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
3 registered members (Edgar_Herrera, VoroneTZ, Akow), 973 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
Rate Thread
Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12
Re: Why God exists [Re: Lukas] #334492
07/23/10 16:57
07/23/10 16:57
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Seriously? Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Guess I'm going to get me that book also then. laugh

Latest books I bought from Dawkins were 'Modern Science Writing' and I've just read his 'A Devil's Chaplain' book too and must say he's a very good writer and has a very good sense of how to explain things properly and very rationally with the evidence science came up with so far. Without ever getting really boring, which is quite an accomplishment.

But yeah, you're right. In many cases religious people will stay far far away from those books. They see things like that as threatening.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Why God exists [Re: ISG] #335339
07/27/10 20:47
07/27/10 20:47
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
D
deianthropus Offline
Newbie
deianthropus  Offline
Newbie
D

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
(forgive me for not reading all 11 pages of the discussion)

The assertion that "nature cannot organize things itself" contains several fallacies. The article's author places an anthropomorphic emphasis on "Mother Nature," suggesting a non-corporeal intelligent force similar to his definition of God. Second, it ignores and oversimplifies the complex scientific laws that have been shown to "organize things." Case in point: gravity. Gravity is largely responsible for the order and shape of the universe on the macro level. A complex gravitational system will tend to rotate about its center and form a sphere or disc shape, depending on the size, mass, and physical makeup of the system.

This we have observed, and correspondingly, we have constructed paradigms to closely map (and predict) how these systems behave in nature. The 'holes' in any theory (and know that theological dogma is not theory, nor even hypothesis) result from the progressive nature of Human comprehension - true science is still young; it is a relatively new tool considering the thousands of years of civilization and millions of years of evolution...

Every force in nature is a demonstration that nature "organizes things itself."

Certainly we cannot "disprove" God's existence, considering its critical role in a popular paradigm. However, the paradigm from which God was born has long since extinguished its practical relevance. Scientific as well as moral axioms can exist without a God.


Afterthought: we also cannot pick and choose what scientific axioms are "true." There are processes by which we can determine that a certain description is more or less accurate than a competing description, i.e the scientific method.

Last edited by deianthropus; 07/27/10 20:54.
Re: Why God exists [Re: Sajeth] #335340
07/27/10 21:03
07/27/10 21:03
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
D
deianthropus Offline
Newbie
deianthropus  Offline
Newbie
D

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
Originally Posted By: Sajeth
Its a very simple logic. No matter how unsignificant the chance of the universe + intelligent life being created was, it was a matter of fact that it must have happened, otherwise we wouldnt be discussing about this. The universe is created in the moment there is life. A universe that isnt noticed by anyone does not exist. And because time is relative to the viewer, all the time of the universe where there was no living being was _nothing_, pushing the chance for life to form until it finally happened.


Wow. You just blew my mind. like trying to jam a live speaker wire into a wet USB port (It just doesn't work like that, buddy).


Do you know why time is relative to the observer? it has nothing to do with Descartes. It is a mathematical result of the speed of light being fixed; that is, no matter the speed an object is moving, if that object could measure the speed of a photon, it would measure the same speed for the photon as another object with half its speed would measure the speed of the same photon. Get it? It doesn't mean that what you can't see doesn't exist (although that would be a compelling argument against God).

Re: Why God exists [Re: deianthropus] #335348
07/27/10 22:04
07/27/10 22:04
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 150
B
Blackchuck Offline
Member
Blackchuck  Offline
Member
B

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 150
Read this;

link

PS; and look the videos befor you anser.
The hole!!!


I have know Gamestudio/A7 Commercial Edition 7.84
Re: Why God exists [Re: deianthropus] #335419
07/28/10 12:30
07/28/10 12:30
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 650
Sajeth Offline
User
Sajeth  Offline
User

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 650
Originally Posted By: deianthropus
Do you know why time is relative to the observer? it has nothing to do with Descartes. It is a mathematical result of the speed of light being fixed; that is, no matter the speed an object is moving, if that object could measure the speed of a photon, it would measure the same speed for the photon as another object with half its speed would measure the speed of the same photon. Get it? It doesn't mean that what you can't see doesn't exist (although that would be a compelling argument against God).

