Random Chance or Specific Design?
- Thread starter Mook Mangla P
- Start date
n9newunsixx5150, I didnt reply to this topic for a reason. You keep dancing around my questions, even after I re-stated them. Here they are for the third time;
"Let me ask you these questions. What evidence do you have for creationism? Are there any facts? Are there any signs of proof? Is there any real reason to believe?"
I clearly understand that you believe in creationism and evolution. I can see that. I have re-read and re-re-read your replies hoping that I missed answers to my questions before, but no, I didnt.
What I would also like to know n9ne is how can one come to the conclusion that there is a god? You obviously seem to know a lot about this god, you speak freely about what god is and what god is not, but how do you know all of this? Please do not dance around this one, I am really interested in reading your reasoning.
"Let me ask you these questions. What evidence do you have for creationism? Are there any facts? Are there any signs of proof? Is there any real reason to believe?"
I clearly understand that you believe in creationism and evolution. I can see that. I have re-read and re-re-read your replies hoping that I missed answers to my questions before, but no, I didnt.
What I would also like to know n9ne is how can one come to the conclusion that there is a god? You obviously seem to know a lot about this god, you speak freely about what god is and what god is not, but how do you know all of this? Please do not dance around this one, I am really interested in reading your reasoning.
this is what I feel I and n9newunsixx have been arguing. Let me offer some definitions which I got from Britannica Concise..
or_teleological argument;_Argument for the existence of God.
From the premises that anything complex (appearing designed) must have a creator and that the universe is very intricate, the argument concludes that God exists. Its history traces from Aristotle, who defined God as the unmoved (or prime)mover. Thomas Aquinas used the argument in his Ways. David Hume discussed it critically at length. Some thinkers, including Immanuel Kant, suggest that the reasoning is fallacious because it presupposes its own conclusion.Argument that proceeds from the idea of God to the reality of God.
It was first clearly formulated by St. Anselm in his Proslogion (1077-78); a later famous version is given by Descartes. Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction, since a beingthat lacks real existence is not a being than which none greater can be conceived. A yet greater being would be one with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably perfect being must exist; otherwise it would not be unsurpassably perfect. This is among the most discussed and contested arguments in the history of thought.
Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Evolution
It is one of the keystones of modern biological theory. In 1858 Charles Darwin andAlfred Russel Wallace published a paper on evolution that revolutionized all later biological study. The heart of Darwinian evolution is the mechanism of natural selection. Surviving individuals, who vary (see variation) in some way that enables them to live longer and reproduce, pass on their advantage to succeeding generations. In 1937 Theodosius Dobzhansky applied Mendelian genetics (see Gregor Mendel) to Darwinian theory, contributing to the new understanding of evolution as the cumulative action of natural selection on small genetic variations in whole populations. Part of the proof of evolution is in the fossil record, which shows a succession of gradually changing forms leading up to those known today. Structural similarities and similarities in embryonic development among living forms also point to common ancestry. Molecular biology (especially the study of genes and proteins) provides the most detailed evidence of evolutionary change. Though the theory of evolution is accepted by nearly the entire scientific community, it has sparked much controversy from Darwin's time to the present; most objections have come from religious leaders and thinkers (see creation science). See also Hugo de Vries, Ernst Haeckel, human evolution, Ernst Mayr, parallel evolution, phylogeny, sociocultural evolution, speciation.
20-sixx I think you need to re-read the posts and realize that n9newunsixx was talking about the design of a computer. So there I suppose is his evidence. Facts? hmmm I guess his mind and the world he views is his facts. What about your dreams? can you produce facts that you dream? or are we suppose to take your word that you have these dreams. Same goes for the view of creation. We see that a Higher power must of created all of this. Signs of proof? what do you want me to prove to you. It isn't something you see it is a understanding which is lived. You live it then see it. Not see it then you live it.
How can one come to the conclusion that there is a God. Well simply realizing that there is a greater power in this world. For I am only a mere human with limited capabilities. This God or god holds powers which I do not know of or can define.
"I once was blind but now I see"
I see something you don't see. Mabey it is like a dream. Only I can talk about my dream. I can't show you my dream. It only holds the same signifigence for me. Where is my scientific proof that I dream. I don't have any. Can I trust my dreams? my mind? Take a look on how religion is based around dreams. It's pretty intresting. I haven't had much study into it. But I feel dreams play a key role in the development of religion.
Can science explain de ja vu? I was just wondering. De ja vu just trips me out. I was just wondering if anyone knew what exactly it was and how science messures such fantoms.
or_teleological argument;_Argument for the existence of God.
From the premises that anything complex (appearing designed) must have a creator and that the universe is very intricate, the argument concludes that God exists. Its history traces from Aristotle, who defined God as the unmoved (or prime)mover. Thomas Aquinas used the argument in his Ways. David Hume discussed it critically at length. Some thinkers, including Immanuel Kant, suggest that the reasoning is fallacious because it presupposes its own conclusion.Argument that proceeds from the idea of God to the reality of God.
It was first clearly formulated by St. Anselm in his Proslogion (1077-78); a later famous version is given by Descartes. Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction, since a beingthat lacks real existence is not a being than which none greater can be conceived. A yet greater being would be one with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably perfect being must exist; otherwise it would not be unsurpassably perfect. This is among the most discussed and contested arguments in the history of thought.
Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Evolution
It is one of the keystones of modern biological theory. In 1858 Charles Darwin andAlfred Russel Wallace published a paper on evolution that revolutionized all later biological study. The heart of Darwinian evolution is the mechanism of natural selection. Surviving individuals, who vary (see variation) in some way that enables them to live longer and reproduce, pass on their advantage to succeeding generations. In 1937 Theodosius Dobzhansky applied Mendelian genetics (see Gregor Mendel) to Darwinian theory, contributing to the new understanding of evolution as the cumulative action of natural selection on small genetic variations in whole populations. Part of the proof of evolution is in the fossil record, which shows a succession of gradually changing forms leading up to those known today. Structural similarities and similarities in embryonic development among living forms also point to common ancestry. Molecular biology (especially the study of genes and proteins) provides the most detailed evidence of evolutionary change. Though the theory of evolution is accepted by nearly the entire scientific community, it has sparked much controversy from Darwin's time to the present; most objections have come from religious leaders and thinkers (see creation science). See also Hugo de Vries, Ernst Haeckel, human evolution, Ernst Mayr, parallel evolution, phylogeny, sociocultural evolution, speciation.
