Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/8/13 11:04 AM, NickBeard wrote: Whatever. I believe in God creating everything, you believe in a magical explosion creating everything from nothing.

The second option determining wehere eveyrything comes from is more illogical than the first.

Starting from a position where I gave Science and Religion equal weight in my mind as I grew up, I arrived at a belief there is a way to determine the origin of my own existence using experimentation, and I trust that the scientific community as a whole will supply me with answers and evidence which helps me to arrive at an understanding of the way everything works in a reproducible way.

I don't know how you tackled the incongruence of Science and Religion growing up, but you now believe there is a way to explain the origin of all existence in a way that validates ancient scriptures despite experimentation and that any new evidence from the scientific community must be reconciled with one of hundreds of religious categories.

Or you just like to talk about it.

At 11/8/13 09:21 AM, NickBeard wrote: Immoral Libertarian: "the supernatural is bullshit"
"the Universe exploded from nothing"

Lol at atheists.

Checkmate, atheists!

At 11/8/13 09:21 AM, NickBeard wrote: "the Universe exploded from nothing"

Just saying, atheists believe nothing of the sort. They don't claim to know the origin of the universe beyond the big bang yet, but think "God did it" is a pretty crappy answer.

I agree but with only 99% certainty that God definitely didn't do it.

At 11/8/13 06:29 PM, AxTekk wrote: I agree but with only 99% certainty that God definitely didn't do it.

It is entirely possible that physics, with its abnormally clean and straight rules, is the work of a god.

At 11/8/13 07:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: physics…abnormally clean and straight rules…

Erm here.

At 11/8/13 07:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/8/13 06:29 PM, AxTekk wrote: I agree but with only 99% certainty that God definitely didn't do it.

It is entirely possible that physics, with its abnormally clean and straight rules, is the work of a god.

Stating that something is possible is not sufficient reason to state that something is a certain way. For that you need concrete evidence, and no, the fact that the laws of physics are consistent and somewhat comprehensible to us is not evidence for the existence of a god or gods in any way shape or form.

At 11/8/13 07:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/8/13 06:29 PM, AxTekk wrote: I agree but with only 99% certainty that God definitely didn't do it.

It is entirely possible that physics, with its abnormally clean and straight rules, is the work of a god.

"Abnormally clean and straight rules"? As opposed to what? We have no frame of reference in the world of science or anywhere else to justify this claim.

I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).

This debate has one really annoying facet: the false "checkmate" characterizations.

The religious are characterized as dumb knuckledraggers who wouldn't know science from a hole in the ground.

The atheists are characterized as stubborn pseudo-intellectuals who fail to know these so called apparent truths.

The truth is that in 95% of Westerners, their status as either religious or atheist (or any gradient in between) in completely unascertainable until the issue is brought up. In short the people are all the same on the outside, and in many cases on the inside.

Debate God all you want, but seriously stop acting like the opposing side is stupid.

At 11/8/13 08:58 PM, Light wrote:

I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).

You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.

After all, you don't jump out of the woodworks when the opposite claim is made over something we feel is "not fair" or "Chaotic."

"If God exists why does [insert bad thing here] happen?"

At 11/9/13 10:54 AM, Memorize wrote: You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.

Huh?

1. The laws of physics are statistical derivations of the actual way the universe worksm they're only consistent because we need a predictive representation.
2. How would the fundamental mechanics of nature in any way support or deny the existence of God?

After all, you don't jump out of the woodworks when the opposite claim is made over something we feel is "not fair" or "Chaotic."

"If God exists why does [insert bad thing here] happen?"

God exists in the same way a puppet is conscious. It is a network of neurons divided among the adherents of a religion. [Bad thing] happens because we can't prevent it yet.

At 11/9/13 10:54 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/8/13 08:58 PM, Light wrote:

I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).

You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.

lol, the laws of physics have never been inconvenient for me when it comes to denying or accepting the existence of God. I've never even thought that the laws of physics could be evidence of the existence of God until I saw what Camarohusky said yesterday.

After all, you don't jump out of the woodworks when the opposite claim is made over something we feel is "not fair" or "Chaotic."

"If God exists why does [insert bad thing here] happen?"

I've never used the problem of evil to deny the existence of God. The reason I don't believe in God has nothing to do with the existence of evil in the world. But I will say that the existence of evil in the world effectively refutes the idea that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists.

