Maybe - Maybe not, What is it all about ? Is there a Greater Being ? What is the answer to Life, the universe and everything ? (There will be no Volume 42)
Vol 1. In here:-
www.car4play.com/forum/post/edit/edit.htm?m=143240
|
>> (There will be no Volume 42)
So, how to put it exactly, er, well, do you know something we don't know PU?
|
|
42 is a reference to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy AC. It's "the" answer...
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Wed 25 May 11 at 17:13
|
McConfused he say...
You can't change yesterday
Tomorrow may be too late
So whatever it is you wish you'd done yesterday or want to do tomorrow
Do it now
:-)
|
|
The good news is that SS accepts that in order to understand that the universe exists today that he has to believe in something. Call it god, call it funny-shaped pasta, call it what you will.
|
>> call it what you will.
Call it the evidence of his senses why not? Now there's something that sooner or later will put some stress on a fellow's reasoning ability (whether he realizes it or not)...
|
>> The good news is that SS accepts that in order to understand that the universe
>> exists today that he has to believe in something. Call it god, call it funny-shaped
>> pasta, call it what you will.
What a lot of twaddle MM, if you don't mind me saying.
The issue is whether or not there is evidence of a creator, not whether there is evidence of creation.
I never said that the universe didn't exist, or hadn't being created, I said that there was no evidence of it being created by some entity. And further that anybody who thinks that a creator is a reasonable conclusion, is not reasoning, because there is no evidence that would lead them in that direction.
If you are now claiming that when you talk about a creator, or when you talk about god, you actually just mean whatever caused the universe to be created (be it a sentient being, or some non-sentient process), then there is little argument.
I think it is a bit of a cop out though. When you asked me why I thought I could disprove the existence of god (which I have never claimed to be able to do), I very much doubt that you meant "whatever process created the universe" rather than a sentient being.
But, if it makes you feel better...
|
Creation =
cre·a·tion
–noun
1.
the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2.
the fact of being created.
3.
something that is or has been created.
Entity =
en·ti·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2.
being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3.
essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
So who is to say that the creator (Entity) could not be a catalyst.
cat·a·lyst
–noun
1.
Chemistry . a substance that causes or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected.
2.
something that causes activity between two or more persons or forces without itself being affected.
3.
a person or thing that precipitates an event or change: His imprisonment by the government served as the catalyst that helped transform social unrest into revolution.
|
>> So who is to say that the creator (Entity) could not be a catalyst.
Right, I'm off to create a cult based around Palladium.
|
|
And why not, Every other precious mineral has cult status. Meanwhile as a carbon based life form you can go back to wondering how it all started.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 25 May 11 at 19:41
|
>> Right, I'm off to create a cult based around Palladium.
You're about 50 years too late: Sunday night at the London Palladium...
I'll get my coat.
|
I am not going to be able to produce evidence as to why you should believe in god. The point of belief is that there is no evidence.
However, I am delighted that you believe tht the universe was created.
I'm not saying that I have come up with proof of the existence of god - see my first sentence; not possible - and anybody who says it is has probably already given their life savings away...
However, I am pointing out that you have your own belief. Without belief you cannot explain creation. It's remarkably similar, actually, to a belief in god. It's certainly a belief.
|
>>However, I am delighted that you believe tht the universe was created<<
I find it's best to leave the word "God" out of the equation, there are quite possibly many Gods (or none at all)
being The worlds most fabulous man, I am a god :)
Everything was created - you, me, Wadworth 6X etc., etc. all had a creator, so I like to believe in a creator of our
most-wondrous universe, of course - to try and define who or what that greater intelligence actually is, well ...
time for another pint me thinks!
|
The belief that they universe was somehow created by another power or god helps not a jot in understanding the origins of the universe as it simply begs the question "what created that power or god'
At the end of the day we have to accept that the beginning of the universe just was.
|
Its probably always been there in one form or other, So its never actually been "created" merely evolved or changed. (the big bang was a change, an event - not a creation).
So no "creation" = no creator.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 26 May 11 at 12:10
|
If I was to travel back 300 years in my Lancer (yes, I've just bought one!) and tried to explain TV, the horseless carriage, computers, the internet etc., etc. to people, I would probably be burnt as a witch.
Likewise, trying to explain the supreme being and creation to someone who (evolutionary speaking) has only recently left the cave, is nigh-on impossible really, so, one either believes or not (blind faith)
To look at and study our quite exquisite and truly amazing biosphere, I find it more-than difficult to assume it just 'came about', but I fully respect anyone who has that particular mindset.
Last edited by: The worlds most fabulous man on Thu 26 May 11 at 13:56
|
"To look at and study our quite exquisite and truly amazing biosphere, I find it more-than difficult to assume it just 'came about'"
That's called the argument from personal incredulity - "It's beyond my comprehension therefore god must have done it"
|
>> At the end of the day we have to accept that the beginning of the
>> universe just was.
