discovery versus jesus

[insane]

Lol yeah right. Insane already proved that 4 is impossible...try 28? :lol:

 

 

 

Not impossible, improbable. What you crazy theists don't seem to understand the concept that time is infinite. It's so alarmingly egocentric to think that a world was created JUST for us, just as egocentric as thinking that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

 

 

With INFINITE time before us it is not only possible for that situation to occur, it is impossible for it NOT to occur.

 

 

 

Intelligent design proponents seem think that there must have been a start to everything - well that's just ludicrous. To suggest that there was an ultimate start to everything suggests that there was a nothingness before. If there was a nothingness before, what caused that nothingness? What came before it? They propose that god caused it, but who caused god? If god was never caused and is infinitely old then was was he doing before he caused everything? It has more holes in it than swiss cheese and just screams about the lesser man's need to think he is the centre of the universe.

 

 

 

There's a few inconsistencies here.

 

 

 

1.) God is uncaused by definition. Sure, it seems convenient, but things are often convenient because they are true.

 

 

 

2.) If time is infinite, then an infinite amount of time had to have happened before this moment. This is impossible, since an infinite amount of time can never pass.

 

 

 

3.) While the Big Bang might not denote the beginning of time, it denotes the beginning of the possibility of a cell to "evolve", meaning that there hasn't been an inifinite amount of time for the necessary amino acids to collide to form a protein. After the 20 amino acids combine, there still needs to be a bunch of proteins colliding simultaneously to form a cell.

 

 

 

Which would mean....

 

 

 

Your playing a game of poker, you deal a hand out; lets say you get Jack club, Ace club, 3 heart, 8 diamond, King club (any random hand, it doesn't matter). The probability of getting that hand is 52P5 (52!/(52-5)!) = 1 out of 311875200; normally you would laugh at odds like that, saying that it's almost impossible to get, yet you were just dealt that hand.

 

 

 

So whereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the flaw?

 

 

 

The flaw is that molecular reactions of 4th order aren't even talked about because they are considered impossible. NOT "almost impossible", straight up impossible. Not improbable, rather impossible.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

I've not really been paying attention, so forgive me if I talk about something you're not really arguing about.

 

 

 

Good point that there hasn't been an infinite amount of time since the big ban for whatever this even is to have happened. Still, there have been an infinite number of times for it to have happened -- and it's as likely to have happened in any one of them as in any other; that doesn't stop it being (from what you say) astronomically unlikely. Still, one might imagine that, if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be able to wonder about it.

 

 

 

I think of it like this: there are two possibilities here: either this thing happened, or God exists. The first option is very unlikely (I don't know whether or not you're saying that's the thing that's "impossible"), but the chain of events after it leading up to the present are not unlikely. On the other hand, if God exists, then there are an infinite number of other things which (to me, as an agnostic) are very unlikely which are left to be explained. One very unlikely thing compared to one plausible thing followed by an infinite number of unlikely things is, to me, more reasonable.

[Anesthesia]

1.) God is uncaused by definition. Sure, it seems convenient, but things are often convenient because they are true.

 

 

 

Convenient for me, yes. Convenient for you, no. If god was uncaused then what did he do before he created the earth/universe/whatever - sit around twiddling his thumbs? Planning the earth? No, it's obviously not the second one.

 

 

 

2.) If time is infinite, then an infinite amount of time had to have happened before this moment. This is impossible, since an infinite amount of time can never pass.

 

 

 

No, it isn't impossible. Well, read on. It is very hard to explain because it is very hard to comprehend. Also hard because I'm not a mathematician.

 

 

 

One way of explaining:

 

 

 

Imagine the numbers 1...2...3..4.. right up to infinity. Now, you know that there are numbers that lie between those numbers such as 1.5, 3.7, pi, etc.

 

 

 

How many of these real numbers exist between 0 and 1? Infinity.

 

 

 

How many exist between 0 and infinity? Infinity.