20-sixx I think you need to re-read the posts and realize that n9newunsixx was talking about the design of a computer. So there I suppose is his evidence. Facts? hmmm I guess his mind and the world he views is his facts. What about your dreams? can you produce facts that you dream? or are we suppose to take your word that you have these dreams. Same goes for the view of creation. We see that a Higher power must of created all of this. Signs of proof? what do you want me to prove to you. It isn't something you see it is a understanding which is lived. You live it then see it. Not see it then you live it.
How can one come to the conclusion that there is a God. Well simply realizing that there is a greater power in this world. For I am only a mere human with limited capabilities. This God or god holds powers which I do not know of or can define.
"I once was blind but now I see"
I see something you don't see. Mabey it is like a dream. Only I can talk about my dream. I can't show you my dream. It only holds the same signifigence for me. Where is my scientific proof that I dream. I don't have any. Can I trust my dreams? my mind? Take a look on how religion is based around dreams. It's pretty intresting. I haven't had much study into it. But I feel dreams play a key role in the development of religion.
Can science explain de ja vu? I was just wondering. De ja vu just trips me out. I was just wondering if anyone knew what exactly it was and how science messures such fantoms.
Well basically you have offered some "definitions" but all you really did was bring up the argument that everything is complex and therefore must have a creator. It doesn’t offer why one should believe in god.
I know this thread is about evolution and most of this should be placed under the "why do you believe in god" thread.
No, n9ne was not talking about a computer on this thread, I think your confused with the "why do you believe in god" thread.
How is that evidence? Using computers as an example reminds me of the Watchmaker analogy, which has many flaws, which I will state.
In the so-called Watchmaker Argument, one is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three major flaws. First off, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a computer, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.
What one believes in his own mind does not make a fact.
Fact = 1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
3.Something proven
What about my dreams? Yes, I could produce facts that I dream. Scientific study can prove humans have dreams. Of course, if I were to tell you I had a dream about flying elves, I could not PROVE it.
You SEE a higher power MUST have created all of this. That is YOUR belief and it is ONLY a belief. In your mind, it only makes sense that there MUST be a god. There MUST be a CREATOR. Your beliefs are NOT based on facts, only speculation.
"It isn't something you see it is a understanding which is lived. You live it then see it. Not see it then you live it" -That statement is absolutely garbage in this discussion. The exact same could be said for Atheism.
Your answer is "simply realizing that there is a greater power in this world"? How ridiculous. Well I could say the same, I have just simply realized that there is NO greater power in this world, but that would not be very intellectual, now would it? I do not believe in a god because there is no supporting evidence to do so.
If you are ONLY a mere human w/limited capabilities and god holds powers that you cannot know of or comprehend, then how can you believe in it? How can you know of the unknowable?
Your beliefs and n9nes beliefs sound a lot more like a philosophy then anything.
Im not sure where I stand on de ja vu but I do know that a lot of time and money have gone into the science comunity for research on the subject. It is a very interesting topic and I encourage you to start a new thread on it.
I know this thread is about evolution and most of this should be placed under the "why do you believe in god" thread.
No, n9ne was not talking about a computer on this thread, I think your confused with the "why do you believe in god" thread.
How is that evidence? Using computers as an example reminds me of the Watchmaker analogy, which has many flaws, which I will state.
In the so-called Watchmaker Argument, one is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three major flaws. First off, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a computer, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.
What one believes in his own mind does not make a fact.
Fact = 1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
2.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
3.Something proven
What about my dreams? Yes, I could produce facts that I dream. Scientific study can prove humans have dreams. Of course, if I were to tell you I had a dream about flying elves, I could not PROVE it.
You SEE a higher power MUST have created all of this. That is YOUR belief and it is ONLY a belief. In your mind, it only makes sense that there MUST be a god. There MUST be a CREATOR. Your beliefs are NOT based on facts, only speculation.
"It isn't something you see it is a understanding which is lived. You live it then see it. Not see it then you live it" -That statement is absolutely garbage in this discussion. The exact same could be said for Atheism.
Your answer is "simply realizing that there is a greater power in this world"? How ridiculous. Well I could say the same, I have just simply realized that there is NO greater power in this world, but that would not be very intellectual, now would it? I do not believe in a god because there is no supporting evidence to do so.
If you are ONLY a mere human w/limited capabilities and god holds powers that you cannot know of or comprehend, then how can you believe in it? How can you know of the unknowable?
Your beliefs and n9nes beliefs sound a lot more like a philosophy then anything.
Im not sure where I stand on de ja vu but I do know that a lot of time and money have gone into the science comunity for research on the subject. It is a very interesting topic and I encourage you to start a new thread on it.
quote:
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three major flaws. First off, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
I never used the "computer" as an example the same way you use this "watchmaker" example. Before we go any further with this thread you need to remember the difference between a literal concept of the Bible's idea of creation and mine. God created the world in MIND.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a computer, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Yes, a watchmaker makes watches. As does an "everything maker" make everything. The watchmaker example is merely a finite example of an infinite being. It has its points and its limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Where does it say that nature is random?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok now for your precious questions.......
1. What evidence do you have for creationism?
You must still be thinking of creationism as taken literally in the bible. Go bacc and read what I wrote about it in the beginning then think about this question again. Because I have no evidence for the bible's concept of it. I was never arguing that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Is there any real reason to believe?"
one word......... Reconciliation. Once we can fit these supposedly opposing ideas within one reality, sooner can we be free from these debates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What I would also like to know n9ne is how can one come to the conclusion that there is a god? You obviously seem to know a lot about this god, you speak freely about what god is and what god is not, but how do you know all of this? Please do not dance around this one, I am really interested in reading your reasoning.
