god didn't create the universe

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

It was much later. Humans created the god of the bible. wink

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was much later. Humans created the god of the bible. wink

Co-signed.

You must realize that back then people needed an explanation of natural phenomena in the world. They had a somewhat limited scope of reality, the types of things that are rather easily explained now to them was mysticism, or divine power. Shaky is correct, Humans did create the Bible and God to explain these types of things.

Think about it this way, before monothiesm there was polytheism. People who believed in multiple gods were far more out of touch with reality than people who believe in a single god. What's the next step?

DigiMark007
"born so evolved" at the creation point of the universe?!

This is why a little science and an active imagination tinged with religious overtones is almost always a bad thing.

Anyway, nice theory. The universe created God, not the other way around. I could get behind something like that.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

I think the line "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" refers to the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
People who believed in multiple gods were far more out of touch with reality than people who believe in a single god.

Says who though? What makes a Hindu or a Navajo more out of touch with reality than a Christian or a Muslim?

inimalist
If you can accept a natural origin to the universe, why would you even need God?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by inimalist
If you can accept a natural origin to the universe, why would you even need God?

Because I believe God is natural and the two concepts are inseperable.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because I believe God is natural and the two concepts are inseperable.

natural as in can be observed and measured like other natural phenomena?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by inimalist
natural as in can be observed and measured like other natural phenomena?

Natural, as in came into existense without a factory or a patent.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think the line "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" refers to the Big Bang.



Says who though? What makes a Hindu or a Navajo more out of touch with reality than a Christian or a Muslim?

Let me clarify, when I said multiple gods I meant Gods of Earth, Fire, Water, ect..In that case are you going to tell me that the idea of Thor- God of Lightning is on par with the idea of a God who created the universe?

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Natural, as in came into existense without a factory or a patent.

strange...

so something that is supernatural is really natural so long as human industry didn't create it (or, should I say human industry after the invention of factories or patents)?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Natural, as in came into existense without a factory or a patent.

But the god you are talking about would not match the biblical god.

Da Pittman

Shakyamunison

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Co-signed.

You must realize that back then people needed an explanation of natural phenomena in the world. They had a somewhat limited scope of reality, the types of things that are rather easily explained now to them was mysticism, or divine power. Shaky is correct, Humans did create the Bible and God to explain these types of things.

Think about it this way, before monothiesm there was polytheism. People who believed in multiple gods were far more out of touch with reality than people who believe in a single god. What's the next step?

ive actually stated this facta couple of times in other threads....but no one responds to it sad

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?
Dude, you're so d33p and 3dgy. How were you not discovered as a child prodigy?
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ive actually stated this facta couple of times in other threads....but no one responds to it sad
Probably because nobody who believes really cares.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remove all things, and what is left? An un-natural god?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Dude, you're so d33p and 3dgy. How were you not discovered as a child prodigy?

Probably because nobody who believes really cares.

it just struck me....your a douchebag.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
An un-natural god?

No. What is left is the Mystic Law. But I was asking what you thought would be left. A natural god?

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. What is left is the Mystic Law. But I was asking what you thought would be left. A natural god? It was a bad joke stick out tongue

Since something can't be created from nothing then he couldn't create it therefore if he does exist he would have been created.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
It was a bad joke stick out tongue

Since something can't be created from nothing then he couldn't create it therefore if he does exist he would have been created.

But something can come from nothing. Look up Vacuum energy.

King Kandy
That's not a true vacuum though.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But something can come from nothing. Look up Vacuum energy. Well I read a bit about it but I'm not clear as to what this intells, I didn't read anything saying that vacuum energy create matter from nothing.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well I read a bit about it but I'm not clear as to what this intells, I didn't read anything saying that vacuum energy create matter from nothing.

Stephen hawkins A Brief History of Time talks about black holes evaporating. At the event horizon of black hole is the far future, a true vacuum will be created. At that point matter will come into existence as both matter and antimatter. It has been some years sense I read the book, but there you have it. Something coming from nothing. However, vacuum energy might be dark matter. That means that vacuum energy is not empty.

DigiMark007
He's referring (I think) to the literal creation of energy from nothing at the quantum level, which defies Einsteinian models and both creates and destroys matter.

This is the basis for 1 of the 2 main theories of a natural origin of the universe. "Nothing", contrary to our intuitive sense of things, is an unstable state at the quantum level...which is why, for example, scientists were so shocked to find a empty patch of "nothing" in space via Hubble telescope photos.

The other involves space-time bent inward infinitely so in the pre-Big Bang universe, to the extent that time itself was not as we currently perceive it and it had the effect of making it possible to the universe to simply be infinite in a temporal sense.

There are others, but those crop up the most.

big gay kirk
1- anything that exists is natural.. if it wasn't then it could not exist in this universe... a polluting poison factory is just as natural as a water lily....

