My Crisis: Is my God really not real?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Sure, if you know God is real and yet you don't have a problem with Evolution.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the Bible. You believe a theory external to the Bible rather than something in the Bible and therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible is open to interpretation, despite there being no evidence within any canonical scripture that this is the case and everything points to exactly the opposite of your implication of being a 'guideline', just so that you can pick and choose? Riiiight.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

My question is, though...why does it matter how God chose to make the earth? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not it took 6 days, 6 millenia, or 6 billion years?

From a personal standpoint, the whole argument over the creation of the universe boils down to knowing whether or not it's possible for us to exist without the intervention of any sort of "God" figure. Speaking from personal experience (raised Catholic), it's much simpler (no offense to you) when you're handed a Bible in religion class when you're 7 years old or whatever, and told "here's how the world was created". I'm not even sure if I can explain why arguing this would be important to an atheist, but just take my word for it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

There's also the point of basic science.
Let's put Tam's argument into other scientific scenarios:

My question is, though...why does it matter how fast the speed of light is? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not it is one mile, sixty miles, or a billion miles per hour?

My question is, though...why does it matter how redshift explains the expansion of the universe? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not it is expanding, contracting, or stays the same?

My question is, though...why does it matter how many forces are in the universe? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force are different?

My question is, though...why does it matter if black holes are more than a mathematical hypothetical? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not they are relevant in Einstein's theories?

My question is, though...why does it matter how humans developed language? How does it affect my daily life? Why should I care whether or not it created our consciousness or became merely a tool of it?

[Magila]

Good job Jillian, that's what i want.
Ignore what i wrote in my previous post.

I'll just ignore the name calling, since i know that this conversation makes your blood boil, and it just proves my point on atheists.

I'd like to Extend everything i wrote into a more explained way.

Pointing out some of the main false beliefs of Atheism they each one of them differ in opinions, so the main opinions i heard are those:

1. That the universe is " immortal ".
2. That the Matter is " Immortal " falsely giving it the nature of the creator.
3. Creating from " Nothing ".
4. That the universe created itself.

First, The immortality of the universe has been proven wrong, every moment the universe is experiencing changes, incidents, which proves that it's not stable.

Second, The immortality of Matter, this belief is only available in the minds of the atheists, Marx pointed that out.

At the start Atheism pointed out that this matter was the planets and stars around us, Then they pointed out that it's the base that those planets are made of, from Iron to Hydrogen, Then they found out that those base materials ( not sure if that's the right name ), consisted of Atoms, So they pointed out that Atoms are Immortal matter, then they found out that the atom consists of Electrons, protons, and Neutrons, Then found out that those three are made of Quark's, And now they are considering the Quark as the Immortal Matter they believe in, I'll just give them some time when they find out what Quark's are made of, then they will change their mind again.

Then those Quark's Transform into energy, which means that they change, and transform, and that does not go well with the belief of ( matter is immortal ).

Which clearly proves to me and to any one who has a brain that they are just throwing Facts blindly, which means there is no proof that the Matter will not end, as in not being Mortal.

Example :

A human dies, His body substance keeps transforming into another shape/substance of matter, since the change of those structures of matter, it means that matter fades away.

And so you don't nerdRage at me pointing out the Law of Conservation of Matter

the conservation of the amount of matter, did not mean it also changes its shape, structure, and nature, which just points out that matter is not immortal.

Example #2 :

when you burn 1kg of Coal, the ash might be 400grams, the weight difference has been transformed into energy, which came out of the reaction betwixt the carbo-organic matter inside the coal after the incinerating, hence the amount of matter did not disappear but that showed that the matter is not never ending, the primary components of the coal transformed into energy.


Third, Creation from nothing, which you deny.
After the discovery of the big bang theory, the chance of randomly creating a human is far more less then seeing a monkey hitting on a keyboard then you find out that he wrote a Novel for Howard Philips.

Here i wanted to point out what you did not understand in what i meant by mentioning the thermodynamics law, or maybe i even explained it wrong in the previous post...

Is that the Universe ( matter ) cannot be immortal, if it's not immortal and it will eventually die out, means that it had a start ( creation ), As you know in that law, Heat moves from High Temp. To Low temp. by its nature, and the opposite cannot and will never happen.

And to point out an example on this : if we put a hot object, and a cold object to each other, the Heat from the hot one will move to the cold one until both are stabilized, and it is impossible that the opposite will happen.


which means the universe keeps changing so that all objects have a state of balance where all energy amounts are the same, And in the day where this universe we know comes to an end, you won't see this stabilization anymore, there won't be any physical or chemical reactions anymore ( balance here means there will not be any more reactions in matter ).

since we still see reactions both physical and chemical til this day ( that's what i meant in my previous post ), means that the universe ( matter ) is not immortal, it will all end, of we did not see any reactions there won't have been life anymore, matter would've died out if it Reached the state of balance.

