Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And you don't believe in creationism, but now you say "that doesn't mean I'm not a creationist"? I don't expect you to make any sense, and still you manage to keep amazing me.

Hahahahah! Damn you Togukawa, beat me to it!!

Dre, keep it up man, I'm havin a laugh RIOT right now!!

Hoo boy, what will he say next!?!?!?!

At 2/3/07 05:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Hahahahah! Damn you Togukawa, beat me to it!!

Dre, keep it up man, I'm havin a laugh RIOT right now!!

Hoo boy, what will he say next!?!?!?!

he refuses to do the homework i gave him too, which may make him mildly knowledgeable.

At 2/3/07 05:09 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/3/07 04:11 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/3/07 02:59 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

I said POPULAR CREATIONIST THEORIES. Such as, the world is 6,000 years old. I don't believe that, but many creationist scientists do. There are radiometric dating techniques that suggest that the world is about 6,000 years old, but I doubt that is true. But that doesn't mean I'm not a creationist.

Creationist scientists? Talk about a contradictio in terminis. And stop spouting that bullshit about radiometric dating saying the word is 6000 years old, that's just retarded. Admit that you can't find a link and shut up.

Here's a little link for you, straight from a pretty damn reliable website... wikipedia. Yes, many radiometric dating techniques suggest that the world is only a few thousand years old.

And you don't believe in creationism, but now you say "that doesn't mean I'm not a creationist"? I don't expect you to make any sense, and still you manage to keep amazing me.

"I said POPULAR CREATIONIST THEORIES."

You can speculate on how to disprove it, but nothing more. And I'm REALLY tired of discussing evidence of Noah's Ark because I've done it more times then I can count on this forum, and nobody seems to get it through their thick skulls. Surface continental sediments are evidence of a worldwide flood, because of their relation to surface ocean sediments. That's just one of them, if you REALLY want to dig deeper be my guest, but I'm not going to spend all of my time explaining this to you.

You don't seem to get it through your skull that a worldwide flood does not mean that there was a big boat that miraculously saved everyone. There's evidence of a worldwide flood if you like, but there's no evidence of a huge boat like that, whatsoever. There are plenty of other myths that describe a worldwide flood and a big boat saving every animal, like the Deucalion's Ark myth. There's no more evidence for Noah's ark than there is for Deucalion's...

Hey fuckhead, natural selection. The animals on the Ark adapted to their environments and changed a little. That doesn't mean evolution, it means natural selection, which is entirely different. So don't try to get on that subject.

This is turning into a flame war...

Lets make teams, one for theists and another for atheists, on your noext post formaly say wich side you are on and make your primary argument for your oppinion.

I, Zoraxe7, am a theist, and my argument for relligion is that a world without jod would be a world without laws to govern the way the world works, like gravity, and electro-magnetism.

At 2/3/07 06:36 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/3/07 05:09 PM, Togukawa wrote: Creationist scientists? Talk about a contradictio in terminis. And stop spouting that bullshit about radiometric dating saying the word is 6000 years old, that's just retarded. Admit that you can't find a link and shut up.

Here's a little link for you, straight from a pretty damn reliable website... wikipedia. Yes, many radiometric dating techniques suggest that the world is only a few thousand years old.

Oh really? You'll have to quote the bit where it says the world is only a few thousand years old for me. Either I'm blind, or you are retarded, I'm eager to find out.

You don't seem to get it through your skull that a worldwide flood does not mean that there was a big boat that miraculously saved everyone. There's evidence of a worldwide flood if you like, but there's no evidence of a huge boat like that, whatsoever. There are plenty of other myths that describe a worldwide flood and a big boat saving every animal, like the Deucalion's Ark myth. There's no more evidence for Noah's ark than there is for Deucalion's...

Hey fuckhead, natural selection. The animals on the Ark adapted to their environments and changed a little. That doesn't mean evolution, it means natural selection, which is entirely different. So don't try to get on that subject.