This has nothing to do with what I wrote laugh


Teleschrott-Fan.
Re: Why God exists [Re: Sajeth] #335427
07/28/10 13:10
07/28/10 13:10
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
Random Offline
User
Random  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
UUU. Blackchuck those videos are very interesting...



Re: Why God exists [Re: Random] #335428
07/28/10 13:11
07/28/10 13:11
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
Random Offline
User
Random  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
That meens I belive it.



Re: Why God exists [Re: Joey] #335596
07/29/10 15:51
07/29/10 15:51
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Joey
Dawkins is a bit over-critical I think.


You should try to explain why you think so. Do you think so because he can sound overly fanatical about it all?

For some reason or another religious fanatics tend to be always a million times worse. They actually kill to 'prove to you their right'; did you know the penalty for young children to not believe is death in many Islamic countries? This is true for many more religions and/or sects all over the world and they all happily ignore that there's no free choice to believe what you want. This effectively means people are forced to believe whatever they're being told.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins used to be quite open minded. Perhaps until his very own words were used against him in all kinds of very out-of-context ways. Darwinists are often said to be racists, pro-eugenics and so on, which is clearly nuts.

I'd say some of his fanaticism is the natural result of all that.


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Why God exists [Re: deianthropus] #335597
07/29/10 15:53
07/29/10 15:53
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Originally Posted By: deianthropus
(forgive me for not reading all 11 pages of the discussion)

The assertion that "nature cannot organize things itself" contains several fallacies. The article's author places an anthropomorphic emphasis on "Mother Nature," suggesting a non-corporeal intelligent force similar to his definition of God. Second, it ignores and oversimplifies the complex scientific laws that have been shown to "organize things." Case in point: gravity. Gravity is largely responsible for the order and shape of the universe on the macro level. A complex gravitational system will tend to rotate about its center and form a sphere or disc shape, depending on the size, mass, and physical makeup of the system.

This we have observed, and correspondingly, we have constructed paradigms to closely map (and predict) how these systems behave in nature. The 'holes' in any theory (and know that theological dogma is not theory, nor even hypothesis) result from the progressive nature of Human comprehension - true science is still young; it is a relatively new tool considering the thousands of years of civilization and millions of years of evolution...

Every force in nature is a demonstration that nature "organizes things itself."

Certainly we cannot "disprove" God's existence, considering its critical role in a popular paradigm. However, the paradigm from which God was born has long since extinguished its practical relevance. Scientific as well as moral axioms can exist without a God.


Afterthought: we also cannot pick and choose what scientific axioms are "true." There are processes by which we can determine that a certain description is more or less accurate than a competing description, i.e the scientific method.


What exactly are you responding to here? Which article are you talking about?


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Why God exists [Re: Sajeth] #335629
07/29/10 19:03
07/29/10 19:03
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
D
deianthropus Offline
Newbie
deianthropus  Offline
Newbie
D

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 38
Originally Posted By: PHeMoX

What exactly are you responding to here? Which article are you talking about?


The article from the first post in the thread. That is, the topic of this discussion, by LoganTheHogan. tongue

(and feel free to respond to the content of my post, rather than trying to make one of us look silly)



Originally Posted By: Sajeth

This has nothing to do with what I wrote laugh


It has everything to do with what you wrote. You made a claim using a faulty premise, and I explained one critical reason your premise is faulty (be careful any time you use "because"). I can assail another of your faulty premises, if you like, but I think I've made my point. Just because nobody's around to witness it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My best guess is that you're misinterpreting the consequences of the quantum uncertainty principle. Trees don't need eyes and ears to fall, and in dealing with potential infinities, no beginning (or end) is inherently implied. It is the task of science, not pseudological (or metaphysical) conjecture, to determine the properties of nature which can explain the answers to these things.

Once again, we can't decide the answers ourselves. The fact of the matter is, we don't know the answers. But those who have the resources - financial and material as well as mental - to actually observe the universe and its behavior actually know the answers better than someone sitting stoned or over-caffeinated in his bedroom and making up the answers that feel true, or seem to "fit together."

Jesus Pleezus.

Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12

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