|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 27, 2009 12:39 AM |
|
|
Kraken, I haven't watched the videos yet, just read the synopses, and I must say, as an atheist, that the arguments just aren't that good.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 12:46 AM |
|
|
First one up:
Actual infinity ca not subsist in the universe? So gravity and energy will eventually no longer exist in the universe? If I remember correctly, a force is infinite.
Also, I would like to present some food for thought (or not, i just want to know from whomsoever is reading):
Man is different from beast because we have reason and we don't act on causes, just because there is only one way for us to act. Now, our brain is when we look at it from our layman's eyes, just some hunk of flesh. To a more trained eye, I don't know what it is, but I do know that we basically know where our memory is located and the parts that control muscles and the part that sends hormones, but that, in general, we have no real clue of how it works. What adds the extra spark of intelligence in us? the capability of abstract thinking?
The part that governs our intelligence and free will...
Could we call this our soul? Our body and soul would then be the material and the immaterial combined into one unique entity? Or am i just BS'ing? Thoughts, anyone?
Second video:
What are you trying to say?
Quote:
in order to
create, it is first necessary to have something
to create with.
Well... Not exactly...
You see, this would only work if the universe is infinite (and he himself said it's not true in his first vid), likewise, you'd claim there was no big bang.
Quote:
A Christian can falsify this videos proof, by
either solving the math problem, or rendering
a single referral to reality, of Creation Ex Nihilo
It can also be falsified by denying a statement he just made.
Third video:
So because the Earth is flawed, it can't be made by God? God created us in his likeness. Since we are flawed, you must assume he is as well. 
Bring it on, pretty boy!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:13, 27 May 2009.
|
Quote:
I must say, as an atheist, that the arguments just aren't that good.
The quality of an argument shouldn't depend on one's viewpoint.
But in any case there's way too much bad science floating around here; so much so that the discussion is almost comical.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
so much so that the discussion is almost comical.
Hey, we need some light-hearted discussion, here.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 01:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's true that the universe is expanding at the moment - but, due to the law of conservation of energy, it'll have to contract at some point.
How is that different than "The Universe had a beginning -- thus, due to the law of conservation of energy, something external must have created it. God exists."
You have absolutely no more basis for that statement or evidence -- funny though that you use those arguments against "creationists" (which I also don't agree btw -- because creationists can only 'prove' with their similar statements that a god exists, but that could just as well be Matrix machines, which I somewhat suspect for my personal reasons and theories ).
Quote:
Umm... no just no. God couldn't have created any laws out of nothing. Your trying to say apples are oarnges or something. YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THis. 
What are you saying? That those laws are above God? That He must follow them? You are terrible at philosophy.
I can be a God, for the virtual worlds that I can make -- limited though as it may seem, I can truly be a God for the entities inside, which currently don't have intelligence (although genetic algorithm simulations have been done in a way...). I can set the rules and laws in there because I'm the creator.
It is so obvious I didn't even think it was necessary to explain it 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is that different than "The Universe had a beginning -- thus, due to the law of conservation of energy, something external must have created it. God exists."
Because it would be saying that something that cannot be created was created.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 02:03 AM |
|
|
And in your example it would be like saying that something that can't contract (accelerates) will contract.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Just because it isn't currently contracting doesn't mean it can't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 03:51 AM |
|
|
Just because we don't currently have any evidence for a creator (not necessarily God, or rather the Christian God) doesn't mean we won't.
something like that, rough analogy. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 03:59 AM |
|
|
Yeah. So? Until we do, we have no reason to act as if there was.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:01 AM |
|
|
Neither you have a reason to act/believe that there are multiple Big Bangs until it starts to, at least, slow down (even less contract!)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:04 AM |
|
|
If it didn't, it would violate the law of conservation of energy - which we have not observed being violated.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If it didn't, it would violate the law of conservation of energy - which we have not observed being violated.
Actually I don't think you get it. We observe (but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true) the exact opposite of what you suggest (contraction). Whether those redshifts are true or not in regard to movement is another debate, but most certainly they are not contracting -- maybe stationary (but then again what about the Big Bang?), and if they are, they still don't contract.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:34 AM |
|
|
It isn't contracting at the moment, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:48 AM |
|
|
Are you copy pasting your previous replies?
I don't how to say this. Maybe like this: "You have no more basis to assume that than someone has for his 'assumption' that a creator created the Universe."
if it expanded with constant speed, it would be neutral. Though right now it's actually contradictory so it's worse than the other assumption!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:55 AM |
|
|
Say you stretch a rubber band. You take a snapshot of it while it's stretching, and you can say that the rate of stretching is increasing, so it's never going to snap back. But you'd be wrong, because of the law of conservation of energy (metaphorically speaking). Same here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 04:58 AM |
|
|
Yes it does mvass, stretching it requires an external force  (which also needs energy)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 05:02 AM |
|
|
Well, here the force is internal, but in other respects it's much the same.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 05:07 AM |
|
|
That doesn't matter. What I meant by "external" is that it is NOT confined in the locality of the Universe. I.e while the universe without that force has a 'preservation of energy', that energy has to COME from SOMEWHERE. If it were part of the Universe itself (local, not external), then it would NOT be a preservation of energy, your only single argument you had for it.
If you stretch a rubber band, you will eventually tire. How come, if the energy isn't wasted and is in an infinite loop, according to you?
Will the Universe eventually tire? Then there's no equillibrum.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2009 06:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
