Religion

[emprworm]

But there really is no way that you positiefly discard options 2 and 3, those options do not lead to the confermation that God [ or a god ] does exists.

So how do you come to the conclusion that 1 MUST be the only answer on how the univers came to exist ? That's an option of personal nature, nat a scientiffic one. Further more, it can be the wrong option / choise.

Yes.  This is the very first time I have agreed with Gryphon.  Fancy that.   :D

  My whole point to everything was that belief in God is no more irrational, even for a scientist, then belief that there is no God.  Its all faith and science will never be able to answer the question.  The only problem the atheist has is explaining how/why the law of causality is broken with the beginning of our universe.  Belief in creation does not violate the law of causality.   The other options do.  

[gryphon]

"hat the laws of physics dont apply to the entire universe (especially since we have already proven they do apply to galaxies billions of light years away)"

The laws of PHYSICS he ? One word comes to mind, don't know why but it suddenly did.. . . quatummechanics. . . .

[emprworm]

"Because of the law of noncontradiction we can know this with absolute 100% certainly:"

The law on oncantradiction as you call it has been proven wrong

Lol! All I need to do is read junk like this to know it is a waste of time replying to anything else he says. haha.

Now I know for a fact this guy has no idea what he is talking about. I dont even think he knows what the law of noncontradiction is. If anyone thinks they can prove the law of noncontradiction wrong, please by all means, step up to the plate.

sorry that I can't, or won't explain it

Of course you cant explain it. Of course you wont. Because you cant! No one can. It is absolute, and its existence and truth exists beyond your subjective mind.

har har har

[emprworm]

I'm a nice guy.

[gryphon]

Hm, a crack course in logica . .. well thanks ;), now I feel I've wasted all that money on a education while I could have gotten it straight from the Net.

Anyhow, what has it got to do with religion ? And what I like to know [ so I defeniately know that all the money spend on my education has gone to wast ], how does this clearefy the fact that I think I exist, dont' know if you do, have a serious question and doubt on how I came into existens ofcourse where I will go next, and the funny one, why do I even think I and the world exists ?

[nampigai]

What about the bumble bee

[Acriku]

empr, why are you so closed-minded? The laws are made from our logic, not the universe's. We did not discover them, we invented them based on our senses and mind. If our senses and mind are limited, then the laws that come from our senses and mind are therefore limited. Even what I am saying is limited, and the real truth is far beyond our comprehension. We've had laws that made perfect sense until we found out something that contradicted it, which might very well happen to the law of noncontradiction.

And the law of noncontradiction cannot be said to be true because we haven't found everything in the universe to experiment with. There might be something in the universe that is in fact something, and not that something at the same time. We just don't know.

[nemafakei]

If I repeated anything, I'm sorry.

I'll start with this...

"The principle (or law) of bivalance affirms that any meaningful proposition is either true or false"

Ever heard of quantum mechanics? That really messes that statement (and the others, a bit) up. (The silly thing is that qm is impossible to be 100% sure about that for the same reason that it works... etc)

But other than the Quantum problem, the rules seem ok. BUT, we must be careful to apply them correctly.

Back to the polytheism, assuming one god is infinite is a fallacy. Unless you define god as 'infinite', in which case god+humans=god (inf + 1 = inf). Hence, god would BE the universe! Incidentally, how does god fit into these 3 options. Not the he caused himself; that's basically saying no more than the universe-created-itself people say.

And the laws of the universe change (eg close to the BB), according to many physicists (personally, I think it is a problem with the data interpretation, but I'm just raising the point about your long debate about it).

That there are no absolutes may or may not be true. However, it is true when restricted to one point of view (eg that of humanity). It's just that it's damn difficult to prove anything ABSOLUTELY by anything but logic, and even then, there's always a tiny chance we'll go wrong.

Oh, yes. emprworm said that the universe isn't based on our theories (I can't find the quote at the moment...). Well you're right. Our theories are based on the universe. (And a good job, too, else we'd be in trouble!) But really, this amounts to effectively what you meant to argue against...

[gryphon]

Pfff, thanks Nema ;)

emperworm, could you read my post on this page

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=general-offtopic;action=display;num=1010810729;start=1175

#1188 and explain how it's possible for you to hold a absolute position about anything ?

[emprworm]

Short and sweet:

Acriku:

You consistently try to say that all laws are subjective, yet at the same time are making objective claims.

[emprworm]

And I just read your posts Gryhpon and they are complete nonsense.

[Timenn]

I don't mingle in the discussion. But I've read alot of statements. And you can't say about someone's it's complete stupidity. There were alot of scientists sued to death because they thought something else then others (church). And after all they were given right.

[emprworm]

My use of the word stupidity reffered the concept that

Making an absolute claim that absolutes don't exist is pure stupidity

And it really is pure stupidity.

[nampigai]

What about the bumble bee?

[Acriku]

Empr, it's like saying this: There is only one rule, and that is that there are no rules. I understand your point about the asbolute about no absolutes, but think outside of the box! Your posts keep saying you are 100% correct, and that is ignorant because you are saying you know the absolute truth and you do not know that. Sure your point may seem logical or truthful now, but that is what many scientists thought before - and they were time after time proved wrong or haven't been proven right.

Why do you always steer away from the things you can't argue against? You always go back to your original point - the law of noncontradiction. So tell me this, if we find something in the universe that is something and not that something at the same time, will you discard it as stupidity? Can you imagine something that is another thing at the same time?

The whole system of contradiction and logic is from US, our human minds.  And I wouldn't be so sure that you are correct, because after all a law is only an accepted theory. Emphasis on theory!

"A man sure of himself is a man ignorant of everything else."