Evolution is a direct consequence of natural selection. But you are far too retared to discuss something like evolution with, so indeed, let's not get on that subject. How is natural selection any kind of proof that it was Noah's ark and not Deucalion's ark that saved the world? Or that any ark saved the world for that matter?

And for your information, there can't be any natural selection on the Ark, considering that there's only 2 members of each species... So much for adapting to the environment of the Ark.

At 2/3/07 07:18 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: This is turning into a flame war...

Lets make teams, one for theists and another for atheists, on your noext post formaly say wich side you are on and make your primary argument for your oppinion.

too bad no one on this thread is arguing against religion.

At 2/3/07 08:00 PM, Togukawa wrote: Nothing do disprove religion in any way.

And until he does, needs to shut the fuck up. Because I'm so tired of hearing useless arguments and splitting hairs with atheist idiots that I'm not going to post on this topic again until someone has some good hardcore evidence against the bible.

Dre-man neads to learn some patiants. The Atheists should stop focasing on the bible and try to disprove that the concept of theism is at all true in any way, by the way no arguments i have head was like that, they all focased on one relligion (christianity moastly) and not against theism itself. That is ironic, being that atheism is the opposite of theism and not the opposite of one relligion you dont like.

At 2/3/07 09:40 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-man neads to learn some patiants. The Atheists should stop focasing on the bible and try to disprove that the concept of theism is at all true in any way, by the way no arguments i have head was like that, they all focased on one relligion (christianity moastly) and not against theism itself. That is ironic, being that atheism is the opposite of theism and not the opposite of one relligion you dont like.

Then what, exactly, are the exact tenets of "theism"? Belief in a "god"? Well, with so many of them out there... and a possibly infinite number, no reductive logic can be used in such a case. We need, for ease of discussion to keep ourselves to one or two (or three) major religions... otherwise the playing field is far too large for anyone to get anything done.

While the strict definition of atheism is a belief that there are no deities whatsoever, it can be also assumed to be the belief that all current concepts of that deity are untrue. As such, arguing against a specific religion is a fine way of evidencing your views, especially considering the prevalence of a certain religion prevalent in our current community.

Well lets say there are no relligions, can you disprove the concept of theism with no dogmas? it would be like a theist trying to disprove atheism.

At 2/3/07 09:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Well lets say there are no relligions, can you disprove the concept of theism with no dogmas? it would be like a theist trying to disprove atheism.

Not yet... but if the No Boundary Proposal gains more evidence, then the existance of any diety, dogma or no, becomes unneccessary for the beginning of anything. And that is really the question, after all. "What made the universe?" We don't know, so some people think that an entity of whatever sort must be the cause, while others believe natural factors brought it about.

However, when you start introducing dogmas, like the bible, torah, quran, upanishads, etc... then it gets much easier.

And why would these natural factors exsist at all, there the laws of the universe that i was talking about, things dont just happen man.

At 2/3/07 02:59 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

, is there anything which, for you, would disprove Gods existance. I realise that you might consider this a stupid question, since you believe He exists beyond all doubt, but please try and humour me. What could cause you to believe God does not exist? I'd be happy to answer the corollory, if you'd like me to.

Finally, could you please explain, to the best of your ability, exactly how you believe the flood in the Noah's ark myth happened, so I can try to disprove it using any science I might be able to bring to bear on the subject.

Excellent questions, I too would like to see these answered by Dre-Man or anyone.
And please... without the use of semantics.
We've had enough of that for one forum already.

why dont you non-believers just kill yourself and find out if there IS a God and aheaven-

oh wait-

you cant cause youll be dead! di di di.

At 2/3/07 10:53 PM, Punisher91 wrote:

you cant cause youll be dead! di di di.

Sarcasm- lol, yes they wold all be dead! di di di

At 2/3/07 10:27 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And why would these natural factors exsist at all, there the laws of the universe that i was talking about, things dont just happen man.

Of course they do. Pair creation "just happens" with no causal event.