 

 

 

The answer to the second question is obviously a 'bigger' infinity than the answer to the first.

 

 

 

Or you could think of the size of the set of integers and the size of the set of all real numbers. George Cantor in his continuum hypothesis shows that the set of integers (whilst still infinite) is still strictly smaller than the set of real numbers (also infinite).

 

 

 

Another way:

 

 

 

You say that an infinite amount of time cannot pass, I say read this wikipedia article which I'm not going to try and paraphrase:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

 

 

 

Some highlights for if you can't be bothered:

 

 

 

Aleph numbers are a series of numbers used to represent the cardinality of infinite sets.

 

 

 

The cardinality of the set of natural numbers is aleph-null; the next larger cardinality is aleph-one, then aleph-two and so on.

 

 

 

A bit of a conclusion

 

 

 

An infinite amount of time can't pass. However, it can have passed if you extend the boundaries backwards. If you're going to say that an infinite amount of time can't have passed, if there has never been a beginning of time and time is always passing then an infinite amount MUST have passed.

 

 

 

3.) While the Big Bang might not denote the beginning of time, it denotes the beginning of the possibility of a cell to "evolve"

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. The oscillatory/cyclic universe model means that whilst it won't have had infinite chances to happen since the start of THIS cycle, it has had infinite chances to happen at the beginning of A cycle. And this is the one it happened in. We wouldn't be noticing its absense in the previous cycles because, well, it led to us so we weren't there.

 

 

 

BUT take this with a pinch of salt because that only explains OUR existence. I think that it would be hilarious to assume that we are the only life in the universe, or the first. Given the overwhelming (if not infinite) size and age of the universe it would be irresponsible to assume that.

 

 

 

I propose that given the infinite and number of cycles which are available, life has not only sprung up THIS cycle, but in an infinite number of cycles

 

 

 

The flaw is that molecular reactions of 4th order aren't even talked about because they are considered impossible. NOT "almost impossible", straight up impossible. Not improbable, rather impossible.

 

 

 

Considered by you. In an infinite universe nothing involving time is impossible.

 

 

 

I'm guessing this post will be a bit scatty as I was doing other things whilst composing it.

[insane]

(Insert Anesthesia's post here which would take up alot of space if I quoted it).

 

 

 

The whole problem with your post is that it deals with theoretical infinites. I'd like to see a mathematician write out an infinite number of numbers. It's not possible, it wouldn't fit in the universe. Not even if it were stored on blue-ray :P. Just like an infinite amount of time is comprehendable in theory, it is not possible in actuality.

 

 

 

 

An infinite amount of time can't pass. However, it can have passed if you extend the boundaries backwards. If you're going to say that an infinite amount of time can't have passed, if there has never been a beginning of time and time is always passing then an infinite amount MUST have passed.

 

 

 

Isn't that circular reasoning? Your conclusion assumes your premise?

 

(Conclusion:) an infinite amount of time must have passed

 

(Premise:) there has never been a beginning of time, time is always passing

 

 

 

These two assume each other.

[Anesthesia]

How do you know it isn't possible in actuality? I say that a god creating things isn't possible in actuality.

 

 

 

As for the circular reasoning, of course it assumes the premise. This is a theory. There is no proof for the premise because it would be impossible to prove. It would also be impossible to disprove.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

If the universe is infinite in size, then an infinite number of mile high numbers would fit in the universe. It doesn't matter that they're huge, or that there are an infinite number of them -- there's always more space to accomodate them. The very idea that they themselves are smaller than the universe itself means that, though there be an infinite number of them, their size is smaller than the size of an infinite number of (not that this exists) "universe sizes". It's like a size race where one person (the universe) starts of with a head start, and the other person (the numbers) gets bigger at the same speed; never catching up.

 

 

 

What's wrong with an infinite amount of time? Why is that not possible in actuality?

