|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:08 PM |
1) The space-time boundary, entropic fluctuation, and big-splat models all take out all room for the existence of any such God. 2) The gaps that people wedge open to 'prove' a God (I.E.; We don't have the actual method of abiogenesis that occured to begin life, etc.) are quickly dissappearing, leaving little room for a creator. 3) There are a number of (and this is only for creationist theists) errors in human and other animal's genes that imply natural selection and not creation (I.E. an upside-down retina. 4) A God, by definition, would have to exist outside of time. The only true way to do this would be to travel at the speed of life, leaving you outside of null cones. The only way to do that would be to be massless, and massless particles can not comprise an entity. 5) So many things can go here, but I'm not going to ramble on... Note: Newton, Einstein(An agnostic later in his life), etc. believe(s,d) in God, who are you to question them, is not a valid argument, |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:09 PM |
| i think you ctrl c and ctrl v this |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:14 PM |
Builder, no. I want you to find a thread like this. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:15 PM |
"A God, by definition, would have to exist outside of time"
Why? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:19 PM |
I would explain number 3
but I would only get banned/warning for "spam" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dutzy
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 416 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:23 PM |
your reasons are full of fallacies.
"1) The space-time boundary, entropic fluctuation, and big-splat models all take out all room for the existence of any such God."
To make this claim you have to know how much "space" a "god" would take up. You are assuming you know this, but since you don, that point is moot.
2) The gaps that people wedge open to 'prove' a God (I.E.; We don't have the actual method of abiogenesis that occured to begin life, etc.) are quickly dissappearing, leaving little room for a creator.
Not everyone who believes in a* God is a fundamental. lern2derp
"So many things can go here, but I'm not going to ramble on..."
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:24 PM |
| Boeing, a true God would be ominipotent. I do agree that I postulated that the God you believe in is omnipotent, and that is incorrect, but wouldn't it make sense that a true God would have the ability to travel out of time? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
gsterman
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7165 |
|
| |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:26 PM |
Dutzy 1. I am not mentioning how much space a God would take up because that is irrelevant. In the term of space-time boundary, someone who existed beforehand would be outside of time and space, and effectively nonexistant. FOr the entropic fluctuation and Big Splat, a God is simply not a viable explanation. 2.Dutzy, not everyone is a fundamentalist, but almost every theist cites gaps. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:27 PM |
GSter I like how well-thought out your argument was. I especially like how you took in all of the facts and make sure to refute everything I said. ^.^ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dutzy
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 416 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:28 PM |
A.) If there were a God, trying to describe it in terms of an abstraction set that does not encase that set is impossible.
B). Point A. invalidates itself, yet remains valid.
C.) Point B. invalidates point A, which invalidates point C, yet this point remains valid.
ad infinitum.
Conclusion: If* there is a God, trying to rationalize it is futile, and you may as well carry on with your life. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dutzy
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 416 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:30 PM |
| ADDENDUM: The reason point A is invalid is because it is trying to rationalize an (if*) God, by attempting to rationalize how it can not be rationalized. It is attempting to describe a void positive. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:31 PM |
science vs religion
fact vs faith
same thing
religion is faith not science
so stop trying to use science when talking about religion plz
thx |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dutzy
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 416 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:32 PM |
A.K.A. What is nothing, and how can we study nothing?
Study of nothing encompassed in one set:
Done.
Yet, professors disagree, yet it takes the simplest mind to accept the study of nothing, while the greatest minds don't want to stop at that, yet that would bring in vacuum energy, which would not be nothing.
Commence depressing spiral questioning existence.
Been there, done that.
Don't want to go down that road again, trust me OP, just move on. Oh boo-hoo, someone disagrees with you. It's not worth losing your sanity. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
kyrospawn
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 494 |
|
| |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:37 PM |
I love how you put up a word wall. I am using a scientific argument because science is the only valid field. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dutzy
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 416 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:40 PM |
Nothing, more referred to as "not-being". Not to be confused with a vacuum. Even vacuums have vacuum energy. Some say distance or dimensional space as we know it can not exist without objects to measure between. It stands to theoretical test that these vacuum ghost particles may be responsible for the poetically described "ethereal" fabric of dimensional space.
Fizzling like a cathode tube TV screen. Something where there might be apparent nothing.
Nothing taken as an is-ing, then is an is. This linguistic trap has been voiced as to be avoided at all costs. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Misheard
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1010 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 06:45 PM |
I like dutzy, so much now.
Anyway, if a theological entity did exist, then it would essentially be the creator of all. If it's the creator of all, then it has a method of bypassing all the rules, otherwise it wouldn't be a good creator. Kind of like politicians, except they get caught. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|