2 most major and minor religions agree that in the beginning was chaos, and something stirred it up or otherwise caused order and mater to come from this chaos.... just as superstring theory claims... "god" the creator therefore is just this creative force... the god of the bible is simply an old levantine war god who padded his part a little....I like Philip Pullmans explanation of how GOd (the Authority) came to get hsi job... and also the description in the Book of Enoch, where the LORD sits on the seventh layerr of heaven while God is on the tenth..

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stephen hawkins A Brief History of Time talks about black holes evaporating. At the event horizon of black hole is the far future, a true vacuum will be created. At that point matter will come into existence as both matter and antimatter. It has been some years sense I read the book, but there you have it. Something coming from nothing. However, vacuum energy might be dark matter. That means that vacuum energy is not empty. I might have to read the book, but I'm still not seeing the something from nothing in your post. By my definition of a true vacuum is that there is no matter at all and black holes draw in matter like a giant magnet and bending space and time.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I might have to read the book, but I'm still not seeing the something from nothing in your post. By my definition of a true vacuum is that there is no matter at all and black holes draw in matter like a giant magnet and bending space and time.

All phenomena in the universe is temporal, and changing. The idea of a true vacuum could reflect a non temporal something that is the cause of the temporal universe. However, I'm just brain storming here; I really don't know.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by DigiMark007
He's referring (I think) to the literal creation of energy from nothing at the quantum level, which defies Einsteinian models and both creates and destroys matter.

This is the basis for 1 of the 2 main theories of a natural origin of the universe. "Nothing", contrary to our intuitive sense of things, is an unstable state at the quantum level...which is why, for example, scientists were so shocked to find a empty patch of "nothing" in space via Hubble telescope photos.

The other involves space-time bent inward infinitely so in the pre-Big Bang universe, to the extent that time itself was not as we currently perceive it and it had the effect of making it possible to the universe to simply be infinite in a temporal sense.

There are others, but those crop up the most.

Yeah, Lee Smolin said something along those lines, that if the singularity is eliminated by some quantum effect the universe does not reach an infinite state of density. Instead it reaches some very high density and allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

Da Pittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All phenomena in the universe is temporal, and changing. The idea of a true vacuum could reflect a non temporal something that is the cause of the temporal universe. However, I'm just brain storming here; I really don't know. pitt_nuts My world is coming to an end, the great eye doesn't have the answer stick out tongue

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Da Pittman
pitt_nuts My world is coming to an end, the great eye doesn't have the answer stick out tongue

Ya, you think it's bad being you; just try being me... laughing

Tonight I'll end up dreaming about this. sad

The big EH
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Dude, you're so d33p and 3dgy. How were you not discovered as a child prodigy? he's being sarcastic right, it's hard to tell online and nobody ever calls me smart let alone a "prodigy" so thats clouding my judgement a little

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Let me clarify, when I said multiple gods I meant Gods of Earth, Fire, Water, ect..In that case are you going to tell me that the idea of Thor- God of Lightning is on par with the idea of a God who created the universe?

If by "on par" you mean same duties, then of course not.

But see, I've never subscribed to the idea that polytheistic religions are somehow less advanced or 'dumber' than monotheistic ones. That's belittling and degrading. If a Scandinavian believes that a flying blond holding a hammer is responsible of the onset of lightning, or if an Indian believes that a purple four-armed guy surrounded by cobras is responsible for sustaining existence, then that's their belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the god you are talking about would not match the biblical god.

What?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by The big EH
he's being sarcastic right, it's hard to tell online and nobody ever calls me smart let alone a "prodigy" so thats clouding my judgement a little

Yeah, he is. Zeal's bitter toward people occasionally, so don't worry about it.

The big EH
good, i'm used to sarcasm....just not online....

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If by "on par" you mean same duties, then of course not.

But see, I've never subscribed to the idea that polytheistic religions are somehow less advanced or 'dumber' than monotheistic ones. That's belittling and degrading. If a Scandinavian believes that a flying blond holding a hammer is responsible of the onset of lightning, or if an Indian believes that a purple four-armed guy surrounded by cobras is responsible for sustaining existence, then that's their belief.



What?

I'm sorry that it sounds degrading, but we have overwhelming evidence that a flying blond does not generate lightning. It only took time for people to accept that truth.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by The big EH
he's being sarcastic right, it's hard to tell online and nobody ever calls me smart let alone a "prodigy" so thats clouding my judgement a little
Yes. I'm not bitter; I'm a horrible ***** who is emotionally unstable.

Utrigita
If the Big Bang created God, then what created ore sparked the Big Bang?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

What?

Well, the god of the bible, according to the bible, created the universe, but it all went wrong. His creation got so screwed up that he had to sacrifice his only son just to save a few small age like creatures on a tinny planet.

Don't you think that a real god would do a better job? laughing

queeq
Originally posted by Utrigita
If the Big Bang created God, then what created ore sparked the Big Bang?

Chance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by queeq
Chance.

Chance does not exist other then in the minds of humans. I read an article once (I can't find it now) that talked about how nothingness is unstable and will erupt into somethingness.

Quark_666
Originally posted by Utrigita
If the Big Bang created God, then what created ore sparked the Big Bang?