Continued later.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Let me stop you right there.
You're arguing our of your own assumptions. That's bullshit.

Atheists don't believe that "the universe is immortal" for instance. Stop trying to argue what WE believe out of what YOU believe.
The only thing that's true of what you said is that the universe began by itself, argue that, not your red herrings.

[PortraitOfSanity]

I don't even know where he dug some of that up.

[Magila]

So, you agree that the universe is not immortal ? good, that means it will end, a thing that ends, starts somewhere, logic.

Who started it ? that's my question.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's not logic. Prove to me that something that ends has to have a beginning. Otherwise, don't try to tell a logician what is logic and what is not.

[Magila]

Saying that something has no start but has an end is insane.
Saying that something has a start and no end is insane.

I really hope you are not offended or gaining hate towards me, it's not what i want, not at all.

I am interested in what you believe exactly, could you please tell me ?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Magila

Saying that something has no start but has an end is insane.
Saying that something has a start and no end is insane.

You have made a positive claim, now you have to back it up. Why is it insane?

[Raptor]

You are arguing why you think physics is wrong.

Anyway some basic points:

Matter doesn't have to be conserved, energy does. Matter is a form energy can take. So nobody is saying it's immortal.

Heat death of the universe, if it happens, doesn't actually mean there is nothing. It means there's no way to do work. It would result in the end of all life and reactions but leave a uniform "sea" of matter in equilibrium.

The Big Bang is not an explosion as such, the name is misleading. I believe it was named by people who had an alternative theory at the time. This theory doesn't work with the microwave background, leaving the Big Bang as the current leading theory.

At the start Atheism pointed out that this matter was the planets and stars around us, Then they pointed out that it's the base that those planets are made of, from Iron to Hydrogen, Then they found out that those base materials ( not sure if that's the right name ), consisted of Atoms, So they pointed out that Atoms are Immortal matter, then they found out that the atom consists of Electrons, protons, and Neutrons, Then found out that those three are made of Quark's, And now they are considering the Quark as the Immortal Matter they believe in, I'll just give them some time when they find out what Quark's are made of, then they will change their mind again.

Science does this, not atheism. And yes scientists change their minds as new evidence comes along, rather than ignoring it.

[Magila]

Heat death of the universe, if it happens, doesn't actually mean there is nothing. It means there's no way to do work. It would result in the end of all life and reactions but leave a uniform "sea" of matter in equilibrium.

Indeed when it ends it will just leave a balance " sea " of matter, but as i explained that it " will " reach that balance some day, which means there was a creator who made it build itself like this in the first place, i am telling this because most of the atheists i talked with said that matters nature is to become more complex, hence creating life, but they do not believe in the fact that it will end.

I still can't see how you deny a creator that made matter and life, and yet you acknowledge that it will end.

You have made a positive claim, now you have to back it up. Why is it insane?

It's either a Circle or a Line, Circles go back their Starting point, hence no start and no end and nothing in the middle.

A line starts somewhere, and ends somewhere.

i can't find any other way to explain it to you.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Magila

i can't find any other way to explain it to you.

Because it's not really an explanation. You're just saying "this is as it is because it is as it is"
You're not proving that you're actually right.
Thinking that things don't need a beginning (such as the universe, as time only exists WITHIN the universe) is insane is not really saying much.

It also sounds insane that someone miles from earth experiences time faster than us. That time has a different speed depending on altitude? That's insane!
Yet it's true, empirically proved and mathematically explained.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Magila

Indeed when it ends it will just leave a balance " sea " of matter, but as i explained that it " will " reach that balance some day

It's assumed that it will. If k turns out to be > 0 then it won't and the universe will contract instead.

Originally Posted by Magila

which means there was a creator who made it build itself like this in the first place

Why does "the universe will end" mean that there had to be a creator? It leaves the possibility for one, but it's not proof.

Originally Posted by Magila

i am telling this because most of the atheists i talked with said that matters nature is to become more complex, hence creating life, but they do not believe in the fact that it will end.

Because nature is not a closed system, and therefore can become more complex.

[Magila]

It cannot become more complex since it is ending, reaching balance.

