In a parallel universe

[Thews40]

It's the Josh Gordon. His mind is not finite.

 

So that's how he gets the "out of the box" perspective.

[Dr. Love]

Amazingly enough, it appears that Thews and I can agree on one thing: that people who believe in metaphysics are dumb.

[Thews40]

This is awesome. Thank you.

 

I knew you'd understand someday.

[skins]

I knew you'd understand someday.

 

 

How's the love life?

[Thews40]

How's the love life?

 

Fresh out of a relationship with a God complex... complicated. SHGF called me Saturday... been a year now. We'll see what happens this weekend. What a long strange trip it's been.

[Thews40]

IMO, this is a flaw in your argument. You argue that humans ARE finite in their capacity for understanding and you could be right......now. But what of the future? Will humans always be finite? If not, what then becomes of God?

 

We are finite and will always be finite. Envision every grain of sand on any beach representing 1 trillion years. The time would be so great, that you could never envision its end. In that context, monkeys could spit out entire Shakespearean plays by randomly typing a keyboard. It's all a finite perspective to represent infinity, which is mankind's limitation... I choose to accept it.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Thews40

[Ursa Majoris]

We are finite and will always be finite. Envision every grain of sand on any beach representing 1 trillion years. The time would be so great, that you could never envision its end. In that context, monkeys could spit out entire Shakespearean plays by randomly typing a keyboard. It's all a finite perspective to represent infinity, which is mankind's limitation... I choose to accept it.

 

God is a construct put together by ancients to explain the unexplainable. That does not mean, however, that he doesn't exist.

 

As for the monkeys, they're still working on it.

[Duchess Jack]

I love you.

 

Dont forget it.

 

I miss his humpy little boobie-worm avatar.

[Thews40]

I miss his humpy little boobie-worm avatar.

 

Give me a week. Avatars are deep...

[Azazello1313]

i believe this thread is the first time i have ever heard people refer to "believing in metaphysics". metaphysics is more a type of philosophy than anything else, it implies no particular belief system.

[Thews40]

i believe this thread is the first time i have ever heard people refer to "believing in metaphysics". metaphysics is more a type of philosophy than anything else, it implies no particular belief system.

 

Do you believe God exists? Answer the question...

[Kid Cid]

The logical base of a belief in God creating the universe doesn’t require an answer for the infinite question of who made God. God is infinite, I am finite and I can’t understand. The counter argument that there is no God, would then require an answer to where matter came from, or to discount the question as a variable that doesn’t require an answer (this is where I find logic lacking). Either path is a leap of faith, and I guess I just don’t understand the logical thought process that doesn’t need to formulate an answer to where matter came from. It’s an infinite question… neither of us can answer.

 

 

Still disengenious. You take this concept of the infinite universe, tack on a very finite question (where did matter come from?) and use this unknown variable to support your conclusions. Neither of us are right or wrong on this question, but you're simply saying we've already got an answer and I'm saying the answer is yet to be found. This is where I find your argument lacking in that you basically throw up your hands and say that we'll never know the answer to where matter came from, therefore, there must be a god of some type. Once again, I say that empirical evidence suggests more strongly that 1) there aren't any gods out there, and 2) we will find an answer to the question of where matter came from. Even though it doesn't seem likely that this question will be answered definitively in our lifetimes, it does not make it an infinite question.

 

A more thought provoking and perhaps more pertinent question may be, should we ever find that answer would we ourselve, then become gods of a type? Or, since we can already manipulate matter and events seemingly at will, have we already become so?

[Azazello1313]

Do you believe God exists? Answer the question...

 

 

i do. what does that have to do with the definition of metaphysics?

[skins]

i do. what does that have to do with the definition of metaphysics?

 

 

Yer finite mind cannot comprehend the infinity of the answer to yer question. Yer stuck in the box.

[Grits and Shins]

Still disengenious. You take this concept of the infinite universe, tack on a very finite question (where did matter come from?) and use this unknown variable to support your conclusions. Neither of us are right or wrong on this question, but you're simply saying we've already got an answer and I'm saying the answer is yet to be found. This is where I find your argument lacking in that you basically throw up your hands and say that we'll never know the answer to where matter came from, therefore, there must be a god of some type. Once again, I say that empirical evidence suggests more strongly that 1) there aren't any gods out there, and 2) we will find an answer to the question of where matter came from. Even though it doesn't seem likely that this question will be answered definitively in our lifetimes, it does not make it an infinite question.

