Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

This is why I think God exists.

1…89101113

Comments

  • #362
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Says pragmatism and common sense.
    So you then? It is your subjective opinion that because God created us it is fair he can do what he likes with us.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you paint a painting. It is yours until it is sold. Indeed, if you found a nation, it is yours until you pass away, or change institutions and the like to allow broader leadership or indeed if someone usurps it.

    I'm pretty sure if you found a nation and then nuke the nation and everyone in it and say "Well, it was mine" you aren't going to get much support.

    Or for example create a baby and then drown it.

    But then everyone else is wrong and you are right based on premise above?


  • #363
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Rahh!

    I am glad you are amused. You are at least getting something from this thread, having put nothing of use in.

    You are now talking about ratios. First of all we do not know any such thing. There could be other ratios that would also result in stable structures of this sort. Just because we know that they are balanced now, and changing one of them would break it up, does not mean that it always has to be exactly this. Nor have you done, or produced, a single scrap of peer reviewed science to make it look like this is the case.

    Secondly, even if this was the case, a ratio does not mean that all the constants have to be fixed at what they are now, it would just mean that all the possible balances of constants would have to fit into a certain ratio. If X must be of ration 10*Y for example, then there are still an infinite numbers of values of X which will result in an infinite amount of 10*Y results.

    Saying therefore that there is a ratio, does NOT say that all constants have to be exactly as they are now it just says that if one changes, then to balance the system the others have to change by the given ratios.

    So really, you still have nothing to stand on here.

    However as I said I am open to any peer reviewed science you either want to do yourself, or cite, that says that because changing one constant breaks down the balanced equations, that you therefore can not change ANY of the constants. Have you anything to offer to show this is so.... aside of course from you saying over and over it is so, which of course does not help.

    Finally please save yourself the time of ascribing emotions to me that I neither felt, nor are you capable of illiciting in me. No one on this side of the table is offended at anything you have to say, nor is it possible for you to offend me.... a comment about me not you by the way, as I know the basic requirements for me to be offended and they are simply not present here.


  • #364
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A good analogy here for the Fine Tuners who think that because you can not change ONE constant you must therefore not change ANY constants.

    Really what you are doing here is like someone being shown the structure of their first atom. They see how the protons perfectly balance the neutrons, and the charge on the electrons are perfectly balanced by the charge on the protons.

    Having seen this wonderful structure then they declare “This atom is perfectly balanced and stable and if I remove or add one element, a proton, a neutron or an electron it would all fly apart, therefore all has to be as it is now and NO OTHER ATOMS BUT THIS ARE THEFORE POSSIBLE”.


  • #365
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Ok, well I don't care. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong when it's on a public forum like this. Look it up on wikipedia, look at the things being cited. Look for the article by Stenger onthe fine tuned universe, he offers real arguments against fine tuning because he understands what it is. Peer reviewed science has gone on much further than you think it has.

    Also notice that your conclusions do not support your arguments. While it may turn out that fine tuning is completely wrong, your arguments will still be invalid.

    And since you think I have nothing to offer there's no reason for me to post here anymore (at least with respect to showing you you're wrong). Because obviously it's impossible for theists to deliver arguments. There's no such thing as a theist argument.


  • #366
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    raah! wrote: »
    Ok, well I don't care. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong when it's on a public forum like this.

    If you have issues with admitting you are wrong then I hope you can work through them. It is not a nice issue to suffer with and I do not envy you. A good first step, if I can help you with this, is to realise that just because it is a “public forum” as you say, does not mean you have to at any point care what anyone else here thinks. I sure do not. In fact this is the main reason why I just said above “I know the basic requirements for me to be offended and they are simply not present here.“. I would first have to care what YOU think in order to be offended, and I do not.

    I myself come on to forums such as this because I know I am wrong. How do I know?

    Well no one is perfect we are all wrong about something. I am. You are. The mods are. Even Wikiknight is. The trick is finding out how and where we are wrong.

    Forums such as this pit me against people who can show me I am wrong and in 20 years of asking for evidence of god, and challenging the evidence I have been given, I have admitted where I am wrong on many occasions… and trust me finding out you are wrong is a wonderful feeling as it gives you the two best things anyone on an intellectual pursuit can ever get 1) New information and 2) The removal of old bad information. If the brain can orgasm, realising where you have been wrong is probably the closest one can get to it.

    The issue here is not with me failing to admit I am wrong, but with you failing to provide a single solid reason for me to think I am aside from the fact you really really think so which is convincing of nothing for anyone except you.

