religion

[meol]

I love this! Keep up the arguments, but try to not be over aggressive with your arguments. Keep it nice and professional.

 

I have a question for a couple of you atheists. What are your views of thoughts (just go with me)? Are thoughts all just chemically induced reactions within the brain that allows to decide whether to do or not do a particular action? What about emotions? Are they also within the chemical-brain function? So then, if they are, what about love? Is love truly true? Or is it just a chemically induced feeling that we really can't trust? Also if love is just that, aren't just practically robots powered by chemicals? Another thing is logic. What about it? Is that just a big chemical process going on in your brain?

Deep down, I think it boils down to atomic interactions and chemical reactions in the brain, all emotions, memories and feelings. It is mechanical and purposeless, at the bottom. But understanding that it might boil down to that shouldn't make you stop thinking it can have beauty when you put all together. As Dennett would put it: Yes, we have a "soul", it's just mechanical. But it does all the things a soul is supposed to do.

 

I'm no philosopher, but I'd put logic separately. It seems to me logic is already a part of the universe, and we humans merely incorporated it to our system, just as we do with physical laws.

 

But, at the end of the day, even if atheism made every life purposeless, and emotions inane, I'm afraid reality doesn't really care whether you like that or not, now does it?

[Zygimantas]

I love this! Keep up the arguments, but try to not be over aggressive with your arguments. Keep it nice and professional.

 

I have a question for a couple of you atheists. What are your views of thoughts (just go with me)? Are thoughts all just chemically induced reactions within the brain that allows to decide whether to do or not do a particular action? What about emotions? Are they also within the chemical-brain function? So then, if they are, what about love? Is love truly true? Or is it just a chemically induced feeling that we really can't trust? Also if love is just that, aren't just practically robots powered by chemicals? Another thing is logic. What about it? Is that just a big chemical process going on in your brain?

Deep down, I think it boils down to atomic interactions and chemical reactions in the brain, all emotions, memories and feelings. It is mechanical and purposeless, at the bottom.

What is below those chemical reactions?

[sees_all1]

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work.

[Myweponsg00d]

I love this! Keep up the arguments, but try to not be over aggressive with your arguments. Keep it nice and professional.

 

I have a question for a couple of you atheists. What are your views of thoughts (just go with me)? Are thoughts all just chemically induced reactions within the brain that allows to decide whether to do or not do a particular action? What about emotions? Are they also within the chemical-brain function? So then, if they are, what about love? Is love truly true? Or is it just a chemically induced feeling that we really can't trust? Also if love is just that, aren't just practically robots powered by chemicals? Another thing is logic. What about it? Is that just a big chemical process going on in your brain?

Deep down, I think it boils down to atomic interactions and chemical reactions in the brain, all emotions, memories and feelings. It is mechanical and purposeless, at the bottom.

What is below those chemical reactions?

 

What the HELL are you talking about? "Below" what?

 

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work.

 

This is getting quite frustrating to argue with people who don't understand the basics of reasoning. I provided you with everything else you need to indeed prove, with high certainty, that 1 is not the same as zero. What we call 0 is what happens when we look for something and instead find nothing. How many rocks am I holding in my hand right now? This is what zero means. Now if I add a rock, how many do I have? This is what 1 means?

 

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that since nothing is actually able to be proven with 100% certainty, and therefore religion is viable...lets examine all the other stuff in life that we do. Are we certain that an invisible monster is not standing behind us, ready to strangle us? No. We are not certain. But does this mean that it would be justifiable to live one's life based on the fear that an invisible monster is always right behind you? Of course not. Whether or not something can be proven without 0.0001% chance that it is false does NOTHING to help the case of religion.

[Zygimantas]

I love this! Keep up the arguments, but try to not be over aggressive with your arguments. Keep it nice and professional.

 

I have a question for a couple of you atheists. What are your views of thoughts (just go with me)? Are thoughts all just chemically induced reactions within the brain that allows to decide whether to do or not do a particular action? What about emotions? Are they also within the chemical-brain function? So then, if they are, what about love? Is love truly true? Or is it just a chemically induced feeling that we really can't trust? Also if love is just that, aren't just practically robots powered by chemicals? Another thing is logic. What about it? Is that just a big chemical process going on in your brain?