If God created the big bang, what created God?

queeq
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Chance does not exist other then in the minds of humans. I read an article once (I can't find it now) that talked about how nothingness is unstable and will erupt into somethingness.

Still, the big bang was a chance collision of quarks and what have ya... from that came a lot of soup. by chance some soup formed into a planet that was a a perfect distance from the sun, by chance life formed and by chance it mutated and evolved into us.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by queeq
Still, the big bang was a chance collision of quarks and what have ya... from that came a lot of soup. by chance some soup formed into a planet that was a a perfect distance from the sun, by chance life formed and by chance it mutated and evolved into us.

But chance is not real. All that chance says is that we don't know, and knowing is not a requirement for the universe.

queeq
Chance says that it happens but we can't explain how... it just did.

Jbill311
Webster's dictionary defines marriage as a...

Sorry, wrong debate. Chance means that there were not enough known factors to accurately predict the outcome. It does not have to be a synonym for some sort of mystic misunderstanding.

(not meant to be insulting, it is just that when words have so many different connotations, it's important to use only the most relevant one, in this case the scientific definition)

queeq
I agree.

Utrigita
Originally posted by Quark_666
If God created the big bang, what created God?

What came first??? No Idea, the thought I'm playing with is that we doesn't know what was before the Big Bang we doesn't know what triggered the Big Bang, Could it be God, well in theory since God always have existed it goes well with the omnipresence Theory, but again all speculation, but imo you cannot say that the Big Bang created God when it just as well could be the other way around.

Admiral Akbar
lol..reading your post reminded me of smeagol from lord of the rings.
"We doesn't know"
"We doesn't know"
....

My Precious

queeq
And: "You don't have any friends."

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But chance is not real. All that chance says is that we don't know, and knowing is not a requirement for the universe.

you talking in in riddles and being one of those people saying that everything is a human term isnt real is bullshit. of course its a human term, because there is no sentience greater than us to call it sonmething else. therefore chance is real because it is real to us. it is subjective. DEAL WITH IT mad

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Utrigita
What came first??? No Idea, the thought I'm playing with is that we doesn't know what was before the Big Bang we doesn't know what triggered the Big Bang, Could it be God, well in theory since God always have existed it goes well with the omnipresence Theory, but again all speculation, but imo you cannot say that the Big Bang created God when it just as well could be the other way around.

its the chicken and the egg in a bigger scale lol

edit: heh i said chicken, lulz. ( I GET 5 POINTS!!!!!)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you talking in in riddles and being one of those people saying that everything is a human term isnt real is bullshit. of course its a human term, because there is no sentience greater than us to call it sonmething else. therefore chance is real because it is real to us. it is subjective. DEAL WITH IT mad

Sure it is real to us, but it is inappropriate to referee to the beginning of the universe without some respect. To say "chance" is to say that the universe did not know... The universe did not have to know. Therefore, it was very deliberate without knowing.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure it is real to us, but it is inappropriate to referee to the beginning of the universe without some respect. To say "chance" is to say that the universe did not know... The universe did not have to know. Therefore, it was very deliberate without knowing.
respect a....nonliving thing. honestly shaky i expected more. the universe did not know. even if it didnt HAVE to, which is in any case irrelevant, it still didnt know. therefore we CAN check the random chance box. and it being real to us is truly all that matter. there is no other perspective, at least not currently other than humans

queeq
There are other perspectives, but not if you look at life only from an empirical research POV.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by queeq
There are other perspectives, but not if you look at life only from an empirical research POV.

there are absolutely zero conscious life forms on this planet that can classify anything except us. we are the most advanced species on earth. if u have some evidence that say chimpanzees are smarter and have intersteller spaceships be my guest. otherwise human definition is the only 1 that will ever friggin matter till we find some alien mofos to come slaughter us all

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

Well its great movie inspires you to think great things.

The problem of course is that the big bang theory is still under development.
Something must have created the big bang, otherwise, it contradicts all the laws of physics.

Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing can be created or destroyed.

Mindship
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

1. The Universe, in the grandest sense, Always Was (a simpler proposition than Nothing --> Something). Our particular region of spacetime, bursting into being by way of false-vacuum shift, brane collision, whatever, is but one event, along with countless other events, in an infinite scalar field (think of it as a larger, fractal reflection of virtual particles frothing in and out of our spacetime foam). Implicit is that, given an infinite scalar field with countless "big bang" events, inevitably, at some point, a spacetime with our particular set of life-friendly physical constants will appear. It's a numbers game, nothing more; and unlike a transcendent Intelligent Designer, other spacetimes are theoretically, empirically testable, once sufficient energy is provided (hence why we build ever larger accelerators). The same can not be said, by definition, for a transempirical Designer. However, this does Not, in and of itself, necessarily rule out the existence of "God." Empirically speaking, it just adds a nonessential factor.

