Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[T-mac01]

t-mac, seriously if you are going to proclaim absolutely ridiculous shit and refuse to back it up then dont post anymore

there are no underwater ruins and buildings from past civilisations from before the stone age or from before dinosaurs. the very idea is ludicrous. no credible evidence has ever been found to support this. your current ramblings destroy any credibility your arguments have ever had.

How would you know that "there are no underwater ruins and buildings..."? You have no evidence to disapprove it either since physical evidence has been found. Earlier in this thread people like you always deny by saying there is no solid evidence. Now, there is and so why are you still denying it?

According to a lot of yo, I've never had any credibility. So my ramblings won't make a difference anyway.

And no, I'm not going to stop posting because of what you said.

 

[gerhard]

then back your shit up. show me evidence. dont spout ridiculous claims.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

err... evidence of humans pre-dating dinosaurs? I'd really like to see this.

 

[T-mac01]

err... evidence of humans pre-dating dinosaurs? I'd really like to see this.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/5/7320/94554

http://www.salvation-of-humans.com/English/06-02_ancient_past.htm

 

[T-mac01]

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan2.html


http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azas/body.1_div.14.html


http://www.morien-institute.org/uwnews2002.html

 

[HotShot]

Yes you can, it's called proof by contradiction. You assume 'P' and then show that P leads to contradiction, making P false. I take the assumption that 'there exists a creator' and show how it leads to a contradiction, implying that a creator cannot exist. My proof (if you can call it that... it still has holes, none of which you have pointed out) only applies to a god which is a creator, i.e. it shows that there is no creator, not that there is no god.




The rest of your post continues to misunderstand my method of proof. Let 'Cx' mean 'there exists a creator'. I DO NOT assume Cx in order to prove Cx... that would be fallacious. Similarly, I DO NOT assume 'not Cx' to show 'not Cx', for that too would be fallacious.

What I do do is assume Cx, show that it leads to contradiction and thus conclude that Cx is false. As I mentioned before this method is proof by contradiction and the logic is sound. If you want to attack the argument you have to do so by disagreeing with the axioms/premises.

Yeah ok, thats well and gud - but in realty it doesnt mean anything. U have assumed something exists and then assumed some other stuff and used those assumptions to shows somethin doesnt exist - i thin rite?

reading the wikipedai thingy - essentially u try to lead to contradiction. but doing that u select assumptions that match to do so. so basically u remove everything that would prove there was no contradiction and have thing which show contradiction - which is absurd itself.

showing absurdity - is based on human principles is it not?

Mother — Why did you start smoking?
Son — All my friends were doing it.
Mother — You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?
Son - Yeah why not?
- it might be absurd but absurdness does not show true or false or in this case whether there is a creator or not.

suppose there was a creator. under what circumstances can you say that creator created the earth? and that created everything? the creator can create just one thing. and this thing in turn can create the rest? the creator's createe creates everything else? sort of creator evolution?.

 

[AntiHyper]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html

New DNA studies suggest that all humans descended from a single African ancestor who lived some 60,000 years ago.

That should answer your 1st link of china


http://www.seinan-gu.ac.jp/~djohnson/natural/geology.html

Japan was formed by two events: subduction resulting in volcanic activity and the opening of the Japan Sea. In the case of Japan, the Pacific Plate and the Philippine Plate subduct the eastern border of the Eurasian Plate.

That should answer your underwater japanese ruins.


Other links doesn't suggest any "age" of their findings or doesn't seem authentic (in regard to a picture from Lord of The Rings link).

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/5/7320/94554

http://www.salvation-of-humans.com/English/06-02_ancient_past.htm

Well I had to go to this site, 'salvation' because of the intriguing name...and you really belive this is a credible source? I mean, really?

Here's the website's stated purpose, why is exists:

During the second half of the Twentieth Century, the very roots of the human beings were disrupted from top to bottom by the new conditions of life, essentially generated by the following simultaneous phenomenon:

1st The collapse of Christianity in the West, associated with the obvious development of the Materialistic Spirit and its extreme competition adopted by the entire population. The rural populations' exodus towards urban cities.
3rd The demographic explosion of the Third World and the migrations of its population.
4th if The worldwide industrialization of any kind of production, especially the food industry.
5th The quick deterioration of the whole biosphere's ecosystems, including humans.
6th The ruling class almost taking the complete control of the planetary resources.
7th The ruling class increasingly taking more control of the human brains and behaviors.


​

The obvious consequences are that, from now on, Humanity is on the verge of a chasm: A Massive Extinction. And this is not a "point of view", it's a fact.

By a chain reaction, these facts have generated (on the individuals who became totally dependent of this system) a significant feeling of discomfort which has opened the doors to any kind of beliefs. Hence the spreading of the sects and the easiness of how the Gurus (and channels of the New Age or of any other kind) can trap these individuals, even some of the enlightened ones.
While simultaneously the Rulers of the World - named hereafter The Masters Of the World" or MOW - unveil their firm intention to totally enslave Humans, particularly by means of microchips implants in the human body (sub-epidermal or injected), transmitters or receivers of information intended to eliminate all forms of freedom and free will …and maybe worse. This objective, a singular Worldwide Government, will be created in the name of the unity for the fight against crime, specifically terrorism, pedophilia and other threats that the MOW will create to suit their needs, according to the strategy they've been using for ages.



