Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Fair enough. But I was thinking in terms of deciding what the ultimate intelligent power is. According to theists, we're ignorant little runts, barely able to hold it together (in a sense). According to atheists, we're never wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. I was thinking more in terms of that.
I'm not quite following your reasoning here. I'd say we rather think that there's no right, instead of wrong. Every theory we could think off could be wrong in any or all aspects of such a theory, so wrong definately exists.
Maybe according to you there's a slight difference between a theory proven to be right and a theory not yet falsified, but I don't quite see why 'wrong' wouldn't exist.
Quote:
You can't use time existing now as proof of the supposition that it has a reason for existing. So given those two possibilities, why should time even exist in the first place? And if time doesn't exist at one point, then it doesn't exist for an eternity in which case time will never exist.
If time doesn't exist at one point, that would mean that absolutely nothing happens in the infinite nothingness for an infinite amount of none-existing time. There's one problem though, can such a thing even exist? Infinite none-existing time? Quite hard to comprehend. When thinking abstract it could simply indicate the moment before 'time' started, but a start of something implies time too don't you think? The moment before the start could, no even more correct 'would' be another time (a moment, an indication of a time related event(s)). (think of someone with a stopwatch, time within time, although this is more artificial, this is how you could comprehend it.)
General movement, relative or 'absolute' distances between objects and velocity make that there's time. There can only be no time, when nothing happened in the past and nothing will happen in the future, everything would have to be totally empty. (no objects, no relative distances, thus no 'time' between objects, no velocity either.)
Quote:
Well, I personally have the assumption that God did inspire the bible, and He didn't lie about himself. By His definition, He wouldn't need a creator.
Fair enough, eventhough pure phylosophical off course. This assumption of divine inspiration from the writers of the bible can't be known for certain. Infact, by Gods definition it's not possible to ever know something like that. Now, that's what I call paradox. Off course I'm a bit biased, but those humans have written something about that which they can't possibly know off, that is describing the nature of God, and at the very same time that describtion defines that it can't be known, since God can be/do/act whatever he wants or likes. The very problem in this odd circle of socalled knowledge lies in the fact that eventhough God is nowhere near what or how humans are according to the very same definitions, he still get's described by human invented definitions. You don't have to be smart to see what's wrong here. This automatically makes the bible untrue.
In the bible it should say "we don't know what or who God is" instead, infact it shouldn't even have the word 'God' in it, devine inspiration or not, but God would definately have lied if he would explain it in human invented definitions to his followers that wrote the bible. Needless to say that this also makes the bible untrue on beforehand. Sure, from the human perspective we need human invented definitions to describe everything around us and comprehend everything, but according to the bible God can not be understood ('God works in mysterious ways'  ), well then any given definition would be wrong. Maybe it's me, but I think it's not possible for us to know anything about him, human definitions only make us 'think we know', but we don't know. Remember, I haven't said anything about wether or not this disproves God's existence/none-existence.
Quote:
Indeed, but this raises an interesting paradox. If the universe is infinite, that means at any given point in time (we'll use an absolute amount for the point for simplicity's sake, say one second) an infinite amount of energy is being used. What's X if infinity - infinity = x.
I don't think there is actually a paradox here, since it doesn't make any sense to do calculations whilst thinking in absolutes when your talking about infinity (that's sort of beyond 'absolutes'). I don't say you can't make calculations with it, but it starts with little odd things like. Take infinity and do infinite-1, that would still be infinity, right? Right. Now let's do that calculation an infinite amount of times, what would happen to infinity? In my opinion exactly nothing, since the first infinity -1, still is infinity.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 07/06/06 23:55.
|