I could say the same about a deity. Where did the deity come from, what caused it, deities don't just happen, man. And the answer is that they are eternal...

Only if the universe were perfectly deterministic would it need a causal event to come about. And yet, if it were completely deterministic, free will wouldn't exist. Nevermind that we already know it's not deterministic, rather probabilistic. The No Boundary Proposal basically introduces a second dimension of time at right angles to normal time called "Imaginary Time" (misnomer of sorts... much like the square root of -1, it's considered imaginary, but it is quite real) that precludes the necessity of a causal event or actor by making the universe basically eternal... having no specific beginning.

At 2/3/07 03:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/3/07 07:11 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: No one has jumped on me yet...

well i did correct you and demonstrate your lack of reading and comprehension skills, that was porbably enough.

Yeah, and I jumped on your right away as well.

At 2/3/07 11:22 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Yeah, and I jumped on your right away as well.

do you think those two are ever going to realise no one here is trying to disprove religion, or what =/= means?

At 2/4/07 12:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote: do you think those two are ever going to realise no one here is trying to disprove religion, or what =/= means?

doubt it...

At 2/4/07 12:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/3/07 11:22 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Yeah, and I jumped on your right away as well.

do you think those two are ever going to realise no one here is trying to disprove religion, or what =/= means?

Nope, Dre is hopeless. He isn't going to realize that no radiometric dating says the earth is young, nor that natural selection can't occur with only 2 members of species, nor that Pi is infinite, nor that all the evidence he has posted for Noah's ark is just as much evidence for Deucalion's, and so on.

He might have violated his principles of "tell everyone to stfu, shut out all reasonable arguments, and fanatically hold to your belief" when he read the Bible and suddenly became instant christian, but this time around, he's doing a fine job of ignoring all arguments that go against his beliefs.

Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

I believe that science is something that has the evidence and the logic to tel us "Well, people, all this time that we were saying that God created the world and the humans and all the others...well...we were talking about bullshit. The wrold was created by the Big Bang and...bla...bla...bla..."

But...

Religions has got some beliefs and represent a way of life. Normal people use thing that religion teached them to make decissions in their lives. For example, I see a car with its keys on it and its door unlocked. I don't steal it because I have been taught fom the Bible that stealing is wrong. So we can't say that religion is something bad. But we are too much f*cking connected with it that we can't admit that it is something wrong.

So...It's kind of stupid that we still believe that there is God. And another problem is that scientists haven't got the balls to say "There is no God! Forget about him!", because a lot of people will get angry, etc... So, the problem is the world's problem to admit that they are wrong. Maybe in 10 years, about the 4/5 of the world will be thinking about the same thing, that God can't possibly exist, and so they'll decide that they shouldn't be religious and delete all the religions.

Right, I'm bored of annoying Dre-man with my unfair use of causal logic and scientific proof. I'm going to come out of the proverbial closet and claim I'm a theist, although I'm not sure exactly what form God\Gods might take. My main reasons:

1) The Universe had to start from somewhere. I realise this is a bit of a "God of the gaps" explaination, but nothing in current physics can make something come from nothing (any bastard who quotes the Casimir effect at me gets beaten to death). Even if the 'God' that started everything off is an evil, stupid, vindictive God, there still must be an all powerful being to have started things off. Maybe; I'm open to further evidence.

2) Without a God, or religion, I do not see how you can defend absoloute moral standards, which I believe are vital. Otherwise, my argument that "murder is fun" is just as valid as your argument "murder is bad". Whether or not you agree, say, euthanasia is always wrong, you can be justified in saying that "Euthanasia is certainly either wrong or right", it does not depend on personal opinion.

3) I cannot see a way out of the ontological argument. Kant tried, but Plantinga has come up with another theory, which is much better. Anyone who knows about these theories (myself included) finds them intuitively implausable, but no-one I know or have read has ever disproved them to my satisfaction. However, this does not mean that the "Greatest being" is, say, omnibenevolent. It just means he is the "greatest being".

4) I don't like the idea of just ceasing to exist after death, so to a certain extent I kid myself.