>>
.. or accept that it matters not a jot how or why the universe exists.
The only people who need a belief of any kind are those who have a black hole in their minds that they need to fill. It is but a prop needed by weaker minds, enabling them to shift blame on to something other than themselves for their personal inadequacies.
|
John H>>enabling them to shift blame on to something other than themselves for their personal inadequacies.
A misunderstanding of the free will that (some) religions believe their members have.
CGN>>At the end of the day we have to accept that the beginning of the universe just was.
That is indeed a belief.
|
>> .. or accept that it matters not a jot how or why the universe exists.
>>
>> The only people who need a belief of any kind are those who have a
>> black hole in their minds that they need to fill. It is but a prop
>> needed by weaker minds, enabling them to shift blame on to something other than themselves
>> for their personal inadequacies.
I suppose you mean people that need for there to have been a "reason" for the universe to be created.
There is probably much to be gained from figuring out how the universe came about (if that is ever actually possible for a human mind to understand), but the search for a reason perhaps suggests some kind of deep seated need.
Personally, I'm happy for things to just exist, rather than worry whether there is a reason for them to exist, but would be very interested if their creation was ever explained.
Of course, it could be that the universe wasn't created in any way that we understand the term "created" to mean. It (or at least the energy it is made of) may just always have been here, or there may be something else which is neither "created" or "always been here".
As I said above, it could be that understanding would take a leap that we can't mentally make.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 26 May 11 at 16:59
|
>> However, I am pointing out that you have your own belief. Without belief you cannot
>> explain creation. It's remarkably similar, actually, to a belief in god. It's certainly a belief.
Sorry, but you've copped out on this one MM.
My original point was that to believe in a creator without evidence, shows a lack of reasoning.
You say that "the point of belief is not that there is no evidence", which is wrong. If you come to believe something, based upon evidence, then you are reasoning, if you could to believe something, without any evidence for that conclusion, then it is blind faith.
If your point is that blind faith and reason are different, well duh!
|
SS>> You say that "the point of belief is not that there is no evidence", which
>> is wrong.
It certainly is wrong. You have inserted an extra "not" so as to completely reverse what I said.
And I certainly have not copped out. You have a belief just as the most religious nutter does, and have expressed it quite clearly.
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
|
>> And I certainly have not copped out. You have a belief just as the most
>> religious nutter does, and have expressed it quite clearly.
What do you think that belief is MM? If you could tell me, I might get a better picture of the point you have been trying to make.
|
>> And I certainly have not copped out. You have a belief just as the most
>> religious nutter does, and have expressed it quite clearly.
>>
>> v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
>> v.tr
>> 1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
>> 2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
>> 3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
>> v.intr.
>> 1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
>> 2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the
>> problem.
>> 3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free
>> speech.
>> 4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
Have you listed these dictionary definitions in some vain attempt to suggest that belief based upon evidence, is somehow the same as belief based upon faith?
You do realise that a word can have mulitple definitions and not all of those definitions have to mean the same thing?
|
You're wasting your breath MM. It's just fencing practice to the tiresome, irrepressible jack-in-the-box.
Let him measure himself against the bargain-basement Uebermensch* John H. I have hopes that that one will run and run.
* Anglicization to avoid having to cut and paste an umlaut.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 26 May 11 at 17:26
|
Could it be that the two of you have met your match:)
Pat
|
>> You're wasting your breath MM. It's just fencing practice to the tiresome, irrepressible jack-in-the-box.
Never mind wasting his breath, he must be out of breath with all the about turns he has done.
My only point is that if you come to the strong belief that there is a creator when there is no evidence to suggest that, then you are not applying critical reasoning.
I've not changed that standpoint the whole way along.
MM has changed his point so often that it's made my head spin.
He probably is a religious nutter, given his ability to continuously change his argument, when he can't support the previous one. Well, religious nutter, or skilled politician...
|
>> he must be out of breath with all the about turns he has done.
The only about turn I can see is when you quoted me but in rather ungentlemanly fashion added a "not" into the middle of my statement.
If you cannot see that in order to "understand" (in some vague fashion) the big bang that you need to have a belief in something that cannot be proved then either you have no heart or no soul*.
It is a very small step from belief in the big bang to belief in god (it's the same thing, really); it's a huge step from "not caring" (like John H) to believing in the Big Bang (as you do).
_________________
*presumably you believe you have no soul.
|
>> god (it's the same thing, really); it's a huge step from "not caring" (like John
>> H) to believing in the Big Bang (as you do).
>>
witchcraft, religion, madness, mental illness.
God believers, retards, or "untermensch" as AC (or is it AS) says.
