Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, Imhotep), 567 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 2
Page 47 of 67 1 2 45 46 47 48 49 66 67
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: PHeMoX] #241786
12/18/08 21:14
12/18/08 21:14
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman Offline
Senior Expert
Dan Silverman  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
The problem with the sea shell argument (or the old "watchmaker" argument) is that it assumes that all ordered things demand a creator. It is an attempt to answer what is, in effect, an unknown. It might be plausible, when men first thought about atoms and the like, to assume that their orderliness came from a creator or an "orderer" of some kind. And this is a BIG assumption mainly because we, as people, order things. However, we discover that some things just naturally order themselves. For example, if I drop a zillion BB's in a jar, you end up with the BBs being very ordered (and the outcome is incredibly predictable). This is not due to me arranging them, but to things like their shape, the shape of the jar and gravity. The same is true for molecules (as an example). There are many, many examples in the universe of order that happens without a designer behind the scenes.

What really is going on is that God (or the concept of God) gets the blame/credit for whatever we don't know about. When we did not know how diseases came about, we blamed God. Now we know better and we no longer blame God. When thunder and lightening caused us, as a people, to cower in fear, we accused some deity. Now we know the process of these events and most of us do not get frightened any longer by them. However, there are still things that we do not understand. As a result, many people still blame/credit God with them.

One such example is what happens after we die. This is something that mankind does not know about as we have not devised a way to test it with certainty. Once again, a deity gets the blame/credit. The same is true with the origins of all things. Where did all this come from? We don't have an answer (yet). Therefore, it is an unknown. And, as a result, many will give the credit to some deity.

In ancient times, the deities were accredited with virtually everything. These days, very little is accredited to him/them. As time goes on and more unknowns become known, less and less credit will be given to any deity.


Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Dan Silverman] #241798
12/18/08 22:36
12/18/08 22:36
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 868
Chicago, IL
Dooley Offline
User
Dooley  Offline
User

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 868
Chicago, IL
I would disagree, I give the creator credit for everything. This is not a logical argument, but once you believe in a creator, it's easy to see that everything is a result of His actions.

The BB's are a nice idea, but who made the BB's? Someone intelligent had to make them round and the same size. Again it points to a designer.

why don't you guys share the other theories on how life began. That would give us something to debate, other than 'I don't know'.

'I don't know' is good and honest, but it is not a theory. Just as you say, we may yet learn exactly how the universe came into being, we also may find more evidence of a creator/designer. If we close the door on this hypothesis, we'll never see that evidence when it reaches us.

Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Dooley] #241803
12/18/08 23:33
12/18/08 23:33
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman Offline
Senior Expert
Dan Silverman  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Quote:
The BB's are a nice idea, but who made the BB's? Someone intelligent had to make them round and the same size. Again it points to a designer.


Can you not see the error in your own argument? If everything that has order to it demands or necessitates a designer, then what about God himself? He is ordered (according to religious texts) and, thus, he must have a designer, right? However, you (and others) would say that God is the one uncaused cause. Why does he get to be the exception? Because some books say so?


Professional 2D, 3D and Real-Time 3D Content Creation:
HyperGraph Studios
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Dooley] #241805
12/18/08 23:40
12/18/08 23:40
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
Quote:
But your "we don't know yet" is spelled: "there is a God and nothing else". That doesn't sound like we don't know yet. That sounds like shut up, we have the only truth. And that is simply not true.
no, i'm not trying to convert anyone here. i'm just saying, your logic is useless. you're saying He cannot exist, and i'm saying you're wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
that's right. and why don't we know? because there's no evidence for what caused it. does that mean there is no cause? no. so you are stuck, until you change your mind.

I am not stuck. Don't tell me that i have to change my mind to rubbish. It is you who is bound to a fairytale book and its storys, not me. I look for facts, not for lies.

Again you are wrong. We don't know because we cannot look behind the big bang. The why is because the natural laws doesn't allow to look farer back than around 100,000 years after the big bang. We can calculate farer back by math. But we cannot go before point zero with even that weapon. This has nothing to do with a god. But natural laws.

Having causality means we have causality in the first place. A proven thing. There is no light going on before i turn the switch.

Causality is a rule that also a god would need to follow when he didn't want to destroy the universe by doing something uncausal. Like a miracle for example ...
yes, you're stuck. i showed how your own logic contradicts yourself: you say there cannot be a God because you don't see evidence for Him. you also say everything obeys causality. the Big Bang obeys causality, but we don't know what caused it yet. why don't we know? no evidence! but your logic says that no evidence means no existence!
Quote:
Quote:
What caused god? Did he origined by chance?
The answer that he lived "outside causality" would be rediculous.

