[King-Panther]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
no, i mean limitations in powers of reasoning and imagination. in the same way the concept of god can't really be explained to a monkey, a far more ideal concept might not be explainable (or imagined) by us. psychology has shown us many times that our cognitive abilities are far from being capable of perceiving reality correctly or objectively.

I'm pretty sure a most ideal idea is God.... Surely if there is a creator (the very definition of God), why would he not make himself known to us, like God has?

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Indeed, how could Muhammad have known that non- alcoholic wine would have existed in the future

indeed why would he note something so irrelevant?

And no, wine is not a simile, otherwise the verses would say that there are rivers of wine-like stuff, not wine.

I'm sorry Quranic scholar but it says, heaven is not like anything we've ever seen nor experienced, so that would indicate its a smilie because wine is something we've seen.

[iJoe]

Hey! Just wanted to tell you don't confuse yourself here... God exists, we wouldn't have been here without him Science doesn't approve of God, but there are hundreds of facts concerning God. For example, they have found one of the Egyptian chariot wheels, which dates back to Moses's time and so on... I myself have doubts sometimes, but the signs of God and what I ask for are always clear and encourage me!

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
I can't reply to all the repetitive arguments in your post. The themes where you've misunderstood are:

1) Infinity does not necessarily have no beginning AND no end.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL IN RED

well thats were you're wrong!

"infi·nite·ly adv.
infi·nite·ness n.
Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal
These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth.

Usage Note: Infinite is sometimes grouped with absolute terms such as unique, absolute, and omnipotent, since in its strict mathematical sense infiniteness is an absolute property; some infinite sets are smaller than others, but they are no less infinite."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite

Its the usage in maths that doesn't adhere to this definition.

Its definition is a number which cannot be counted. Hence it can either have no beginning, OR have no end, OR both.

No, show me in mathematics were a number has no beginning, Pi only has no end but a beginning. So, if we applied it to this universe, that would mean it has an infinite number of universes after ours, ANSWER ME THIS, WOULD WE GET TO THE LAST UNIVERSE?

2) When we are comparing pi and our infinite chain of universes, we imagine to reverse pi and our universe is 3. Then there's an infinite chain of numbers before 3 just like there's an infinite chain of universes before our own. The ending of both of these chains is finite.

No, in Pi there is a finite BEGINNING, not end! So, once again, lets apply this Pi model to our universe.

Q) 3 is in the beginning of Pi and not the end, do you deny this?

Q) Do we ever get to the end of Pi, the last digit (you answered no previously)?

Q) so if we switch it around and use 3 as our universes, and an infinite number before rather than after. If we never get to end of Pi, how you expect to get to 3 from the other end, which has no beginning. If it has a beginning, what is it? The same answer would apply to what is the last digit of Pi?

Q) If there is a never ending number after Pi like there is before our universe, how do expect to get here if this number never ends? The end number in Pi would be the number we start from and work our way to our universe.... So what is this number?

3) You keep making the same error of saying "imagine we start at the infinite end" which you CANNOT DO!

Im making the error? I KNOW we can not, so how do you suppose we get here?

Q) So, in Pi 3 is the beginning and you've admitted above there is no end. So, if we switch it around, 3 is our universes but instead there is an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, how do you suppose we get here if this number never ends?

If you assume there is a starting point, you will find one erroneously.

If there is a starting point and an end (3), then it is not infinite even according to the mathematical definition.

This whole time, I have been trying to show you that this is what you are doing wrong, approaching the idea of infinity incorrectly, and yet, you reply each time with the same arguments that I've already shown you why they are incorrect.

No you haven't, I've shown you how you're wrong.

Q) So, in Pi 3 is the beginning and you've admitted above there is no end. So, if we switch it around, 3 is our universes but instead there is an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, how do you suppose we get here if this number never ends?

Answer the above, and show me how I'm wrong?

The whole idea behind the post was to show that in a number with an infinite chain at one end and a finite termination at the other end, the finite termination DOES exist. Pi shows this.