As much as I would like to be able to sit here and explain the process of understanding God, it is a very very very long discussion. Believing in God comes with an open mind. If you believe in the righteousness of an open mind then you will find answers to God. I believe "God" is of an infinite nature. If its easier for you to understand replace the word "God" with "reality". I believe reality is of an infinite nature. All our concepts fall short to understanding this infinity. With this I would tell you that all things which are limiting or binding are absolutely false. Keep that in mind when you are arguing against infinity. To have an open mind is to believe. To believe is to have faith. The idea of God is a means to an end (and a beginning). What I mean by this is, you can say that everything was created from the "big bang". But, all the substance from the big bang is the same substance we have now just much much more compacted. The big bang only supply's us with an idea of the beginning of our solar system as we know it today. It has no reality in the existence of things. Existence itself is self explanitory. This is why I told you God is Existence. And you do believe in existence. Thats the best way I can put it. As it is known to those who study the ideas of God, God is eternal. He must be, otherwise he wouldnt be GOD. Something that is born, dies. It is impossible for God to not exist at any point. For if he did, God would not exist at all. And if God didn't exist then niether would existence because God is existence. And, if God be eternal like we know he must be, then so shall all parts of God (existence) be eternal. This implies that there really wasn't a true "beginning" to existence as we mortals conceive of one. Existence is eternal with the eternal one because the eternal one is existence! GOD VERIFIES EXISTENCE. And at the same time. EXISTENCE VERIFIES GOD. This is why I asked if you believe in existence. It is, seemingly, a paradox. But so are many things. For example, the mind; it is what imprisons you, yet it is what holds the key. I suggest you read The Kybalion. It isn't very long and it is well worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three major flaws. First off, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
I never used the "computer" as an example the same way you use this "watchmaker" example. Before we go any further with this thread you need to remember the difference between a literal concept of the Bible's idea of creation and mine. God created the world in MIND.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a computer, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Yes, a watchmaker makes watches. As does an "everything maker" make everything. The watchmaker example is merely a finite example of an infinite being. It has its points and its limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Where does it say that nature is random?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok now for your precious questions.......
1. What evidence do you have for creationism?
You must still be thinking of creationism as taken literally in the bible. Go bacc and read what I wrote about it in the beginning then think about this question again. Because I have no evidence for the bible's concept of it. I was never arguing that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.Is there any real reason to believe?"
one word......... Reconciliation. Once we can fit these supposedly opposing ideas within one reality, sooner can we be free from these debates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What I would also like to know n9ne is how can one come to the conclusion that there is a god? You obviously seem to know a lot about this god, you speak freely about what god is and what god is not, but how do you know all of this? Please do not dance around this one, I am really interested in reading your reasoning.
As much as I would like to be able to sit here and explain the process of understanding God, it is a very very very long discussion. Believing in God comes with an open mind. If you believe in the righteousness of an open mind then you will find answers to God. I believe "God" is of an infinite nature. If its easier for you to understand replace the word "God" with "reality". I believe reality is of an infinite nature. All our concepts fall short to understanding this infinity. With this I would tell you that all things which are limiting or binding are absolutely false. Keep that in mind when you are arguing against infinity. To have an open mind is to believe. To believe is to have faith. The idea of God is a means to an end (and a beginning). What I mean by this is, you can say that everything was created from the "big bang". But, all the substance from the big bang is the same substance we have now just much much more compacted. The big bang only supply's us with an idea of the beginning of our solar system as we know it today. It has no reality in the existence of things. Existence itself is self explanitory. This is why I told you God is Existence. And you do believe in existence. Thats the best way I can put it. As it is known to those who study the ideas of God, God is eternal. He must be, otherwise he wouldnt be GOD. Something that is born, dies. It is impossible for God to not exist at any point. For if he did, God would not exist at all. And if God didn't exist then niether would existence because God is existence. And, if God be eternal like we know he must be, then so shall all parts of God (existence) be eternal. This implies that there really wasn't a true "beginning" to existence as we mortals conceive of one. Existence is eternal with the eternal one because the eternal one is existence! GOD VERIFIES EXISTENCE. And at the same time. EXISTENCE VERIFIES GOD. This is why I asked if you believe in existence. It is, seemingly, a paradox. But so are many things. For example, the mind; it is what imprisons you, yet it is what holds the key. I suggest you read The Kybalion. It isn't very long and it is well worth it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although i am not in any way a subscriber to any religion, i do believe in creationism.
call it god the boogieman or the great grey ghost. whoever they were that created the universe in all likely hood treat us as the equivalent of a windows screen saver. nothing you really fucc with although its amusing to look at every once in a while.
creationism is scientific. the constraints of which have not yet been defined.
computers are portals that are used to reflect the imaginations and thoughts of mankind; an extension of our minds. if we are created with any specialness we were created to realize that just as we have the will to create in all likely hood we were created like the virtual universes we create to immulate our universe.
call it god the boogieman or the great grey ghost. whoever they were that created the universe in all likely hood treat us as the equivalent of a windows screen saver. nothing you really fucc with although its amusing to look at every once in a while.
creationism is scientific. the constraints of which have not yet been defined.
computers are portals that are used to reflect the imaginations and thoughts of mankind; an extension of our minds. if we are created with any specialness we were created to realize that just as we have the will to create in all likely hood we were created like the virtual universes we create to immulate our universe.
@n9ne, sorry it took so long to reply. I've been real busy with school.
"As much as I would like to be able to sit here and explain the process of understanding God, it is a very very very long discussion."
Yes, please explain how this complicated god works…
"Believing in God comes with an open mind. If you believe in the righteousness of an open mind then you will find answers to God."
Don’t assume that everyone with an open mind necessarily believes in god.
"I believe "God" is of an infinite nature. If its easier for you to understand replace the word "God" with "reality". I believe reality is of an infinite nature. All our concepts fall short to understanding this infinity."
You’ll need to elaborate on this. The concept of infinity is well defined in science. Okay, reality meaning what – (perceived) existence?
"With this I would tell you that all things which are limiting or binding are absolutely false."