2. If we wish to consider "God," then, as an example, the transcendent aspect of God is "His" Infinite Consciousness; the empirical aspect ("His" body) is the infinite scalar field. Problem: how would one prove this? This would require an examination of the scientific method--its applicability in transempirical matters--and what is meant by proof.

queeq
Science can only measure empirical data, only thing from the material realm. Anything that might exits under the concept of spiritual therefore automatically falls outside of the realm of science.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Utrigita
What came first??? No Idea, the thought I'm playing with is that we doesn't know what was before the Big Bang we doesn't know what triggered the Big Bang, Could it be God, well in theory since God always have existed it goes well with the omnipresence Theory, but again all speculation, but imo you cannot say that the Big Bang created God when it just as well could be the other way around.

erm

Any God that created the universe (especially the mono-theistic gods of human religions) is nigh-infinitely complex, and they get around the problem of his creation by using a priori arguments of his perfect and everlasting nature.

Ok, but it's still logically impossible for something to exist without prior cause. That definition may work for the faithful, but fails utterly when presented to anyone else. I'm always surprised that while theists can imagine a God that has no time scale and "always is," they shun the idea that the eternal entity is the universe itself (due to warped time at the singularity point pre-Big Bang).

Beyond that, let's assume a force (we'll call it God) created the universe from nothing, instead of natural forces. The God of any earth religion is one who intervenes on Earth in various ways (paranormal phenomenon, prayer, etc.) and so we should be able to detect evidence of it's existence. That's where it falls apart into sheer faith, because no such evidence exists outside of suspect anecdotes.

If you want to assume a Creator made the universe instead of having rational scientific explanations (which exist and can be defended), go ahead. Personally, I see that as such an unlikely event as to be effectively ignorable.

....

Shakya, if you ever find that article on the creation of matter from nothing, send it along to me. I know of similar findings in quantum sciences, but have never read anything on it in depth.

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
Science can only measure empirical data, only thing from the material realm. Anything that might exits under the concept of spiritual therefore automatically falls outside of the realm of science. Specifically, it automatically falls outside the realm of empirical science but not necessarily scientific method.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by DigiMark007
erm

Any God that created the universe (especially the mono-theistic gods of human religions) is nigh-infinitely complex, and they get around the problem of his creation by using a priori arguments of his perfect and everlasting nature.

Ok, but it's still logically impossible for something to exist without prior cause. That definition may work for the faithful, but fails utterly when presented to anyone else. I'm always surprised that while theists can imagine a God that has no time scale and "always is," they shun the idea that the eternal entity is the universe itself (due to warped time at the singularity point pre-Big Bang).

Beyond that, let's assume a force (we'll call it God) created the universe from nothing, instead of natural forces. The God of any earth religion is one who intervenes on Earth in various ways (paranormal phenomenon, prayer, etc.) and so we should be able to detect evidence of it's existence. That's where it falls apart into sheer faith, because no such evidence exists outside of suspect anecdotes.

If you want to assume a Creator made the universe instead of having rational scientific explanations (which exist and can be defended), go ahead. Personally, I see that as such an unlikely event as to be effectively ignorable.

....

Shakya, if you ever find that article on the creation of matter from nothing, send it along to me. I know of similar findings in quantum sciences, but have never read anything on it in depth.

digi it is the duty of the faithful to ignore logic. just look at ushomefree he's a PERFECT example

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
digi it is the duty of the faithful to ignore logic.

I disagree.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
just look at ushomefree he's a PERFECT example

Oh wait...never mind.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
I disagree.



Oh wait...never mind. laughing

queeq
Originally posted by Mindship
Specifically, it automatically falls outside the realm of empirical science but not necessarily scientific method.

What method if there's nothing to measure, replicate, test or predict... ?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by queeq
What method if there's nothing to measure, replicate, test or predict... ?

no method because u arent testing jack shit.

queeq
Exactly. Which also shows the limitations of using science as a search tool for truth.

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
What method if there's nothing to measure, replicate, test or predict... ? Scientific method is "applied common sense," and common sense dictates you use tools and collect data which reflect the domain being studied. This is why you wouldn't use, say, a microscope to study the meaning of a sentence. Further, to take the stance that "Only empirical evidence counts," is self-contradicting, as there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence "Only empirical evidence counts." For that matter, there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of any sentence or any action of Mind. Please don't say, neurochemical activity, because that is empirical evidence for Brain functioning (to confuse the two is to commit what's called a category error). We assume it reflects mental activity, but since "assumption" itself is a mental activity, that assumption is not allowed, otherwise you're now engaging in bootstrap reasoning.

queeq
Has nothing to do with assumptions but with definitions. Science defines things to make them measurable.

And there IS empirical data to both your examples. Your sentence "Only empirical evidence counts"has a) words b) that can be replicated and c) that have defintions i.e. a dictionary for instance. One can therefore use that sentence in various parts of the English speaking world and test waht people understand in reading that line. That particular experiment surrenders data that can be processed. Plus that process can be repeated.

Neurochemical activity may be defined as scientific mental activity.. but then it's never called that, it's called brain activity. And that's a fine definition. It's the definition that creates the possibility to test, PLUS by asking the subject who's brain activity is measured one can link it to mental activity (once that is defined properly). So again, measurable variables that can be tested and retested using the same defintions.

