we all agree there's no god, right?

[crowTrobot 2]

Then how could he not eat it.

i know that someone will understand what I wrote. its a joke question, I got it from a very long running tv series

dOH

[Pupsta 0]

The universe could never have come about without a creator, it is very simple.

who created the creator? wouldn't the creator's creator really get credit for starting the universe? who's god's daddy?!?i've just had a realization, a revelation....god = the yankees, and the creator is steinbrenner. *shudders*

[uahphysics 0]

I once toyed around with the idea(this wasn't actually based on a lot of research or study, more or less just a thought experiment, so I'm expecting I'll get flamed for it), but has anyone ever considered that the abstract term God, or any deity of sort was really created by humans as a way for humans to explain the physics that govern Earth and the Universe. Obviously, in modern day, we understand a lot about the physics that controls whatever happens in our universe, but at least to me, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that this abstract term of a God or deity is rather just referring to physical forces that make things happen in the Universe.

[Smasharoo 0]

The universe could never have come about without a creator, it is very simple. No.It is very simple indeed. Because humans create things, including other humans that has nothing to do with the Universe. There universe may simply have been, forever.You need to have some force not bound by the rules of nature otherwise you will be saying something has come from nothing which is of course totally irrational. The creationists theory accepts that supernatural forces had to have been involved in the creation of the universe, a all powerful creator could be a eternal because IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE RULES OF NATURE THAT GOVERN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.Ludicrous. No reason the universe couldn't be eternal as well. Nothing in nature indicates otherwise.And to whoever said you cannot put Chesterton in the same catagories as the Greeks/Aquinas you are censored wrong. Chesterton was practically a reincarnation of Aquinas as a Newspaper hack. His philosiphies and ideas are directly in line. Ayn Rands positions were perverted and were totally driven by her psychotic hatred for the Communists empire. Her radical individualism is absolutely psychotic and if applied to the world would lead to a country which would slouch towards the most uncivilized and pagan civilizations in man kinds history. She describes her beleifs in the document called "The virtue of selfishness". She was an immoral witch who must have cared nothing for the rest of the people in her life.She was just a sociopath. Not that uncommon.As far as her religious beleifs go I see nothing that she discovered that was outstanding. Textbook atheist, no imagination or creativity in any of her thoughts.What's a textbook Athiest?

[Smasharoo 0]

I once toyed around with the idea(this wasn't actually based on a lot of research or study, more or less just a thought experiment, so I'm expecting I'll get flamed for it), but has anyone ever considered that the abstract term God, or any deity of sort was really created by humans as a way for humans to explain the physics that govern Earth and the Universe.No just you.Also, about a billion other people.:)Not only do we come up with God to explain things we don't understand we come up with simmilar common myths and stories to explain it across various cultures.See Jung, and Campbel.

[posoo 0]

The universe could never have come about without a creator, it is very simple. You need to have some force not bound by the rules of nature otherwise you will be saying something has come from nothing which is of course totally irrational. The creationists theory accepts that supernatural forces had to have been involved in the creation of the universe, a all powerful creator could be a eternal because IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE RULES OF NATURE THAT GOVERN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.  And to whoever said you cannot put Chesterton in the same catagories as the Greeks/Aquinas you are censored wrong. Chesterton was practically a reincarnation of Aquinas as a Newspaper hack. His philosiphies and ideas are directly in line. Ayn Rands positions were perverted and were totally driven by her psychotic hatred for the Communists empire. Her radical individualism is absolutely psychotic and if applied to the world would lead to a country which would slouch towards the most uncivilized and pagan civilizations in man kinds history. She describes her beleifs in the document called "The virtue of selfishness". She was an immoral witch who must have cared nothing for the rest of the people in her life.  As far as her religious beleifs go I see nothing that she discovered that was outstanding. Textbook atheist, no imagination or creativity in any of her thoughts.