What do you mean by this? Are you trying to say that anything that would prove/show that the nature of the universe (reality?) is finite is false? Where do you get this information from?
"Keep that in mind when you are arguing against infinity."
Yeah, we know, but you haven’t made a case for an “infinite reality” yet.
"To have an open mind is to believe."
Hmm… I always thought the phrase open mind referred to one being open to all possibilities. A belief is pretty singular.
"To believe is to have faith. The idea of God is a means to an end (and a beginning). What I mean by this is, you can say that everything was created from the "big bang". But, all the substance from the big bang is the same substance we have now just much much more compacted. The big bang only supply's us with an idea of the beginning of our solar system as we know it today. It has no reality in the existence of things. Existence itself is self explanitory. This is why I told you God is Existence. "
From our current understanding of physics, the big bang is also responsible for space time, also known as existence. This is not a belief. This understanding comes to be when you perform the complex calculations involved in everything in the universe getting really close to one another. Einstein wasn’t a genius for nothing.
"And you do believe in existence. That’s the best way I can put it."
Well, you’ve created a chicken and egg paradox for yourself. How does god exist? If you want to argue that he just always has existed, use that same train of thought for the life cycle of the universe. If we didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be typing this e-mail right now. Existence is a 50/50 chance, either you do or don’t. What if we didn’t exist? Would there still be a god?
"As it is known to those who study the ideas of God, God is eternal. He must be, otherwise he wouldnt be GOD. Something that is born, dies. It is impossible for God to not exist at any point. For if he did, God would not exist at all. And if God didn't exist then niether would existence because God is existence."
Okay, so god is existence, a replacement word for universe. If you want the word god to inherit all the physical properties of space time, then he will also have to inherit the property of space time NOT being sentient.
"And, if God be eternal like we know he must be, then so shall all parts of God (existence) be eternal. This implies that there really wasn't a true "beginning" to existence as we mortals conceive of one."
So are you saying that evidence of the big bang is evidence in god not being eternal?
"Existence is eternal with the eternal one because the eternal one is existence!"
Remember, you haven’t proven existence (god) is sentient yet. So far, all you have done is substituted his name for existence, a property dependant on space time. We know from physics that there are extreme bodies of mass in the universe that actually distort and destroy space time. Can/do these things hurt/kill god?
"GOD VERIFIES EXISTENCE."
god -> existence DOESN”T logically verify god. However, if we knew that existence -> god, and we know existence is true, and then god would also be true by modus ponens. But to this date, we know nothing of existence that resembles god’s personality. You need some understanding of logic. Even god can’t escape the rules of logic, unless you subscribe to the idea that he can create a squared circle, then you’re just wacky.
"And at the same time. EXISTENCE VERIFIES GOD."
Yeah, if you could get non believers of god to believe that existence implies god, then god would logically exist. However, there are already good scientific explanations for existence (big bang), so we are not limited to the idea that there must be a supernatural being in order for existence to take place. This was a good argument for god though about a thousand years ago when we didn’t know how to measure red shift.
"This is why I asked if you believe in existence."
Yeah, I do.
"It is, seemingly, a paradox."
No, it’s not. Again, god->existence doesn’t prove god to be true. Assume god is false for a moment, then, god(F) -> existence(T) is vacuously true. As you can clearly see, we have a true existence regardless of the value of god. But, if you want to show that the statement existence(T) -> god(T) is true, then we must know that existence implies there is god, but as I said before, we non believers already have an answer for existence thanks to Hubble.
"But so are many things. For example, the mind; it is what imprisons you, yet it is what holds the key. I suggest you read The Kybalion. It isn't very long and it is well worth it. "
Oh no, more logical inconsistencies. We don’t know that the mind necessarily imprisons one
"As much as I would like to be able to sit here and explain the process of understanding God, it is a very very very long discussion."
Yes, please explain how this complicated god works…
"Believing in God comes with an open mind. If you believe in the righteousness of an open mind then you will find answers to God."
Don’t assume that everyone with an open mind necessarily believes in god.
"I believe "God" is of an infinite nature. If its easier for you to understand replace the word "God" with "reality". I believe reality is of an infinite nature. All our concepts fall short to understanding this infinity."
You’ll need to elaborate on this. The concept of infinity is well defined in science. Okay, reality meaning what – (perceived) existence?
"With this I would tell you that all things which are limiting or binding are absolutely false."
What do you mean by this? Are you trying to say that anything that would prove/show that the nature of the universe (reality?) is finite is false? Where do you get this information from?
"Keep that in mind when you are arguing against infinity."
Yeah, we know, but you haven’t made a case for an “infinite reality” yet.
"To have an open mind is to believe."
Hmm… I always thought the phrase open mind referred to one being open to all possibilities. A belief is pretty singular.
"To believe is to have faith. The idea of God is a means to an end (and a beginning). What I mean by this is, you can say that everything was created from the "big bang". But, all the substance from the big bang is the same substance we have now just much much more compacted. The big bang only supply's us with an idea of the beginning of our solar system as we know it today. It has no reality in the existence of things. Existence itself is self explanitory. This is why I told you God is Existence. "
From our current understanding of physics, the big bang is also responsible for space time, also known as existence. This is not a belief. This understanding comes to be when you perform the complex calculations involved in everything in the universe getting really close to one another. Einstein wasn’t a genius for nothing.
"And you do believe in existence. That’s the best way I can put it."
Well, you’ve created a chicken and egg paradox for yourself. How does god exist? If you want to argue that he just always has existed, use that same train of thought for the life cycle of the universe. If we didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be typing this e-mail right now. Existence is a 50/50 chance, either you do or don’t. What if we didn’t exist? Would there still be a god?
"As it is known to those who study the ideas of God, God is eternal. He must be, otherwise he wouldnt be GOD. Something that is born, dies. It is impossible for God to not exist at any point. For if he did, God would not exist at all. And if God didn't exist then niether would existence because God is existence."
Okay, so god is existence, a replacement word for universe. If you want the word god to inherit all the physical properties of space time, then he will also have to inherit the property of space time NOT being sentient.