    Your whole case is built on the assumption that because changing one constant breaks the balanced equation of our universe, that therefore ALL the constants have to be what they are now.

    Quite literally, aside from saying it over and over again with gusto, you have given me no reason to think this assumption valid on any level. The best you did is mention “ratios” which is a very useful and valid thing to mention, but ratios do not mean the constants are fixed at what they are now. They simply mean that if you change one, you have to balance this by changing the others by those fixed ratios you mention.

    This really is as far as you have gotten and I am afraid “Read wiki” is not presenting an argument.
    raah! wrote: »
    And since you think I have nothing to offer

    Please keep your words out of my mouth. I have MORE than enough of my own and I said no such thing. Saying you HAVE not offered anything is NOT the same as saying you HAVE nothing to offer. I am sure you have much to offer, on many subjects. It just appears thus far, that this may not be one of them and "thus far" is all the evidence I have to comment with.
    raah! wrote: »
    Because obviously it's impossible for theists to deliver arguments.

    I am sorry to hear you think so. I have never said anything of this sort myself and never would. It is disappointing to find someone who holds this opinion. I hope someone manages to convince you otherwise sometime soon. Xou might with to consider how much of our science has been presented by Theists in our past for example.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Forums such as this pit me against people who can show me I am wrong

    Yes

    And seriously, look up fine tuning. Look it up yourself. Don't change any of your arguments, reference the article, and then see for yourself if it's correct.

    It's regrettable that our tone has lowered to this, and I certainly had a part in it, but just look up fine tuning. In some cases it is acceptable to say "look it up on wikipedia" and this is one such case. What you are arguing against isn't really the proper formulation of fine tuning.


  • #368
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    raah! wrote: »
    Yes

    Yes indeed, and one of these days I hope you can be one of them. It really is one of the best gifts you can give a person you know.


  • #369
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    use logic please wrote: »
    This thing which transcends time and space is God.

    This is the bit I have issue with. Assuming something does transcend space and time how do you know its God? It could be:

    1) Flying Spaghetti Monster
    2) A giant Cat
    3) God
    4) A penis
    4) The universe itself
    5) We know there are many planets inside solar systems, billions of solar systems inside galaxies, and billions of galaxies inside the universe, so its not to hard to conceive that there is a system with billions of universes. This system maybe what exists outside of space and time in some way we can't comprehend.

    If you are correct, and it is a God, he certainly doesn't look anything like a human and certainly doesn't give a damn about us.


  • #370
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    use logic please wrote: »
    For 2010, my explanation of a "supernatural creator" is more complete than any other explanation anyone has.

    So what exactly?

    Imagine if you will a conversation that goes as follows:

    Boy 1: Where do babies come from?
    Boy 2: The stork brings them!
    Boy 1: What makes you think that?
    Boy 2: Well where do YOU think they come from?
    Boy 1: I do not know and I have no idea.
    Boy 2: Aha! The stork brings them!

    I am sure you can see as clearly as I can that the fact both of these children have no idea where babies come from but one of them has AN explanation… in NO WAY lends any credence to his explanation nor does it mean either of them should be taking his explanation seriously.

    Learn this rule: “An explanation is not useful if it is presented merely by virtue of being the only one on offer”

    Now when you have contemplated why the conversation is ridiculous and why Boy 2’s words are entirely useless… go back and read your words that I just quoted and tell me how it is any different.


  • #371
    Niall Keane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,154 ✭✭✭Niall Keane


    As an architect I can vouch that not all design is necessarily intelligent. Some design exhibits extreme evidence of "other than intelligence" but jokes aside, many designs follow in a modular and efficient way the structure of an established successful response to external factors, the same design decisions are made again and again because they work, a slum can look amazingly complex, one can hardly guess at where it started. If we take the origin of life and matter....

    All life on earth bears some DNA similarities of structure. This allows chemicals produced by plants say to have a direct effect on receptors in animals. Opium and “indigenous morphine” etc... We know through evolution that we share common ancestry. Now was the originator of life that mixture of amino etc. intelligent? Did ancient simple single-cellular organisms have a cognitive master plan for us all? Regarding an evolving DNA, yes, if you mean plans, sections and elevations, no, well they lacked the brain to consider such, yet from these gods come us. The brain came after the complexity not before it, it wasn't needed before it!

    Now examine matter and the big bang, who is to say that the “god-particle” the “creator” isn’t simply some particle with all the thought processes of a lump of plutonium?

