down and drag it back up (cause). The wagon can never restore the kinetic energy to it's potential all the way because of the law of efficiency.

Ace Wrote:What is God then, and how, and what created him to begin with since he couldn't exist all of a sudden or go back infinitely. You can't avoid the never-ending cycle backwards in time when you think of it logically.

Nothing created god. The creator of the universe has no beginning. The reason why you are having trouble understanding this is, well, because you are human (which is perfectly normal and understandable), and because you are presupposing that God existed after time came to be. God created the space-time and is not subject to it. I already believe there is a God and I can't even grasp the concept of infinity. How can anyone?

Trying to explain god to a human is like trying to explain to an ant how a television works.

Nice everyone has there reason

(06-27-2011, 07:19 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: [ -> ]Virtual zero means that there is a very minute chance of a certain outcome, so small of a chance that the actual possibility is said to be zero. The problem with differentiating the two is where do you draw the line? What actually has a zero chance of happening? For every outcome of anything I can make up some absurd explanation that has very little chance and little to no evidence. Besides, how does differentiating the difference between virtual zero and actual zero prove any of what I said to be false? It doesn't. It just differentiates the difference between virtual zero and actual zero.

Your attempt at mincing words here is an utter failure. You're basically rounding down to zero, and then predicating the rest of your arguments on a false analogy (i.e., that being close to zero is the same as zero itself).

You want to know where to draw the line? Okay then.

0 = 0

.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 > 0

The line is drawn -- mathematically -- when you go from an equal sign to a greater than sign.

Also, your suggestion that you can make more fallacies in your defense (such as reductio ad absurdum, like you stated) is just greater proof that your logic stands on shaky ground, I mean, heck... If we're talking about fantasy here, then your supposition that God can affect the physical universe is undone by the fact that it's fiction.

What's to stop me from making fictions myself, in order to combat yours? I'm sure you've heard of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster before. If your intent was to throw objectivity out the window this entire time then you should've probably stated that in your OP.

God didn't do the impossible; it wasn't impossible to begin with -- just incredibly unlikely. That's my point.

Providence Wrote:I agree with you. I cannot truly grasp the size and complexity of this universe. I never said that this world doesn't operate according to rational laws. I believe that the world adheres to rational laws and that is only the more reason to believe in a rational designer.

That, my friend, is a contradiction of terms, a failure of imagination on your part, and a perfect example of how the human mind is limited when it encounters things outside of its normal experience.

You're trying to inject a human element into the universe in the form of "God". Unfortunately, anthropomorphism of that nature doesn't exist at the cosmic scale. This has more to do with psychological transference of things that are known -- onto things that are unknown -- rather than real, factual science.

Providence Wrote:I also agree with this statement. There are plenty of Darwinists who cannot allow God as an explanation of anything because they have a prior commitment to materialism. This is absurd because they presuppose that God cannot be an explanation and thus choose not to believe what there is evidence for, nor do they want to even begin to review the evidence. This is the willful blindness that I mentioned in previous posts.

No matter how much you may wish it, lies are not the same as truth, and fallacies are not the same as evidence -- though you have much to say, little of it is of interest to me because of your preexisting misconceptions about epistemology.

Willful blindness can be justified when the idea or opinion in question is pointless and/or irrelevant in the first place. Simply yelling and begging that you're right doesn't make it so. You must provide proof.

Quote:I never said that ritual was the etymology of the word religion. Read the post where I said that more carefully and you will see.

Even relating it to religion is inaccurate (in a linguistic sense).

Quote:Origin:
1560–70; < Latin rītuālis, equivalent to rītu-, stem of rītus rite + -ālis -al1

In its modern-day usage, "ritual" appeared about 400 years after "religion" did. Also, the Latin root words are unrelated as well, which I've already shown.

You aren't really fit to be attacking OR defending either side of this argument.

Providence Wrote:The line is drawn -- mathematically -- when you
go from an equal sign to a greater than sign.

You make perfect sense, mathematically.
I am not trying to say that 10^-12 = 0 because it doesn't.

If I throw confetti out of an airplane and expect it to land in
the form of the Mona Lisa, mathematically the odds that it
will do as I expect are indeed not zero. But realistically, I do
not expect my confetti to take the shape of the Mona Lisa
because I know that the odds of that happening are very small.
But mathematically you are totally correct.
The odds are there, but in my favor.

Providence Wrote:God didn't do the impossible; it wasn't impossible to
begin with -- just incredibly unlikely. That's my point.

