The known universe

Flamed Diving

Twin-go wrote: »

What a waste of Space!

Sure if he didn't, what would we call it then? :rolleyes:

Osgoodisgood

PDN wrote: »

If you want to construct arguments against an invisible deity who is not actually omniscient then you are free to do so.

No, you do me the disservice of strawmanning me. I said there was as much reason to believe in a non omniscient deity. I do wish you'd keep up.

Of course your arguments will be of no interest or relevance whatsoever to Christians, since you are not discussing the Christian God.

Fair point. You have abitrarily awarded yours with powers unimaginable. Like universe development for example. Is that where's he been all this time? Overseeing construction in the horsehead nebula? Do you imagine that when he's not so busy there he might have a chance to nip back here and update his book so you and the Boy Wonder don't have to do so much guessing?

Have fun with that one.

Thanks. I had a ball.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

And there I agree with you totally. I never said anything to the contrary. That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

Hmm, not sure that couldn't happen naturally. Really, in all the scratches in all the rocks in all the universe...

Twin-go

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Sure if he didn't, what would we call it then? :rolleyes:

If he did, he is a very inefficient designer.

It is like building this to hosue just a couple of bacteria.

Herbal Deity

PDN wrote: »

That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

On the contrary, have you watched the video? Look at how mindbogglingly huge the universe is.

Not only is there a very reasonable chance of there being at least one rock in the whole universe which happens to have "PDN is a patronizing git" scratched on it, there also could very well be a rock out there with the HTML code for this thread scratched on it.

When it comes to the vastness of the universe, we're dealing with HUGE numbers. You must understand that all earthly intuition goes out the window in this context.

Flamed Diving

Twin-go wrote: »

If he did, he is a very inefficient designer.

It is like building this to hosue just a couple of bacteria.

Really? Wow.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

That is a stunning, although utterly unconvincing, leap of logic.

It is not necessary to understand everything about x, to know something about x.

When x is an infinite deity, it is not a leap of logic. You cant even say if an entity you encounter is truely an infinite deity without being an infinite deity yourself, as how can you tell the difference between a sufficiently powerful entity that can just fool you (mess with your senses) into thinking its all powerful.

PDN wrote: »

A finite being is certainly able to understand something about God, particularly if God chooses to make Himself known to that finite being. However, it is impossible for the finite being to understand God totally.

But that finite being cannot tell that its an infinite being that is revealing something to it, the only way to do so would be to understand the infinite being totally, so as to not mistake it for a more advanced beinf that is just trying to trick it. So, in reality, that finite being cannot know anything about the infinite being because they cant even tell if what they are observing is an infinite being.

Twin-go

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Really? Wow.

I Know:rolleyes:

Helix

Wicknight wrote: »

The universe doesn't need to be fine tuned for life was we know it because it is so freaking big

no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined

Helix

PDN wrote: »

That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

little chance, yes. no chance, no. the joys of the quantum

theres a measurable chance of you waking up on mars tomorrow, without breaking a single law of physics. is it gonna happen? no. could it possibly happen? absolutely

MrPudding

Helix wrote: »

no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined

If you have not already, check this out...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Numbers-Universe-Science/dp/0297842978/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261524298&sr=8-2

MrP

Helix

cheers, will pick that up. havent read it but im familiar with the ideology behind it, seems a decent read tho

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Thank you for supporting my point so ably, Robin. Yes, the very mention of Francis Bacon serves as a wonderful riposte to anyone who asks "since when do the religious deal in logic?"

You'll recall from my post that I was responding to your bizarre implication that the early universities were somehow connected with rationality.

With respect to your original point, most forum members (most recently Sam Vimes) have pointed out many times that religion provides a (superficially) rational, logical path into the insane.

PDN wrote: »

Bacon, of course, was extremely religious (of Puritan sympathies) and a key figure in the development of inductive logic and the scientific method.