 

 

 

The conclusion that an infinite amount of time has passed does assume that time has been going on for ever. That's not important -- if time has been going on for ever, then an infinite amount of time has passed; you have said things to the effect that time is not infinite backwards -- if you explain that, then I can argue further, though as it is, I don't see that we can get further than "It is!" "It isn't!". (I don't see that there's a need for me to explain how something is possible -- anything's possible until it's disproved; for that reason I don't disbelieve in god, so to speak).

[insane]

If the universe is infinite in size, then an infinite number of mile high numbers would fit in the universe. It doesn't matter that they're huge, or that there are an infinite number of them -- there's always more space to accomodate them. The very idea that they themselves are smaller than the universe itself means that, though there be an infinite number of them, their size is smaller than the size of an infinite number of (not that this exists) "universe sizes". It's like a size race where one person (the universe) starts of with a head start, and the other person (the numbers) gets bigger at the same speed; never catching up.

 

 

 

What's wrong with an infinite amount of time? Why is that not possible in actuality?

 

 

 

The conclusion that an infinite amount of time has passed does assume that time has been going on for ever. That's not important -- if time has been going on for ever, then an infinite amount of time has passed; you have said things to the effect that time is not infinite backwards -- if you explain that, then I can argue further, though as it is, I don't see that we can get further than "It is!" "It isn't!". (I don't see that there's a need for me to explain how something is possible -- anything's possible until it's disproved; for that reason I don't disbelieve in god, so to speak).

 

 

 

Gotcha, it's begging the question either way you look at it. Funny how almost all arguments end up boiling down to our personal, unprovable, irrefutable metaphysical beliefs. (and how we're able to exercise each option before actually doing so :P)

[Anesthesia]

When neither is provable nor disprovable the difference comes down to how much you value knowing the truth.

 

 

 

Where my view takes theories which assume little and are constantly subject to peer review and change, staying as close to accurate as possible when new evidence is discovered, yours assumes a baroque combination of angels, demons, stories etc. which are beyond question.

 

 

 

To have a spartan view of how things work which is subjected to constant change as new evidence emerges is more likely to be accurate than a complex one which cannot be changed or rejected to accomodate new discoveries.

[insane]

Where my view takes theories which assume little

 

 

 

I thought we already established that your theory assumed itself. Certainly that is a large assumption! It doesn't matter what it is based on - it still assumes itself, and thus leaves it completely fallacious.

[Evrae]

 

 

 

Nonsense, man. I appreciate your viewpoint, but it made me laugh so hard that I couldn't help but comment. Please forgive me for any harsh points that I may make.

 

 

 

First thing: I found it hilarious taht hard-core Christians are "liberal" in the UK. They'd be conservative in the United States which is completely ironic to me. (Perhaps I should move to the UK!)

 

 

 

Secondly, you are being intolerant of Bible-believing Christians. Be careful who you call intolerant because you, yourself are being intolerant merely by calling them intolerant. Hypocrite?

 

 

 

Third, how do you know the virgin birth is different in other translations? My guess is that someone told you that and it sounds good to you. If you have any support, please let me know.

 

 

 

Lastly, the Bible should be 100% correct because its author is God. God inspired the Bible, and even though people wrote it into scrolls, God is still the author. And God can't lie. Therefore, the Bible is 100% true.

 

 

 

I didn't say 'liberal', i said 'literal'. Completely different thing.

 

 

 

Yep, i suppose i am a little bit intolerant. But who isn't? dont try and tell me you are not. But when an organisation tells me, with no backing evidence, that they are right, and everyone else wrong, that i find a little intolerant. I don't tolerate those who irrationally think they know everything because it says so in a 2000 year old book

 

 

 

The virgin birth thing - several reputable authors (not anti-religion particularly)

 

 

 

How do you know it is 100% reliable and god wrote it? Because it says so! This really makes me laugh. I can only conclude you are a complete idiot. How about i write a book saying 'This book is 100% reliable because the writer is infallible. Give me your cookies!'

 

By your standards, the entire world would be sending me cookies (not that i'd complain).