​

The Master's of the world, sorry, the MOW, create paedophelia in order to control the world with one government? Did you even look through this site before you tried to use it as a credible source.
Anywat, I was asking for a source that gave some evidence for this situation of human ruins dating back before the crecateous and instead you give rubbish sources like this? A handprint in a rock dating from the crecateous? Explain to me how that handprint got in the rock and I might be less sceptical. I can write my name in a cave amongst 30,000 year old rock paintings, but that doesn't mean I'm 30,000 years old.

"These mortars and pestles of 2 billion years and more found in South Africa."

Poor dear moron. We cannot date items 2 billion years old. Just becausre the site says they are 2 billion years old doesn't make it so.


If you studied human evolution (which I do, it is one of my hobbies) you would know that the debate among scientists over exactly what kind of specimens are homo erectus, what kind are homo habilis etc is ongoing because some specimens that have been thought to be new species are more likely to have been the male of the species, which is almost invariably larger and in some cases has a very different skeltal structure to the females, and vice versa.

You'd also know that dating is a very imprecise science, and is usely done based on the rock formations surrounding the bones, on specimens older than 1 millions years.

Also, this has deviated from what we were actually talking about. Which of those sources mentions these underwater ruins that date back from before the time of the dinosaurs?? I'm sorry I just don't have time to run through every website you listed, so which one specifically?
Actually a lot of stuff on this website is not news, it's cobbled together facts from paleoanthropology texts, mixed with Lord of the Rings images, a religion, and some ridiculous assumptions.

I suppose you belive in the Piltdown man too?

​

 

[The Logical One]

I disagree with 1 - quantum mechanics shows that there are some uncaused events.
I'm unsure about 3.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't show that there are uncaused events. It's actually how I've reinforced that all laws in this universe work to preserve the first law of our universe which is energy exists and it is a finite ammount.

Lets take the radioactive decay of an atom. It isn't an effect of another cause and there is no reason why it would react this way except for the fact that it would disturb the finite balance of energy which exists in the universe. Once again reinforcing the idea of the first law which we have in our universe. I'm unsure about 3 and 4 too but that doesn't take away for the context I'm using it in. eg;(Like N-T-B inventing flying chickens which create the universe.)

 

[KFunk]

Yeah ok, thats well and gud - but in realty it doesnt mean anything. U have assumed something exists and then assumed some other stuff and used those assumptions to shows somethin doesnt exist - i thin rite?

reading the wikipedai thingy - essentially u try to lead to contradiction. but doing that u select assumptions that match to do so. so basically u remove everything that would prove there was no contradiction and have thing which show contradiction - which is absurd itself.

You are essentially correct in your first paragraph but you miss the point in the second. IF my other four assumptions are correct then god cannot exist. I make no claim to to tune of 'god does not exist, not matter what'. All I say is that you can't accept my premises and at the same time accept the existence of god. What you can do is show that one of my premises is false... pick any one you want:

Pr. 1 If something is the creator then initially it must have been all that existed. (Cx -> Ax)
Pr. 2 External stimuli is necessary for a conscious being to develop a sense of self/other (S/Ox -> Sx)
Pr. 3 If a conscious being is all that exists then that being has no external stimuli (Ax -> ~Sx)
Pr. 4 If a conscious being is to create something it must possess a sense of self/other (Cx -> S/Ox)

Premise two is probably the most controversial, you could make a few arguments against it... you could also have a go at my useage of 'conscious being'. In any case, if you want to disagree with my argument then don't attack my useage of proof by contradiction (unless you want to suggest we use a logic which admits contradiction --> do a search for 'paraconsistent logic'). Have a go at one of the premises instead.

 

[KFunk]

I'm not sure if I'm properly understanding your argument, but in the empty vacuum of space, pairs of virtual particles are continually created and destroyed as a result of the energy-time uncertainty principle. This shows that the Law of Conservation of Energy (which I assume is what you were referring to) is not absolute, but holds in an average state. More importantly, the event does not have an external cause.

That's a result of the second law of thermodynamics isn't it? A system tending towards a lower energy state?

Food for thought (quote I dug up):

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129)

 

[T-mac01]

Well I had to go to this site, 'salvation' because of the intriguing name...and you really belive this is a credible source? I mean, really?

Here's the website's stated purpose, why is exists:





The Master's of the world, sorry, the MOW, create paedophelia in order to control the world with one government? Did you even look through this site before you tried to use it as a credible source.
Anywat, I was asking for a source that gave some evidence for this situation of human ruins dating back before the crecateous and instead you give rubbish sources like this? A handprint in a rock dating from the crecateous? Explain to me how that handprint got in the rock and I might be less sceptical. I can write my name in a cave amongst 30,000 year old rock paintings, but that doesn't mean I'm 30,000 years old.