And not only Bacon, but also Newton, who despite being arguably one of the smartest guys who ever lived, managed to waste years of his life cranking out his own enormously useless view of the mushroom-fuelled nonsense that christians refer to as "the book of revelation".

Perhaps reason and religion don't mix so well after all?

PDN wrote: »

We work so well together, don't you think? We could team up for wacker's debate!

Well, my joining your team would certainly raise the average IQ and lower the average age, so it's clear why you might think it's a good idea.

For me, well, I have my doubts. But then again, that's what atheism and agnosticism is all about.

chozometroid

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Fish on an asteroid??

Zombrex

Helix wrote: »

no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined

I don't think that is actually true. I think it has been shown you could dispense with an entire force (can't remember which one) and things would be quite similar to how they are now

Helix

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that is actually true. I think it has been shown you could dispense with an entire force (can't remember which one) and things would be quite similar to how they are now

pretty sure you couldnt

no gravity and polar systems/galaxies cant form
no electromagnetic and we cant have light
no strong and there are no atoms
no weak and theres no radiation

Flamed Diving

It's the weak nuclear force, Wicknight. Here is a paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0604027

and another:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3697

MrPudding

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's the weak nuclear force, Wicknight. Here is a paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0604027

and another:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3697

But where is the evidence?

MrP

Flamed Diving

MrPudding wrote: »

But where is the evidence?

MrP

Oh, let's turn off the Weak Nuclear Force, shall we?


What issue with the papers methodology do you have?

Actually, I don't even know why I am defending it. Wicknight made reference to a paper, which I remembered. I delivered said paper. Go away.

pH

Monty Python does cosmology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

Morbert

Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.

believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo

Then you're misusing the word.

liamw

Morbert wrote: »

Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.

So, believing the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster is not illogical? Ahhhh here comes semantics land again

Morbert

liamw wrote: »

So, believing the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster is not illogical? Ahhhh here comes semantics land again

It is not semantics.

Flamed Diving

Explain then. I am interested to see where both of you are coming from.

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

Then you're misusing the word.

which word? youre saying that its logical to believe that one of the religious books contains word for word the perfect description of the creator of the universe?

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

which word?

Logic.

youre saying that its logical to believe that one of the religious books contains word for word the perfect description of the creator of the universe?

No. I'm saying the belief that God created the universe is logically consistent.

liamw

Morbert wrote: »

Logic.



No. I'm saying the belief that God created the universe is logically consistent.

I wish people would stop using the word 'God' like this as it's very misleading. Can you just say 'deity' instead or something...

And now I'm going to reference a great post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62940519&postcount=22

Morbert

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Explain then. I am interested to see where both of you are coming from.

The beliefs of theism and atheism regarding the creation of the universe are both logically consistent i.e. they both follow from the assumptions of atheists and theists. The debate should therefore be about the assumptions of atheists and theists. This is rarely acknowledged on the internet, so you end up with endless threads where theists and atheists repeatedly call each other illogical. I don't know if this has happened in this thread as I have not carefully read it.

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

No. I'm saying the belief that God created the universe is logically consistent.

so youre saying i misused a word by applying it to something i didnt say?

i said:

"believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo"

Flamed Diving

Morbert wrote: »

The beliefs of theism and atheism regarding the creation of the universe are both logically consistent i.e. they both follow from the assumptions of atheists and theists. The debate should therefore be about the assumptions of atheists and theists. This is rarely acknowledged on the internet, so you end up with endless threads where theists and atheists repeatedly call each other illogical. I don't know if this has happened in this thread as I have not carefully read it.

Ok, what is logical about a theists position? (There is a God)

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

so youre saying i misused a word by applying it to something i didnt say?

i said:

"believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo"

My mistake. I thought you were being rhetorical and referring to the Christian God. I did not know you were literally talking about magical sky fairies.

I am not aware of the sky fairy religion so I can't comment.

Ok, what is logical about a theists position? (There is a God)

Theists believe the universe (The set of things that behave in a consistent and uniformitarian manner) was brought into existence by a being possessing great power. There is nothing inherently illogical about this belief, and it is not contradicted by anything in the universe.