 

 

 

By your standards the Koran is also 100%, as is every religious text - yet they contradict each other. The obvious conclusion? they are not 100% correct!

[Anesthesia]

I thought we already established that your theory assumed itself. Certainly that is a large assumption! It doesn't matter what it is based on - it still assumes itself, and thus leaves it completely fallacious.

 

 

 

 

 

...And yours doesn't?

 

 

 

Premise: The bible is inspired by god so must be true

 

Conclusion: God exists

 

 

 

Is that not the whole basis of your religion? Is it not an even larger assumption to say that there are dozens of angels, a devil that lives below us, all sorts of various magical entities which magical powers? One certainly has to invent a lot more 'facts' to get to the idea that an infinitely old entity created a finitely old planet, or that he just said so and suddenly a whole species came into existence.

 

 

 

The element of 'mine' that did was that of infinite time having passed. What's more, that was only an if (as you will notice if you read it).

 

 

 

"...IF there has never been a beginning of time and time is always passing then an infinite amount MUST have passed."

 

 

 

In fact that point was just by the by, it was not even central to the rest of my argument.

 

 

 

However it is not as though I just made this all up on a whim, it is not my theory it is that of dozens of renowned scientists and mathematicians. If you're wanting to say 'my' theory is fallacious, you'll need to point out why these are. Feel free to read more here:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countably_infinite

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_theory

 

 

 

I've just presented the wikipedia links because it is easier to find them all on one site for me. I think what is more likely than it actually being flawed is that I did a poor job of explaining it all. I did not create these theories so I am not in a good position to defend them, I'm not a mathematician or an astrophysicist.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâexplain awayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ irreducible complexity by ignorance. For example the flagella is an example of something touted as irreducibly complex however when researchers bothered to look at it, they showed that it is reducible.

 

 

 

Where?

 

 

 

And so onÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ

 

 

 

I posted the flagella response twice in the above post, lets do it one more time for good measure. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

 

(or if you want, you can search google to get so more articles)

 

 

 

Appeal to the future is not a logical fallacy and is not an appeal to ignorance since IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not making the claim. The burden of proof is on proving IC is true, much like the burden of proof is on the person claiming UFOÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are real. There is lots of evidence for evolution so to prove IC is true one must eliminate all other possibilities for something to evolve to

 

 

 

You mean stellar evolution? Evolution is quite different to stellar evolution, however youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re right in stellar evolution gravity is the main force that creates the planets and stars. Let me state again Biological Evolution is a different theory to Stellar Evolution. The Biological Evolution is disputed by intelligent design, Stellar Evolution is undisputed.

 

 

 

In genesis the planets and plants where made a day before the stars and moons. However it has been showed that planets are formed as the left over material of stars, hence they can never form before the star itself, but this contradicts genesis. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what I mean when I say genesis has got the days around the wrong way, planets, moons and plants should come after the creation of the stars.

 

 

 

A rock is so complex that it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be gradually formed by smaller rocks: if you break a rock, you get two different rocks from the original rock. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have the original rock unless you have both smaller rocks at the same time, hence rocks are irreducibly complex. However we know this is silly and has nothing to do with evolution yet rocks still fit the definition of something irreducibly complex.

 

 

 

But being orderly doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily prove a god; furthermore nothing is truly orderly if we examine it. Take the eye for example (commonly used as something IC), although it looks complex and orderly there are a number of mistakes that no ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâintelligent designerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ would make.

 

The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, is a perfect place to start. We have already sung the virtues of this organ, and described some of its extraordinary capabilities. But one thing that we have not considered is the neural wiring of its light-sensing units, the photoreceptor cells in the retina. These cells pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain. Given the basics of this wiring, how would you orient the retina with respect to the direction of light? Quite naturally, you (and any other designer) would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural wiring connections should be placed on the side that faces the light, rather than on the side away from it. Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed.