Seeing a poster rant on in capital letters about "THE RULES OF NATURE THAT GOVERN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE" cannot help but force me to give an ironic smile. That this poster believes he has a grasp of the rules of nature that govern the entire universe is a conceit of the highest order, in a desparate attempt to prove the unprovable. The regression argument only goes so far, as we've already discussed. If God, what created God etc? To explain it all away with a dismissive wave of the hand and an allusion to the ironclad "rules of nature" is the classic technique of those desperate to believe. Excelsior to you, people of faith!My opinion? Divinity truly is unknowable. Rules of nature don't prove it, random tomes written by Jews 6000 years ago don't prove it, and random letters sent around by a bunch of cult members (the apostles...face it, that is what they were) do not prove it.That is not to say that the cult was not CORRECT. However, we cannot and will not know. So let's live a fine life now! Live a good life! The Christian teachings of brotherhood and good will are a good start (I won't here delve into the 'If there is no God, all is permitted' version of morality).If there is a God, he will appreciate your efforts to struggle in an uncertain world. If he does not, he is a tyrant, to my mind, and not worthy of my praise.If there is NO God, then we have not lost anything by living a good life!Cheers, and may fate smile upon all of you.--Posoo

[vaglvr 0]

Can I use you for my book report smash?

[Michaelson 0]

Though I do not agree it is beyond debate. Certainly the mass of literature on the topic would indicate otherwise. Arguments or adherants on both sides doesn't indicate one side is anywhere near equal with the other.Particularly when one side has a specefic agenda in place to defend a philosophy unrelated to the theory.

This I understand.However, many who have no interest in defending theism have also found themselves compelled to attempt to explain the Anthropic Prinicple. Hence 'multiverse' theories.The common analogy is: Suppose you were lined up by 50 marksmen who took aim and fired, but somehow all missed. Would you have any reason to ponder what had happened?I think you would. Similarly, I think there are reasons to contemplate the phenomenal coincidence that several key universal constants lie in the specific range necessary for a universe capable of creating observers. One explanation for such a coincidence may well be a divine designer. I don't think its a very plausible theory, but it is not dismissed as easily as you pretend.

[JediFlopper 0]

I believe the children are our future. Treat them well and let them lead the way.(sw)

Show them all the beauty they posses inside...a little Jesus juice helps here :oops:

[Pupsta 0]

i think we should discuss the possibility of george steinbrenner being the creator of god. that's one religion i might buy into, as long as i could burn its bible because i despise the yankees.

[crowTrobot 2]

the other arguments for fine tuned universe being some form of an infinite array of varying universes, so no coincidence that we find ourselves in one fine tuned for life no matter how rare (weak anthropic), or some form of (non-intelligent) evolution of the universe or succession of universes. smolin proposed a theory of evolving universes involving black/white holes.

[Smasharoo 0]

The common analogy is: Suppose you were lined up by 50 marksmen who took aim and fired, but somehow all missed. Would you have any reason to ponder what had happened? No, a simmilar coparison would be if you lined up 50 quadrillion marksman and they all took aim and fired and somehow one hit a 1 millimeeter by one millimeeter spot in an area ten miles wide, would you be surprised?I wouldn't.Time and space flatten probability.

[vaglvr 0]

I believe the children are our future. Treat them well and let them lead the way.(sw)

Show them all the beauty they posses inside...a little Jesus juice helps here :oops:

Holy disturbing!

[Smasharoo 0]

the other arguments for fine tuned universe being some form of an infinite array of varying universes, so no coincidence that we find ourselves in one fine tuned for life no matter how rare (weak anthropic), or some form of (non-intelligent) evolution of the universe or succession of universes. smolin proposed a theory of evolving universes involving black/white holes.All efforts to unradnomize life. Largely because we have egos and the realization that life is a tiny insignifigant, likely common part of massive universe is difficult for some people.Random makes a lot more sense given the time span and numbers of places it could (and maybe has) occured.There's no scientific to persue unrandomizing it.There are, of course, other reasons.Life's not any more unique than the structure of Hydrogen. Was the universe designed so Hydrogen could have it's structure?Seems a lot more likely considering how much of it is relative to life.