I would say that, despite the belief being logical, it is unnecessary, and not implied by any of my experiences. And since believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical, I am happy to be an atheist.

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

My mistake. I thought you were being rhetorical and referring to the Christian God. I did not know you were literally talking about magical sky fairies.

I am not aware of the sky fairy religion so I can't comment.

im referring to any of the myriad of magical deities created by man

pick the christian flavour if you like, but its all the one. completely illogical to believe that a book written by humans in the past few thousand years could accurately describe the origins of the universe, and the creator of said

bus77

Helix wrote: »

which word? youre saying that its logical to believe that one of the religious books contains word for word the perfect description of the creator of the universe?

What are you looking for here though?

In the beginning....

humans wanted an accurate description..
so...the sky fairys let it be so..

they formed themselves into different shape's...
and descended...

the humans could see they were different shapes..
...and used measuring tape to be sure

and they could see they were different colours...
...but used Dulux paint colour cards to be sure

and they all sounded different...
...when kicked

the humans were satisfied as best they could be..
...and the shapes became a cloud and flew away


Something like that?

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

im referring to any of the myriad of magical deities created by man

pick the christian flavour if you like, but its all the one. completely illogical to believe that a book written by humans in the past few thousand years could accurately describe the origins of the universe, and the creator of said

Then it seems my initial statement still holds. What is illogical about the Christian belief?

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

Then it seems my initial statement still holds. What is illogical about the Christian belief?

the bit about the virgin birth, child of god walking the earth, miracles, the old testament god (which i believe has been conveniently discarded?), adam and eve (which has conveniently been downgraded, like so much else, to a fable rather than literal truth), zombie jews etc

Flamed Diving

Morbert wrote: »

Theists believe the universe (The set of things that behave in a consistent and uniformitarian manner) was brought into existence by a being possessing great power. There is nothing inherently illogical about this belief, and it is not contradicted by anything in the universe.

Right. But any hair-brained idea about the origin of the universe could be considered logical, so long as the "creator" is conveniently located in some nondescript dimension, outside of our universe. This is the argument of the theist, after all. Nothing in our universe could possibly contradict this hypothesis, because the being needn't obey the laws of our universe. So what does this say about the usefulness of logic in this argument, where literally anything goes?

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

the bit about the virgin birth, child of god walking the earth, miracles, the old testament god (which i believe has been conveniently discarded?), adam and eve (which has conveniently been downgraded, like so much else, to a fable rather than literal truth), zombie jews etc

And what is illogical about such beliefs?

Right. But any hair-brained idea about the origin of the universe could be considered logical, so long as the "creator" is conveniently located in some nondescript dimension, outside of our universe. This is the argument of the theist, after all. Nothing in our universe could possibly contradict this hypothesis, because the being needn't obey the laws of our universe. So what does this say about the usefulness of logic in this argument, where literally anything goes?

Exactly. So instead of attacking the logic of Christian beliefs. We should examine the very premise, and see if they are worth adopting.

Flamed Diving

Morbert wrote: »

Exactly. So instead of attacking the logic of Christian beliefs. We should examine the very premise, and see if they are worth adopting.

But we cannot detect the "extrauniversal", therefore the only logical conclusion would be the agnostic position.

Merry Xmas, by the way.

Helix

Morbert wrote: »

And what is illogical about such beliefs?

apart from the fact that they go against all observable logic?

Morbert

Helix wrote: »

apart from the fact that they go against all observable logic?

What is "observable logic"? How does it relate to, say, sentential logic?

Sam Vimes

Helix wrote: »

apart from the fact that they go against all observable logic?

The thing is that once you accept that there is an all powerful god that you are incapable of understanding anything makes sense because "god said/did/killed it, therefore it's right".

For example a justice system where someone else is tortured and killed for a crime you committed would be considered appalling if we did it but it's alright for god to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he's god.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But we cannot detect the "extrauniversal", therefore the only logical conclusion would be the agnostic position.

