There Is No God

[Overcame Faith]

I hear thunder, therefore I know Thor lives. I even have a picture of him.

 

[Mriana]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

[Mriana]

Oh that sounded so gay! I love cats though.

[Crazy Donna]

Oh that sounded so gay! I love cats though.

I love how cats manifest their godly abilities by physically expanding to take up four times their original body space whenever they get onto bed with you. Oh, and apparently it's 'their' bed. How can anyone deny their divinity, when faced with this physics defying talent?

 

*Takes painkiller to relieve severe case of Cat Neck, caused by sleeping around a cat who commandeered the pillow last night.*

[Mriana]

Oh that sounded so gay! I love cats though.

I love how cats manifest their godly abilities by physically expanding to take up four times their original body space whenever they get onto bed with you. Oh, and apparently it's 'their' bed. How can anyone deny their divinity, when faced with this physics defying talent?

 

*Takes painkiller to relieve severe case of Cat Neck, caused by sleeping around a cat who commandeered the pillow last night.*

 

Oh yes! I have three and I have to contort my body some nights. Not only that, Mr. Suga'Ray loves to be on the pillow. He's a pillow hog, so much so that I had to buy a second pillow and I have a twin bed! It now looks like two people sleep in that twin bed, but at least he's figured out that one pillow is his and the other is mine. So... I have one on my left, one on my right and one at my feet. I don't need two on each side, just one. So they are better watching over me while I sleep than angels, because it only takes one to guard me on each side.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I hear thunder, therefore I know Thor lives. I even have a picture of him.

 

Yeah! He's who struck down the idol of "touchdown Jesus"

[Mriana]

Well, OK Thor is a god who helps Bast sometimes, but only because Bast doesn't want to get wet trying and Thor has the power to create fire.

[Overcame Faith]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

 

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

[Mriana]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

 

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

 

I am not certain, but I think Bast is not only a house deity, but also a fertility deity. So of course she's going to show some if not a lot of breast.

[Overcame Faith]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

 

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

 

I am not certain, but I think Bast is not only a house deity, but also a fertility deity. So of course she's going to show some if not a lot of breast.

 

She seems perfectly qualified to be admitted into my pantheon of deities.

[Mriana]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

 

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

 

I am not certain, but I think Bast is not only a house deity, but also a fertility deity. So of course she's going to show some if not a lot of breast.

 

She seems perfectly qualified to be admitted into my pantheon of deities.

 

Go for it. Become a Bast-ian. Cats are very wonderful creatures and I'm sure your new goddess will be no different. She might even purr you to sleep at night.

[Overcame Faith]

No, no! Thor doesn't exist, but Bast does. I know because I see all these regal cats around me and they remember when they were considered gods. They haven't forgotten it either.

 

See how regal and beautiful she is? How could you not worship Bast? How can you resist hugging, petting, and kissing her? What a wonderful kitty goddess.

 

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

 

I am not certain, but I think Bast is not only a house deity, but also a fertility deity. So of course she's going to show some if not a lot of breast.

 

She seems perfectly qualified to be admitted into my pantheon of deities.

 

Go for it. Become a Bast-ian. Cats are very wonderful creatures and I'm sure your new goddess will be no different. She might even purr you to sleep at night.

 

Sounds purrrrfect.

 

Actually, I love cats and think they are fantastic little animals.

 

Edited to add: I saw a national geographic special on dogs and another one on cats. They said that ancient people brought dogs into their lives, but that cats brought people into their lives. I laughed when I heard that because it seems so true of cats.

[Mriana]

 

 

Well, I have to admit that I can appreciate any goddess who shows her breasts.

 

Sounds purrrrfect.

 

Actually, I love cats and think they are fantastic little animals.

 

Edited to add: I saw a national geographic special on dogs and another one on cats. They said that ancient people brought dogs into their lives, but that cats brought people into their lives. I laughed when I heard that because it seems so true of cats.

 

Well then, may Bast bless you and keep you. Now take good care of Bast and go in peace.

[concerned agnostic]

Why hasn't any "Christian" tried to answer this question yet?

 

Could it be because they cannot??

 

"Faith" is not an answer. I want to know why I should have faith to begin with...because a centuries--old book says so?? If that is the best answer that a "Christian" can come up with, then I guess I have drawn the right conclusions about "God".

[LNC]

Trade involves contributions between TWO people. Im not interested in entertaining you with mental gymnastics. I may be dumb but thats just a dumber

 

So, are you saying that you are not willing to pull your side of the evidential equation? You claimed that somehow science and Occam's razor help your argument, but are unwilling to say how. That would be called an ungrounded assertion and that means that you still haven't backed up your first assertion that God doesn't exist. You have to give me more to work with than tossing out words like science and terms like Occam's razor.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning. Could not the universe be a "self caused" cause as dan dennett once put it.

 

This vids is not 100 percent relevant to this thread but(the relevant points in these that are stated better then I could state them), and they have some details that I think are relevant to what your saying LNC and I would like to hear your thoughts the relevant points

 

It's funny that Vic Stenger has debated Craig not once, but twice and in neither occasion did he challenge Craig on these points. You would think that in a face-to-face debate he would want to take Craig apart on these very issues that Craig presented in the debate, but he didn't. I wonder why he is willing to talk this way in this forum, but not willing to present evidence against Craig's position when they are in the debate.