"And, if God be eternal like we know he must be, then so shall all parts of God (existence) be eternal. This implies that there really wasn't a true "beginning" to existence as we mortals conceive of one."
So are you saying that evidence of the big bang is evidence in god not being eternal?
"Existence is eternal with the eternal one because the eternal one is existence!"
Remember, you haven’t proven existence (god) is sentient yet. So far, all you have done is substituted his name for existence, a property dependant on space time. We know from physics that there are extreme bodies of mass in the universe that actually distort and destroy space time. Can/do these things hurt/kill god?
"GOD VERIFIES EXISTENCE."
god -> existence DOESN”T logically verify god. However, if we knew that existence -> god, and we know existence is true, and then god would also be true by modus ponens. But to this date, we know nothing of existence that resembles god’s personality. You need some understanding of logic. Even god can’t escape the rules of logic, unless you subscribe to the idea that he can create a squared circle, then you’re just wacky.
"And at the same time. EXISTENCE VERIFIES GOD."
Yeah, if you could get non believers of god to believe that existence implies god, then god would logically exist. However, there are already good scientific explanations for existence (big bang), so we are not limited to the idea that there must be a supernatural being in order for existence to take place. This was a good argument for god though about a thousand years ago when we didn’t know how to measure red shift.
"This is why I asked if you believe in existence."
Yeah, I do.
"It is, seemingly, a paradox."
No, it’s not. Again, god->existence doesn’t prove god to be true. Assume god is false for a moment, then, god(F) -> existence(T) is vacuously true. As you can clearly see, we have a true existence regardless of the value of god. But, if you want to show that the statement existence(T) -> god(T) is true, then we must know that existence implies there is god, but as I said before, we non believers already have an answer for existence thanks to Hubble.
"But so are many things. For example, the mind; it is what imprisons you, yet it is what holds the key. I suggest you read The Kybalion. It isn't very long and it is well worth it. "
Oh no, more logical inconsistencies. We don’t know that the mind necessarily imprisons one
"Lets start with God. For those who don't know let us establish that which we can know about the divine. God is infinite, eternal (never born, never dies), unchanging, etc. We must accept these being traits of God, otherwise we would imply that God has an end, or that God is subject to time or change. And if we did, then we defeat the whole purpose of God."
What? God has a purpose now?
"Anyway, if God be unchanging then the nature of God now must be the nature of God before, and for eternity. And as we see the world before us we realize that God's nature of creation isn't something that just arose one day when God decided or changed his mind about "non-creation". Because there is no "non-creation". God's nature of creating is eternal with his being. There will be no end to it and there was no beginning. There may have been a beginning to the forming or our solar system as we know it today."
You keep referring to only our solar system. The big bang also gives also gave birth to space time, which is needed for existence.
"But, all the things which are here now always existed in some form or another. What is involved in this eternal process of creation evolves. As far as evolving from one species to the next, who knows for sure. Creationism doesn't go against evolution. It doesn't even go against the idea of random chance. That random chance existed only in a world of infinite possibilities, with these possibilities sprung life over billions of years."
Yes, there exists a large possibility for the chance of life. But I can’t agree that the possibilities are infinite, because there are boundaries of existence in our universe.
"That infinity is God. It is not merely a blind concept of science. To say that it is is to completely show ignorance of what infinity really is."
You say “that infinity is god” with such authority. What is your reasoning for this? Can I also say infinity is the tooth fairy? Why must you attach a being to a mathematical concept?
"Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things unlimited. That means intelligence to."
Infinity must be infinite, hehe, yeah I suppose. No, that doesn’t mean intelligence too. From what we know, something, some sort of machinery is needed in creating intelligence. This machinery takes up space. The universe has a finite amount of matter. If we used all the matter in the universe to create the most intelligent brain ever, that would be our limit of intelligence. Save your breathe in arguing about how the brain can reinvent its self. Yes, this is true, but the brain or any computing device can only reinvent its self in order to achieve greater intelligence so many times based on the amount of neurons, or whatever basic processing unit it posses. So this is again a finite limit.
"So, really, depending on your point of view, it was both intelligence and randomness that gave birth to the world that we know. "
No, there is no intelligence involved with the process of evolution.
"I feel what most of us think about creation is the idea literally portrayed in the bible of an "empty" existence with things all of the sudden being created. In reality, because creation never had a beginning, the creation of our world as we know it was merely an evolution of what was already here. I know longer see a difference between the terms creation and evolution. They work together."
Okay, that’s great. Please give me a better explanation for the existence of god.
What? God has a purpose now?
"Anyway, if God be unchanging then the nature of God now must be the nature of God before, and for eternity. And as we see the world before us we realize that God's nature of creation isn't something that just arose one day when God decided or changed his mind about "non-creation". Because there is no "non-creation". God's nature of creating is eternal with his being. There will be no end to it and there was no beginning. There may have been a beginning to the forming or our solar system as we know it today."
You keep referring to only our solar system. The big bang also gives also gave birth to space time, which is needed for existence.
"But, all the things which are here now always existed in some form or another. What is involved in this eternal process of creation evolves. As far as evolving from one species to the next, who knows for sure. Creationism doesn't go against evolution. It doesn't even go against the idea of random chance. That random chance existed only in a world of infinite possibilities, with these possibilities sprung life over billions of years."
Yes, there exists a large possibility for the chance of life. But I can’t agree that the possibilities are infinite, because there are boundaries of existence in our universe.
"That infinity is God. It is not merely a blind concept of science. To say that it is is to completely show ignorance of what infinity really is."
You say “that infinity is god” with such authority. What is your reasoning for this? Can I also say infinity is the tooth fairy? Why must you attach a being to a mathematical concept?
"Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things unlimited. That means intelligence to."
Infinity must be infinite, hehe, yeah I suppose. No, that doesn’t mean intelligence too. From what we know, something, some sort of machinery is needed in creating intelligence. This machinery takes up space. The universe has a finite amount of matter. If we used all the matter in the universe to create the most intelligent brain ever, that would be our limit of intelligence. Save your breathe in arguing about how the brain can reinvent its self. Yes, this is true, but the brain or any computing device can only reinvent its self in order to achieve greater intelligence so many times based on the amount of neurons, or whatever basic processing unit it posses. So this is again a finite limit.