Deep down, I think it boils down to atomic interactions and chemical reactions in the brain, all emotions, memories and feelings. It is mechanical and purposeless, at the bottom.

What is below those chemical reactions?

 

What the HELL are you talking about? "Below" what?

As chemical reactions between atoms are at the base of everything's existence, what is before even those reactions? Where do they originate from?

[sees_all1]

One doesnt equal zero by pure definition.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work.

 

This is getting quite frustrating to argue with people who don't understand the basics of reasoning. I provided you with everything else you need to indeed prove, with high certainty, that 1 is not the same as zero. What we call 0 is what happens when we look for something and instead find nothing. How many rocks am I holding in my hand right now? This is what zero means. Now if I add a rock, how many do I have? This is what 1 means?

No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does.

What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution.

There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

[Myweponsg00d]

As chemical reactions between atoms are at the base of everything's existence, what is before even those reactions? Where do they originate from?

 

What are you talking about man?

 

First of all lets set a few things straight. A chemical reaction happens between molecules, not between atoms. An atom is a particle that is composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons. These atoms will bond together to form molecules.

 

The particles which compose atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons) are held together by a combination of the two nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. These particles are composed of gluons, leptons, quarks, etc. These fundamental particles are currently thought of as existing of strings and superstrings.

 

Did I answer your question? I don't quite understand what you are trying to even get at. Are you asking me how the fundamental particles of matter formed together to make the objects we see around us? I think that might be a tad difficult, seeing that you don't even have a basic understanding of the fact that atoms are not chemically reactive.

 

No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does.

What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution.

There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

 

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0?

[sees_all1]

No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does.

What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution.

There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

 

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0?

Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0.

[Myweponsg00d]

No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does.

What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution.

There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

 

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0?

Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0.

 

How are you linking 0*0=0 with 5*2=16?

[sees_all1]

No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does.

What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution.

There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

 

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0?

Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0.

 

How are you linking 0*0=0 with 5*2=16?

Because 5 in math is defined as ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1), and 2 in math is defined as (1+1), and since 1=0, ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1) = 0, and (1+1)=0.

I don't want to write out 16, but you get the picture.

[Zygimantas]

As chemical reactions between atoms are at the base of everything's existence, what is before even those reactions? Where do they originate from?

 

What are you talking about man?

 

First of all lets set a few things straight. A chemical reaction happens between molecules, not between atoms. An atom is a particle that is composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons. These atoms will bond together to form molecules.

 

The particles which compose atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons) are held together by a combination of the two nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. These particles are composed of gluons, leptons, quarks, etc. These fundamental particles are currently thought of as existing of strings and superstrings.

 

Did I answer your question? I don't quite understand what you are trying to even get at. Are you asking me how the fundamental particles of matter formed together to make the objects we see around us? I think that might be a tad difficult, seeing that you don't even have a basic understanding of the fact that atoms are not chemically reactive.

What causes those strings to even exist? What causes nuclear forces to even exist? Even before they exist, what exists?

[Myweponsg00d]

Because 5 in math is defined as ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1), and 2 in math is defined as (1+1), and since 1=0, ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1) = 0, and (1+1)=0.

I don't want to write out 16, but you get the picture.

 

5 in math is defined as 1+1+1+1+1? Well guess what? Guess what 1 is defined as? 0+1

 

You are holding the definition of 5 to be true, but you aren't holding the definition of 1 to be true. This is such complete nonsense.

 

What causes those strings to even exist? What causes nuclear forces to even exist? Even before they exist, what exists?

 

I understand where this is going now.

 

So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god?

 

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

[sees_all1]

Because 5 in math is defined as ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1), and 2 in math is defined as (1+1), and since 1=0, ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1) = 0, and (1+1)=0.

I don't want to write out 16, but you get the picture.

 

5 in math is defined as 1+1+1+1+1? Well guess what? Guess what 1 is defined as? 0+1

 

You are holding the definition of 5 to be true, but you aren't holding the definition of 1 to be true. This is such complete nonsense.