That's exactly right, it clearly makes no sense. But I do think the answers aren't within our current uhm frame of knowledge and perhaps even logic so much. Perhaps or rather probably we will need to think outside of the box.
yes, we all need to think outside the box. by saying that something cannot exist outside of causality, you effectively assume that causality does go back infinitely.

Lukas is basically asking "what caused the first cause?", assuming nothing ever existed outside of causality, and that causality goes infinitely into the past (ie: everything had something that caused it that happened before it). nothing wrong with that theory; only the blind assumption that it's true isn't exactly thinking outside the box.

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: JibbSmart] #241832
12/19/08 07:56
12/19/08 07:56
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Tiles Offline
User
Tiles  Offline
User

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Quote:
yes, you're stuck. i showed how your own logic contradicts yourself: you say there cannot be a God because you don't see evidence for Him. you also say everything obeys causality. the Big Bang obeys causality, but we don't know what caused it yet. why don't we know? no evidence! but your logic says that no evidence means no existence!


The Big Bang introduced causality. We cannot say what was before. But we can say that our current universe is causal. And always was.

And i say there is no god because there is no evidence for it, yes. The same no evidence as for trolls and fairies and imaginary seamonsters or the pink elephant. The same no existence as for every fairy tale.

Again, when YOU say that every non evident fact is true, then you have to believe in all fairy tales too. And i mean ALL.

Quote:
yes, we all need to think outside the box. by saying that something cannot exist outside of causality, you effectively assume that causality does go back infinitely.


Nope. Wrong. Causality started with time. You need time to have one effect after another. After is a time word. And time started with Big Bang.

Quote:
Lukas is basically asking "what caused the first cause?", assuming nothing ever existed outside of causality, and that causality goes infinitely into the past (ie: everything had something that caused it that happened before it). nothing wrong with that theory; only the blind assumption that it's true isn't exactly thinking outside the box.


What caused the first cause is unanswerable. As told above, causality needs time. No time, no causality. And no, it doesn't go infinitely into the past. It ends at the Big Bang. Well, looking from that angle you can say the first cause was the Big Bang.

Everything before cannot be proven. And is just imagination. Which means none of them are true.

Last edited by Tiles; 12/19/08 07:59.

trueSpace 7.6, A7 commercial
Free gamegraphics, freewaregames http://www.reinerstilesets.de
Die Community rund um Spiele-Toolkits http://www.clickzone.de
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Tiles] #241835
12/19/08 08:46
12/19/08 08:46
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
Quote:
Again, when YOU say that every non evident fact is true, then you have to believe in all fairy tales too. And i mean ALL.
i never ever said "every non evident fact is true". it's rubbish like this you make up that is why we're still having this discussion.
Quote:
Quote:
yes, we all need to think outside the box. by saying that something cannot exist outside of causality, you effectively assume that causality does go back infinitely.
Nope. Wrong. Causality started with time. You need time to have one effect after another. After is a time word. And time started with Big Bang.
but by saying something happened without a cause (ie: the Big Bang starting without something before it) you must concede that the Big Bang acted outside the bounds of Causality. so no, i'm not wrong.
Quote:
What caused the first cause is unanswerable.
that's my point. it's directed at those asking "what caused God".
Quote:
And no, it doesn't go infinitely into the past. It ends at the Big Bang.
i agree, but i was leaving that open because i don't have a "why" to say that's impossible. but okay, so you don't think that it could possibly go infinitely into the past. then you fall into my logical argument (something you seem to avoid like the plague) even better:
i said, either causality goes infinitely into the past or something that isn't contained within the bounds of causality caused it. you believe that nothing caused the Big Bang. this is inferred from your reference to it as "the First Cause" and your persistent belief that if you can't detect something it doesn't exist. if the Big Bang happened without a cause, it didn't obey Causality; it just started it.

i'm saying there's no reason a God couldn't have been the cause of the Big Bang.

you can say "wrong" without an explanation, but i'm right. i just told you why. i can say "wrong" and i can tell you why. and i have over and over again, but you persist.

can you think it through and stop arguing now?

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: JibbSmart] #241837
12/19/08 08:59
12/19/08 08:59
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Tiles Offline
User
Tiles  Offline
User

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Quote:
you can say "wrong" without an explanation, but i'm right.


Wrong

grin

Honestly, i've lost the track now. Too much open points were we disagree ...

Quote:
but by saying something happened without a cause (ie: the Big Bang starting without something before it) you must concede that the Big Bang acted outside the bounds of Causality. so no, i'm not wrong.


What about the idea that the Big Bang is both, the first cause, and the first causing? I know, it is as hard to follow as the thought of infinity. It must start and end somewhere says our brain ...

Causality is bound to time, means there is a before, there is an after. But Big Bang started time. Means there is no time before, and so no causality neither.

