If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 71

First Previous

Page

117

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#701

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

After all this complex discussion. Is it possible that the answer is something simple? Occam had that one interesting Razor.

Also, If certain faith perspectives consider karma and souls essential to the existence of a God, wouldn't they try to prove/discuss karma and soul as a preliminary to discussing the existence of God.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe when we figure out everything, it ties up so nicely that it seems simple. Currently it does not look so simple, given that there could be so many possibilities that started the Universe. And how can something come from nothing or if not how can something always exist. Those questions just boggle the mind.

Karma is a justification for action right? That makes sense after we came. But here we are talking about origin of Universe.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#702

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
so why did you start the debate if you know it's not provable? It's one thing for others to think its not provable, but why start a topic on something where you know?

Because many people behave as if they do know for a fact that God exists.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i think it was pretty concrete as examples go, unless you found things like distant-cause vague.

Of course it is vague, the whole theory is. And I gave you many examples too. People sometimes are not punished for crime. And just because a bad thing happens after you do a bad thing does not mean it was linked. Correlation does not equal causation. And even the correlation is not always there.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
coming back to your example of good stuff happening to bad people and vice versa, do you think it's totally random? Hope you don't because that's how primitive man thought- they thought things like earthquakes etc were pretty random too. Or worse, these occurrences were just the whims of the Gods. Hopefully we know better now. If nothing else, we at least believe that there most likely is a scientific explanation for it that we will one day unearth. We cant hold up forecasting weather or earthquakes etc just because we think we dont have all the explanations.

my point is if it's not random, and we can guess that there's an explanation for it (even if not known today), then it can only be for cause that we cant measure or see. Our minds are especially attuned to relating immediate cause-effect. Perhaps your good guy did something bad in the past, and vice versa? Logical?

And you are still of the primitive thought that disrespecting an earth's idol which you assigned to be God brings earthquake? Or that we should burn the "witches" because they bring bad Karma? As I said, action will have effect. But saying that some divine interrupts many random things is just naive.

I would give an example of a child with cancer. What did he do wrong? Now very predictably, you will jump to reincarnation for help. He did something bad in previous life. OK then, one more argument. Let's go back to time when souls started coming to Earth. There would have been a start right? And nobody had any karma, good or bad. We are talking about beginning. And there would be a time first sin would have been committed. The very first one. Nobody had bad karma back then. The perpetrator will get bad karma then. But what did the victim do? If he had no bad karma till then, why did something bad happen to him?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
actually i see that line of thinking at work everyday in the markets. Folks see good news and cant understand why the stock tanks. And vice versa. They forget what has been built into the price based on past news. They are great guys to have around if you are looking for suckers. Hope you get my point.

Even the stock markets can't be predicted certainly. And it is due to the actions of certain people, companies and traders. Sometimes unexpected things can happen. Nature can interfere in company's work. Or an employee could do something bad. Attributing it to karma is stupid. And when we talk about life of people, there are so many factors every instant that suggesting a divine process is there calculating every permutation and combination and then making thisngs happen is just naive. When we can see that it does not happen.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#703

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

But the problem of origins is still not solved. How did the lab God come about? Who simulated the simulator?

I think every theory runs in this problem. Whatever path we choose, backtracking becomes problematic. So, the thing is can something come from nothing? Or has something always existed? And why does something exists rather than nothing?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#704

Originally posted by: Aya.
@Freethinker

You don't believe in Karma ?

If you have to ask that, I would suggest reading the thread first. 😆

Quote

Aya.

@Aya.

Dazzler

Posted: 12 years ago

#705

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

If you have to ask that, I would suggest reading the thread first. 😆

It's just a simple question !

I don't feel like reading the whole thing.

You guys write long long essays ! 😆

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#706

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i was talking about 2 things- being able to create things in lower D AND having a limited perspective if we are trying to look for higher D. I used simple geometry to explain those aspects conceptually. You then suggested no such thing was possible because you see pixel depths everywhere, sending folks here in a search for dimensionless objects. First off, the example was meant to convey geometrically how lower D can be obtained. If you think the lowest common denominator is 3D, the same geometric principles would still hold if we went from higher D down to 3D, which should have suited your 3D orientation. I just happened to use 3D/ 2D because I thought that would be simpler to visualize, did not know you'd get into pixel depths and such.