 

A more thought provoking and perhaps more pertinent question may be, should we ever find that answer would we ourselve, then become gods of a type? Or, since we can already manipulate matter and events seemingly at will, have we already become so?

 

 

I simply fail to see that there is stronger evidence to support the theory that God does not exist?

 

To believe in God requires a leap of faith, there is no physical proof.

To believe that God does not exist requires another leap of faith, that from one second to the next something (matter) sprang into existence and from that point forward everything evolved into what it is today. There is no physical proof for this either, although admittedly scientists try to point to fossils that indicate an evolutionary pattern stating that it can be extrapolated that everything evolved from the first thing that came into existence.

[Thews40]

i do. what does that have to do with the definition of metaphysics?

 

I was just curious. It's hard to tell based on your answers sometimes.

[Thews40]

Still disengenious. You take this concept of the infinite universe, tack on a very finite question (where did matter come from?) and use this unknown variable to support your conclusions. Neither of us are right or wrong on this question, (1) but you're simply saying we've already got an answer and I'm saying the answer is yet to be found. (2) This is where I find your argument lacking in that you basically throw up your hands and say that we'll never know the answer to where matter came from, therefore, there must be a god of some type. (3) Once again, I say that empirical evidence suggests more strongly that 1) there aren't any gods out there, and 2) we will find an answer to the question of where matter came from. Even though it doesn't seem likely that this question will be answered definitively in our lifetimes, it does not make it an infinite question.

 

A more thought provoking and perhaps more pertinent question may be, should we ever find that answer would we ourselve, then become gods of a type? Or, since we can already manipulate matter and events seemingly at will, have we already become so?

 

 

(1) I'm not saying we have an answer, my point is the answer cannot be found as it is infinite.

(2) That would be my logical conclusion.

(3) This is where i find your argument lacking, in that you imply we (humans) will someday be infinite. What evidence do you have to the origin of matter? There isn't any, as manipulating existing matter or observing it is only a data collection process. Its origin will always be a mystery, as the answer is infinite. There may be a theoretical theory of where it came from, but I contend it cannot ever be proven conclusively, because time travel is impossible and there is no theoretical time zero on an infinite timeline.

 

I simply fail to see that there is stronger evidence to support the theory that God does not exist?

 

To believe in God requires a leap of faith, there is no physical proof.

To believe that God does not exist requires another leap of faith, that from one second to the next something (matter) sprang into existence and from that point forward everything evolved into what it is today. There is no physical proof for this either, although admittedly scientists try to point to fossils that indicate an evolutionary pattern stating that it can be extrapolated that everything evolved from the first thing that came into existence.

 

I agree with everything you said, but delving into evolution will turn this horribly awry quickly. I'm really just looking for a logical thought process (assuming it exists) that sides with atheism which has a base that explains where matter came from. From everything I've heard, the logic basically ignores the question assuming an answer will somehow arrive someday.

[Kid Cid]

I simply fail to see that there is stronger evidence to support the theory that God does not exist?

 

To believe in God requires a leap of faith, there is no physical proof.

To believe that God does not exist requires another leap of faith, that from one second to the next something (matter) sprang into existence and from that point forward everything evolved into what it is today. There is no physical proof for this either, although admittedly scientists try to point to fossils that indicate an evolutionary pattern stating that it can be extrapolated that everything evolved from the first thing that came into existence.

 

 

So the crux of the biscuit so to speak, is that the entire existence or nonexistence of some god like being boils down to whether or not there was some type of verifiable physical process by which matter was created? And more importantly, if that verifiable physical process is not discovered within our lifetime (for that is the finite dimension of any one individual's personal existence) then that constitutes evidence that there is a some type of god?

 

Still, over the course of human history, we have attributed many things to one or more gods. And over time we have gathered evidence that has conclusively shown that there is a verifiable, physical process behind the phenomena rather than a non-human being of some sort. For example, the sun is not pulled across the sky in a chariot as the Egyptians once believed. We certainly haven't explained away all things attributed to gods across the eons, but we certainly have for many. This establishes a pattern that continues to be repeatable and mimics scientific methodology. Observe a phenomena, create an experiment to duplicate the phenomena, through the experiment explain the phenomena and its causes. It is this pattern of explanation that is the empirical evidence I spoke of that points to the nonexistence of any gods. It isn't concrete proof and nonbelief still requires a leap of faith, but it is a smaller one than the leap in the other direction in which there is little to no evidence, direct or otherwise.