I'd like to point this out : You can't prove that god is not there, but neither i can prove that your philosophy is right, the only way to prove that there is god, is something supernatural, since humans won't believe in anything that is natural being supreme, for example, if god came down to earth, people would've seen him with their eyes, touched him, which means, he is matter, and matter cannot be god.

I won't be bothered to discuss this anymore, because philosophers never agree on anything, like the topic where that guy made about China not being real, bring him million proofs and he still won't believe you that china is real, i can safely say same goes with a creator.

Just one thing i ask, Don't give up searching for truth, even if you did not find it ( not saying even i did ), at least when your time has come to an end you made some progress and satisfied some of your curiosity.

Have a nice weekend everyone.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Magila

I'd like to point this out : You can't prove that god is not there, but neither i can prove that your philosophy is right, the only way to prove that there is god, is something supernatural, since humans won't believe in anything that is natural being supreme, for example, if god came down to earth, people would've seen him with their eyes, touched him, which means, he is matter, and matter cannot be god.

We should believe in Him because we cannot prove that He is not there and the fact that we have not seen Him is a shining endorsement of his existence because we will never, ever see any evidence of Him since that would mean that He is not a god? Therefore, the only logical thing is to keep on believing in a ridiculously overwrought and unverifiable fairytale?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Magila

It cannot become more complex since it is ending, reaching balance.

Yes it can. Overall, in the long term entropy will increase. But here and now is not a closed system.

Originally Posted by Magila

I'd like to point this out : You can't prove that god is not there, but neither i can prove that your philosophy is right, the only way to prove that there is god, is something supernatural, since humans won't believe in anything that is natural being supreme, for example, if god came down to earth, people would've seen him with their eyes, touched him, which means, he is matter, and matter cannot be god.

Religion is not science.

[Magila]

of course Religion is not science but Science based on proven theories does not contradict with religion, even many theories just prove many things written in ancient holy texts already.

JCC, no body forced any one to believe in god, believe in what your minds see's that is true.

[Methadrine]

So if god created the universe, who created the god?

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

I remember when turning water into wine and returning back to life after being dead as a doorknob was in the realm of science.

[Magila]

Originally Posted by Methadrine

So if god created the universe, who created the god?

You can't base facts on a creator based on a creation.


any way, after Jillian asked me to prove that there is a start to a thing that has an end, i decided to drop this subject.

bye

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Magila

You can't base facts on a creator based on a creation.


any way, after Jillian asked me to prove that there is a start to a thing that has an end, i decided to drop this subject.

bye

So you don't know who created god?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

I remember when turning water into wine and returning back to life after being dead as a doorknob was in the realm of science.

Well that's just more fun.

Originally Posted by Magila

of course Religion is not science but Science based on proven theories does not contradict with religion, even many theories just prove many things written in ancient holy texts already.

I don't know about that. But even if it was true, proving some things in a text isn't proof for a creator anyway. And lack of disproof doesn't make for proof.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

I remember when turning water into wine and returning back to life after being dead as a doorknob was in the realm of science.

I won the science fair in grade nine for my "Turning a rod into a serpent" demonstration.

[Drake Dun]

Bravo, guys. You sent our little friend away with his tail between his legs before I could even start on the job.

Originally Posted by Magila

you " are " actually stupid.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well you're a dirty poopy-pants. I'm telling my daddy on you. My daddy can rip a phone book in half with his hands.

I was expecting to write a point by point rebuttal of what this guy had to say, but then I actually read what he had to say. It's far too beautiful an example of batshit crazy creationism for me to go spoiling it with a rebuttal. So instead, the Evil International Atheist Conspiracy submits for your reading pleasure the following thigh-slapper highlights!

...God mentioned the Big Bang.

In short : If Any closed system is left without a mover it will reach instability and collapse with time.
So that pretty much sums up, if there was no mover ( no god ) then we would probably have collapsed and every thing went off balance in this universe, for example whole planets will no longer rotate in a balanced way, gravity will go random, every thing which is called matter will mulfunction.

That is fucking awesome. Call Hollywood.

Do you know how stupid is it to believe that each movement, each balanced atom is randomly moving every day that passes every second since million of years just out of random Entropy ?

And don't you worry, that book has day by day written sources of the people who copied it til this day, which just shows me there were no change in it.

Lolz. But the real triumph was this part:

here you go : the chance that this universe was randomly created is 1 divided by (10^10^123 ) which means 1/12300, which mathematically known that it equals ZERO.

It takes genuine talent to cram that many errors into so few words. And to compound it, while trying to correct it with this!:

Yeah, i acknowledge that as my bad, being stupid, it's 1 by ( 10^10^123 ). that's it, and mathematically does equal Zero.
I am not that good with translating math to English.

