Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The known universe

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Twin-go wrote: »
    What a waste of Space!

    Sure if he didn't, what would we call it then? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #153
    Osgoodisgood
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭Osgoodisgood


    PDN wrote: »
    If you want to construct arguments against an invisible deity who is not actually omniscient then you are free to do so.

    No, you do me the disservice of strawmanning me. I said there was as much reason to believe in a non omniscient deity. I do wish you'd keep up.
    Of course your arguments will be of no interest or relevance whatsoever to Christians, since you are not discussing the Christian God.

    Fair point. You have abitrarily awarded yours with powers unimaginable. Like universe development for example. Is that where's he been all this time? Overseeing construction in the horsehead nebula? Do you imagine that when he's not so busy there he might have a chance to nip back here and update his book so you and the Boy Wonder don't have to do so much guessing?
    Have fun with that one.

    Thanks. I had a ball.


  • Options
    #154
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    And there I agree with you totally. I never said anything to the contrary. That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

    Hmm, not sure that couldn't happen naturally. Really, in all the scratches in all the rocks in all the universe...


  • Options
    #155
    Twin-go
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Twin-go


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Sure if he didn't, what would we call it then? :rolleyes:

    If he did, he is a very inefficient designer.

    It is like building this to hosue just a couple of bacteria.


  • Options
    #156
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    PDN wrote: »
    That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.
    On the contrary, have you watched the video? Look at how mindbogglingly huge the universe is.

    Not only is there a very reasonable chance of there being at least one rock in the whole universe which happens to have "PDN is a patronizing git" scratched on it, there also could very well be a rock out there with the HTML code for this thread scratched on it.

    When it comes to the vastness of the universe, we're dealing with HUGE numbers. You must understand that all earthly intuition goes out the window in this context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Twin-go wrote: »
    If he did, he is a very inefficient designer.

    It is like building this to hosue just a couple of bacteria.

    Really? Wow.


  • Options
    #158
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    PDN wrote: »
    That is a stunning, although utterly unconvincing, leap of logic.

    It is not necessary to understand everything about x, to know something about x.

    When x is an infinite deity, it is not a leap of logic. You cant even say if an entity you encounter is truely an infinite deity without being an infinite deity yourself, as how can you tell the difference between a sufficiently powerful entity that can just fool you (mess with your senses) into thinking its all powerful.
    PDN wrote: »
    A finite being is certainly able to understand something about God, particularly if God chooses to make Himself known to that finite being. However, it is impossible for the finite being to understand God totally.

    But that finite being cannot tell that its an infinite being that is revealing something to it, the only way to do so would be to understand the infinite being totally, so as to not mistake it for a more advanced beinf that is just trying to trick it. So, in reality, that finite being cannot know anything about the infinite being because they cant even tell if what they are observing is an infinite being.


  • Options
    #159
    Twin-go
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Twin-go


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Really? Wow.

    I Know:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #160
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The universe doesn't need to be fine tuned for life was we know it because it is so freaking big

    no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

    tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

    however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined


  • Options
    #161
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    PDN wrote: »
    That's why I used the example of finding the words, "PDN is a patronising git" scratched on a rock. There is little no chance of that happening naturally.

    little chance, yes. no chance, no. the joys of the quantum

    theres a measurable chance of you waking up on mars tomorrow, without breaking a single law of physics. is it gonna happen? no. could it possibly happen? absolutely


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Helix wrote: »
    no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

    tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

    however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined
    If you have not already, check this out...

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Numbers-Universe-Science/dp/0297842978/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261524298&sr=8-2

    MrP


  • Options
    #163
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    cheers, will pick that up. havent read it but im familiar with the ideology behind it, seems a decent read tho


  • Options
    #164
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Thank you for supporting my point so ably, Robin. Yes, the very mention of Francis Bacon serves as a wonderful riposte to anyone who asks "since when do the religious deal in logic?"
    You'll recall from my post that I was responding to your bizarre implication that the early universities were somehow connected with rationality.