At 11/9/13 03:19 PM, Light wrote:

At 11/9/13 10:54 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/8/13 08:58 PM, Light wrote:

I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).

You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.

lol, the laws of physics have never been inconvenient for me when it comes to denying or accepting the existence of God.

The laws of mathematics which are closely related to them suggest there's a divine presence behind the universe though.

After all, you don't jump out of the woodworks when the opposite claim is made over something we feel is "not fair" or "Chaotic."

"If God exists why does [insert bad thing here] happen?"

I've never used the problem of evil to deny the existence of God. The reason I don't believe in God has nothing to do with the existence of evil in the world. But I will say that the existence of evil in the world effectively refutes the idea that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists.

The problem of evil doesn't refute anything, suffering in the world can bring people closer to God, free-will asnd the freedom to be evil or cause suffering can cause people to reform their lives and become better people.

At 11/9/13 04:47 PM, NickBeard wrote: The laws of mathematics which are closely related to them suggest there's a divine presence behind the universe though.

No, they don't. Again, you haven't read anything you're using to support your flimsy arguments.

At 11/9/13 05:16 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 11/9/13 04:47 PM, NickBeard wrote: The laws of mathematics which are closely related to them suggest there's a divine presence behind the universe though.

No, they don't. Again, you haven't read anything you're using to support your flimsy arguments.

The laws of mathematics exist necessarily in the universe as abstract objects. Mathematical equations are creatively designed by people. If they exist necessarily, then they must have been created by the thing that created the Universe. And what has a creative mind and could create the Universe? Oh yeah, God.

At 11/9/13 05:22 PM, NickBeard wrote: The laws of mathematics exist necessarily in the universe as abstract objects. Mathematical equations are creatively designed by people. If they exist necessarily, then they must have been created by the thing that created the Universe. And what has a creative mind and could create the Universe? Oh yeah, God.

Mathematics exist as a set of tools developed by people in order to describe complex actions and equivalences in a system of relations. Your stupidity is proof that there is no God, for any God would not let you suffer such mediocrity.

At 11/9/13 10:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Debate God all you want, but seriously stop acting like the opposing side is stupid.

I have nothing against a vigorous debate with a well informed and rhetorically formidable opponent, and I can respect such a person even if I disagree with his or her position. If you get the sense that this is not the case with the theists arguing in this thread, that's because a sizable number of them aren't well informed, wouldn't know a logical fallacy if they tripped over one, and/or they are simply trolling. The theist's argument is difficult enough as it is without the additional handicap of being absolutely useless at formulating a cohesive argument.

The one reason I believe in God is that the Big Bang was an efficient cause of the universe. Efficient causes require something to cause the effect they produce. The only thing efficient enough to cause the universe to come into being from nothing is a god. Paintings require painters, sculptures require sculpters, and a Big Bang (or explosion) requires an exploder.

At 11/9/13 07:51 PM, NickBeard wrote: The only thing efficient enough to cause the universe to come into being from nothing is a god. Paintings require painters, sculptures require sculpters, and a Big Bang (or explosion) requires an exploder.

Then who or what caused God to come into being?

At 11/9/13 08:16 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 11/9/13 07:51 PM, NickBeard wrote: The only thing efficient enough to cause the universe to come into being from nothing is a god. Paintings require painters, sculptures require sculpters, and a Big Bang (or explosion) requires an exploder.

Then who or what caused God to come into being?

As a personal agent with divine omniscience, God could will himself into being. This only works if you believe in mind/body dualism, however. Do you believe there is a mind/body distinction in human beings? If you do, then that, writ large, is how an omniscient personal Creator could come into being.

At 11/9/13 07:51 PM, NickBeard wrote: Paintings require painters,

Someone needs their consciousness expanded. Enjoy.

At 11/9/13 08:26 PM, NickBeard wrote: As a personal agent with divine omniscience, God could will himself into being. This only works if you believe in mind/body dualism, however. Do you believe there is a mind/body distinction in human beings? If you do, then that, writ large, is how an omniscient personal Creator could come into being.

Mind/body dualism? Meaning, that the human mind is seperate from your body? No, that is an absurd belief. What we perceive as consciousness is the result of the electric and chemical processes taking place in our physical brains. There has never been an example of a mind existing without a brain.