Merry Xmas, by the way.

I don't think there is a question of an "only logical" conclusion.

Does the Christian explanation of the universe, and of the Creation make sense, is it reasonable? If it does provide a reasonable explanation I don't see what on earth could be illogical about it.

We are in a situation where there are numerous possibilities as to how the universe could have been formed the way it is. To me, the Judeo-Christian explanation holds up rather well.

It's dishonest to make the God debate look any more closed than it really is in reality.

Merry Christmas to you all!

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think there is a question of an "only logical" conclusion.

Does the Christian explanation of the universe, and of the Creation make sense, is it reasonable? If it does provide a reasonable explanation I don't see what on earth could be illogical about it.

We are in a situation where there are numerous possibilities as to how the universe could have been formed the way it is. To me, the Judeo-Christian explanation holds up rather well.

It's dishonest to make the God debate look any more closed than it really is in reality.

Merry Christmas to you all!

I think you need to go back and read the discussion between me and Morbert. If you were to line up the turns as 1,2,3,4,5. You seem to be back at number three.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Does the Christian explanation of the universe, and of the Creation make sense, is it reasonable?

Not even a tiny bit. It could possibly be right but that would be only be a fluke. "God did it" is not a good explanation. It's not even an explanation, it's a premature declaration that it's all unexplainable.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not even a tiny bit. It could possibly be right but that would be only be a fluke. "God did it" is not a good explanation.

I'm not entirely sure that it would be a fluke, but then again that's the difference between you and I. I presume that Christians have good reasons to make such observations about the way things are in the world from the very small to the very large and conclude that there is a higher force by it, you presume automatically that it was just someone who put it all together on a mere whim.

The second to me is incredibly unlikely.

Given that we are that we are, it is entirely reasonable to assume a source. Precisely because it is reasonable this question has recurred again, and again over time.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that it would be a fluke, but then again that's the difference between you and I. I presume that Christians have good reasons to make such observations about the way things are in the world from the very small to the very large and conclude that there is a higher force by it, you presume automatically that it was just someone who put it all together on a mere whim.

The second to me is incredibly unlikely.

Given that we are that we are, it is entirely reasonable to assume a source. Precisely because it is reasonable this question has recurred again, and again over time.

1. I don't presume it was "someone" and even if I did, I don't presume anything about their motives, whim or otherwise. I don't presume anything about how the universe was created because I'm not prepared to accept things that cannot be shown to be true whether they seem intuitive to me or not
2. There is a massive gulf between "someone created the universe for a reason" and "A Jewish guy died on the cross for my sins". Believing the former brings you no closer to being able to rationally accept the latter. Just because christianity provides answers, doesn't mean those answers are right

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There is a massive gulf between "someone created the universe for a reason" and "A Jewish guy died on the cross for my sins". Believing the former brings you no closer to being able to rationally accept the latter. Just because christianity provides answers, doesn't mean those answers are right

Take a read of what the thread is about. It's precisely about the universe, and the way in which it is, and that there is a supposed difficulty in Christianity concerning it.

Before we can even consider the implications of falling short of God's standard or anything of the sort, we need to think about how probable His existence from Creation is first.

You know that logic begins from what would be rudimentary positions (in the case of Christianity this would be that God created the world), to the more complex positions (in the case of Christianity that Jesus Christ died for our sins).

The only way I could reason to the point of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (Jesus taking our punishment in our place) as an idea and as a reality would be if we are convinced of the necessary prerequisites for us to reach that position. The problem is that we aren't in the slightest. The only way I could get to this position right now would be to ask you to assume several things. This from past experience doesn't work very well.

You're right, just because Christianity provides answers doesn't mean that they are right or wrong. The very point being is that we need to explore reasonably as to whether they are right or wrong instead of dismissing them off the cuff. There seems to be a reluctance amongst people to actually sit down and assess what case there is actually for Christianity.