    So maybe there was some extremely powerful creator, I expect there was, but I don’t think it amounted to more than an inanimate particle, and being the source of all, all that flowed from it should surely have similarly contained - constants and laws, sharing the same mitochondrial DNA so as to speak, the biology of helixes reflected in the physics of membranes?

    Why would a creator / particle require awareness?


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Niall Keane wrote: »
    So maybe there was some extremely powerful creator, I expect there was

    With you except for this. It doesn't make sense, all you're doing is moving it back one step, the existence of any creator (even a particle) causes the same problems as the existence of the universe. Unless you say the creator doesn't need a creator, in which case it's both resorting to arbitrary magic and could be applied to the universe instead.


  • #373
    use logic please
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭use logic please


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So what exactly?

    Imagine if you will a conversation that goes as follows:

    Boy 1: Where do babies come from?
    Boy 2: The stork brings them!
    Boy 1: What makes you think that?
    Boy 2: Well where do YOU think they come from?
    Boy 1: I do not know and I have no idea.
    Boy 2: Aha! The stork brings them!

    I am sure you can see as clearly as I can that the fact both of these children have no idea where babies come from but one of them has AN explanation… in NO WAY lends any credence to his explanation nor does it mean either of them should be taking his explanation seriously.

    Learn this rule: “An explanation is not useful if it is presented merely by virtue of being the only one on offer”

    Now when you have contemplated why the conversation is ridiculous and why Boy 2’s words are entirely useless… go back and read your words that I just quoted and tell me how it is any different.
    I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

    Regarding your analogy, you should have said:

    Boy 1: How did it come to be that babies exist.
    Boy 2: They were created by some being.
    Boy 1: Yeah, that's a reasonable possibility.

    You should have said this because it shows that Boy 2 has actually thought about it and did not say the first thing that came into his head. (Incidentally, if no prior information had been given to the boys, then my conversation is far more likely to have occurred than yours.)
    The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc would be like the stork, in your conversation. "Some creative being" would be like "Reproduction," in your conversation.


  • #374
    use logic please
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭use logic please


    use logic please wrote: »
    Clearly you're not interested in a logical discussion. That is plainly obvious.

    I shouldn't have said this. I apologise to you, MagicMarker.


  • #375
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,467 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    use logic please wrote: »
    I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

    Regarding your analogy, you should have said:

    Boy 1: How did it come to be that babies exist.
    Boy 2: They were created by some being.
    Boy 1: Yeah, that's a reasonable possibility.

    You should have said this because it shows that Boy 2 has actually thought about it and did not say the first thing that came into his head. (Incidentally, if no prior information had been given to the boys, then my conversation is far more likely to have occurred than yours.)
    The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc would be like the stork, in your conversation. "Some creative being" would be like "Reproduction," in your conversation.

    It is A possibility yes. It is an extremely unlikely possibility supported by no meaningful evidence.


  • #376
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    use logic please wrote: »
    I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion.
    And what's wrong with my electric wombats plus yogurt Theory of the Universe?

    This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion if you accept the possibility of an infinite number of wombats (electrical) and some yogurt (actually, lots of yogurt).


  • #377
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    2010-08-20.jpg


  • #378
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    robindch wrote: »
    The yogurt, I need hardly add, is supernatural.

    This is great. Sigged.


  • #379
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    use logic please wrote: »
    I have not gone "aha, a supernatural creator exists," I have said that it's a reasonable suggestion. I never claimed to have proven it. See post 270.

    Yeah but thankfully merely SAYING this does not make it magically take on that attribute. Merely saying it is reasonable does not mean it is, and if saying it is the best you have to offer I am not sure what you are doing on here.

    Also it is pretty impolite to keep saying over and over "see post 270" to people, such as myself, who have already replied to that post but you ignored the reply. SOME decorum please.


  • #380
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Okays, the last time I visited this thread I was at page 14. So Um, is it worth me reading up the last 12 pages? Or will I just do the norm and read the last 15 posts before this one.

    Ooh, Jesus and Mo! Love those guys.:D


  • #381
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    If Xn (I like that name for God :D) created itself, and there was nothing before Xn, what did it create itself with? Surely one cannot create something from nothing.

    Also, if it took Xn six days to create the Earth and everything on it, then how long did it take him to create the billions upon billions of stars, planets, asteroids, comets, and all that other stuff floating around in space? Why aren't all those other countless galaxies not mentioned in the Bible?

    According the followers of the Abrahamic religions, the Bible is the absolute word of God.