 

 

 

What are the consequences of wiring the retina backwards? First, there is a degradation of visual quality due to the scattering of light as it passes through layers of cellular wiring. To be sure, this scattering has been minimized because the nerve cells are nearly transparent, but it cannot be eliminated, because of the basic flaw in design. This design flaw is compounded by the fact that the nerve cells require a rich blood supply, so that a network of blood vessels also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no engineer would stand for. Second, the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells must be carried to the brain, and this means that at some point the neural wiring must pass directly through the wall of the retina. The result? A "blind spot" in the retina, a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside, and consequently nothing can be seen. Each human retina has a blind spot roughly 1 mm in diameter, a blind spot that would not exist if only the eye were designed with its sensory wiring behind the photoreceptors instead of in front of them.

 

 

 

Do these design problems exist because it is impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Not at all. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is neatly tucked away below the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to the vertebrate one, but these mollusk eyes are wired right-side-out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels above the photoreceptors and no blind spot.

 

 

 

Creationism and Intelligent Design has been shown in court to be unconstitutional, see:

 

Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (Reading the bible in school)

 

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (Creationism)

 

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688 (I.D.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a few inconsistencies here.

 

1.) God is uncaused by definition. Sure, it seems convenient, but things are often convenient because they are true.

 

2.) If time is infinite, then an infinite amount of time had to have happened before this moment. This is impossible, since an infinite amount of time can never pass.

 

3.) While the Big Bang might not denote the beginning of time, it denotes the beginning of the possibility of a cell to "evolve", meaning that there hasn't been an inifinite amount of time for the necessary amino acids to collide to form a protein. After the 20 amino acids combine, there still needs to be a bunch of proteins colliding simultaneously to form a cell.

 

 

 

The flaw is that molecular reactions of 4th order aren't even talked about because they are considered impossible. NOT "almost impossible", straight up impossible. Not improbable, rather impossible.

 

 

 

1)So why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe be uncaused by definition and be just as good as an argument as having a god causing the universe?

 

2)See below

 

3) Does life have to have the exact same collection of cells, proteins etc. to be considered life? The little grey men that are constantly shown as aliens donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily share the same biology as us; do you consider robots with human AI, human? The reason why we have the biology isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because they are the chemicals required for life, rather they were the chemicals we conveniently around. Just because we are carbon/water/oxygen based life, doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t necessarily mean all other life is.

 

 

 

What evidence is there to suggest that amino acids etc. were formed simultaneously from 20 different chemicals; I thought that these kinds of things were created piecemeal rather then simultaneously. Like a chain would be formed X+X -> X_2; X_2+X -> X_3 rather then X+X+..+X -> X_n otherwise we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see long fuel chains (since anything above 3rd order is impossible).

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see a mathematician write out an infinite number of numbers.

 

 

 

Isn't that circular reasoning? Your conclusion assumes your premise?

 

(Conclusion:) an infinite amount of time must have passed

 

(Premise:) there has never been a beginning of time, time is always passing

 

 

 

 

These arguments are similar to Zeno's paradox:

 

In the arrow paradox, we imagine an arrow in flight. At every moment in time, the arrow is located at a specific position. If the moment is just a single instant, then the arrow does not have time to move and is at rest during that instant. Now, during the following instances, it then must also be at rest for the same reason. The arrow is always at rest and cannot move: motion is impossible.

 

So how does the arrow move, I don't think there has been a 100% satisfactory answer to this yet.

 

 

 

Let A be the set denoting an infinite set of numbers:

 

A = {t | t e R} = (-00, 00) = R [Either definition is valid]

 

 

 

I think the reasoning is that, although there may have been an infinite amount of time passed, the process of counting to infinity is real and discrete. Anyway it doesn't matter too much since time in this universe is finite.

[Anesthesia]

Isn't that circular reasoning? Your conclusion assumes your premise?

 

(Conclusion:) an infinite amount of time must have passed

 

(Premise:) there has never been a beginning of time, time is always passing

 

 

 

These two assume each other.

 

 

 

After re-reading this, no.