At 11/9/13 04:47 PM, NickBeard wrote:

At 11/9/13 03:19 PM, Light wrote:

At 11/9/13 10:54 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/8/13 08:58 PM, Light wrote:

I'll have to agree with Angry-Hatter in asserting that consistency of the laws of physics isn't direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God(s).

You only say that because that's one area that's inconvenient for you.

lol, the laws of physics have never been inconvenient for me when it comes to denying or accepting the existence of God.

The laws of mathematics which are closely related to them suggest there's a divine presence behind the universe though.

No, they don't. Hell, many philosophers argue that the laws of mathematics exist independently of the universe. I happen to agree with them.

24901miles holds a different view of the laws of math; that they are merely tools. I disagree with his view, but I respect it. Either way, math and the rules that govern it are not sufficient to infer that God exists.

I've never used the problem of evil to deny the existence of God. The reason I don't believe in God has nothing to do with the existence of evil in the world. But I will say that the existence of evil in the world effectively refutes the idea that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists.

The problem of evil doesn't refute anything, suffering in the world can bring people closer to God,

An omnipotent and omnibenevolent G]god could bring people closer to him without having to make people suffer. If he can't do that, he's not really omnipotent, now is he?

Furthermore, an all-good and all-powerful god could conceivably bring people closer to him by preventing all suffering and making his presence indisputably known to man.

Face it. The problem of evil has refuted the idea that an all-powerful, all-good god exists.

free-will and the freedom to be evil or cause suffering can cause people to reform their lives and become better people.

You know, it's funny....if our justice system allowed people to do whatever the hell they wanted in the name of free will, people such as yourself would probably clamor that it's egregiously immoral and that someone should reform it. But when it comes to God, his/her/its allowing bad things to happen is suddenly acceptable and even praised by some theists as evidence that God is a good being or something.

I'm fairly certain that if human history had the fortune of having an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god reveal his/her/its presence felt by everyone and regularly made appearances to everyone on Earth, teaching them what is right and what is wrong, the world would be a much better place, and all without requiring a single drop of blood to be shed, a single child to go hungry, or a single person's life to end prematurely.

But no, this world and all of the awful things that happen in it day in and day out, and even as I'm typing this lengthy post don't refute the notion of a fundamentally good and powerful god that watches us from a distance, according to theists.

At 11/9/13 11:26 PM, Light wrote: many philosophers argue that the laws of mathematics exist independently of the universe. I happen to agree with them.

If they exist independently of the universe, then they exist whether the universe does or not. How could you possibly agree with that? Laws of mathematics are all derived from (as @NickBeard put it) the creativity of mathematicians who exist as a part of the universe. It's an entirely humanistic approach to describing the interactions between categories and sets, all within the Universe. What proof can there be that mathematics is consistent outside the limits of the Universe (or some Manyworlds Construct)? How can you even be sure that "As it is here, it is elsewhere" applies homogeneously to all locations within the Universe? Maybe the Laws of Mathematics are subject to change based on their environment.

At 11/10/13 12:09 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 11/9/13 11:26 PM, Light wrote: many philosophers argue that the laws of mathematics exist independently of the universe. I happen to agree with them.

If they exist independently of the universe, then they exist whether the universe does or not. How could you possibly agree with that?

I'd like to think that the truths that are conveyed by math and its laws aren't contingent upon the existence of the universe.

Laws of mathematics are all derived from (as @NickBeard put it) the creativity of mathematicians who exist as a part of the universe. It's an entirely humanistic approach to describing the interactions between categories and sets, all within the Universe.

In my view, these laws are not invented, but discovered.

2 + 2 = 4. This was the case before humans discovered math. This is the case now. This will always be the case, even after humans go extinct.

But hey, I totally understand where you're coming from. The symbols "1", "2", "+", and so on are completely arbitrary. That much is certain. But what they represent are metaphysical truths. Those relations between categories, sets, and so on have a basis in metaphysical truth.

What proof can there be that mathematics is consistent outside the limits of the Universe (or some Manyworlds Construct)?

Why would they be inconsistent outside the limits of the universe? There's really no aspect of these laws or the truths they convey that is affected at all by the universe that they apply to.
How can you even be sure that "As it is here, it is elsewhere" applies homogeneously to all locations within the Universe? Maybe the Laws of Mathematics are subject to change based on their environment.
I don't know why the laws of math(And hell, while we're at it, the laws of logic) could be affected by the environment.