At 2/4/07 06:54 AM, Goldensheep wrote: 1) The Universe had to start from somewhere. I realise this is a bit of a "God of the gaps" explaination, but nothing in current physics can make something come from nothing (any bastard who quotes the Casimir effect at me gets beaten to death). Even if the 'God' that started everything off is an evil, stupid, vindictive God, there still must be an all powerful being to have started things off. Maybe; I'm open to further evidence.

Imaginary Time... I'll get to it in a bit since someone else asked... not that I don't understand your point.

2) Without a God, or religion, I do not see how you can defend absoloute moral standards, which I believe are vital. Otherwise, my argument that "murder is fun" is just as valid as your argument "murder is bad". Whether or not you agree, say, euthanasia is always wrong, you can be justified in saying that "Euthanasia is certainly either wrong or right", it does not depend on personal opinion.

An objectivist application of the "golden rule" is all that is really necessary to determine morality. That and the understanding that an action has both moral and immoral consequences, along with the understanding that the morality of such actions and consequences cannot be determined immediately, but can only be judged by the information and the reasonable assumption of deduction of the actor himself.

3) I cannot see a way out of the ontological argument. Kant tried, but Plantinga has come up with another theory, which is much better. Anyone who knows about these theories (myself included) finds them intuitively implausable, but no-one I know or have read has ever disproved them to my satisfaction. However, this does not mean that the "Greatest being" is, say, omnibenevolent. It just means he is the "greatest being".

If I understand these arguments correctly, they're basically the metaphysical equivalents of the Anthropic principles. The Universe exists, thus the conditions necessary for them to exist must also exist, on up to the final necessity of a greater than everything force, be it personal or not, that we choose to call "god". Am I getting that right?

Assuming I am, I'm down with that explanation... however the problem comes when we apply features to that force... namely omnipotence. Because by the same logic (axiom S5) self-contradiction cannot, necessarily, exist... and omnipotence is, by its very nature, self-contradictory. Whatever force it was that created this universe (or created what created the universe) cannot be infinitely powerful, because infinite power is irrational, and paradoxical. It may be more powerful than anything else... it may even be asymptotical to infinite in power... however, it can not be powerful enough to limit its own power... as that is a self-contradiction. It cannot do something both possible and impossible, by the very definition of the terms... and yet it must be able to by the very definition of the term omnipotent.

You see the problem...

4) I don't like the idea of just ceasing to exist after death, so to a certain extent I kid myself.

I'm with ya... death scares the living bejeezus outta me. The unknown always does... and that's the greatest unknown there is. I would love to be able to turn my brain off and believe in an afterlife... but until someone can explain me one that's actually plausible, I gotta stick with non-existance as being what's at the end of the line for us.

At 2/4/07 04:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

Yes, it does. Here is the wiki link for it, as it explains it in probably more consise terms than I could.

Basically it states that the "beginning" of the universe (big bang) isn't a singularity at all, rather it is just another point in spacetime. I.e. there is no "beginning" of the universe as we would understand it.

And it can be postulated that with no beginning, there needs be no beginnER.

At 2/4/07 07:58 AM, Ravariel wrote: It may be more powerful than anything else... it may even be asymptotical to infinite in power... however, it can not be powerful enough to limit its own power...

Sorry, that should read: "it cannot be so powerful that it cannot limit its own power"

At 2/4/07 04:45 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/4/07 12:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/3/07 11:22 PM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Yeah, and I jumped on your right away as well.

do you think those two are ever going to realise no one here is trying to disprove religion, or what =/= means?

Nope, Dre is hopeless. He isn't going to realize that no radiometric dating says the earth is young, nor that natural selection can't occur with only 2 members of species, nor that Pi is infinite, nor that all the evidence he has posted for Noah's ark is just as much evidence for Deucalion's, and so on.