"So, really, depending on your point of view, it was both intelligence and randomness that gave birth to the world that we know. "
No, there is no intelligence involved with the process of evolution.
"I feel what most of us think about creation is the idea literally portrayed in the bible of an "empty" existence with things all of the sudden being created. In reality, because creation never had a beginning, the creation of our world as we know it was merely an evolution of what was already here. I know longer see a difference between the terms creation and evolution. They work together."
Okay, that’s great. Please give me a better explanation for the existence of god.
quote:
Hmm… I always thought the phrase open mind referred to one being open to all possibilities. A belief is pretty singular.
To say you have an open mind and conceive a possibility of absolute limitation is contradictory. So to believe in an infinite God is closer to reality than to believe in a finite existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
From our current understanding of physics, the big bang is also responsible for space time, also known as existence. This is not a belief. This understanding comes to be when you perform the complex calculations involved in everything in the universe getting really close to one another. Einstein wasn’t a genius for nothing.
space-time isn't all of existence. Your concept of existence is finite!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What if we didn’t exist? Would there still be a god?
what if??? pointless speculation....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Okay, so god is existence, a replacement word for universe. If you want the word god to inherit all the physical properties of space time, then he will also have to inherit the property of space time NOT being sentient.
God is beyond space and time, but they are a part of him. Sentience far greater than any human......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
So are you saying that evidence of the big bang is evidence in god not being eternal?
God is not the big bang because the big bang is NOT existence. The big bang does not have origin in the creation of matter. It only has origin in the expansion of our universe....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Remember, you haven’t proven existence (god) is sentient yet. So far, all you have done is substituted his name for existence, a property dependant on space time. We know from physics that there are extreme bodies of mass in the universe that actually distort and destroy space time. Can/do these things hurt/kill god?
God is sentient because infinity must be infinite in all aspects. You cannot attempt to define infinity. By doing that you fall to your own finite concept of it. Infinity is the definition of infinite. You can either accept it or forget it all together. Distort and destroy time which proves, undoubtedly, that time is not absolute! once again, space-time is not the full reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But to this date, we know nothing of existence that resembles god’s personality. You need some understanding of logic. Even god can’t escape the rules of logic, unless you subscribe to the idea that he can create a squared circle, then you’re just wacky.
You know nothing of existence which resembles personality traits which have been acquired to God, but...........yourself! Perhaps your logic is half wise....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yeah, if you could get non believers of god to believe that existence implies god, then god would logically exist. However, there are already good scientific explanations for existence (big bang), so we are not limited to the idea that there must be a supernatural being in order for existence to take place. This was a good argument for god though about a thousand years ago when we didn’t know how to measure red shift.
So you are not limited to the idea that the big bang is the full reality of existence. God is as natural as he is supernatural. Not sure what red shift is........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Oh no, more logical inconsistencies. We don’t know that the mind necessarily imprisons one.
Of course we know this! mind is everything. It cannot be escaped. All you know; all you experience is through mind. It is your bondage. It is your freedom!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What? God has a purpose now?
I was implying the purpose behind the IDEA of God. Not the purpose of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You keep referring to only our solar system. The big bang also gives also gave birth to space time, which is needed for existence.
needed only because it exists. Yet existence is much more than it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yes, there exists a large possibility for the chance of life. But I can’t agree that the possibilities are infinite, because there are boundaries of existence in our universe.
Yes, boundaries for space and time. Hence, space-time not absolute. This was Einstein's findings, in fact. That space-time is not absolute as originally thought in Newtonian physics. The possibilities ARE infinite given eternity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You say “that infinity is god” with such authority. What is your reasoning for this? Can I also say infinity is the tooth fairy? Why must you attach a being to a mathematical concept?
To say that the tooth fairy is infinity is limiting the infinite. God does not limit the infinite because God is just that. If you wish to replace the word God with tooth fairy, be my guest. Also, infinity is much more than a mathematical concept....it must be infinite in all aspects otherwise you contradict yourself to speak of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Infinity must be infinite, hehe, yeah I suppose. No, that doesn’t mean intelligence too. From what we know, something, some sort of machinery is needed in creating intelligence. This machinery takes up space. The universe has a finite amount of matter. If we used all the matter in the universe to create the most intelligent brain ever, that would be our limit of intelligence. Save your breathe in arguing about how the brain can reinvent its self. Yes, this is true, but the brain or any computing device can only reinvent its self in order to achieve greater intelligence so many times based on the amount of neurons, or whatever basic processing unit it posses. So this is again a finite limit.
Just because our intelligence is finite does not mean a thing. Unless you wish to, once again, contradict infinity. We are merely a part. The brain is a finite piece of matter. The mind is infinite. What sort of "machinery" created your intelligence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
No, there is no intelligence involved with the process of evolution.
Then there is no intelligence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm… I always thought the phrase open mind referred to one being open to all possibilities. A belief is pretty singular.
To say you have an open mind and conceive a possibility of absolute limitation is contradictory. So to believe in an infinite God is closer to reality than to believe in a finite existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
From our current understanding of physics, the big bang is also responsible for space time, also known as existence. This is not a belief. This understanding comes to be when you perform the complex calculations involved in everything in the universe getting really close to one another. Einstein wasn’t a genius for nothing.
space-time isn't all of existence. Your concept of existence is finite!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What if we didn’t exist? Would there still be a god?
what if??? pointless speculation....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Okay, so god is existence, a replacement word for universe. If you want the word god to inherit all the physical properties of space time, then he will also have to inherit the property of space time NOT being sentient.
God is beyond space and time, but they are a part of him. Sentience far greater than any human......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
So are you saying that evidence of the big bang is evidence in god not being eternal?