"2 + 2 = 4" is true everywhere in the universe. That's a fact. :P

At 11/10/13 12:37 AM, Light wrote: 2 + 2 = 4. This was the case before humans discovered math. This is the case now. This will always be the case, even after humans go extinct.

I'm not talking about extinction here, I'm talking about nonexistence. We're at True Zero. We're outside of the universe: before the Big Bang. Before any time, and space, and energy, and matter complexity made it possible to distinguish between any number. Everything seems like Zero, because there is nothing, or because there is an infinite amount of everything, or some middle-ground. There is nothing here for the laws of mathematics to apply to. How can the laws exist? How can the laws be said to differentiate between 12* 98 and 9118.42?

At 11/9/13 11:26 PM, Light wrote: Face it. The problem of evil has refuted the idea that an all-powerful, all-good god exists.

No it hasn't. It merely characterizes a god. A back seat God who follows the "teach a man to fish" philosophy fits 100% with evil and suffering. This god would let us screw up and let us suffer to help us learn and grow as people and as a society. Necessity is the mother of invention and the prevention of suffering is one of the biggest necessities out there.

Furthermore, without bad and suffering, we humans would never know or cherish good and harmony.

And just remember, this is the same logical fallacy you accuse theists of using when they say "well, if everything was constant and there was nothing before the big bang, then there must be a god who created." It's a signle conclusory jump that fails to take even the simplest of steps to think through the answer.

At 11/10/13 10:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/9/13 11:26 PM, Light wrote: Face it. The problem of evil has refuted the idea that an all-powerful, all-good god exists.

No it hasn't. It merely characterizes a god.

I think it could be said to refute a God with certain characteristics. Moreover, I think it refutes the fatalistic beliefs a large number of Christians have about God. I think if you accept human and natural evil as part of God's plan, prayer beyond selfless worship seems pretty futile.

At 11/10/13 07:23 AM, 24901miles wrote: I'm not talking about extinction here, I'm talking about nonexistence. We're at True Zero. We're outside of the universe: before the Big Bang. Before any time, and space, and energy, and matter complexity made it possible to distinguish between any number. Everything seems like Zero, because there is nothing, or because there is an infinite amount of everything, or some middle-ground. There is nothing here for the laws of mathematics to apply to. How can the laws exist? How can the laws be said to differentiate between 12* 98 and 9118.42?

I agree with Light here, so I hope you don't mind me chipping in my two cents.

Mathematicians generally do not derive maths from observing the universe, but rather looking at what x would logically imply about y independent from the physical world. A prime example of this is imaginary numbers: When they were first conceived, mathematicians were able to infer a great deal about how they would work even though at the time they ran contrary to any universal observation. In this example there was nothing this law of mathematics applied to, and yet this made no odds to sussing out exactly what x implied about y. Of course, now we use i for all sorts of handy tricks with electronics, but the physics came centuries after the mathematics.

We require existence to discover these laws, and we require existence to apply them. That does not mean that the laws require our existence to exist.

Every law of mathematics is implied by itself. The law that one 1+1 = 2 exists only because we define 2 as being equal to 1+1. It's all just logical constructs that imply themselves independently from the physical. Of course, the physical is also logical and so the laws can also be applied here, but the laws of logic are not dependent on any state of affairs in the physical.

At 11/10/13 12:13 PM, AxTekk wrote: We require existence to discover these laws, and we require existence to apply them. That does not mean that the laws require our existence to exist.

They are the result of the universe and are dependent on the existence of the universe. Without a frame of reference, how can they be said to exist? If there is absolutely 0 of everything (including an observer), any operation that a hypothetical observer could perform then yields 0. Nonexistence is a base-0 system.

:At 11/9/13 11:00 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Mind/body dualism?

Yes.

Meaning, that the human mind is seperate from your body?

No, the belief that the mind is an immaterial abstraction of consciousness.

What we perceive as consciousness is the result of the electric and chemical processes taking place in our physical brains.

So your conscious will to respond to my question in such detail is the result of material processes in the brain? Can intentionality and the effects it has on the body really be described as a material compulsion in the brain?

There has never been an example of a mind existing without a brain.

Tell that to the many neurologists who have had NDEs.