[Kid Cid]

(3) This is where i find your argument lacking, in that you imply we (humans) will someday be infinite. What evidence do you have to the origin of matter? There isn't any, as manipulating existing matter or observing it is only a data collection process. Its origin will always be a mystery, as the answer is infinite. There may be a theoretical theory of where it came from, but I contend it cannot ever be proven conclusively, because time travel is impossible and there is no theoretical time zero on an infinite timeline.

 

 

So the basis of this position is that man will never be capable of directly or indirectly understanding where matter came from. Even if we someday come up with knowledge of the physical process by which it happened and could actually create matter ourselves, it doesn't matter because it would not ever be the same as the event by which the matter which constitutes this universe came into being. This stikes me as an artificial roadblock to support your position.

[Grits and Shins]

So the crux of the biscuit so to speak, is that the entire existence or nonexistence of some god like being boils down to whether or not there was some type of verifiable physical process by which matter was created? And more importantly, if that verifiable physical process is not discovered within our lifetime (for that is the finite dimension of any one individual's personal existence) then that constitutes evidence that there is a some type of god?

 

Still, over the course of human history, we have attributed many things to one or more gods. And over time we have gathered evidence that has conclusively shown that there is a verifiable, physical process behind the phenomena rather than a non-human being of some sort. For example, the sun is not pulled across the sky in a chariot as the Egyptians once believed. We certainly haven't explained away all things attributed to gods across the eons, but we certainly have for many. This establishes a pattern that continues to be repeatable and mimics scientific methodology. Observe a phenomena, create an experiment to duplicate the phenomena, through the experiment explain the phenomena and its causes. It is this pattern of explanation that is the empirical evidence I spoke of that points to the nonexistence of any gods. It isn't concrete proof and nonbelief still requires a leap of faith, but it is a smaller one than the leap in the other direction in which there is little to no evidence, direct or otherwise.

 

 

The idea that there is a God is as conceiveable/inconceiveable as the idea that something miracuously popped into existence out of nothing. Science will never be able to prove that something can be created from nothing and certainly not without some kind of external influence, in my lifetime or any life time.

 

The phenomena "creation of the universe from nothing" will never be observed nor duplicated. The phenomena "creation of something from absolutely nothing with no external" will never be observed nor duplicated.

 

You are basing your whole arguement on the assumption that at some point in the future man will be able to observe such phenomena and it is a faulty assumption.

[Thews40]

So the basis of this position is that man will never be capable of directly or indirectly understanding where matter came from. Even if we someday come up with knowledge of the physical process by which it happened and could actually create matter ourselves, it doesn't matter because it would not ever be the same as the event by which the matter which constitutes this universe came into being. This stikes me as an artificial roadblock to support your position.

 

Assume we did come up with a process that created matter. It would take some sort of machine, a mixing of chemicals... whatever. That process in-and-of-itself would require that matter and the space it contains already exist in order to create it. It's all a theoretical argument, because we can't create matter now, but the point is finite. Anti-matter is infinite, because even the space that defines it is finite. I'm not saying I can prove you wrong, but rather asking what makes logical sense? I still contend that the logical foundation for atheism is based upon an unknown, and since that unknown can't ever be proven, the logic is flawed.

[Kid Cid]

You are basing your whole arguement on the assumption that at some point in the future man will be able to observe such phenomena and it is a faulty assumption.

 

We have as much evidence to support that we won't be able to observe it as there is to support that we will be able to. The only thing we do know for certain is that at this point in time we can't observe that particular phenomena. There is nothing that definitively says that at some point in the future we won't be able to.

[Kid Cid]

I still contend that the logical foundation for atheism is based upon an unknown, and since that unknown can't ever be proven, the logic is flawed.

 

Is the logical foundation for belief any different? We must simply take it on faith that one or more gods exist. Since it can never be proven, by your argument that logic is also flawed.

 

It's been stated earlier that it's a leap of faith in either direction. The question is really which set of evidence (or lack thereof) comes closest to providing an answer. That is strictly a question for the individual. For the sake of keeping this thread going, I won't delve any farther into it than that.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Kid Cid

[Grits and Shins]

We have as much evidence to support that we won't be able to observe it as there is to support that we will be able to. The only thing we do know for certain is that at this point in time we can't observe that particular phenomena. There is nothing that definitively says that at some point in the future we won't be able to.

 

 

There is nothing that says we won't discover God either, that he won't reveal himself.

[Kid Cid]

There is nothing that says we won't discover God either, that he won't reveal himself.

 

As our understanding of the universe has grown, the evidence points less and less in that direction but it is possible that one or more gods are just chilling for a bit, trying to arrive at the party fashionably late, so to speak.