Pure FSTDT material. But on a more serious note:

If my god was a blood lusted creator wanting death to humanity, i would still bow before him because he is my creator, so don't bring in the love, freedom of choice subjects next.

This is the only thing I actually like about fundies. The point blank honesty. Kudos for that.

For the record:

1) Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, rejection of belief in gods, or belief that there are no gods, depending on who you ask. It pre-dates science. It has nothing to do with scientific theories in cosmology, geology, biology, or whatever other entire field of knowledge the creationists have decided is a big international plot against them this week. When you take a piss on the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution, or whatever, you're taking a piss on science.

2) If you want to understand the second law of thermodynamics, I have a bold proposal: learn about it. It's simple enough that you can do it as a layman, and it works better than making shit up. Although to be fair, our friend actually came pretty close to a correct description of it at one unusually lucid moment in all that shizophrenic raving. Somewhere out there there's a creationist screed writer who once actually put "second law of thermodynamics" into Wikipedia. Well, okay. Conservapedia.

3) If you want to understand the big bang, abiogenesis, carbon dating, evolution, or anything else in science, the solution is to learn about it. It works better than making shit up.

4) Fine tuning.

What our mathematically challenged creationist was clubbing blindly away at with his snarled "calculation" is what's known as the "fine tuning argument". The idea is that if you were to change any of the fundamental characteristics of our world even a little - say by diddling with the value of the force of gravity, the result would be a universe unsuitable for life. This is supposed to prove that our universe is "fine tuned" for the purpose of life. It's the only thing in his posts which is also echoed in intelligent apologism, and it's worth a brief response.

What actually underlies the order of our universe is still anybody's guess, and it's disingenuous to pretend that we can necessarily treat things like the force of gravity as randomly assigned constants. We may find out that they are exactly that, but it's not something we know now. But the deeper problem is that the fine tuning argument relies upon bogus hindsight reconstruction.

Grab thirty six-sided dice and throw them. Write down the result. You are looking at a result with a probability (using non-creationist mathematics) of:

1/221,073,919,720,733,357,899,776

By freak cooincidence, this is also the exact probability of George Bush's claim that history will venerate him as an excellent president bearing out. Now, does this very small number (which does not equal 0, in case you're wondering) prove that you are God? Well, I'm guessing you didn't scream "HALLELUJAH IT'S A MIRACLE!" after you rolled the dice. So the answer is no. It doesn't even prove that you're intelligent. A cat could have done that.

Now, what would be impressive? What would be impressive is if you wrote down the result before you rolled, and then the dice came up in perfect accordance with what you had written. We are not in this second situation with the question of life. We are in the first situation. We are coming along after the fact - very, very late in the picture actually, and shouting "HALLELUJAH IT'S A MIRACLE!" because we are so shockingly anthropocentric that it doesn't even occur to us that we, as a result, are not somehow special among the many equally unlikely results.

If you still can't see the error, try this thought experiment. Pick any phenomenon in the universe. I like to use Mimas. Now apply the fine tuning argument to Mimas, and notice that it works just as well for proving that God made the universe because he's a Star Wars fan as it does for proving that God made the universe so that some Russian kid could embarass himself by botching simple arithmetic while accusing people of stupidity. Reflect on that and hopefully you'll see the problem.

Meanwhile the actual facts of our universe positively scream its indifference to anyone with open eyes. It's been around for 13,700,000,000 years or so. Modern humans have been kicking around for about 200,000. That's a difference of five orders of magnitude. Look at space instead of time, and you see the same thing. A whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with us, and our pale blue dot, tiny, isolated... All of it points to our painfully clear lack of priviledge, and it's no cooincidence that there is a direct relationship between how religious a person is and their inability to accept many of these facts, not to mention hostility toward science. Science is anathema to religion, because it has a nasty habit of showing us the world as it is, which frequently differs from our wishful myths about it.

Here is some cool stuff on YouTube which conveys the impression very effectively. If you're used to a solipsistic perspective on life, they may terrify you. But if you're mature enough to get past that, I promise you beauty of magnitude to inspire genuine utterances of awe. Especially Sagan. I've cried more than once listening to Sagan.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=dvTe1-a6Pdo
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=I34FNr_peUk
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

If you can watch those and conclude that all of this was made by design just for humanity, I really don't know what to tell you. On the other side of things, you'll see comments from atheists taking what looks to me like perverse sado-masochistic pleasure in stressing how "insignificant" we are. I think this is missing the point, but that's a topic for another time.

Right, I'm off to submit some creationist math to FSTDT.