Q)Pi has a beginning but no end, like i said, if 3 was first universes and our universe is the other end (a never ending number of universes before ours, as you have suggested), we would never get here because this number ends, as you've admitted Pi has no end.

But you switched it around and said 3 is our universe, and there is a never ending number before. If this number never ends, how do you suggest we get here?

Intuition does NOT apply in this argument. You will not understand it intuitively. I don't understand it intuitively. It doesn't make sense. But by logic, we know there is nothing preventing there being an infinite cycle, not by your argument in any case.

No, I'm using LOGIC here and not intuition.

Q) No, I have proved, if there is a never ending number of universes before ours, how can we get here if this number never ends! ANSWER ME THIS!

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by King-Panther)
I'm pretty sure a most ideal idea is God.... Surely if there is a creator (the very definition of God), why would he not make himself known to us, like God has?

he has? that is news to me.

we both know the sky is blue, but one of us doesn't "know" god exists. why can we agree on one of those facts but not the other?

secondly; why does the most ideal being or explanation have to be known by humans? you've made an argument that presupposes we are important and/or capable. maybe god exists and he isn't bothered making himself known. maybe humans don't have the capacity to understand or imagine the correct explanation. in either case the most logical hypothesis might be beyond our grasp.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by iJoe)
Hey! Just wanted to tell you don't confuse yourself here... God exists, we wouldn't have been here without him Science doesn't approve of God, but there are hundreds of facts concerning God. For example, they have found one of the Egyptian chariot wheels, which dates back to Moses's time and so on... I myself have doubts sometimes, but the signs of God and what I ask for are always clear and encourage me!

You should go back quite a few pages and read my argument, its irrefutable proof of requiring a God for our existence. I'm just having trouble with Hypocrism because he's suggesting a never ending number can end.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by E.Blackadder)
he has? that is news to me.

whats not ideal about God?

we both know the sky is blue, but one of us doesn't "know" god exists. why can we agree on one of those facts but not the other?

If you read my argument, I've proven the necessity of God.

secondly; why does the most ideal being or explanation have to be known by humans?

If he is at all loving, why would he leave us in the dark and if he isn't at all loving, why create us in the first place and give us all these bounties?

you've made an argument that presupposes we are important and/or capable. maybe god exists and he isn't bothered making himself known. maybe humans don't have the capacity to understand or imagine the correct explanation. in either case the most logical hypothesis might be beyond our grasp.

God is also beyond our grasp...

[King-Panther]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
You keep rehashing the same broken argument every time. I made this very simple but I will try ONCE MORE, to point out the holes in it and even the subsequent and tangential arguments .

You say "If the universe is infinite, there will be an infinite number of universes before we get to ours. Therefore, we will never reach our universe as there are an infinite number of universes before it."

I simply replied that you can easily counter this argument by saying that "in infinite time you will reach our universe, even if there are an infinite number of universes before it".

clearly someone who doesn't understand the definition of infinite.

"infi·nite·ly adv.
infi·nite·ness n.
Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal
These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite

this number never ends, there is an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, how can we get here if this number never ends...

just like in Pi, there is an infinite number after 3, do we ever get to the end of Pi, if so what is the END digit?

The rest of my arguments don't matter so much to you because you will simply do "special pleading". Plead that cause and effect can occur outside time and space, that decisions can be made from a being not made from matter and that something can exist forever while doing all of these things and even interfering in the world.

No, its not special pleading but called a fact, if you go and ask your physics lecturer, they will confirm that time/space was created after the big bang. Do you deny this?

Firstly, if God exists and he is doing actions, then time relative to God exists. As time is merely a continuing sequence of events. Your God does events sequentially (or he is described as doing so in most Holy Scripture) thus he is acting timely.

No, time was created after the big bang.

Well I'm a muslim, I don't believe in the Bible.

Even before creation there is some thought about his creation and these thoughts - even if they are infinitesimally short - are again a sequence of events. There is time.
Basically, for the God described in all Abrahamic faiths, he is rather of infinite time as opposed to without time. If he was without time, he could not act and interfere with our world nor instrument its detailed creation.