Okay, I understand why you so desperately wanted to differentiate
the difference between absolute zero and virtual zero.
It is because you want to believe that we are here because
of an incredibly small chance. Actually, you already do.
I cannot convince you otherwise because you already know that
you are here for no reason. You are here because the confetti landed
in just the right spots. Against all odds, you exist simply because it is just so.

Providence Wrote:That, my friend, is a contradiction of terms, a failure of
imagination on your part, and a perfect example of how the human mind is
limited when it encounters things outside of its normal experience.

You're trying to inject a human element into the universe in the form of "God".
Unfortunately, anthropomorphism of that nature doesn't exist at the cosmic scale.
This has more to do with psychological transference of things that are
known -- onto things that are unknown -- rather than real, factual science.

What do you mean by that? How did you come to this conclusion?
You are doing the same thing that you accuse me of doing.
You are putting yourself above the universe and declaring that this is
the way the universe and reality really is. How do you know what you
say is true? What is your explanation for the universe then?
You are still crediting the creation of the universe to a supernatural
power whether you call it God or not. If you believe that God didn't
create the universe and rather nothing created the universe then you
have more faith than I do because I can't believe that.

Providence Wrote:No matter how much you may wish it, lies are
not the same as truth, and fallacies are not the same as evidence --
though you have much to say, little of it is of interest to me because
of your preexisting misconceptions about epistemology.

Willful blindness can be justified when the idea or opinion in question is
pointless and/or irrelevant in the first place. Simply yelling and begging
that you're right doesn't make it so. You must provide proof.

You cannot begin to review my evidence if you dismiss it as a lie to start with.
Do you think it would be wise of me to use lies as evidence in a debate?
Of course not. Willful blindness is not okay in this situation because you
already dismiss the God as an insane topic. Let me point you to a passage
from a book called Billions and Billions of Demons By Harvard Biologist, Richard Lewontin.
This passage eloquently describes the way that a prior belief in materialism
cannot allow atheists to believe there is a God.

Quote:Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science
and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of
its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community of unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a
prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods
and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our
a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

People belive in God, because they have been raised as a Christian, and they believe that God has done good deeds/mircales for people. That is why people believe in Him.

The constants which allow us to live are pretty much set, and any changes which aren't too major we evolve around to survive.

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:Quantum mechanics explains stuff on the atomic level. Thus the laws of Einsteins relativity do not need to apply to quantum theory.

No, the theory of relativity is based on light, Quantum has everything to do with light, and just because Quantum deals with the smaller subatomic particles, doesn't mean that it doesn't deal with things on a larger scale. It deals with lots of things on the larger scale.

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:You are a man. You invented the law of "the laws of man are not necessarily true." Who's to say that that law is true?

There is no such thing, it's all based on perception, when you understand the bigger picture for the origins of such ideas.

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:However what I think you meant to say was that matter can be turned back into energy

No, that's not what I meant, the matter after and before a Nuclear reation is still considered matter, it doesn't just disappear, vanish, or change into something else unknown

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:That is true, but when one form of energy changes to another form of energy it does not revert back to the original form of energy

Nope, as an example for this, and there are others, potential energy changes to kinetic energy back and forth within the boundaries of mechanical energy all the time

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:If I am at the top of a hill with a wagon, the wagon has gravitational potential energy (one of the many forms of energy). When I push the wagon down the hill the gravitational potential turns into kinetic energy. However the kinetic energy is not going to bring the wagon back up the hill because that requires me to go down and drag it back up (cause)

lol, this is just a "set up" example, however there are others. If you had a track that dips down, and came back up to the original height from the initial start position, and say you had a marble, if you were to let the marble roll down the hill and go back up the incline to it's original height, it would have relatively the same momentum and energy that it did when it started, and assuming a frictionless apparatus, if that were possible to set up, it would have exactly the same level of energy from it's initial position. As Ek, and Ep interchange.

Annuit Coeptis Wrote:Nothing created god. The creator of the universe has no beginning. The reason why you are having trouble understanding this is, well, because you are human (which is perfectly normal and understandable), and because you are presupposing that God existed after time came to be. God created the space-time and is not subject to it. I already believe there is a God and I can't even grasp the concept of infinity. How can anyone?

You're simply religious then, there's no other reason for why you hold onto this conversation so tightly. And you are not human? how can you know for sure what you're talking about here with so far fetched discussion? You can't confirm that, you just keep trying to explain things as if your making things up as you go lol... It is literally nonsense as there is no definite and pin pointable piece of evidence that can explain that there is a God, people wouldn't even know what God is.

I struggle to believe what God would/is be, but I'm undecided on what I believe. The Scientists view on the earth could be correct, but so could the 'God' view.

When it gets down and dirty, people only believe in God to make sense of this world.