God is not the big bang because the big bang is NOT existence. The big bang does not have origin in the creation of matter. It only has origin in the expansion of our universe....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Remember, you haven’t proven existence (god) is sentient yet. So far, all you have done is substituted his name for existence, a property dependant on space time. We know from physics that there are extreme bodies of mass in the universe that actually distort and destroy space time. Can/do these things hurt/kill god?
God is sentient because infinity must be infinite in all aspects. You cannot attempt to define infinity. By doing that you fall to your own finite concept of it. Infinity is the definition of infinite. You can either accept it or forget it all together. Distort and destroy time which proves, undoubtedly, that time is not absolute! once again, space-time is not the full reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But to this date, we know nothing of existence that resembles god’s personality. You need some understanding of logic. Even god can’t escape the rules of logic, unless you subscribe to the idea that he can create a squared circle, then you’re just wacky.
You know nothing of existence which resembles personality traits which have been acquired to God, but...........yourself! Perhaps your logic is half wise....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yeah, if you could get non believers of god to believe that existence implies god, then god would logically exist. However, there are already good scientific explanations for existence (big bang), so we are not limited to the idea that there must be a supernatural being in order for existence to take place. This was a good argument for god though about a thousand years ago when we didn’t know how to measure red shift.
So you are not limited to the idea that the big bang is the full reality of existence. God is as natural as he is supernatural. Not sure what red shift is........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Oh no, more logical inconsistencies. We don’t know that the mind necessarily imprisons one.
Of course we know this! mind is everything. It cannot be escaped. All you know; all you experience is through mind. It is your bondage. It is your freedom!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What? God has a purpose now?
I was implying the purpose behind the IDEA of God. Not the purpose of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You keep referring to only our solar system. The big bang also gives also gave birth to space time, which is needed for existence.
needed only because it exists. Yet existence is much more than it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yes, there exists a large possibility for the chance of life. But I can’t agree that the possibilities are infinite, because there are boundaries of existence in our universe.
Yes, boundaries for space and time. Hence, space-time not absolute. This was Einstein's findings, in fact. That space-time is not absolute as originally thought in Newtonian physics. The possibilities ARE infinite given eternity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You say “that infinity is god” with such authority. What is your reasoning for this? Can I also say infinity is the tooth fairy? Why must you attach a being to a mathematical concept?
To say that the tooth fairy is infinity is limiting the infinite. God does not limit the infinite because God is just that. If you wish to replace the word God with tooth fairy, be my guest. Also, infinity is much more than a mathematical concept....it must be infinite in all aspects otherwise you contradict yourself to speak of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Infinity must be infinite, hehe, yeah I suppose. No, that doesn’t mean intelligence too. From what we know, something, some sort of machinery is needed in creating intelligence. This machinery takes up space. The universe has a finite amount of matter. If we used all the matter in the universe to create the most intelligent brain ever, that would be our limit of intelligence. Save your breathe in arguing about how the brain can reinvent its self. Yes, this is true, but the brain or any computing device can only reinvent its self in order to achieve greater intelligence so many times based on the amount of neurons, or whatever basic processing unit it posses. So this is again a finite limit.
Just because our intelligence is finite does not mean a thing. Unless you wish to, once again, contradict infinity. We are merely a part. The brain is a finite piece of matter. The mind is infinite. What sort of "machinery" created your intelligence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
No, there is no intelligence involved with the process of evolution.
Then there is no intelligence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
really think about this sentence before you make up your mind about anything you are going to say:
Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things UNLIMITED.
Therefore, infinity is not of death or even birth. It must be of eternity. Infinity is not of your finite concepts (ie: big bang theory). All concepts exist within infinity but all fail to portray infinity to its fullest. Do not mistake a part for the whole.
One can not say, based on "infinity is infinite in all aspects", "So, does that mean infinity is infinite in ignorance (for example)?" Because ignorance is a blockage of infinity. It is not of growth or things unlimited.
Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things UNLIMITED.
Therefore, infinity is not of death or even birth. It must be of eternity. Infinity is not of your finite concepts (ie: big bang theory). All concepts exist within infinity but all fail to portray infinity to its fullest. Do not mistake a part for the whole.
One can not say, based on "infinity is infinite in all aspects", "So, does that mean infinity is infinite in ignorance (for example)?" Because ignorance is a blockage of infinity. It is not of growth or things unlimited.
@9165150 - yes, but more along the lines they that created us.
excuse the tangent but even in the bible (in which i do not asscribe as being very credible) refers in genesis to the god(s) that created us as they. strangely enough god is recognized as singular henceforth. strange (for further insight examine sumerian creation myth)
@2-0-sixx - goddammit i like how you think and respond to these posts.
@ all -
creationism does not necessitate the belief in a deity. a creator does not have to be a god nor does its creation have to be a servant.
choice is a chemical compound
excuse the tangent but even in the bible (in which i do not asscribe as being very credible) refers in genesis to the god(s) that created us as they. strangely enough god is recognized as singular henceforth. strange (for further insight examine sumerian creation myth)
@2-0-sixx - goddammit i like how you think and respond to these posts.
@ all -
creationism does not necessitate the belief in a deity. a creator does not have to be a god nor does its creation have to be a servant.
choice is a chemical compound
"really think about this sentence before you make up your mind about anything you are going to say: "
Okay, I’m putting all of my brain power into this one…
"Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things UNLIMITED. "
Okay, got it.
"Therefore, infinity is not of death or even birth. It must be of eternity."
In what are you referring to as being infinite?? Space time (existence)? As I said before, we non believers already have a perfectly good explanation for this in the big bang.
"Infinity is not of your finite concepts (ie: big bang theory)."
The big bang theory only explains how the universe came to be. There are a few ideas in modern physics right now that try to speculate on the life cycle of the universe. A few of the more famous ones are the infinite collapsing-expanding universe (but new calculations by supercomputers are showing otherwise), and the infinite universes each with different amounts of mass. It doesn’t matter which one is true, as they all deal with infinite life cycles of universes.