    With respect to your original point, most forum members (most recently Sam Vimes) have pointed out many times that religion provides a (superficially) rational, logical path into the insane.
    PDN wrote: »
    Bacon, of course, was extremely religious (of Puritan sympathies) and a key figure in the development of inductive logic and the scientific method.
    And not only Bacon, but also Newton, who despite being arguably one of the smartest guys who ever lived, managed to waste years of his life cranking out his own enormously useless view of the mushroom-fuelled nonsense that christians refer to as "the book of revelation".

    Perhaps reason and religion don't mix so well after all?
    PDN wrote: »
    We work so well together, don't you think? We could team up for wacker's debate!
    Well, my joining your team would certainly raise the average IQ and lower the average age, so it's clear why you might think it's a good idea.

    For me, well, I have my doubts. But then again, that's what atheism and agnosticism is all about.


  • Options
    #165
    chozometroid
    Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    godsteroid.gif


  • Options
    #166
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    chozometroid wrote: »
    godsteroid.gif

    Fish on an asteroid??


  • Options
    #167
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Helix wrote: »
    no actually, it needed certain things to be the way they are to allow for solar system creation

    tweak the strength of any of the 4 forces and nothing you see would be possible

    however, that still doesnt mean anything was predetermined

    I don't think that is actually true. I think it has been shown you could dispense with an entire force (can't remember which one) and things would be quite similar to how they are now


  • Options
    #168
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I don't think that is actually true. I think it has been shown you could dispense with an entire force (can't remember which one) and things would be quite similar to how they are now

    pretty sure you couldnt

    no gravity and polar systems/galaxies cant form
    no electromagnetic and we cant have light
    no strong and there are no atoms
    no weak and theres no radiation


  • Options
    #169
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    It's the weak nuclear force, Wicknight. Here is a paper:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0604027

    and another:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3697


  • Options
    #170
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    It's the weak nuclear force, Wicknight. Here is a paper:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0604027

    and another:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3697
    But where is the evidence?

    MrP


  • Options
    #171
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    MrPudding wrote: »
    But where is the evidence?

    MrP

    Oh, let's turn off the Weak Nuclear Force, shall we?


    What issue with the papers methodology do you have?

    Actually, I don't even know why I am defending it. Wicknight made reference to a paper, which I remembered. I delivered said paper. Go away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Monty Python does cosmology

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk


  • Options
    #173
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

    Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.


  • Options
    #174
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Morbert wrote: »
    Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

    Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.

    believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo


  • Options
    #175
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Helix wrote: »
    believing the universe was created by a being humans have accurately portrayed in one of their magical sky fairy books is massively illogical, imo

    Then you're misusing the word.


  • Options
    #176
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Morbert wrote: »
    Without reading any of the thread carefully I'm going to dive in and say this regarding logic:

    Believing the universe was created by God is not illogical. Believing the universe has no creator is also not illogical.

    So, believing the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster is not illogical? Ahhhh here comes semantics land again


  • Options
    #177
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    liamw wrote: »
    So, believing the universe was created by the Flying Spagetti Monster is not illogical? Ahhhh here comes semantics land again

    It is not semantics.


  • Options
    #178
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Explain then. I am interested to see where both of you are coming from.


  • Options
    #179
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Morbert wrote: »
    Then you're misusing the word.

    which word? youre saying that its logical to believe that one of the religious books contains word for word the perfect description of the creator of the universe?


  • Options
    #180
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Helix wrote: »
    which word?

    Logic.
    youre saying that its logical to believe that one of the religious books contains word for word the perfect description of the creator of the universe?

    No. I'm saying the belief that God created the universe is logically consistent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Morbert wrote: »
    Logic.



    No. I'm saying the belief that God created the universe is logically consistent.

    I wish people would stop using the word 'God' like this as it's very misleading. Can you just say 'deity' instead or something...

    And now I'm going to reference a great post:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62940519&postcount=22


Advertisement