Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I have as much problem believing the big bang theory as i do believing a deity created us. Both are as unlikely as each other in many ways.

This isn't really true. I'm not saying I believe or don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, but at least it has some scientific thought/merit behind it, which creationism does not.

I don't think anyone is talkng about creationism, just an intelligent designer. Could be a teenager with a laptop.

pnjguy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I have as much problem believing the big bang theory as i do believing a deity created us. Both are as unlikely as each other in many ways.

This isn't really true. I'm not saying I believe or don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, but at least it has some scientific thought/merit behind it, which creationism does not.

I don't think anyone is talkng about creationism, just an intelligent designer. Could be a teenager with a laptop.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think this whole line of metaphysical thinking is similar to the “We can’t really know” thing that came up earlier in this thread. The whole endeavor strikes me as quasi-deep and, ultimately, pointless.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:intelligent design is a desperate and egotistical byproduct of an inablity to accept the lack of an objective meaning for our existence.

pnjguy wrote:

turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."

Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?

Again. This is not a valid argument. You are trying to add something to the equation that's unknowable. It's your job to provide the evidence.

See the Russell's Teapot link that Jorge posted earlier in this thread.

You mean we aren't inside of a beaker in some relatively large being's laboratory somewhere?

What is the Buddhist position of creation?
they seem pretty good at just accepting 'we simply are'.

It is pointless, but it is interesting to think about the likelyhood of some kind of intelligent designer. We have no real frame of reference with which to judge anything. I think we do sort of over rely on science. And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Regardless, I don't think he's walking around turning water into wine.

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Questions like "Who made God?" plagued me when I was 8.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

I had this long thing written out on my phone, but it looked insane so I'll just say "no, no I can't".

Ultimately, without concrete definitions of terms like "God", conversation is kinda pointless.

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

I had this long thing written out on my phone, but it looked insane so I'll just say "no, no I can't".

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

I had this long thing written out on my phone, but it looked insane so I'll just say "no, no I can't".

I actually would like to hear it anyway. If you don't want to post it, pm me. This concept is truly interesting to me.

Kaius wrote:You mean we aren't inside of a beaker in some relatively large being's laboratory somewhere?

That would be one huge dude

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Kaius wrote:You mean we aren't inside of a beaker in some relatively large being's laboratory somewhere?

That would be one huge dude

/thread

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Burt's essentially pulling out the "first cause" argument, which is very antiquated. There's really no place for this argument in modern science. Dark matter and the multi-verse lay waste to this argument, not to mention the fact that it brings up the logical and circular argument of "what caused the first cause?", which, in my mind, invalidates the whole premise and brings us back to the point that people who believe have to provide the facts, not us.

Also, in all likelihood the Big Bang was in fact the point in which space and time came into existence, which means that the concept of before becomes pretty damn irrelevant.

turned2black wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Burt's essentially pulling out the "first cause" argument, which is very antiquated. There's really no place for this argument in modern science. Dark matter and the multi-verse lay waste to this argument, not to mention the fact that it brings up the logical and circular argument of "what caused the first cause?", which, in my mind, invalidates the whole premise and brings us back to the point that people who believe have to provide the facts, not us.


Also, in all likelihood the Big Bang was in fact the point in which space and time came into existence, which means that the concept of before becomes pretty damn irrelevant.

I just kinda blurted that out. And I shouldn't have said "almost have to exist", just that we really have no objective viewpoint to determine the likelihood of anything existing, but this seems to be exactly the kinda thing people aren't interested in, because it is pointless I guess.

I don't think time standing still is the same as not existing. And a lack of time wouldn't negate the possibility of the Big Bang being caused (like from being birthed from another universe). I think you could argue something came "before" the Big Bang, though not strictly in the sense we mean when we talk about time. Its just that anything that came "before" the Big Bang is essentially cut off from us. Its meaningless, though.

Kaius wrote:You mean we aren't inside of a beaker in some relatively large being's laboratory somewhere?

turned2black wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Burt's essentially pulling out the "first cause" argument, which is very antiquated. There's really no place for this argument in modern science. Dark matter and the multi-verse lay waste to this argument, not to mention the fact that it brings up the logical and circular argument of "what caused the first cause?", which, in my mind, invalidates the whole premise and brings us back to the point that people who believe have to provide the facts, not us.

Also, in all likelihood the Big Bang was in fact the point in which space and time came into existence, which means that the concept of before becomes pretty damn irrelevant.

I still don't understand how time could have not existed.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?

Could you elaborate on your logic for this?

Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.