"All concepts exist within infinity but all fail to portray infinity to its fullest. Do not mistake a part for the whole. "
What? We couldn’t accurately take the volume of a complex shape without the concept of infinity, or find the limit to important mathematical series of numbers. Infinity holds well in math, and we can “portray it to its fullest.” Do you know something revolutionary that the rest of us aren't aware of? How can you say such a thing with so much confidence?
"One can not say, based on "infinity is infinite in all aspects", "So, does that mean infinity is infinite in ignorance (for example)?""
Refer back to my example building the largest brain in a finite universe. The ignorance of such a device has a limit.
"Because ignorance is a blockage of infinity. It is not of growth or things unlimited."
How does ignorance block the concept of infinity exactly? The second half of your OR statement in your second sentence seems to contradict your first sentence. It’s both logically incorrect, and it doesn’t make sense, so you’ll have to elaborate on it for me.
Okay, I’m putting all of my brain power into this one…
"Infinity must be infinite in all aspects of things UNLIMITED. "
Okay, got it.
"Therefore, infinity is not of death or even birth. It must be of eternity."
In what are you referring to as being infinite?? Space time (existence)? As I said before, we non believers already have a perfectly good explanation for this in the big bang.
"Infinity is not of your finite concepts (ie: big bang theory)."
The big bang theory only explains how the universe came to be. There are a few ideas in modern physics right now that try to speculate on the life cycle of the universe. A few of the more famous ones are the infinite collapsing-expanding universe (but new calculations by supercomputers are showing otherwise), and the infinite universes each with different amounts of mass. It doesn’t matter which one is true, as they all deal with infinite life cycles of universes.
"All concepts exist within infinity but all fail to portray infinity to its fullest. Do not mistake a part for the whole. "
What? We couldn’t accurately take the volume of a complex shape without the concept of infinity, or find the limit to important mathematical series of numbers. Infinity holds well in math, and we can “portray it to its fullest.” Do you know something revolutionary that the rest of us aren't aware of? How can you say such a thing with so much confidence?
"One can not say, based on "infinity is infinite in all aspects", "So, does that mean infinity is infinite in ignorance (for example)?""
Refer back to my example building the largest brain in a finite universe. The ignorance of such a device has a limit.
"Because ignorance is a blockage of infinity. It is not of growth or things unlimited."
How does ignorance block the concept of infinity exactly? The second half of your OR statement in your second sentence seems to contradict your first sentence. It’s both logically incorrect, and it doesn’t make sense, so you’ll have to elaborate on it for me.
@XianeX
The bible portrays a singular God who created us in its image. Don't take everything literally in the bible. Existence is singular. There isn't one existence here and another over there. As far as when it says, "in OUR image", the bible may be referring to the trinity. In any case there is ONE. The trinity are not separate from each other, they are one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@2-0-Sixx
quote:
In what are you referring to as being infinite?? Space time (existence)? As I said before, we non believers already have a perfectly good explanation for this in the big bang.
Obviously you must have missed my first post. You seemed to only respond to the second post I made. Go back and you will see that I made one long post and then a shorter one added on to it. You only replied to the shorter one which starts out with the sentence about infinity being infinite. In my first post I explained existence as far as the big bang theory goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What? We couldn’t accurately take the volume of a complex shape without the concept of infinity, or find the limit to important mathematical series of numbers. Infinity holds well in math, and we can “portray it to its fullest.” Do you know something revolutionary that the rest of us aren't aware of? How can you say such a thing with so much confidence?
The CONCEPT of infinity, yes. But you can not portray infinity in its entirety. You only have the concept. Unfortunately, all concepts have boundaries. Therefore you are faulty for limiting infinity to a mathematical concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Refer back to my example building the largest brain in a finite universe. The ignorance of such a device has a limit.
Refer back to my first post in which I answered your "brain device" paragraph. I think you may have missed it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How does ignorance block the concept of infinity exactly?
The concept of infinity blocks the reality of infinity! That is ignorance. Don't mistake a part (concept) for the whole (infinity).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of these messages did you take into account anything I wrote in my first message. (the one right before the one you replied to.) I will assume that, by mistake, you overlooked it.
The bible portrays a singular God who created us in its image. Don't take everything literally in the bible. Existence is singular. There isn't one existence here and another over there. As far as when it says, "in OUR image", the bible may be referring to the trinity. In any case there is ONE. The trinity are not separate from each other, they are one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@2-0-Sixx
quote:
In what are you referring to as being infinite?? Space time (existence)? As I said before, we non believers already have a perfectly good explanation for this in the big bang.
Obviously you must have missed my first post. You seemed to only respond to the second post I made. Go back and you will see that I made one long post and then a shorter one added on to it. You only replied to the shorter one which starts out with the sentence about infinity being infinite. In my first post I explained existence as far as the big bang theory goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What? We couldn’t accurately take the volume of a complex shape without the concept of infinity, or find the limit to important mathematical series of numbers. Infinity holds well in math, and we can “portray it to its fullest.” Do you know something revolutionary that the rest of us aren't aware of? How can you say such a thing with so much confidence?
The CONCEPT of infinity, yes. But you can not portray infinity in its entirety. You only have the concept. Unfortunately, all concepts have boundaries. Therefore you are faulty for limiting infinity to a mathematical concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Refer back to my example building the largest brain in a finite universe. The ignorance of such a device has a limit.
Refer back to my first post in which I answered your "brain device" paragraph. I think you may have missed it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How does ignorance block the concept of infinity exactly?
The concept of infinity blocks the reality of infinity! That is ignorance. Don't mistake a part (concept) for the whole (infinity).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of these messages did you take into account anything I wrote in my first message. (the one right before the one you replied to.) I will assume that, by mistake, you overlooked it.
@9165150 - aside from the bible (excuse my earlier use of it). ive noticed that the idea of a pantheon or council of deities creating mankind has fallen out of popularity. i do believe a single purpose or will created life. but its hard for me to phathom that the complexites of life and otherwise were designed with an individual factor.
i know this is off subject but why is monotheism the predominant religion set in the western world.
pardon my affinity to hindi/buddhi perspectives.
i know this is off subject but why is monotheism the predominant religion set in the western world.
pardon my affinity to hindi/buddhi perspectives.