    "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." Genesis 1:16

    Now thanks to science, we know that the Moon is not a light as the Sun, but is a solid mass that simply reflects the light of the Sun back to Earth. Is God a liar? Are the writers of the Bible liars? Somebody's lying because that simple passage is just not true.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    use logic please
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭use logic please


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Anything I have ever been presented as “evidence” for god so far in 20 years of asking simply follows the 2 step process above and hence is NOT evidence.
    I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be. "What we see around us" is not the basis of the argument I'm putting across to you here, I use "what we see around us" for my own belief, but that's not one of the parts of my belief I'm trying to convey in this thread.


  • #383
    Obni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.


  • #384
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    Obni wrote: »
    I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.
    Why the surprise? Christianity has lasted for a lot longer, using much the same argument.


  • #385
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Obni wrote: »
    I can't believe a thread based on "This is why I think God exists ... because I just do" has lasted for 26 pages.

    We could power the earth by putting atheists on bikes and holding arguments for god in front of them on a fishing line.


  • #386
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    robindch wrote: »
    And what's wrong with my electric wombats plus yogurt Theory of the Universe?

    This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion if you accept the possibility of an infinite number of wombats (electrical) and some yogurt (actually, lots of yogurt).

    Hmm..would they be positively charged or negatively charged electrical wombats? If you say that they are negatively charged I would have to laugh at your ridiculous theory. Everyone and their granny knows negatively charged electrical wombats and yogurt just don't mix, unless it's strawberry yogurt of course.


  • #387
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    use logic please wrote: »
    I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be. "What we see around us" is not the basis of the argument I'm putting across to you here, I use "what we see around us" for my own belief, but that's not one of the parts of my belief I'm trying to convey in this thread.

    And as I said „anything could therefore be evidence for anything“. There is an infinity of ideas that anything could be evidence for. I could tell you an invisible green imp is on your shoulder. The Automotive industry COULD BE evidence for this.

    See how ridiculous this gets?

    No one here is interested in what COULD be evidence, we are interested in discussing what might ACTUALLY BE evidence.


  • #388
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    use logic please wrote: »
    Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God.


    An infinite amount of time passed.*
    'I'm bored' I thought. 'I know - I will create the universe'

    Really all I wanted to see was the big bang - the laws of physics and all the rest were just prerequisites. So I looked at the big bang for a while, but as it spread I lost interest in it (and the universe in general). In the plane of my own existence, where I am a failed pop diva, I attempted to revamp my career by entering the Extra-long series of I am A Celestial Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

    The series lasted a bit longer than I anticipated (some nine billion years). I returned to take a look at the universe I had created and said
    'You know, I think I should create the Earth'
    So I created the Earth in a random place in a random galaxy, but wasn't terribly impressed. Took a nap for five billion years.

    'Oh Christ (my unborn son/self) this place is boring.' I said after waking up, 'I ought to do... something with this planet'
    I thought about this for another billion years. Yes, I know an omnipotent being such as myself is not supposed to have to think, as I instantly know everything: but nobody's perfect, you know!

    'Life!' I said, and so I created life. Wasn't terribly impressed with my first couple of attempts so wiped the slate clean with numerous mass extinctions (which were kind of amusing). But after 3 and half billion years I finally settled onto something.

    'Ah - humans. These people I will have some fun with. I will drop hints to them every so often about my existence, even perform a couple of possessions, perhaps even impregnate some woman with my offspring. I will never give enough information, or else there will be no grounds for them to have blind belief. Anybody who doesn't have blind belief in me will be thrown into the pits of hell when they die... or in other words they will move into my sphere of existence whereupon they will be forced to participate in I'm A Celestial Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.'






    ----

    Look you can say that something called God created the universe but saying that this thing is conscious is silly in the extreme. Maybe dark matter has a personality?


    * And yes, I know that time cannot pass without the existence of time, but to point that out would just be pedantic.


  • #389
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    use logic please wrote: »
    I didn't say that what we see around us had to be evidence for God, I said that it could be.

    Then it isn't.

    Cop 1 - Look someone robbed the bank?
    Cop 2 - They dropped some gum!
    Cop 1 - Bob eats gum!
    Cop 2 - Bob must have done it
    Cop 1 - Wait, Sally also eats gum!
    Cop 2 - Darn, so close

    Something that can be explained using a multitude of different hypothesis ends up not being evidence for any of them.


  • #390
    Langerland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 328 ✭✭Langerland


    Interesting. Looking forward to reading the book.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    It is illogical to assume that something came from nothing.

    On the contrary, it happens at the quantum level all the time.


Advertisement