No, I think you're finding this hard to understand, TIME WAS CREATED AFTER THE BIG BANG! Just like space, gravity and so forth.

With this cleared up. You can no longer plead for certain paradoxes of your god to be covered up by his supernatural nature(which explains absolutely nothing) because he conveniently describes some of his doings and ways in his religious texts, allowing us to note some of his core properties.

No, you're using time as your argument but its a known fact that time was created after the big bang, so your argument is a complete fallacy!

As we can see, this leads us to what I said at the end of my last post - that all the arguments for the existence of God are equally strong when used oppositely. So rather than look at whether God exists or not, we should instead question the veracity of Religion's provable claims.

why should we do that, surely first you prove God, then question religion, because if you can't prove God, why bother with religion?

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Pastaferian)
I'm afraid that - for me - a theological question is a non-question. Richard Dawkins succinctly makes the point far better than I could in his very brief online article "The Emptiness of Theology".

As for philosophical arguments for the existence of God, I'm not aware of any that have stood the test of time. Aquinas put forwards 5 "proofs", but 4 have been shown to be flawed (some go as far as saying "fatuous") and the fifth is effectively intelligent design.

You may have misread what I wrote about Hitchens - he was talking about LACK of evidence.

I sometimes wonder why so many people are afraid to apply Occams Razor when considering the existence of God. I find it much simpler - and entirely in accordance with my experience - to assume he doesn't exist. There is plenty of good advice around on how to lead a fulfilling life (eg, Buddhism) without having to invoke the supernatural.

You should check out my argument and also, as for Buddhists, no they believe in a creator (God if you like) but not as the west understands it. They don't believe he universe just popped into existence.

"As to where it all came from, Buddha explains the origins of life in the Surangama sutra, and other sutras and the creation and destruction of galaxies and universe over vast stretches of time. It doesn’t originate from a being called "God," unless by God you mean the Tao or original nature – which is beyond being and non-being. If you call "God" the Tao then everything matches just fine. But if you think of a person you’re off. Of course, that’s the problem with the Western religions controlled by power structures rather than teachings of sages who come and go."

http://www.meditationexpert.com/comp...come_from.html

They have a different and more accurate understanding of God (not a man in the clouds). They also believe in Angels as well as demons and heaven (eventually will be obtained).

[Good bloke]

(Original post by King-Panther)
You should go back quite a few pages and read my argument, its irrefutable proof of requiring a God for our existence. I'm just having trouble with Hypocrism because he's suggesting a never ending number can end.

Your argument seems to consist of stating that, if there have been an infinite number of universes before the one we inhabit, we wouldn't be able to get to the one we are in, so there can't have been such an infinite number. This is complete nonsense.

If there have been an infinite number of universes (and I don't say there have, as I simply don't know), the one we inhabit is fundamentally no different from the ones that have gone before; and, obviously, every single one of that infinite number must have existed - just like ours.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by King-Panther)
ramble ramble ramble

I'm going to address your questions in an ordered way, rather than slinging large red text like you, rather like a monkey throws its poo.

1) Your claim that something infinite cannot have a finite beginning or end

This is obviously false. Pi is infinite and it has a finite end. Negative whole numbers have a finite end (-1) but no beginning, and they are infinite. By your logic, -1 cannot exist "because we can't get there from the infinite numbers before it". This is an incorrect argument.

Something infinite has to be uncountable. Let's take an infinite number with no beginning and no end. It goes on forever. Then we choose one digit in that number. It still goes on forever backwards, and it still goes on forever forwards, so we have just demonstrated splitting one infinite number into two infinite numbers. Infinity can have either a finite beginning or a finite end.

2) If there are an infinite number of universes after ours, will we ever reach the last universe?

If there's an infinite number of universes after ours, there is no last universe. The entire concept of reaching the last universe is flawed and will lead you to erroneous conclusions that are not supported by proper logic. In the same way, it is clear that it must also be erroneous to count backwards from the last universe to our own universe, because there is no last universe. Using this counting back argument assumes an ending point, and therefore is an erroneous argument.