 

 

 

Of COURSE my conclusion assumes the premise, that's what any conclusion does. The premise, however, does not assume the conclusion. I would like you to point out just how it does. As Pete_The_Viscous described above, it is possible for an infinite amount of time to fit within an infinite amount of time, and this is not disprovable.

 

 

 

For a better example of circular reasoning, see the one I posted above.

[HugATree]

 

1.) God is uncaused by definition. Sure, it seems convenient, but things are often convenient because they are true.

 

True? You can't even test this theory. This is an excuse, not an explanation.

 

 

 

3.) While the Big Bang might not denote the beginning of time, it denotes the beginning of the possibility of a cell to "evolve", meaning that there hasn't been an inifinite amount of time for the necessary amino acids to collide to form a protein. After the 20 amino acids combine, there still needs to be a bunch of proteins colliding simultaneously to form a cell.

 

Just one kilogram of amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules, a fraction of what an early earth has.

 

In an early earth peptide ligases could be produced in under a year and a cytochrome C sequence in around a million years.

[insane]

 

...And yours doesn't?

 

 

 

I never said mine didn't. If you'll look at one of my above posts, I readily accepted the fact that both of our viewpoints were circular, and that there was no way around it because it always boils down to our metaphysical beliefs. You're the one that pressed the issue, so I needed to restate the fact.

 

 

 

I think the reasoning is that, although there may have been an infinite amount of time passed, the process of counting to infinity is real and discrete. Anyway it doesn't matter too much since time in this universe is finite.

 

 

 

Okay, this is something I can agree with, and was trying to conclude. It just wouldn't come out for some reason.

 

 

 

1)So why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe be uncaused by definition and be just as good as an argument as having a god causing the universe?

 

 

 

Okay, it's "just as good". Now who's right?

 

 

 

Like a chain would be formed X+X -> X_2; X_2+X -> X_3 rather then X+X+..+X -> X_n otherwise we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see long fuel chains (since anything above 3rd order is impossible).

 

 

 

Aren't long fuel chains just chains of the exact same molecule (alkane?)?

 

 

 

A protein would be a group of different amino acids - I'm just curious is you can show how the let's say, 20, that make up a simple protein have a reason to just react with each other apart from making up a protein? I'm not saying it's an argument against you, I'm just curious.

 

 

 

The premise, however, does not assume the conclusion. I would like you to point out just how it does. As Pete_The_Viscous described above, it is possible for an infinite amount of time to fit within an infinite amount of time, and this is not disprovable.

 

I don't even know what your premise is, and what your conclusion is anymore because they both look exactly the same to me that I can't pick them apart.

[Anesthesia]

I never said mine didn't. If you'll look at one of my above posts, I readily accepted the fact that both of our viewpoints were circular, and that there was no way around it because it always boils down to our metaphysical beliefs. You're the one that pressed the issue, so I needed to restate the fact.

 

 

 

I see where I went wrong, when you said that it is begging the question either way you look at it I thought you meant either way you look at what I said, as opposed to referring to your own viewpoint as well.

[Loth]

I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=285 ... t=#2850272

 

 

 

You post your disbelief about a child dying on a schoolbus in front of someone's eyes and that is okay - but when he posts his disbelief concerning something related to your religion it is intolerant? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

 

 

I gave a valid reason for that belief. Merc often just says "Christians are fools" or "the Bible is a fairy tale", without providing any reason, or respect for that matter.

 

 

 

The analgoy given is also fallacious. Merc isn't Jesus Christ, and he can't go comparing himself to Him saying "I can't do this, so niether can He".

 

 

 

From the looks of it you just want no one to be able to disagree with you. And that sounds like intolerance to me.

 

 

 

That is untrue - you missed the first part of my post where I disagreed with Bubsa but also said that I liked his post, and how he thought.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course and so long as we're allowed to believe what we choose to believe, then it's all gravy, baby! :D

 

 

 

I wouldn't go that far :P some people have some pretty hurtful/hateful beliefs.