Try doing that with spirituality.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by DigiMark007
erm

Any God that created the universe (especially the mono-theistic gods of human religions) is nigh-infinitely complex, and they get around the problem of his creation by using a priori arguments of his perfect and everlasting nature.

Ok, but it's still logically impossible for something to exist without prior cause. That definition may work for the faithful, but fails utterly when presented to anyone else. I'm always surprised that while theists can imagine a God that has no time scale and "always is," they shun the idea that the eternal entity is the universe itself (due to warped time at the singularity point pre-Big Bang).

Beyond that, let's assume a force (we'll call it God) created the universe from nothing, instead of natural forces. The God of any earth religion is one who intervenes on Earth in various ways (paranormal phenomenon, prayer, etc.) and so we should be able to detect evidence of it's existence. That's where it falls apart into sheer faith, because no such evidence exists outside of suspect anecdotes.

If you want to assume a Creator made the universe instead of having rational scientific explanations (which exist and can be defended), go ahead. Personally, I see that as such an unlikely event as to be effectively ignorable.

....

Shakya, if you ever find that article on the creation of matter from nothing, send it along to me. I know of similar findings in quantum sciences, but have never read anything on it in depth.
You know what else is pretty much logically impossible? A sky wizard who creates the universe and then saves people by turning his son into a zombie.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
respect a....nonliving thing. honestly shaky i expected more. the universe did not know. even if it didnt HAVE to, which is in any case irrelevant, it still didnt know. therefore we CAN check the random chance box. and it being real to us is truly all that matter. there is no other perspective, at least not currently other than humans

I absolutely disagree. Chance is only us small humans not understanding. Chance does not exist in nature.

inimalist
Originally posted by queeq
Exactly. Which also shows the limitations of using science as a search tool for truth.

this supposition is based on the idea that there is something beyond the material universe, a proposition that has no evidence.

In fact, untestability can be viewed as a worse condemnation than falsehood.

One must first assume that God exists for the lack of the ability to test him to be a limitation. The inability to test something that doesn't exist is surely not a limitation.

queeq
Well, yeah, but a materialistic view on the world in one limited to the Western World... and who says that's the only possible view?

And untestability is limited. Witness reports are used in the court of law and serve as evidence. Yet, they are not empirically testable because a crime situation cannot be repeated.

So if people witness of their spirituality and one finds many similarities, one tries to find the answer to taht in a materialistic world view. Somehow, what is valid in the court of law, suddenly doesn't count anymore when it comes to spirituality.

The existence of God is one assumption, the non-existence of God is another. The point is, science is bound to many many laws for sound research. It binds it that many non-material things kinda escape his graps. One such field is psychology... very little is properly testable and when it is, it often gets replaced by another approach with new assumptions.

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

Well, then what created the big bang? One will never know for sure what created what and how it all started, but I guess it gives us something to do, spending our time trying to figure it all out.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I absolutely disagree. Chance is only us small humans not understanding. Chance does not exist in nature.

prove it

chickenlover98
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Well, then what created the big bang? One will never know for sure what created what and how it all started, but I guess it gives us something to do, spending our time trying to figure it all out.

well not know what created the big bang is better than believing in an unseeable unknowable and untouchable god. you cant do anything to prove that he exists. at least we have proof of the big bang....

chickenlover98
Originally posted by inimalist
this supposition is based on the idea that there is something beyond the material universe, a proposition that has no evidence.

In fact, untestability can be viewed as a worse condemnation than falsehood.

One must first assume that God exists for the lack of the ability to test him to be a limitation. The inability to test something that doesn't exist is surely not a limitation.

thumb up

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove it

Prove what?

You know that no one can prove a negative. You should try to prove that chance is a reflection of nature not knowing what to do.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove what?

You know that no one can prove a negative. You should try to prove that chance is a reflection of nature not knowing what to do.

a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser

DigiMark007
Originally posted by chickenlover98
a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser

Just because our intellects can't predict something doesn't mean that it is "chance", or randomness. All things follows natural laws, regardless of our ability to predict them or not.

=Tired Hiker=
Originally posted by chickenlover98
well not know what created the big bang is better than believing in an unseeable unknowable and untouchable god. you cant do anything to prove that he exists. at least we have proof of the big bang....

Yes, but what created the partcles responsible for colliding and creating the big bang? I'm not saying an all powerful God did so, but I wouldn't cancel it out. I'm simply saying that I don't know. And, since I don't know, I can't say whether God exists or not, no matter how unbelievable, useeable, unknowable and untouchable he, she, or it is. I'm not saying that I do or don't believe in God either. All I can say for sure is that I just don't know, and I don't think anyone will ever know.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser

I throw a dice, before it lands, you say there is a 1 in 6 chance of any face on the dice to show on top. You don't know what is going to show because you do not know all of the variables. However, the dice, if thrown in an absolute controlled way, will always land on the same face. Nature never works off of chance. Nature always works from cause and effect from every moment to moment. The reason the dice seems to be random is because all of the circumstances change every time the dice is thrown. If you could know "everything", you would be able to predict every random or chance event.