No, 5 in math is defined as 4+1, 4 is defined as 3+1, 3 is defined as 2+1, and 2 is defined as 1+1.

There is no definition of 1, except for these axioms:

There is a number, one, such that "a" multiplied with one equals "a".

There is a number, inverse of "a", such that for "a" does not equal zero, "a" multiplied with inverse of "a" equals 1.

Zero does not equal one.

 

These are all definitions though, and they can't be proved.

[obfuscator]

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

But if the universe can create itself, why can't God?

[Myweponsg00d]

No, 5 in math is defined as 4+1, 4 is defined as 3+1, 3 is defined as 2+1, and 2 is defined as 1+1.

There is no definition of 1, except for these axioms:

There is a number, one, such that "a" multiplied with one equals "a".

There is a number, inverse of "a", such that for "a" does not equal zero, "a" multiplied with inverse of "a" equals 1.

Zero does not equal one.

 

These are all definitions though, and they can't be proved.

 

Okay. And when I presented you with 5*2 = 16, you made sense of it by using the definition of 5. I want you to make sense of 5*2 = 16 using 1 = 0

 

The only way you can do it is by trying to use our definition of what 5 would be, which DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE CONSIDERING YOU ARENT EVEN USING THE DEFINITON OF 1. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?? You claim that all math makes sense if 1 = 0, but thats only because you are randomly ignoring some definitions but not others. Your claim is that all math makes sense with 1 = 0, so make sense of 5 * 2 = 16.

[Zygimantas]

 

What causes those strings to even exist? What causes nuclear forces to even exist? Even before they exist, what exists?

 

I understand where this is going now.

 

So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god?

 

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

There does not have to be a creator. Because like you said, what made god? I am not trying to point you in that direction. You think you are talking with someone who believes that there is a higher-being. You are not.

 

I just want you to think, what is before all of these forces and particles? And to people who believe in god, what is before god?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Am I the only one confused as to how this rather banal discussion about maths has anything to do with evidence of divine intervention? "5 isn't defined as 1+1+1+1+1, it's 4+1"... Yeah, and?

[Myweponsg00d]

 

What causes those strings to even exist? What causes nuclear forces to even exist? Even before they exist, what exists?

 

I understand where this is going now.

 

So, a fundamental particle can't just exist in the universe without a creator? What is the alternative theory? That a super-intelligent being can exist without a creator? WHY? How is that any better? What made god?

 

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

There does not have to be a creator. Because like you said, what made god? I am not trying to point you in that direction. You think you are talking with someone who believes that there is a higher-being. You are not.

 

I just want you to think, what is before all of these forces and particles?

 

I already provided you with an answer to that question: we don't know.

 

 

We don't know what came before the universe, and we dont know why it is here. But that doesn't mean that we suddenly need to invent the theory that it exists via a magic act performed by a super intelligent being. How does that answer anything? Where did he come from?

But if the universe can create itself, why can't God?

 

He could. But I am not the one saying that something can't exist within itself. My argument isn't "Where the hell did god come from? Therefore he doesn't exist" I was providing a counter for the argument "Where did the universe come from? Therefore god is reasonable?"

 

My argument is that that theory of god is totally useless, because it doesn't answer any questions. You are trying to answer "Where the hell does this all come from?" and if you say "God made it" well...then you just have god coming from nothing instead of the universe coming from nothing. It doesnt solve any problems, and it isnt an argument for god.

[sees_all1]

Okay. And when I presented you with 5*2 = 16, you made sense of it by using the definition of 5. I want you to make sense of 5*2 = 16 using 1 = 0

 

The only way you can do it is by trying to use our definition of what 5 would be, which DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE CONSIDERING YOU ARENT EVEN USING THE DEFINITON OF 1. HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?? You claim that all math makes sense if 1 = 0, but thats only because you are randomly ignoring some definitions but not others. Your claim is that all math makes sense with 1 = 0, so make sense of 5 * 2 = 16.

16 is defined as 15 + 1, 15 is defined as 14 + 1, and so on....