[JediFlopper 0]

The universe could never have come about without a creator, it is very simple.  No.It is very simple indeed.  Because humans create things, including other humans that has nothing to do with the Universe.  There universe may simply have been, forever.You need to have some force not bound by the rules of nature otherwise you will be saying something has come from nothing which is of course totally irrational. The creationists theory accepts that supernatural forces had to have been involved in the creation of the universe, a all powerful creator could be a eternal because IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE RULES OF NATURE THAT GOVERN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.Ludicrous.  No reason the universe couldn't be eternal as well.  Nothing in nature indicates otherwise.

The second law of thermodynamics seems to indicate that matter is not eternal. In fact, the second law has pushed some physicists to speculate that the universe is continually recreating itself otherwise it would have experienced "heat death" long ago. All that we observe in nature screams out that matter is not eternal.

[Smasharoo 0]

The second law of thermodynamics seems to indicate that matter is not eternal. In fact, the second law has pushed some physicists to speculate that the universe is continually recreating itself otherwise it would have experienced "heat death" long ago.All that we observe in nature screams out that matter is not eternal.Yeah, except the first law of thermodynamics.Way to miss the point entirely.

[Acesgotcracked 0]

Reason dictates there cannot be an infinite regression.-AristotleWith you stateing that the universe is eternal on its own with no creator you have broken all rules of reason and logic. You have an effect(Universe), but you have no cause for that effect. This is what god is in the creation argument, he is the cause. POSSOI never said I understand all the rules of nature that apply to the universe. I simply said that while obeying the rules of nature that we are governed by on Earth the Universe could never have come about withouth the help of a creator. Dont call me arrogant, you didn't even read my post well enought to understand what I was trying to say.Smash, yes humans create things. But everything we create is facilitated by the world that we live in. We create other humans yes, but without the conditions of our enviornment neither us or are offspring would have a chance at survival. This statement is ridicoulis. Humans are totally dependent on there enviornment to allow for the creation, anything we create is a product of the unvierse that we live in.

[Smasharoo 0]

With you stateing that the universe is eternal on its own with no creator you have broken all rules of reason and logic. You have an effect(Universe), but you have no cause for that effect. This is what god is in the creation argument, he is the cause. No, I have a state.There's only an effect if you assume a cause, and vice versa.Which there's absolutely no reason to do. Breakfast doesn't cause lunch.You need to read up on reason and logic.Badly. You're misusing the terms. Badly.

[Michaelson 0]

The common analogy is: Suppose you were lined up by 50 marksmen who took aim and fired, but somehow all missed. Would you have any reason to ponder what had happened?  No, a simmilar coparison would be if you lined up 50 quadrillion marksman and they all took aim and fired and somehow one hit a 1 millimeeter by one millimeeter spot in an area ten miles wide, would you be surprised?I wouldn't.Time and space flatten probability.

That is quite wrong. You seem to be suggesting that the scale of the universe accounts for the existence of human beings. You have missed the point. The scale of the universe is, in fact, one of the necessary conditions for the evolution of life forms. I am not particularly well versed in the science, so I will quote from a website here. From http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/r...uk/c-anthro.htm

The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, another example of Paley's watch.Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."  The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).  A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.  If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.  The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.  The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.  Taken from God the Evidence by Patrick Glynn  The fact that we are living and can observe the universe, implies that the fundamental constants must be "just right" to produce life.

Basically, of all the possible 'recipes' for a universe, the one that ours is a result of is quite special in its creating a universe capable of producing life, and indeed, conscious life. If any of a number of variables were only slightly off, then we could not exist. This is not a reference to our solar system or galaxy, but rather to the entire universe. Considerations of scale, as such, are beside the point. The particular concoction that created our universe is very special, and it would be, or indeed might be, an amazing coincidence that it was as such tht it created life.

[Smasharoo 0]

I never said I understand all the rules of nature that apply to the universe. I simply said that while obeying the rules of nature that we are governed by on Earth the Universe could never have come about withouth the help of a creator. Dont call me arrogant, you didn't even read my post well enought to understand what I was trying to say.It's not arrogant. It is, however, ignorant by definition. You admitting you don't understand makes you igorant, you then stating that something is impossible based on a set of rules you do't understand is misguided and not very bright.Smash, yes humans create things. But everything we create is facilitated by the world that we live in. We create other humans yes, but without the conditions of our enviornment neither us or are offspring would have a chance at survival. This statement is ridicoulis. Humans are totally dependent on there enviornment to allow for the creation, anything we create is a product of the unvierse that we live in.You missed the point again. Because we create things, we assume anything that exists was created.Which is quite silly and comes no where near logic.Sorry.