Now, prove to me that the universe does not work this way.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I throw a dice, before it lands, you say there is a 1 in 6 chance of any face on the dice to show on top. You don't know what is going to show because you do not know all of the variables. However, the dice, if thrown in an absolute controlled way, will always land on the same face. Nature never works off of chance. Nature always works from cause and effect from every moment to moment. The reason the dice seems to be random is because all of the circumstances change every time the dice is thrown. If you could know "everything", you would be able to predict every random or chance event.

Now, prove to me that the universe does not work this way.

ok simple. the world is not a contolled envirnment. we dont know all the variables, we cant. why do we make mistakes?because we dont know everything. that is the reason chance works. the universe doesnt know. it isnt a living organism. it is a place. chance determines what is happening. to say there is no chance acknoledges a higher power, and both you and i disagree on that

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok simple. the world is not a contolled envirnment. we dont know all the variables, we cant. why do we make mistakes?because we dont know everything. that is the reason chance works. the universe doesnt know. it isnt a living organism. it is a place. chance determines what is happening. to say there is no chance acknoledges a higher power, and both you and i disagree on that

No, I disagree. The universe does not need to know or have a higher power. I stated this in the beginning. The universe works because of laws and cause and effect. The amount of knowledge we have has no barring of how the universe came into being. If you did not understand gravity, you might think that things fell by chance, but they do not.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I disagree. The universe does not need to know or have a higher power. I stated this in the beginning. The universe works because of laws and cause and effect. The amount of knowledge we have has no barring of how the universe came into being. If you did not understand gravity, you might think that things fell by chance, but they do not.

So where did these laws come from? What made them? Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
And there IS empirical data to both your examples. Your sentence "Only empirical evidence counts"has a) words b) that can be replicated and c) that have defintions i.e. a dictionary for instance. Both a mouse and I will see the same sensory stimulus in looking at a page of words. But only the human mind will see past the ink-on-paper to the meaning of those words. To the mouse, such mental-symbolic meaning does not exist, only the ink-on-paper figures, things which can be empirically measured. But the meanings (derived from intersubjective agreement--that's how we get a useful empirical entity filled with meaning: the dictionary) remain transempirical.

Neurochemical activity may be defined as scientific mental activity. According to whom? No one, based on your statement "but then it's never called that."
but then it's never called that, it's called brain activity. For good reason. One avoids making a category error.

And that's a fine definition. It's the definition that creates the possibility to test, PLUS by asking the subject who's brain activity is measured one can link it to mental activity
Definition = meaning = transempirical.
Asking a subject = use of words = meaning = transempirical.
Linking = assumption = mental activity (bootstrap reasoning) = transempirical.

Question: Why I certainly appreciate your rigorous devotion to Science as the main tool for a reliable map of the material world (and it is the best game in town for doing so), why the vehement objection to even the possibility that scientific method could be used, perhaps, to expand a reality map beyond the empirical? Because we'll be misleading ourselves? Heck, even empirical science has to update its database, its reality map, as new information is aquired.

If there is the slightest chance that science could be used to prove the existence of a transcendent level to reality, wouldn't that be better than everyone guessing and relying purely on faith or personal agendas to push God's existence; wouldn't it be an improvement in human understanding to at least try to go about this systematically? Why the objection to even this possibility? Just curious.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So where did these laws come from? What made them? Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Nothing made them. They are the product of cause and effect. The universe did not begin at the big bang. The universe is eternal.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing made them. They are the product of cause and effect. The universe did not begin at the big bang. The universe is eternal.

Can you back up those assertions?

How do you know the univers is eterntal?

And that really didn't answer my other questions.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Can you back up those assertions?

How do you know the univers is eterntal?

And that really didn't answer my other questions.

At the beginning of the big bang, space and time came into existence. Before that, the universe existed, but time did not exist.

I answered your question. Did you have a question that you didn't write? Can you restate your question?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At the beginning of the big bang, space and time came into existence. Before that, the universe existed, but time did not exist.


The definition of the Universe is everything that exists; so if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was no Universe.

Time existed, there were just no people around to measure it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you restate your question?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So where did these laws come from?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The definition of the Universe is everything that exists; so if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was no Universe.

Time existed, there were just no people around to measure it.

No, time is part of time-space as described in Einstein's theory of relativity. Before the big bang there was no time.

The laws of the universe are products of cause and effect.

The last question is just semantics.

DigiMark007

Shakyamunison

queeq
Originally posted by Mindship
Both a mouse and I will see the same sensory stimulus in looking at a page of words. But only the human mind will see past the ink-on-paper to the meaning of those words. To the mouse, such mental-symbolic meaning does not exist, only the ink-on-paper figures, things which can be empirically measured. But the meanings (derived from intersubjective agreement--that's how we get a useful empirical entity filled with meaning: the dictionary) remain transempirical.

