Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 06:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Hahahahaha the monkeys!
Yeah this is pretty interesting but theres no reason why just because we can look at the brain and say this is the part that makes us believe in god, god isnt real. We could look at the part which makes us not believe in god, therefore god is real? both these statements have no grounding.
If there was a creator why would he not put these pattern regognitions into our brain? WHy would it not be our brain that regognises god? (the creator)
But funny video haha
0 Replies
 
Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 06:40 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
How many double negatives does it take before a sentence becomes convoluted?

The fact that energy can not be destroyed doesn't imply any sort of creator what so ever. The problem here is in the definitions, and with the word "destroy". The meaning of destroy is relative. Like if you have a cup, the definition for the cup is when it is in a state that can be identified as a cup, but if you were to smash that cup and shatter it into pieces, one person might claim you "destroyed" the cup, but someone else could say the cup was never destroyed, you just changed it's state. Technically you could pick up the pieces and glue them back together and use it as a cup again, so what was really destroyed?

If you can follow my poor metaphor, the point with energy is that it is not something that can be destroyed, because it is just a state, and to butcher a definition of energy, I would say that energy is a state of matter.

But trying to tie energy into something "special" because it can't be destroyed is a huge stretch to what we mean when we say it can't be destroyed. Therefore it does not imply any god at all and to do so is more of a ploy to squeeze in the concept of god not because there is one, but because the person making the claim finds it necessary to do so, without anything substantial to back it up.


Your own mettaphore is why energy cant be destroyed you can only ever change its state, this implys the universe is ageless and had no begining but we know that it did (the big bang). Fact: If you had a ruler that streached the intire universe and changed gravaty my 1 millimetre the universe would have either colapsed in on itself before and matter could form or would have expanded too fast and once again nothing would have formed, such fine tuning of the universe can shown wih many examples. I know this doesnt mean that oh god is real cos this is so unlikly. But to sombody who has the religious point of view this ruler analigy (Horrible speller sorry) is a bit of a faith booster haha.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 10:07 pm
@Ali phil,
Ali phil wrote:

If energy can not be destroyed nor come from nothing, is it not ilogical for there not to be some kind of creator?


why ? why does this follow ? ( I'm assuming that " ilogical " should be " logical " )
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2011 10:46 pm
No. Not. Never. Nervner!

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:28 am
@north,
This was where the accusation of double negatives was brought up. Breaking up the sentence it makes a tad more sense

(it is) Is it not (correct him if he is wrong) ilogical (negative) for there not (negative) to be some kind of creator?

It did make me go boss eyed though. Just a little

Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:40 am
@Smileyrius,
haha just keeping you on your toes Razz
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:59 am
@Ali phil,
you assume I have toes?
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:07 am
@farmerman,
Thank you for your patience with me, this isnt one of my better subjects. I enjoy this kind of insight, as it is not always the easiest thing to study, I prefer to explore this through asking questions that challenge what I know. Reaction cauldrons are as you say a natural means by which organisms originate mutate or evolve, which indeed proves that it could be done. Could the point beneath which lies the place of intervention be the introduction of "life" to matter? I know of experiments that have been conducted on the matter, but has science inconclusively given life to that which is inorganic?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:09 am
@Ali phil,
Ali phil wrote:
Your own mettaphore is why energy cant be destroyed you can only ever change its state, this implys the universe is ageless and had no begining but we know that it did (the big bang). Fact: If you had a ruler that streached the intire universe and changed gravaty my 1 millimetre the universe would have either colapsed in on itself before and matter could form or would have expanded too fast and once again nothing would have formed, such fine tuning of the universe can shown wih many examples. I know this doesnt mean that oh god is real cos this is so unlikly. But to sombody who has the religious point of view this ruler analigy (Horrible speller sorry) is a bit of a faith booster haha.


How do you know that if gravity were slightly changed in magnitude either way that the universe couldn't have formed? Even if that were true there is still a statistical problem that could be the solution. If given enough time anything is plausible.

So for example, lets say there was a highly dense singularity and it did erupt but the law of gravity was too strong and it collapsed back into itself. Or how about the other way, the law of gravity was too weak and the universe expanded so quick that nothing could form.

Just this simple possibility only points out the flaw in the reasoning when you say that if gravity weren't just so, "fine tuned", nothing would be here. Well that might be true but how do we know there were not other failures? How do we know if there are an infinite potential universes, where some collapse, some expand with nothing being made and we just so happen to exist in one universe where the law of gravity was at the right proportion?

This is why any time I heard the "fine tune" argument I laugh because it presupposes that it only can or happen once. How can you be certain that it has only occurred once?
Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 02:45 am
@Krumple,
Stephen hawking (dont know how to spell)
Is where i got the term fine tunning of the universe and it is from him that i got the anology for gravitys sensitivity.
So your saying its more likly that there is millions of other universes other than our own (which is highly likly i suppose) but there is no evidence for it so thats just a idea and isnt useful for bring factual analasis to the discussion

(sorry for all my spelling dyslecsic haha)
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 09:38 am
@Ali phil,
Ali phil wrote:

If energy can not be destroyed nor come from nothing, is it not ilogical for there not to be some kind of creator?


You've just eliminated the need for a creator. Energy has always been. There is no need for a middle man creator.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 09:39 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Thomas Aquinas worked out that there was logically a creator; I've no idea if people worked that up before him. I fell for it for some years.

Aristotle and his unmoved mover.

Aquinas was attempting to reconcile Aristotle's philosophy with Christian doctrine.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Creator
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 01:26:57