In the same way, if we count backwards from our universe, we won't reach the first universe. This is because there is no first universe. We therefore cannot do the reverse either. We cannot assume a starting point and ask whether we can count forwards, because there is no starting point. Assuming there's a starting point is an incorrect axiom, and when you use logic on incorrect axioms, you reach incorrect conclusions.

3) The first digit of pi is 3

I agree





Once again, I have quite simply taken your ramblings, taking your ONE point out of it and shown it to be logically flawed. I have to say again, you cannot use your intuition, you have to use your logic. There's an infinite number of universes before our own. Your intuition tells you that we cannot reach our universe because intuition will always be flawed here. But in reality, there is no reason to jump from "there is an infinite amount of time before an event" to "the event never occurs".

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by King-Panther)
whats not ideal about God?

his existence is not ideal.

there is no explanation for his own existence and in turn his existence raises more questions than it answers. he is not demonstrable. he violates known laws of the natural world. he is exempt from definition because his properties are undefined - this means that any logical or scientific argument against his existence can be side stepped by merely changing his attributes. we know humans make up gods all the time so logically it is more probable he is a product of the human mind than an actual thing. and we know that the god of judaism/christianity/islam is merely an adaptation of precursory gods from older civilizations.

however the worst part of the argument is that you still assume knowledge you don't posses. god might be the most logical argument you have, but that doesn't mean it is the correct one.

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by King-Panther)

clearly someone who doesn't understand the definition of infinite.

"infi·nite·ly adv.
infi·nite·ness n.
Synonyms: infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal
These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite

this number never ends, there is an infinite (never ending) number of universes before ours, how can we get here if this number never ends...

just like in Pi, there is an infinite number after 3, do we ever get to the end of Pi, if so what is the END digit?

This is very simple but you do not understand. Either A) There have been an infinite number of universes before us or B) there was a finite start and there will be an infinite number of universes to come.

With B, the answer is rather simple, seeing as there will be an infinite number of universes, but we are not the last (I.e we could be the first number 4 in pi), then there is no reason why we cannot get here.

With A, within infinite time we will reach an our universe even if there are an infinite number before. Why? well if there are an infinite number of sequential bounces (the term I am using for a collapse and then bang), then time is always existing, proof for this is the ever existing cause and effect, thus in infinite time n universe can be reached.

No, its not special pleading but called a fact, if you go and ask your physics lecturer, they will confirm that time/space was created after the big bang. Do you deny this?

Yes, time and space we believe to be created after the big bang. However, the reason this is believed is that A) we can only know time and space relative to our universe We can't empirically prove things before the big bang because we have no evidence (for the time being and probably future) and B) No scientist makes the assumption that there was a thing, being itself, or thinking or creating before our universe. Because if there was, then time exists for that being also, because there was something before the Big Bang and that something was doing something. Also time would exist for an infinite loop of bounces but this is also something that cannot be empirically proved and so no ASSUMED.

No, time was created after the big bang.

Well I'm a muslim, I don't believe in the Bible.

Yes, time only exists after the Big Bang if your God doesn't exist. If time only existed after the BIG Bang then your God could not have caused its effect, nor infact, could he have existed before the Big Bang either. Scientist say that time (and space) was created after the Big Bang because it is only logical from our knowledge and proof (and even if it is not the case, time and space relative to our universe at least started at the big bang), we can't say anything or anyone existed before it, because we only have proof of what has happened since its existence.

No, I think you're finding this hard to understand, TIME WAS CREATED AFTER THE BIG BANG! Just like space, gravity and so forth.

If your God existed before the big bang and also existed to cause an effect (i.e the universe) then there was time before the big bang.

No, you're using time as your argument but its a known fact that time was created after the big bang, so your argument is a complete fallacy!

I believe that time did only exist after the Big Bang. You believe in God however, so you must believe that it existed before, otherwise your argument about infinite universes before ours is also applicable to God have an infinite time to exist before creating our universe.

why should we do that, surely first you prove God, then question religion, because if you can't prove God, why bother with religion?