Right? Wrong? We cannot say it. We both cannot say it. We've discussend us into a corner here.

Fact is it was science that even discovered the whole story. It was science that found the facts. When it goes about faith we would still believe into the earth is made in seven days ...

Quote:
i'm saying there's no reason a God couldn't have been the cause of the Big Bang.


But!

And that point is what is the important one, which you simply refuse to understand, What you don't want to understand because it is against your faith,

To describe it that way would mean there is a god.

But there is none. There is NO god. There is no unicorn. There is no fairy. There is no murder, no murdered. There is NO GOD.

And before we start that useless discussion again, SHOW ME A PROOF FOR YOUR IMAGINARY PINK ELEPHA.. err GOD, and then let's discuss again.

It's called faith, not knowledge wink

Last edited by Tiles; 12/19/08 09:08.

trueSpace 7.6, A7 commercial
Free gamegraphics, freewaregames http://www.reinerstilesets.de
Die Community rund um Spiele-Toolkits http://www.clickzone.de
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Tiles] #241852
12/19/08 11:47
12/19/08 11:47
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
Quote:
What about the idea that the Big Bang is both, the first cause, and the first causing? I know, it is as hard to follow as the thought of infinity. It must start and end somewhere says our brain ...
sorry i don't understand. how is "first cause" different to "first causing"? all i'm saying is God may have caused the Big Bang.
Quote:
Causality is bound to time, means there is a before, there is an after. But Big Bang started time. Means there is no time before, and so no causality neither.
but why did the Big Bang happen? i know you don't know, i know you said you don't know, and i know that that's perfectly acceptable. but there must be a reason for the Big Bang, even if (like you said) we don't know it yet. even if that reason might be God.
Quote:
And that point is what is the important one, which you simply refuse to understand, What you don't want to understand because it is against your faith,

To describe it that way would mean there is a god.

But there is none. There is NO god. There is no unicorn. There is no fairy. There is no murder, no murdered. There is NO GOD.
refuse to understand? based on what? all i'm saying here -- all this discussion between you and me is about -- is whether or not God's existence is possible. you're saying there cannot be a God. while i believe God exists, my point here is just that you cannot authoritatively say there cannot be a God.

you need evidence for that. there's no evidence against His existence. just like there's no evidence as to what i had for breakfast yesterday. none that anyone will ever find, anyway. i had organic puffed rice with goat's milk and a banana, but you'll say "no! there's no evidence, so it didn't happen!" maybe i'm lying, but maybe it's true. you'll never know, but you can't authoritatively say that on that morning Julian Smart (my real name, if you believe me wink ) did not eat organic puffed rice with goat's milk and a banana. you might say the banana skin is evidence, but i live in a family of five; who knows who really ate it?

i've had enough of this discussion.
Quote:
Honestly, i've lost the track now. Too much open points were we disagree ...
yeah, i can't be bothered any more.

but it's okay. as much as we disagree, what happens in Hilbert's Hotel stays in Hilbert's Hotel wink.

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Tiles] #241856
12/19/08 11:57
12/19/08 11:57
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
Lukas Offline

Programmer
Lukas  Offline

Programmer

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
Originally Posted By: JulzMighty
Quote:
Quote:
What caused god? Did he origined by chance?
The answer that he lived "outside causality" would be rediculous.

That's exactly right, it clearly makes no sense. But I do think the answers aren't within our current uhm frame of knowledge and perhaps even logic so much. Perhaps or rather probably we will need to think outside of the box.
yes, we all need to think outside the box. by saying that something cannot exist outside of causality, you effectively assume that causality does go back infinitely.

Lukas is basically asking "what caused the first cause?", assuming nothing ever existed outside of causality, and that causality goes infinitely into the past (ie: everything had something that caused it that happened before it). nothing wrong with that theory; only the blind assumption that it's true isn't exactly thinking outside the box.


The infinite cause was just a possibility I mentioned. But I tend more to the big bang with a singularity.
And I don't think the big bang needs a cause. You are twisting words. The big bang is the BEGIN of cause. Events that would have happend before the big bang wouldn't have any influence to us, because the big bang was a singularity.

The claim that a "god" lives "outside causality" contradicts itself. According to the claim that god influences us and we can get punished by him, events in the real world can cause things in your fantasy world (e.g. make god angry) and the other way round (e.g. genocide in the old testament). So events that happen outside causality need a cause, which includes the creation of god. So there can't be something "outside causality" that influences our world. quod erat demonstrandum

Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Lukas] #241857
12/19/08 12:00
12/19/08 12:00
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
Lukas Offline

Programmer
Lukas  Offline

Programmer

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
"but there must be a reason for the Big Bang"
The big bang needn't have a cause.

Page 47 of 67 1 2 45 46 47 48 49 66 67

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1