If you have a void in your life that needs to be filled by caring about God and the Universe - did you know that the missing mass has now been found? No, really, it has:
www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-universe-not-so-missing-mass.html
www.universetoday.com/85927/australian-student-uncovers-the-universes-missing-mass/
May 25, 2011
Australian student – Amelia Fraser-McKelvie – made another breakthrough in the world of astrophysics. Working with a team at the Monash School of Physics, the 22-year-old undergraduate Aerospace Engineering/Science student conducted a targeted X-ray search for the hidden matter and within just three months made a very exciting discovery.
scienceblog.com/45475/student-finds-universe’s-missing-mass/
That link also takes you to
eveloce.scienceblog.com/2011/05/22/a-trip-to-the-creation-science-museum/
where you can join in the lively Science vs God debate. Enjoy.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 27 May 11 at 10:33
|
>> That link also takes you to
>> eveloce.scienceblog.com/2011/05/22/a-trip-to-the-creation-science-museum/
>> where you can join in the lively Science vs God debate. Enjoy.
That's a great (ongoing) discussion - enjoy indeed.
|
That link also takes you to
eveloce.scienceblog.com/2011/05/22/a-trip-to-the-creation-science-museum/
where you can join in the lively Science vs God debate
Who says the two are mutually exclusive.
Ah. I've now seen the debate; yes, I can see they think they are mutually exclusive. Nutters.
|
>> God believers, retards, or "untermensch" as AC (or is it AS) says.
At no point have I mentioned 'Untermenschen'. What I did was to refer sardonically to John H as a 'bargain-basement Uebermensch'. He deserves this for his offensive general line and in particular for his occasional, but noticeable, references to other people's 'weak minds'.
Frankly I don't care whether this unpleasant outlook results from dabbling in Nietzsche or devotion to L. Ron Hubbard. Either way, it stinks to high heaven and feels strangely old-fashioned.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 27 May 11 at 14:49
|
>> *presumably you believe you have no soul.
>>
Another likely delusion right there. To suppose we posess some immortal being within us is somewhat self regarding, seeing as how we're simply moderatley evolved simians.
I certainly have no problem with accepting the likelihood that I have no soul, nor does anyone else. Nor did my Nan's budgie.
|
|
Alanović I think I needed to put a smiley at the end of that.
|
>>So whatever it is you wish you'd done yesterday or want to do tomorrow Do it now<<
And ... if you enjoy doing it - you can do it again tomorrow!
|
>> McConfused he say...
>> You can't change yesterday
>> Tomorrow may be too late
Almost Bellboyesque prose there. :)
|
A bit OT but I love this sort of thing:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13539914
"A cataclysmic explosion of a huge star near the edge of the observable Universe may be the most distant single object yet spied by a telescope.
Scientists believe the blast, which was detected by Nasa's Swift space observatory, occurred a mere 520 million years after the Big Bang.
This means its light has taken a staggering 13.14 billion years to reach Earth."
Makes you think.
|
|
Ray Mears used to be my hero but it's Brian Cox now. His fires are just so much more dramatic than Ray's.
|
>> Ray Mears used to be my hero but it's Brian Cox now. His fires are
>> just so much more dramatic than Ray's.
He's Mrs F's hero as well, but it's not his fires she's after.
|
|
Ever seen Ray Mears and Adrian Chiles in the same room?
|
..............And are Adrian and Ray Benny Hills love children ?
...we need to know.....
|
>> This means its light has taken a staggering 13.14 billion years to reach Earth."
>>
>> Makes you think.
Doesn't it just. The numbers involved in astrophysics and cosmology are simply staggering, and so far beyond our ability to relate them to anything in the entire conscious memory of our civilisation, that they almost don't mean anything, beyond the level of 'absolutely blinking massive'. ;-)
I can highly recommend Professor Brian Cox's Wonders series, if you haven't already seen it. Explains his subject with brilliant clarity, and with a level of enthusiasm and passion that is just infectious. Loved his explanation, and demonstration of entropy using a bucket, spade, and sand. :-)
Last edited by: DP on Wed 25 May 11 at 21:24
|
>> I can highly recommend Professor Brian Cox's Wonders series, if you haven't already seen it.
Oh yes, I've had to sit through them all. And buy the book.
To be fair having seen him on programmes such as 'would I lie to you' and 'something for the weekend' he seems like a nice genuine guy.
|
Not another last day!
Why are there so many this month? Has someone got married?
|
>> I can highly recommend Professor Brian Cox's Wonders series, if you haven't already seen it.
His explanation of how the elements in the periodic table are created was fascinating. The combination of heat and gravitational force required is just mind boggling to a mortal living on Earth.
|
Make the most of it, today is your last day (2) - Armel Coussine