Again, you cannot talk about creating in two dimensions. Whenever we study 2D in algebra, you will encounter things like, assume there is a plane with equation such and such and there is a line. It will not ask you to create things there, as it is not possible to manipulate things directly in 2D.

FYI, Dimensionlessness was suggestion of Vintu.

And rest is just making up. I didn't say 3D was lowest denominator. I said a being in certain D already exists in lower ones which means they were already there. So he is not the creator.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
now here's also why it's sounding so cute. You seemingly accept things like singularity. That's math too. There's no real-world dimensionality to it. If there is, let us know. Yes, there are some physicists today who believe it had finite extent. But given how ready you have been to buy into math equations (even ones that ignore inconvenient infinities), why then quibble over other results such as the geometric slicing example i gave? Sorry but i found it odd that you were asking for physical counterparts for certain things while not requiring the same when it came to other results like singularity.

Again, did I say that 2D does not exist? No, I said we cannot manipulate the objects in it directly. Don't know why you can't understand the difference between the two statements. That applies to singularity too, we can't manipulate it directly. Both of them exists but we can't manipulate them directly. Get it now?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
Hope this clarifies things.. I just think the points above were very basic.

I have clarified the basic point already, but you just don't seem to understand what I am saying. You have made a wrong interpretation of what I said and are just repeating it blindly.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#707

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I understand your stand, you are operating on the same principle as I do that some things are indeterminate as of today.

I am pursuing leads. You are not coming up with any leads on your own and/or shooting down leads. If two people are working together on solving a crime, one person can't let the other do all the dirty work and still expect to get paid.

This thread was not to deal with metaphysics. It was just to get people on the same page, which I think you all agree now, that we cannot say God exists in view of current knowledge. Metaphysics is another topic and I will be very happy to give some theories of my own. There we can discuss and point out merits and demerits in the ideas and what seems likely. But there too, I would like people not just dismiss everything as "unreal" and it is all maya. That might be a possibility, yes, but that just ends the discussion because nothing can be developed on that idea.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#708

Originally posted by: Aya.
It's just a simple question !
I don't feel like reading the whole thing.
You guys write long long essays ! 😆

That's what hampers the thread, discussing things which might have been already discussed. At least read 5-10 pages back to get a gist of what has been done and what hasn't.

And no, I don't believe in Karma.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#709

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
I would like to replace the word universe with existence and the word God with Observer. I am more comfortable that way.

That would give me 2 possibilities:

Existence + Observer
Existence - Observer

Could there be existence without an observer? I haven't seen anything in science or philosophy that would say otherwise so for now I would like to go with the supposition that existence is impossible without an observer.

if existence implies observer then no observer would mean no existence. So that would rule out my second possibility for me.

But do you define the observer to be conscious only? Or particles can be observer too? If that, your questions boils to can nothing exist? That's what I said in one of my posts too. If nothing is there, can there be existence? Can "nothing" exist or something has always existed? What is "nothing"?

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 12 years ago

#710

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Like with everything else we could get really technical (and talk about Euclidean space, Minkowski space, tensor fields etc) or dumb it down to everyday language.

If you go by GR, space( or space-time) is a continuum and if you go by QM, it is (probably) discrete.

Whatever it is, at big bang, space was infinitely bent. The assumption is that it "fell" on itself!

So something must have caused space to fall on itself and get all bent out of shape.

So we have gravity bending space to an infinitesimal point and (possibly) dark energy almost flattening space to near infinity. It's a tussle between these two. Gravity is attractive and dark energy is repulsive. Since we did have a big bang it would mean that at least once in the past gravity won the battle or so it seems.

Whether space is "made of" some kind of substance is unknown. I came across really weird terms like quantum foam when reading about space.

I don't even know if we are "on" space or "in" space, if you know what I mean.

Those are all interesting questions. Does singularity physically exists? I mean our models fail to explain what it is actually like at such a small scale.

And yeah, what exactly is space? And isn't space foam proposed due to uncertainty? That smoothness cannot be achieved at such small scales, that there should be varying geometry? But why does it seem "smooth" at large scales?

I space a real "thing"? Because how can matter be there if space is "something" occupying space. That came out strange but I hope you know what I mean.

Quote

1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 ... 117

Top