"These mortars and pestles of 2 billion years and more found in South Africa."

Poor dear moron. We cannot date items 2 billion years old. Just becausre the site says they are 2 billion years old doesn't make it so.


If you studied human evolution (which I do, it is one of my hobbies) you would know that the debate among scientists over exactly what kind of specimens are homo erectus, what kind are homo habilis etc is ongoing because some specimens that have been thought to be new species are more likely to have been the male of the species, which is almost invariably larger and in some cases has a very different skeltal structure to the females, and vice versa.

You'd also know that dating is a very imprecise science, and is usely done based on the rock formations surrounding the bones, on specimens older than 1 millions years.

Also, this has deviated from what we were actually talking about. Which of those sources mentions these underwater ruins that date back from before the time of the dinosaurs?? I'm sorry I just don't have time to run through every website you listed, so which one specifically?
Actually a lot of stuff on this website is not news, it's cobbled together facts from paleoanthropology texts, mixed with Lord of the Rings images, a religion, and some ridiculous assumptions.

I suppose you belive in the Piltdown man too?

​

Ok I've simply pulled out some saved webpages I'd read awhile ago. I can't remember exactly which one.
I'll deal with this after my exams are over.

 

[withoutaface]

I can use a dictionary, I asked what does it mean to 'you' because there are other definitions of 'supernatural'. What I was saying is the entity is perfectly 'natural' and not the creation of someones imagination.




Here is a part of the cosmological argument in our universe which is true. Do you disagree?
1. Every effect has a cause(s).
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

You've assumed that the universe didn't create itself, which is analogous to observing within an inertial frame of reference that nothing seems to be moving, and thus the frame of reference itself is stationary, which is of course faulty reasoning.

 

[The Logical One]

You've assumed that the universe didn't create itself, which is analogous to observing within an inertial frame of reference that nothing seems to be moving, and thus the frame of reference itself is stationary, which is of course faulty reasoning.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but I have assumed that our universe because of the way our universe functions.

which is analogous to observing within an inertial frame of reference that nothing seems to be moving,

I don't understand what you've said here it makes no sense and most of all it has nothing to do with the argument. In identifying that a causal chain cannot be infinite there must be a first cause. I keep saying our universe because in an essentially infinite universal time frame there is an infinite ammount of universe, an infinite ammount of which come into existance naturally and an infinite ammount which have come into existance because of another universe. Essentially a universe is defined by its first law and will exist for an infinite ammount of time to preserve this law. In a universe which was not the result of another universe (unlike ours) the laws are instable and spontaneously generated because as there are no laws to govern the universe there are no laws to prevent spontaneous laws which are 'theoretical' from being spontaneously created (complicated). It's like universes spontaneously appearing because of 'what if' laws which neither create nor destroy.

Our universe however which will exist for an infinite ammount of time in stability (Probably with big crunchs and big bangs or another way) will always balance out the ammount of energy which exists at any time. (whether it be negative or positive it still exists and just because they cancel out on a scale of positivity/negativity you can't take away that it is a finite ammount.) eg; in simplest terms a hydrogen atom has 1 proton and 1 electron. It still has 2 units of energy and not 0. Hence energy is finite.

Back to the point, our universe 'was created', and did not spontaneously occur. Hence, the creator of our universe which could have developed any number of what we consider to be 'powers' just as how we have developed intelligence is what I consider to be God. It may be limited to creating other universes, it may be a natural process in another universe, and it may have no limits. Either way this entity is what I consider to be 'God'.

 

[withoutaface]

You postulate that this God created him or herself. I postulate using Occam's Razor that the universe spontaneously created itself.

 

[The Logical One]

You postulate that this God created him or herself. I postulate using Occam's Razor that the universe spontaneously created itself.

Lol, if the universe was that simple I would use Occam's Razor too. There's a reason why millions have died looking for the answers of why we're here. You're saying that there is one universe, I'm saying there is an infinite ammount. It's a joke when someone sais 'every xxx years a new universe exists' time is such a ridiculous concept in cosmology because time is infinite. (except that time does exist in our universe since there was a moment when it began except it's not measurable using a universal scale.)

I didn't say that God created itself, I said that this universe is created by God. God which could be another universe, and entity within another universe, a process which creates other universes, etc may have been created spontaneously. There are an infinite ammount of these but our universe is unique to the specificic entity.

Because of the way our universe is structured.

 

[KFunk]

Another Quote:

"In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. (Stenger 1996)"

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God which could be another universe, and entity within another universe, a process which creates other universes, etc may have been created spontaneously.

If God could merely be any process which creates a universe, then I'm sorry but you're stretching the word waaaay too far for my liking.

 

[lengy]

Except that concept destroys what most people hold as an idea of a 'god'. 'God' is apparently sentient, not merely a process, for if he was, then he is naturally occuring, which goes against the ideals of theists.

 

[HotShot]

Another Quote:

"In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. (Stenger 1996)"

U do realise that quantum mechanics/physics is just made up crap to explain what classical physics cant explain? Its made to fit.