 

 

 

You're saying that you gave a valid reason. Sure the things you say are true if you going by the laws of nature. Which the bible isn't.

 

And still the bible is true?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Okay, it's "just as good". Now who's right?

 

 

 

Aren't long fuel chains just chains of the exact same molecule (alkane?)?

 

A protein would be a group of different amino acids - I'm just curious is you can show how the let's say, 20, that make up a simple protein have a reason to just react with each other apart from making up a protein? I'm not saying it's an argument against you, I'm just curious.

 

 

 

Both are just as good as each other; the explanation of god as an uncaused mover doesn't really make it more likely that the universe was created by God (because it is convenient to say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s God), then from nothing or unicorns. I don't care what happens outside of the universe if we can never 'see' outside of the universe. I would like to think that there is some sort of physical representation of what happens but if a god or a unicorn made the universe then so be it, it doesn't affect my day to day life.

 

 

 

I'n not much of a chemist but if there are such positions as chemists and biochemists then surely there must be an explanation for it (otherwise you would have a lot of people just twiddling their thumbs); I doubt it would be too hard to find something that answers this question online (even if you couldn't, there must be university biochemists out there that are more then willing to answer any questions you have). I thought it would the same reason any other chemical process occurs. Upon further reading my comparison to fuel seems to be correct since proteins are just polymers of amino acids (they use the same processes to form long chains).

[my_pet_worm]

So proponents are allowed to talk about it like it DID happen, yet opponents are only allowed to say they don't believe it happened?

 

 

 

You can happily say it isn't real, if that is your veiw. But what you were leading on was that it isn't real, and anyone who believes in it is an idiot.

 

 

 

Even when I was on science's side, I still knew that I was an idiot because being a christian (or any other religion) is the safe side. what will happen if science is real? Everyone dies into an evergoing sleep. What happens if christianity was real? then all evolutionists go to hell. Why not be safe?

[____]

Even when I was on science's side, I still knew that I was an idiot because being a christian (or any other religion) is the safe side. what will happen if science is real? Everyone dies into an evergoing sleep. What happens if christianity was real? then all evolutionists go to hell. Why not be safe?

 

I'll take my chances and live my life without the every pressing fear of being cast into a world of hurt.

 

Or does the concept of one screw up meaning eternal damnation not bother you?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Or does the concept of one screw up meaning eternal damnation not bother you?

 

 

 

It scares me. It's a good thing Christianity doesn't teach that one screw up means eternal damnation. :roll:

[insane]

Or does the concept of one screw up meaning eternal damnation not bother you?

 

 

 

It scares me. It's a good thing Christianity doesn't teach that one screw up means eternal damnation. :roll:

 

 

 

Exactly. Christianity teaches us that we WILL screw up. It accepts the fact that we're all a bunch of losers and that God accepts us anyways :P

 

 

 

 

 

proteins are just polymers of amino acids

 

 

 

Close, but not exactly. They are polymers in the sense that the same *order* of amino acids repeats, but your normal polymer is (of course) made up of monomers. In fuel chains, a monomer is very very simple, an alkane (or any hydrocarbon). But in the protein's case, the monomer is the specific chain of 20 amino acids in a specific order. They are of different complexity, IMO, but it's really a non-issue.

[Anesthesia]

Even when I was on science's side, I still knew that I was an idiot because being a christian (or any other religion) is the safe side. what will happen if science is real? Everyone dies into an evergoing sleep. What happens if christianity was real? then all evolutionists go to hell. Why not be safe?

 

 

 

That's called Pascal's Wager, and it is a fallacy.

 

 

 

Here is why:

 

 

 

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

 

 

 

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

 

 

 

1. One does not know whether God exists.

 

2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.

 

3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.

 

4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

 

 

 

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.

 

 

 

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.

 

 

 

Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in him.

 

 

 

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

 

 

 

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

 

 

 

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

 

 

 

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

 

 

 

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

 

 

 

Now that I'm back (and 2 pages behind...gee whiz!) let me remark on this comment.