That is BS. Again, it's all about definition. And that's very wel definable, you just mentioned a whole lot of measurable variables.

What;s the definition of spirituality? What kind of measuring would you apply?

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
Again, it's all about definition.And definition = meaning, the nontangible facet of empirical, ink-on-paper figures. It's the part the mouse will never know.

What;s the definition of spirituality? What kind of measuring would you apply? It would be difficult to continue this discussion into "spirituality," as this would involve thinking even further outside the empirical box, and you haven't answered my question (Why object to the possibility that scientific method may be applicable here?).

InnerRise
Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think? Everyone doesn't believe in the Big Bang.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

chickenlover98
Originally posted by InnerRise
Everyone doesn't believe in the Big Bang.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

thank you for stating the BRUTALLY obvious. also most you always right that saying? i think people would get annoyed if i ended every post with "there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
thank you for stating the BRUTALLY obvious. also most you always right that saying? i think people would get annoyed if i ended every post with "there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch"

I wouldn't get annoyed; I would enjoy it. big grin

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wouldn't get annoyed; I would enjoy it. big grin

in 3 weeks you'd be hitting your head against a brick wall

InnerRise
This is how needless bickering starts. Seeing the environment here, I will leave to not further disrupt the flow of this thread unintentionally.

Sayonara!

ANATA WA WAKARIMASU KA.....

chickenlover98
Originally posted by InnerRise
This is how needless bickering starts. Seeing the environment here, I will leave to not further disrupt the flow of this thread unintentionally.

Sayonara!

ANATA WA WAKARIMASU KA.....

stop saying your annoying saying

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by chickenlover98
stop saying your annoying saying

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Two words: Green Spraypaint

I swear it gets rid of those buggers every time.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Two words: Green Spraypaint

I swear it gets rid of those buggers every time.

ive tried that. they evolved beyond that sh*t. it broke my fire axe for gods sake. its been gnawing on my wood and shit. i dunno what to do ne more

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ive tried that. they evolved beyond that sh*t. it broke my fire axe for gods sake. its been gnawing on my wood and shit. i dunno what to do ne more

Well there's you're problem.

Them cheap over the counter fire axes don't do nothin'. What you need is a good +3 Flaming Burst Animal Bane Dwarven Urgrosh. Keeps the neighbors away too.

If that don't work we might have to start lookin' inta some really heavy artillr'y.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
in 3 weeks you'd be hitting your head against a brick wall

Originally posted by InnerRise
This is how needless bickering starts. Seeing the environment here, I will leave to not further disrupt the flow of this thread unintentionally.

Sayonara!

ANATA WA WAKARIMASU KA.....

Ya, your right. sad laughing







there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well there's you're problem.

Them cheap over the counter fire axes don't do nothin'. What you need is a good +3 Flaming Burst Animal Bane Dwarven Urgrosh. Keeps the neighbors away too.

If that don't work we might have to start lookin' inta some really heavy artillr'y.

i tried that first. damn bastard just pimp smacked me, then went to eat a cat. it looked a lil something like this http://img.4chan.org/b/src/1202183841623.jpg

i am scared itll eat my car

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, your right. sad laughing







there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

there im serious

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
i tried that first. damn bastard just pimp smacked me, then went to eat a cat. it looked a lil something like this http://img.4chan.org/b/src/1202183841623.jpg

i am scared itll eat my car

Poor kitty. eek!


thereisagiantpurpledeathsquirrelonmyporch

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Poor kitty. eek!

i knows it was very sad

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
i knows it was very sad

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

I know... it was almost as bad as this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=10156654

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know... it was almost as bad as this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=10156654


so..........ugly.

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
so..........ugly.

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

eek! I know...

thereisagiantpurpledeathsquirrelonmyporch

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eek! I know...

thereisagiantpurpledeathsquirrelonmyporch

god damn rednecks

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

The big EH
boooooooooobs
Originally posted by Metamorphisis
He absorbed the entity of the matrix itself since he absorbed everything connected to it. He ruled the coding at that point. If you remember, the matrix code was all distorted on all the ships screens, and this was because Smith had total control, he became "God" in the matrix world.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know... it was almost as bad as this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=10156654

LOL....self pwnt. laughing

chickenlover98
Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL....self pwnt. laughing o shit thats him?!?!?! wow. following buddahs example much?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
o shit thats him?!?!?! wow. following buddahs example much?

Was that a fat Joke? mad laughing

queeq
Originally posted by Mindship
And definition = meaning, the nontangible facet of empirical, ink-on-paper figures. It's the part the mouse will never know.


Wrong again. Definition in a scientifc sense is defining what measurable variables make up for the defintion. So by complying with a number of values, something would fit the definition. It's not that random in science, Mindship, or science would not be possible.

But again, to me it shows the limitations of the scientific method: if you can't break something up in measurable variables it lies beyond the power of science to work with it.

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
Definition in a scientifc sense is defining what measurable variables make up for the defintion.
You're talking about an "operational definition"...