[Acesgotcracked 0]

That is totally irrational. There is no effect that we see that does not have a cause. Your example of breakfast causeing launch is irrational. Breakfast does not have will or motive. Your compareing an artifice of man to that of a creature with a will and motives. Anyone on this site can plainly see, you have made an insane statement. YOU HAVE JUST STATED THAT A CAUSE DOES NOT NEED AN EFFECT, INSANE.

[JediFlopper 0]

The second law of thermodynamics seems to indicate that matter is not eternal. In fact, the second law has pushed some physicists to speculate that the universe is continually recreating itself otherwise it would have experienced "heat death" long ago.All that we observe in nature screams out that matter is not eternal.Yeah, except the first law of thermodynamics.Way to miss the point entirely.

Hmm, the first law tells us that matter is not eternal or that the universe cannot be continually recreating itself? I agree with the latter but utterly reject the former.You still have not answered the argument concerning the second law, way to dodge the issue entirely

[Acesgotcracked 0]

No I am not a scientists nor do I pretend to be one, but I know that the rules of nature state that something cannot come from nothing. I dont have to understand every rule of nature(or pretend to like the great expert Smasharoo)to understand that an effect must have a cause.Everything that exists has to have been created, it is insane to think otherwise. YOU MUST HAVE A CAUSE TO HAVE AN EFFECT.

[Smasharoo 0]

Basically, of all the possible 'recipes' for a universe, the one that ours is a result of is quite special in its creating a universe capable of producing life, and indeed, conscious life. If any of a number of variables were only slightly off, then we could not exist. This is not a reference to our solar system or galaxy, but rather to the entire universe. Considerations of scale, as such, are beside the point. The particular concoction that created our universe is very special, and it would be, or indeed might be, an amazing coincidence that it was as such tht it created life.No you're missing the point again.This is again, observation selection bias. It's not very complicated. The point is that life came to be because of the structure of the universe, not the other way around.Regardless of what form life took, this would allways be the case. In any random system capable of some event occuring, the system will always appear taiored to that one event....because the event happens.Do you understand?It's a very simple fallacy. Corrlation is not causation. If any thing was slightly diffrent, life wouldn't exist in this form. So? None of tha points to causation. Correlation is going to exist by definition because life occured. Arguing from correlation is senseless.Sorry.

[Michaelson 0]

Basically, of all the possible 'recipes' for a universe, the one that ours is a result of is quite special in its creating a universe capable of producing life, and indeed, conscious life. If any of a number of variables were only slightly off, then we could not exist. This is not a reference to our solar system or galaxy, but rather to the entire universe. Considerations of scale, as such, are beside the point. The particular concoction that created our universe is very special, and it would be, or indeed might be, an amazing coincidence that it was as such tht it created life.No you're missing the point again.This is again, observation selection bias.  It's not very complicated.  The point is that life came to be because of the structure of the universe, not the other way around.Regardless of what form life took, this would allways be the case.  In any random system capable of some event occuring, the system will always appear taiored to that one event....because the event happens.Do you understand?It's a very simple fallacy.  Corrlation is not causation.  If any thing was slightly diffrent, life wouldn't exist in this form.  So?  None of tha points to causation.  Correlation is going to exist by definition because life occured.  Arguing from correlation is senseless.Sorry.

I do understand, and I agree. No need to appologise.There is clearly no deductive argument that can posit the existence of a god from the mere fact that we exist. But as it would appear to be a remarkable fact that the universe is such that it allows for the possibility of conscious beings, some might argue from 'best explanation' that it is so because it was designed that way.Here you would no doubt respond that in arguing this way humans are grossly overestimating the significance of their existence, and I would agree again.Your counter-analogy, however, was completely tangential to the issue being discussed. Anyway, exam time. Clearly I'll need all the help in the world if my arguments are as laughable as you seem to think they are.