 

 

 

First off, like insane said, Christianity assumes the sinful nature of man. Man is inherently bad which can be seen anywhere you go (absolute power corrupts absolutely...without checks and balances you see what man's real nature is). Now that we know man is inherently evil, Christianity says that God came in the flesh to redeem us.

 

 

 

When Jesus died on the cross, He had finally finished his purpose. He had redeemed us. But, we still couldn't go to heaven because he hadn't conquered death yet.

 

 

 

When He was resurrected on the third day, He allowed us to come into contact with a holy God. A holy God cannot be even near imperfection and sin which is why God turned His back on Jesus after he placed the sin of the world on His shoulders. He couldn't even look at His own sin because that would make His holy and perfect eyes sinful. (This is also the reason that Jesus went to hell for 3 days...He had the sins of the world on Him and the punishment for sin is eternal death)

 

 

 

That is the reason why anyone who sins cannot go to heaven. Unless, of course, you have some reason to have your sins gone.

 

 

 

Hmm...how can this be? Can you have your sins gone?

 

 

 

Yes you can. When Jesus died, He entered into a covenant with the Father. Anyone who believes Him to to be who He said He was enters into that covenant. The promise of that covenant is that God separates your sins "as far as the east is from the west." Now you can go to heaven and be in the presence of a perfect God. Because when God looks at you, He sees His perfect son.

 

 

 

 

 

So God is both just and merciful. The punishment of sin is death but by His grace, you can be justified with Christ and receive eternal life.

[bearofthunder]

 

Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.

 

 

 

In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.

 

 

 

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping.

 

 

 

Now that I'm back (and 2 pages behind...gee whiz!) let me remark on this comment.

 

 

 

First off, like insane said, Christianity assumes the sinful nature of man. Man is inherently bad which can be seen anywhere you go (absolute power corrupts absolutely...without checks and balances you see what man's real nature is). Now that we know man is inherently evil, Christianity says that God came in the flesh to redeem us.

 

 

 

When Jesus died on the cross, He had finally finished his purpose. He had redeemed us. But, we still couldn't go to heaven because he hadn't conquered death yet.

 

 

 

When He was resurrected on the third day, He allowed us to come into contact with a holy God. A holy God cannot be even near imperfection and sin which is why God turned His back on Jesus after he placed the sin of the world on His shoulders. He couldn't even look at His own sin because that would make His holy and perfect eyes sinful. (This is also the reason that Jesus went to hell for 3 days...He had the sins of the world on Him and the punishment for sin is eternal death)

 

 

 

That is the reason why anyone who sins cannot go to heaven. Unless, of course, you have some reason to have your sins gone.

 

 

 

Hmm...how can this be? Can you have your sins gone?

 

 

 

Yes you can. When Jesus died, He entered into a covenant with the Father. Anyone who believes Him to to be who He said He was enters into that covenant. The promise of that covenant is that God separates your sins "as far as the east is from the west." Now you can go to heaven and be in the presence of a perfect God. Because when God looks at you, He sees His perfect son.

 

 

 

 

 

So God is both just and merciful. The punishment of sin is death but by His grace, you can be justified with Christ and receive eternal life.

 

 

 

But why should I believe your version of events over the Hindu version? or the Buddhist version?

 

 

 

Pascal's wager leads to this:

 

 

 

Acceptance of one religion requires the rejection of all the others. In the absence of a personal revelation, it is not possible to be sure that the one you chose is correct.

 

 

 

So, the probability of believing in the right religion is

 

 

 

1/n

 

 

 

n = number of religions

 

 

 

Suppose there are ten religions that have the concept of "punishment for not believing" (for example, the Christian "hell"). Again, only one can be the "real religion." That means your probability of going to heaven is 1/10, but your probability of eternal damnation in one of the other religions you didn't choose is 9/10.

 

 

 

If you believe in the existence of a higher being, then those odds don't seem very good to me.