Okay, Pi is infinite. What does that prove again? Oh yes, your stupid bible quote. Do you even know what that quote was speaking about? Do you know what Hiram was building? Probably not, but I will say this. The bible was written by men and men do make mistakes. Does that mean that the bible isn't God's work? No.

And about our little argument on the age of the earth, I don't believe that it's only 6,000 years old. And the bible doesn't say that it is either. I was simply stating that some radiometric dating results have pointed to a younger earth. If you really want me to, I'll search until I find a website that confirms my statement, but then you'll just say that the website I linked to wasn't credible, so why should I even bother?

And like I said with Noah's Ark, the world could have meant only the Fertile Crescent. And sybolism occurs very often in the Bible, which this could be another instance of.

He might have violated his principles of "tell everyone to stfu, shut out all reasonable arguments, and fanatically hold to your belief" when he read the Bible and suddenly became instant christian, but this time around, he's doing a fine job of ignoring all arguments that go against his beliefs.

Reasonable arguments? "God doesn't exist because he isn't proven but evolution and the big bang are perfectly credible explanations for how the earth came to be." Yeah, really reasonable. And I never said I became an "instant Christian". It took me years to turn to Christianity.

Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

What?

At 2/5/07 12:10 AM, Dre-Man wrote: And about our little argument on the age of the earth, I don't believe that it's only 6,000 years old. And the bible doesn't say that it is either. I was simply stating that some radiometric dating results have pointed to a younger earth.

No, they haven't. Try again.

If you really want me to, I'll search until I find a website that confirms my statement, but then you'll just say that the website I linked to wasn't credible, so why should I even bother?

There, I did it for you.

That should keep the amusement flowing for quite some time.

And like I said with Noah's Ark, the world could have meant only the Fertile Crescent. And sybolism occurs very often in the Bible, which this could be another instance of.

Might the entirety of it be symbolic, then?

Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

What?

Take a gander at the post of mine at the top of this page... links and all... though I'd be surprised if you understood it all. No offense, but it's not an easy concept. We'll see, however, how well you take to new information.

At 2/5/07 12:10 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/4/07 04:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: Nope, Dre is hopeless. He isn't going to realize that no radiometric dating says the earth is young, nor that natural selection can't occur with only 2 members of species, nor that Pi is infinite, nor that all the evidence he has posted for Noah's ark is just as much evidence for Deucalion's, and so on.

Okay, Pi is infinite. What does that prove again? Oh yes, your stupid bible quote. Do you even know what that quote was speaking about? Do you know what Hiram was building? Probably not, but I will say this. The bible was written by men and men do make mistakes. Does that mean that the bible isn't God's work? No.

Indeed, so it's not flawless, which was my point. You said there wasn't a single error in the Bible, and now finally you admit otherwise. So how do you know that the statement that the earth was created by god wasn't one of those mistakes? Or as a matter of fact ANY statement made in the Bible?

And about our little argument on the age of the earth, I don't believe that it's only 6,000 years old. And the bible doesn't say that it is either. I was simply stating that some radiometric dating results have pointed to a younger earth. If you really want me to, I'll search until I find a website that confirms my statement, but then you'll just say that the website I linked to wasn't credible, so why should I even bother?

Yes, I really want you to. Because I believe that you are the only person ignorant enough to claim that radiometric dating of all things would say the earth is as young as a couple of thousands years. Try looking for it, and see just how stupid you have made yourself look by that statement.

And like I said with Noah's Ark, the world could have meant only the Fertile Crescent. And sybolism occurs very often in the Bible, which this could be another instance of.

Of course. The problem is that we don't know how to interpret the Bible. We no longer have the same cultural background as the people that wrote the Bible, so we no longer have the ability to interpret everything correctly. Furthermore we don't know what is symbolism or not. Hence my point that it is retarded to interpret the Bible literally and making claims on the physical world with it as source. Like claiming Noah's Ark is actually real, when there's no evidence of a boat, while there's a plethora of other older and similar myths. Considering that the Bible holds a lot of symbolism, and that there's no evidence whatsoever for this tale, the conclusion every reasonable person comes to is that the tale is an instance of symbolism. Especially if the symbolism is so easy to see: don't piss god off, but no matter how hard we screw up, he'll never kill us off completely.