[emprworm]

"The whole system of contradiction and logic is from US, our human minds. "

No, its from the way our universe exists, and our a priori ability to understand reason.

[Acriku]

I am a form of agnostic, not necessarily a typical one. God may very well exist, I don't know, but with the knowledge I have I use it to determine to myself whether He does or not. I believe anything is possible, and you can't prove that wrong or right. But to say that the laws (like of noncontradiction) has always been a law of nature, before our time, this isn't right. We have gathered our observations and made interpretations of them, and created laws, theories, corrolaries, etc. Our interpretations are like the Greek's interpretations with Zues and Hera - do you believe in them now? People in the future may think of our laws as we think of Greek mythology now.

[emprworm]

But to say that the laws (like of noncontradiction) has always been a law of nature, before our time, this isn't right.

[Acriku]

I never said I believe in God or don't believe in God! I just said that anything can happen, so yes God can be existing, it is just that we don't know which is correct.  >:(

What you are saying is of extreme religious faith, all I am saying (proposing for the purpose of discussion, really) is that anything can happen, you can be dead on right, or you can be dead on wrong, or you can be anything between and beyond, we do not know.

[The_old_worm]

I really, really, hate to say this, but I agree with much of what emprworm is posting about logic. I can't see logic as not being an absolute, but again, I leave the possiblility open. I think what emprworm is missing though, is that we use logic on our observations to create laws of the universe. I don't question the logic, I question our observations. If we base our logic on false perceptions, then doesn't that make the logic false? That is why we leave laws open to change, and why laws should NOT be taken as absoute truth.

What you need to understand about contradiction, is that an object or event may seem to directly contradict itself, but this is due to our misinterperetation of it in the first place. You posit that we understand our universe well enough, that we know what contradiction is. I say that what we think is contradiction is actually a product of our misunderstanding in the first place. So, you cannot say that ANYTHING will not contradict itself in the future. As we learn more, we will probably find things that seem to do just that. THAT is the fault in human logic.

I posted a while back, emprworm, and you ignored my question. I think Acriku is right, you avoid arguments you can't win. Why, if the world was created by supernatural means, does Creationism win by default? You have chosen a guess and presented it as truth.

Again, you ignored another statement I made, presumably because you don't have an answer. Check out Guth's inflation model for the Big Bang. It proposes(note: does not prove) that matter can come from nothing in a pure vacum, a sort of free-lunch as he puts it. If this is even possible, then your position that God is the only rational explaination for the universe is false. The difference between this theory and the Creation myth, is that it is backed with observations and evidence, therefore more likely, even if not perfect.

[emprworm]

Oldworm, I didnt ignore your points deliberately.

[Edric O]

Acriku:

If you want to be nothing more than a "pawn" (as you put it), then go right ahead. But don't expect me to do the same.

As for the Trinity, it was a concept introduced in order to explain the dual nature of Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the plural form of "God" in the Bible. The plural is irrelevant, since every time it is used God still acts as one being, not several.

emprworm, may I quote your article on the new Christian website I'm building? You brought up some very good arguments. I'll give you proper credit for it, of course.

The_old_worm:

No matter how educated your guess is, it's still just a guess. The Big Bang is our best theory so far, but it's still just a very elaborate guess.

The problem with the so-called "proof" for the Big Bang (the observations confirming the theory) is that our observations are the FOUNDATION of the theory. So to say they validate it is circular logic. First you make observations, then you make a theory to fit with them, then you validate it with the same observations??

This also applies to Creationism, of course. None of the two theories is any better.

Please note that to emprworm's argument it is irrelevant WHICH Creation story you pick. He's talking about supernatural causes in general, NOT narrowing it down.

Guys - If I was emprworm, I'd be banging my head against a wall about now. :) You just don't get it! There are only 3 (that's THREE) possible origins of the universe, and we can prove this by simple logic. Now, the only way for a 4th option to exist is if our simple logic is flawed. But since that logic is the foundation of all our science, if it's flawed than we know absolutely ZERO about... anything.

Do you understand the implications of denying the validity of logic? It basically means 1+1=1=3, truth is false, etc. I'm not saying it's not possible - I'm saying we would have to reconsider EVERYTHING. Kinda like if we found out our world is just an illusion.

[emprworm]

Edric, LOL i seriously was banging my head on the desk, on the wall, on the door.  My head hurts.  They keep saying "think outside the box" when it is THEM who are claiming all truth is subjective!  THEY are the ones trapped in their little universe of their brain claming that no truth exists beyond their brains.   Totally absurd.

Three options.  And only three options.  

There was no fourth option.  There is no fourth options.  ANd there never will be a fourth option.

Please, by all means, spend the next 50 years of your life trying to figure one out.  It will be a waste of life, though.

[gryphon]

All quotes are from emprworm

"I guess I am truly wasting my time."

Please feel free to leave.

"You and Aikiru sound like the same person.  The same contradictory garbage."

"You and Acriku sound like the same person.  The same contradictory garbage."

Acriku, just atred you name, emprworm made an exident [ for about 10 times now ] not to be able spelling your name right, besides that I altered nothing to the quote.

"A total waste of time even responding to."

That why did you bother ?

Sorry that I didn't read through the newer posts, but I have enough of this insulting comments. You mengel in this topic without giving any idea of your background in it and then mindlessly say that we are all wrong, not accepting other statements.

Just stopt it !

[Edric O]

Nema:

My point, if you remember, was that assuming reality is real is no different from assuming God exists. Then I tried to support it by showing that both assumptions lead to equally important conclusions... and our argument deviated from there. Let's get back on track, ok?

P.S. to everyone: Do you think this topic will ever end? I'm afraid it will cause some server error soon, it's getting too big (remember "Top 1000 ways to tell you're way into Dune"?)