Arguments for and against the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Alan McDougall, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    So guys, when will we confront the pivotal factor:

    What if the universe is regarded as absolutely finite? IOW, no entropy, para uni's, time, space - no nothing. Go on - play devil's advocate!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Why?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    If you have something somewhere then there is no nothingness, you might be thinking of an employ void, but even that is not nothing is an empty something
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Please explain this line of reasoning..
     
  8. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    universe emerged out of the big bang, it did not emerge into an infinite empty void, but brought the void or space time with it
     
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    No, he's outside of creation. Although technically its true, as Big Chiller said- the creator of location must be outside of location-

    we can not imagine anything outside of time, space, and matter/mass so I'm not going to say how something can exist outside of space because I myself can not imagine it... But my argument was general, he's outside the code- that means he's somewhere

    At the point of creation-


    And the system itself is made of information- so information is telling it what information is information in the first place. 'Systems define' but system must be defined first.


    I already explained this, go back and read it. A process being part of a code can never negate the code.



    You are only talking about things that occur within the coded creation which appear to fit your options.. But I'm talking about the code itself- not that which results within it.

    Sure it does. Egyptians used multiple forms of writing forms to express the same thing-



    I never said duplication of things. I said a duplication of code into the form of Math. Much like translation.


    'Describing' = modeling. Which is what you are talking about 'formulation of actual happening'.

    Therefore, I don't understand why you're being so stupid.

    Can you get your head around my argument in the first place. I'm not talking about the coded DNA of A's, T's, C's, and G's.... I'm talking about the whole frickin universe. Is DNA product of the universe? Yes.

    Why not mention the time zone- then so is instantaneous change.

    Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying- or you just want to say something in response for the sake of it.... I only said there is difference in how one understands the world depending on if one views it with a creator vs not- I didn't say anything about your worldview.

    Then you just missed it, or you don't understand the argument- which is more likely true as you keep asking me about 'what code'.

    Because all of this is irrelevant to the discuss that a creator exists- what he looks like and any of his attributes are different topics. I'm dealing with the general concept of a creator, not the specifics of one. I believe I've said this before.

    Because you don't know what 'logical' hence 'logic' is as you demonstrate below.

    Logic doesn't require to be tested- you're thinking science which uses testable logical arguments. But there are logical arguments that can not be tested but are logical. All squares are rectangles but all rectangles are not squares.... Science and pure logic are not the same thing. All science is logical but all logical arguments are not science.

    The system of the universe.

    Universe is not performing upon the laws of physics?

    It doesn't matter that 'current mathematical modeling' is not enough- but as long as it can be incorporated in a systematic fashion- then that is a systematic code.

    Yes that is why they work under the assumption that what is, is physical- so they try to find an explanation.



    Are you mentally impaired? In which form did that look like a conclusion- it was the terms upon which the discussion is to be based-

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    I think that sometimes we mix up the creation of the universe with the Existence of all things, of which the big bang of our universe, is only part of existence.

    The creation of the singularity might only be a part of all things of which the creation of our beautiful universe, is only a part of all reality
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Nice contradiction, well thought out. You make a claim for something you can't possible imagine, but you make the claim in the affirmative anyway.

    Why are you?


    One fallacy after another does not produce an argument.

    That would be the concept you claimed one couldn't possibly imagine.

    You shouldn't be accusing others of the crime you yourself are committing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    (Q) I have no interest in talking to a cultist like you

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    I have no problem with that. Once again, you shouldn't be accusing others of what you yourself are doing. I belong to no cult, you do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Sure you don't

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. alephnull you can count on me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    147
    I do not see obvious design in the image, as I understand the process by which the pattern was formed. There are many models describing, very accurately, the mechanisms governing the formation of biological patterns.


    One of the earliest models of pattern formation, the reaction diffusion theory of morphogenesis, was put forward by Alan Turing in 1952. He suggested that, under certain conditions, chemicals can react and diffuse in such a way as to produce steady state heterogeneous spatial patterns of chemical or morphogen concentration.

    Without delving into the technicalities of the theory, the upshot is that simple chemical diffusion conditions exhibited in domains of certain geometries give rise to a plethora of different patterns.

    A prediction of the early work of Turing (Turing-instability being the mechanism by which animal coat markings are formed) is that we shouldn't expect to find animals with striped bodies and spotted tails, only the other way around. This prediction is verified by observation almost universally in the animal kingdom. Very few animals have striped bodies with spotty tails. Not bad from a man who was neither a biologist or a chemist! His early work gave birth to a very rich and fruitful field of research.

    Biological patterns are beautiful and to simply credit such beauty to a designer ignores the equally beautiful biology, mathematics and chemistry underlying them. No design is necessary.

    For a thorough account see
    J.D Murray, Mathematical Biology (Volumes I & II). [an excellent text]

    There's even a whole section on butterfly wing pattern formation!
     
  16. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Maybe some people are not able to see obvious design in the owl eye butterfly but what about this:

    Chapter 76 of the Holy Quran, named "Human", is the 31[sup]st[/sup] chapter containing the word "Human" from Quran's beginning. It is the only chapter in whole Quran that consists of 31 verses. Open the old testament and you find that Genesis 1:1 (creation story) consists of 31 verses.

    Here is the first verse in chapter 76 "Human":

    "Does there not come on MAN a portion of time when he is nothing worth mentioning?" - The word used in this verse and discussed here is "ALANSN" which means man (human being - no gender specified)

    This verse with this clear reference to human creation is the 46[sup]th[/sup] verse from Quran's beginning which contains the word "Human".

    Different species have different number of chromosomes. Human beings have 46 chromosomes. The chromosomes contain the genetic material needed for the functioning and development of the human body.

    The number 46 itself is the 31[sup]st[/sup] composite number in universe. Composite numbers are numbers composed of the multiplication of prime numbers.

    Someone may ask but what about the number 76 ? Amazingly the number 76 is the 31[sup]st[/sup] number if counting up from number 46.

    Even more, the word man "ALANSN" appears 65 times in the whole Quran. Number 65 is the 46[sup]th[/sup] composite number in universe!

    Data sheets, tables and more amazing facts can be found in this article:

    Word "Human being" - Ingenious arrangement

    The amazing thing is that those scientific and mathematical phenomena are found in a text with incredible literary eloquence. No one ever was able to match the language of the Holy Quran. It is clear that it is a revelation of the All Knowing God who created man and taught him how to speak. The mathematical phenomena and the linguistic beauty of the Quran make it clear that it was revealed by the mathematician of everything! And I sincerely see no reason not to believe in Him!
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's completely insane.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    You're not allowed to say that anymore or risk getting banned for calling an ideology insane.
     
  19. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    You got banned for something totally different

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135

    You've been reported.
     
  21. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    If something is expanding it must have a beginning. The universe was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Subsequently, if the universe is finite, the premise of pre- and multi-universes violate the preamble.
     
  22. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    I agree from the POV one must evidence a premise in factual, historical every day observable and repeatable terms. Abstract and theoretical alone does not suffice - worse if it contradicts what is manifest.
     
  23. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    There is no singularity as in an indivisable and/or irreducible entity. Technically, there is no absolute ONE in the universe. It takes a minimum of a duality to have an action.

    This factor negates the reality of the BBT - which is only a theory regarded the best we can come up with: if the BB began with one single entity - there cannot be any action from it, such as an expansion or a bang. This is also the reason for the premise the universe is infinite, which assumes there are forces pre-dating the universe which acted upon the first BB entity. But this fails again - because it contradicts the BB as being the first entity! Strange, but I learnt this science from a theological writing called Genesis.
     

Share This Page