He might have violated his principles of "tell everyone to stfu, shut out all reasonable arguments, and fanatically hold to your belief" when he read the Bible and suddenly became instant christian, but this time around, he's doing a fine job of ignoring all arguments that go against his beliefs.

Reasonable arguments? "God doesn't exist because he isn't proven but evolution and the big bang are perfectly credible explanations for how the earth came to be." Yeah, really reasonable. And I never said I became an "instant Christian". It took me years to turn to Christianity.

I was referring to your statement of "If you're going to believe something, believe it, and don't cut people who believe something else any slack. Otherwise you'll always question yourself."

As for taking years to convert to christianity, you're certainly an early bird. I started really thinking about religion when I was around 16. You were 10-12? Do you think you have enough life experience at that age to make the decision you're never going to change anymore? If you're going to "believe it and don't and so on", I'd make the decision at a later age. Or at least be open to change your beliefs when you learn and experience more.

Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

What?

This is an intelligent question, it was aimed at an intelligent person. I.e. Ravariel in this case.

At 2/4/07 07:58 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Great answer - I don't think I can give intelligent replies to all of it and stay on topic, but its nice to find someone who can think in such objective terms (On an unrelated note, how you doing Dre-man?)

Imaginary time seems just like you push back the boundry of when 'time' begins. In universe 'P', running parallel to this universe 'U', there must be a finite beginning to time too, surely? Doesn't universe P need a creator outside of space-time, even if universe U does not?

I have a niggling feeling I might have just totally misunderstood the whole concept

At 2/5/07 01:15 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

At 2/4/07 07:58 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Great answer - I don't think I can give intelligent replies to all of it and stay on topic, but its nice to find someone who can think in such objective terms (On an unrelated note, how you doing Dre-man?)

Imaginary time seems just like you push back the boundry of when 'time' begins. In universe 'P', running parallel to this universe 'U', there must be a finite beginning to time too, surely? Doesn't universe P need a creator outside of space-time, even if universe U does not?

I have a niggling feeling I might have just totally misunderstood the whole concept

Yes you have. There's only one universe. There are parallel and perpendicular directions of time, but it's all in the same universe.

Let's first consider the classical view of time: time is one dimensional, we can represent it as a line. There is a beginning of time, it's a point where there's no more time to the left of it, and time goes to infinity on the right. This beginning point is a singularity, in this point there's only one direction you can go, forward. As opposed to all other "normal" points in time, where you can go in more than one direction (left and right)

Then let's consider time being complex (as in complex number). In that case time is two-dimensional, and we can consider it as a plane. There still is a beginning of real time (the x-axis). But the point is no longer a singularity, you can move up and down. (on the y-axis, the imaginary portion of time).

In my example I'm technically not correct, since I start from time being infinite and with boundary. According to the no boundary hypothesis, time is not infinite, but rather finite but without boundary, like a sphere. But that's a different issue, it has nothing to do with the beginning being a singularity or not.

If we represent time as finite and without boundary like a sphere, it's also a plane (but now a spherical plane as opposed to a flat plane). Then the beginning of time (the "northernmost" point) is not fundamentally different from any other point on the sphere.

Ravariel, correct ay blatant mistakes please :)

I can't understand why people are bashing on people that believe certain things, if that is what they want, let them be, if that is the way their hearths feel full, let them be. also I've seen this, many atheists are arrogant and very offensive, you ever seen a normal Christian/Muslim swear at someone just because of their beliefs? ( now please let out the suicide bombers/ the witch burnings, crusades etc) it was all normal at their time, and suicide bombers are not real muslims, because the Koran clearly states not to harm your fellow man and to respect his believes or his/her sexual preferences, and YES, it does say it is wrong, but it doesn't say, go around disrespecting/bashing/murdering/bombing. It is just people that don't comprehend it :(