..."a definition which describes an experimental procedure by which a numeric value of the quantity may be determined."

..."the definition of a concept as expressed by the way it is measured."

..."is the definition of a variable in terms of the actual procedures used by the researcher to measure and/or manipulate it."

..."a procedure whereby a concept is defined solely in terms of the operations used to produce and measure it."

..."a definition through description of actions."

And so forth. Accordingly...

...Definition: "a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol." (The above is how it is applied "operationally."wink

queeq
What are you on about? What's your point?

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
What are you on about? What's your point?
Return to my first post and start from there.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Return to my first post and start from there.

Do you think he will be able to handle that? laughing

queeq
Not again. Good tactics, just running in circles.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Was that a fat Joke? mad laughing actually yes

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
actually yes

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch

stick out tongue

You deserve to have a giant purple death squirrel on my porch. laughing

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
stick out tongue

You deserve to have a giant purple death squirrel on my porch. laughing

he wont leave. i swear. i tried the green spray paint. i threw acorns at the bastard. i tried a fire axe, a crow bar, and recently lysol. i dont know what to do. its started nibbliung on the carpet

Jbill311
I find that toenails made of broccoli allow me to rule the world. When I rule the world, I can tell the purple death squirrels where to stay. (sorry about this one, I'll move it on my day off)

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Jbill311
I find that toenails made of broccoli allow me to rule the world. When I rule the world, I can tell the purple death squirrels where to stay. (sorry about this one, I'll move it on my day off)

you cant move them the giant purple death squirrels control all the brocoli

there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch to anyone who didnt know

Jbill311
didn't you know about the resistance movement? we stockpiled some broccoli before they took power. GET READY FOR THE UPRISING!! Happy Dance gunsmilie Happy Dance

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Jbill311
didn't you know about the resistance movement? we stockpiled some broccoli before they took power. GET READY FOR THE UPRISING!! Happy Dance gunsmilie Happy Dance they evolved beyond brocoli, why do you think they captured lots of it? to study it. they altered their purple death squirrel genes. their immune to brocoli

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
they evolved beyond broccoli, why do you think they captured lots of it? to study it. they altered their purple death squirrel genes. their immune to broccoli

If there is no broccoli, then god didn't create the universe; the universe created god.

Explain that to your death squirrels. It will make their heads explode. no expression

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If there is no broccoli, then god didn't create the universe; the universe created god.

Explain that to your death squirrels. It will make their heads explode. no expression

but their super intelligent deathsquirrels. why do you think their purple. im thinking the situation will evolve into something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMrdAr7fNjo

if they get the necronomicon we're doomed

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
but their super intelligent deathsquirrels. why do you think their purple. im thinking the situation will evolve into something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMrdAr7fNjo

if they get the necronomicon we're doomed

Yes, I'm counting on them being smart. They will try to figure out the statement, but they will also see how stupid it is, and then get pissed and eat you. Problem solved. big grin

queeq
I like the dead purple squirrel argument. With your permission, I'd like to adopt it.

Quark_666
Originally posted by queeq
I like the dead purple squirrel argument. With your permission, I'd like to adopt it.

Too late. I already plagiarized it and employed the tactic against the brocolli trees.

queeq
I hear that's rather succesful. But since it's been plagiarized before, I guess it's no problem to do it some more.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by queeq
I hear that's rather succesful. But since it's been plagiarized before, I guess it's no problem to do it some more. they arent dead they are purple squirrels of death. get it right. they will devour you.

by the way did you guys know there is a giant purple deathsquirrel on my porch

The big EH
W T F you guys see giant purple death squirels to? nobody believes me they are here to take my brocoli, everybody tells me i'm crazy. shhhhh there's one behind me.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
they arent dead they are purple squirrels of death. get it right. they will devour you.

by the way did you guys know there is a giant purple deathsquirrel on my porch

The green spray paint didn't turn it yellow?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
The green spray paint didn't turn it yellow? i told you theyy have immunity. they studied it, after i WTFPWNED the first 1. its friend observed it scream and liquidate. they're gnawing at the floorboards in my house now. im getting annoyed

queeq
I hear they found new breeding grounds and are about to multiply. They're the next stage in evolution.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by queeq
I hear they found new breeding grounds and are about to multiply. They're the next stage in evolution.

unfortunately for me, that would be my attic

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
unfortunately for me, that would be my attic

That is disconcerting to me since apparently you are in my hen house.

Bicnarok

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Oh no you di'in't.

queeq
Originally posted by Quark_666
That is disconcerting to me since apparently you are in my hen house.

You didn't know?

Quark_666
Originally posted by queeq
You didn't know?

It's becoming alarmingly obvious. I'm typing internet messages responding to an individual who is dealing with an upcoming threat and I'm dealing with the same one!!!

queeq
Maybe you are one and the same.

Quark_666
Originally posted by queeq
Maybe you are one and the same.

Naw. I'm Mormon, he's athiest.

Unless of course you wanna speculate we're both Norrisite!

queeq
Never heard of MPS?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>