Since 1=0, 16 = 15 + 1, that is to say 16 = 15. And 15 = 14 + 1, that is to say 15 = 14, and so on.

Which means that 5 = 0, 2 = 0, and 16 = 0. So 0*0 = 0.

 

Why is this so difficult?

[sees_all1]

Am I the only one confused as to how this rather banal discussion about maths has anything to do with evidence of divine intervention? "5 isn't defined as 1+1+1+1+1, it's 4+1"... Yeah, and?

The point I'm trying to make is that all of math and science are based on a few axioms which can't be proven. If you, in clear conscience can say that God does not exist, therefore all your religious arguments/morality arguments/etc. have no backing, then I, in clear conscience can say that 1 = 0 and all your science and math have no backing, and you can't prove otherwise.

[Myweponsg00d]

16 is defined as 15 + 1, 15 is defined as 14 + 1, and so on....

Since 1=0, 16 = 15 + 1, that is to say 16 = 15. And 15 = 14 + 1, that is to say 15 = 14, and so on.

Which means that 5 = 0, 2 = 0, and 16 = 0. So 0*0 = 0.

 

Why is this so difficult?

 

It is difficult because you are being ridiculous. You are operating under a mathematical assumption that 16 is 15 + 1, but you arent operating under the mathematical assumption that 1 != 0

 

By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics. If you aren't following the rules of mathematics then 16 is not necessarily 15 + 1. You can't just randomly decide to ignore the fact that 1 is more than 0, but at the same time assume that the properties of addition still hold true. 15 + 1 does not necessarily equal 16. Where are you getting the fact that 15+1=16? You are getting it from a fundamental assumption of how math works. But you are alligning with SOME rules of math but not ALL. You think that 15+1=16 is true but you don't think that 1 != 0 is true.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that all of math and science are based on a few axioms which can't be proven. If you, in clear conscience can say that God does not exist, therefore all your religious arguments/morality arguments/etc. have no backing, then I, in clear conscience can say that 1 = 0 and all your science and math have no backing, and you can't prove otherwise.

 

 

Neither I nor any other respectable atheist would say that god does NOT exist. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the worlds most respected and outspoken atheists, talks about god as someone who "almost certainly" does not exist.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So your evidence of god is, "Maths is just as wrong as we are". OK then...

[sees_all1]

By saying that 1 = 0 you are violating one of the fundamental assumptions of mathematics.

DUH

You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

[obfuscator]

 

He could. But I am not the one saying that something can't exist within itself. My argument isn't "Where the hell did god come from? Therefore he doesn't exist" I was providing a counter for the argument "Where did the universe come from? Therefore god is reasonable?"

 

My argument is that that theory of god is totally useless, because it doesn't answer any questions. You are trying to answer "Where the hell does this all come from?" and if you say "God made it" well...then you just have god coming from nothing instead of the universe coming from nothing. It doesnt solve any problems, and it isnt an argument for god.

Here's the thing - nothing in our universe comes from nothing. Everything we see on earth is an evolution of matter that previously existed. The matter that previously existed was a further evolution of matter that previously existed, and so on, and so forth.

 

The big bang theory stipulates that there was nothing, no matter - that became matter. But if this was possible, a fundamental rule of our universe had to have been broken in order for this to happen.

If we assume that the big bang was actually the universe creating itself from nothing, then the law of the universe "nothing can come from nothing" can be considered to not be a law at all, as it would have been broken in the very creation of the universe.

 

However, if this is the case, one wonders why we see no evidence of such behavior currently. If it was possible for the universe to create itself, for nothing to come from nothing, why, then, does the same no longer apply? (at least to all we've seen thus far).

 

The only explanation is that a force to which the laws of the universe DO NOT apply had to create the universe with it's laws as present. God, thus, is a logical conclusion (or at very least, some force we know nothing of).

 

All science has told us we know, really, is how little we know.

[sees_all1]

So your evidence of god is, "Maths is just as wrong as we are". OK then...

I'm saying your sacred system of math, science, and logic are based on underlying assumptions that cannot be proven. How is religion any different? You say that since God cannot be proven then God does not exist, but science and math are proven so they do exist? How laughable.