Because we cannot prove a being who transcends the bounds of nature and has an infinite number of unknown attributes. If we claim one part of God or one of his features or attributes cannot exist then theists will change or reinterpret his nature to one that can. That way, it is only logical to look at the nature of each god, given by each religion (in their scripture) to see whether that god exists without contradiction and paradoxes - as far as I am aware - there isn't one.

[SilverSun]

(Original post by Good bloke)
It is quite clear that those living in certain past civilisations (Incas and Mayans, for example) have regarded certain kinds of ritualised murder as perfectly acceptable. You, looking back at those people from deem their morality to be wrong and so do I. However, if we had been one of them I would argue that we would be highly likely to agree with the stance they took, conditioned by the society of the time and place. You don't even have to go so far distant in time and place to find instances of morality that differ from our own; slavery was acceptable in western society very recently, as was racial segregation, while abortion was highly immoral and illegal (which it no longer is). It is quite possible that we differ on the morality of modern issues such as sex, abortion and capital punishment. Morality is highly subjective, of that there is no question.

You are yet again failing to answer my question, committing the is/ought fallacy. You are providing examples of what people have thought to be acceptable but not providing a basis for any moral obligations. The fact that society at large deems something to be morally acceptable or not acceptable is no reason why an individual has an obligation to go with the flow, although it may certainly give incentives. But incentives are not the same things as obligations.

I am appaled that in order to sustain your criticism of the Christian faith you, for consitency's sake, have to declare regionally acceptable policies such as the Holocaust and human sacrifice. Anybody can read this and draw his own conclusion.

[Hypocrism]

Logic can at least poke fun at the existence of god.

A. God exists and is the greatest possible entity that can exist
B. God created the universe
C. An entity that can do something without existing is greater than an entity that can do the same thing while existing

By these axioms, we can tell that either A, B, or C is wrong, because A contradicts C.

We know that either God doesn't exist
or God isn't the greatest possible entity
or God didn't create the universe

Obviously this is equally flawed compared to the ontological argument in its original form, but it's fairly amusing!

[Good bloke]

(Original post by SilverSun)
Anybody can read this and draw his own conclusion.

The obvious conclusion is that morality is not objective, coming from some other-wordly source, but man-made. If it were the civilisations I alluded to (and many others) surely wouldn't have prospered.

I am not attacking Christianity, which is as worthy a superstition as any other, but the idea that morality is not man-made.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Good bloke)
The obvious conclusion is that morality is not objective, coming from some other-wordly source, but man-made. If it were the civilisations I alluded to (and many others) surely wouldn't have prospered.

I am not attacking Christianity, which is as worthy a superstition as any other, but the idea that morality is not man-made.

A lot of people seem to forget that it is. But that goes in loads of different directions. Being agnostic, I´m open to new possibilities and I won´t poke fun at others no matter how obscure their beliefs seem to me.

[SilverSun]

(Original post by Good bloke)
The obvious conclusion is that morality is not objective, coming from some other-wordly source, but man-made. If it were the civilisations I alluded to (and many others) surely wouldn't have prospered.

The fact that a pagan civilisation prospers for a time is fully compatible with the objective morality of the Christian worldview, so your argument falls flat.

On 13th July you wrote the following comment on why slavery is wrong on this same thread: "Because society deems it to be. Your gods seem to like it, which tells us somnething about them and you." [sic]

Here you contradict yourself. On the same breath you affirm that slavery is wrong only because of contingent factors such as the opinion of a society, but you also assume that what your society now happens to deem wrong is a basis for hinting that other societies/gods/people are objectively wrong.

You assume that I have an obligation to stand against slavery. But you are still not providing any reason as to why I should.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by SilverSun)
You assume that I have an obligation to stand against slavery. But you are still not providing any reason as to why I should.

The simple reason you should be opposed to slavery is because society deems it to be wrong - however judging by that last line, you disagree with the notion of opposing slavery, and so prove his point that morality is not objective - because if it were, then everyone would have the same morals with regards to slavery.

[Komatic]

I believe that science will continue to show that there is a god. We are made up of 85% stardust. Conscious life shouldn't exist at all....