 

On your point regarding matter being destroyed, it doesn't mean that it cannot have been created. In fact, the leading theory is that the universe came into existence (all matter, space, and time). If the universe was past eternal, then you have a problem in explaining why the universe is not a cold, lifeless existence due to the effects of entropy. Matter cannot be created or destroyed within the universe, it says nothing about matter coming into existence with the universe. That is a common error that people make.

 

Stenger makes false statements about the singularity. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin showed in their research that the singularity cannot be avoided based upon our current understanding of physics. Their research is much more recent than the statements to which Stenger refers from Hawking. Hawking's model itself does not avoid a beginning to the universe, he simply tries to smooth out the beginning rather than making it start at a single point. However, to accomplish this he uses imaginary numbers and when they are converted back to real numbers he does not avoid the singularity. I am surprised that Stenger makes these statements as he does not address the latest findings, but rather appeals to research that is decades old. Research that doesn't even make his point.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

The point I was trying to make via the last hawking vid,(I think I could state it a tad better now) was if we don't know what happened before the big bang, then, how is the issue with entropy solvable. If we don't know what the matter that was around before the big bang(remember the mantra said by apologists,"something can't come from nothing")was doing or how long that matter existed. How can the issue you raise be of any substance.

[LNC]

Im going to start on this one because its the most fun [i will reply to the others for sure by tomorrow].

 

The universe could be expanding on a bell curve, and as the full force of the explosion declines-- mass will attract mass.

 

I assume that you have evidence for this theory? It goes against everything that we are observing. As I said, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, not a decreasing rate as one might expect if it was climbing a bell curve.

 

Entropy is often misunderstood and its primary purpose is for practical use not big picture theory. So what? I burn wood and the energy goes from wood to ash and does not retain the same amount of energy. The important part is that nothing was truly destroyed [it was only seperated]. All of the mass, including every single atom, still does exist. That mass still carries the same gravity and or polarity. This means when the Big Crunch comes it will restore the same amount of energy because the energy is stored in the attraction of the mass and none of the mass has been lost.

 

Entropy means that energy goes from a usable to an unusable state. It does not have anything really to do with mass. Still, given an infinitely old universe the universe should be in a state of heat death unless you know of some way of creating a perpetual motion machine. I see no evidence of a Big Crunch happening as the universe is increasing in its expansion rate, not decreasing. Here are a couple of articles that you may want to read as your Big Crunch theory is a theory that is losing followers as we learn more about the expansion of the universe.

 

The End of the Universe - big crunch or big bang?

Here is one where Andre Linde argues for a Big Crunch but says that it will not bounce or recreate another universe. In fact, he says that calculations that were done in support of such a model were filled with mistakes. So, even if your Big Crunch theory is true, it does nothing to prove that the universe is past eternal or future eternal.

 

I would also like to point out that there could be many little Big Bangs going on like a boiling pot. All the mass doesn't get collected into one corner. It pools into many areas and collects until detonation. This is why there are so many black holes. They are mini-big crunches amassing themselves [and eventually absorb eachother].

 

Time does not exist friend. It is an illusion. There is only now and movement. Time is a man made measurement of that movement using absolute concepts. We happen to use the earths rotation and laps around the sun. There is no "then" floating around somewhere. There is only now and movement, so there is no problem with time because it is only a concept-- it does not exist.

 

The only problem with this theory is that we have absolutely no evidence of other Big Bangs or other universes, it is all speculation. So, as long as you realize that this position is a metaphysical position rather than a scientific position, you are fine to hold it as such. However, you cannot present it as a scientific position since there is no observational data to back it up.

 

OK, so time does not exist for you, again, that is a non-scientific statement, a philosophical statement that defies our observation and intuitions. If time is an illusion, then you cannot use terms like "now" as that is a time-based observation. It has to be measured against past and future to determine what now is. If there is movement, why cannot we say that movement happened in the past? If you say that the past is illusion, then you have discounted knowledge since all past knowledge would be illusion as well. You would have to continue retesting and reconfirming theories since anything tested and confirmed in the "past" would be illusion. The other problem is that now you would also have to prove that movement itself was not an illusion since movement happens in time. No, your statement goes against scientific and philosophical understanding and you will end up a nihilist by pursuing such an idea.

 

You also say, it is only a concept and therefore doesn't exist. Does that mean that concepts themselves are illusory to you? Numbers are concepts, as is logic, are they too are illusory? If so, then your whole argument is moot as it relies both of these "concepts."

 

LNC

[LNC]

I was thinking the same thing as you, but then I realized that a bell curve accelerates at the edge.

 

His argument is not that it's a inverted parabola, but a bell curve with the >1 slope tangents at the fringe. If the universe expansion/contraction would follow a bell curve, we would have an increasing rate of expansion at the moment. Until some force (perhaps dark matter will overcome dark energy at some point, no one really knows), and it starts to slow down, and then eventually contract. At the moment, no one can really say for sure if this is impossible or not.

 

I guess that is theoretically possible, however, the Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang theory still faces significant challenges as there would not be sufficient usable energy to re-expand the universe following the crunch. We are not exactly sure what dark energy is, but it apparently has observational effects on the expansion of the universe. I am still dubious of this explanation for multiple reasons, including the fact that the subsequent inflation would require a completely different set of physical laws than what we observe. It doesn't end up with a past eternal universe for many reasons, these being some of them. I posted some articles and in one, Andre Linde says that the oscillating model based on these ideas has many mistakes in its calculations and even though he holds to a Big Crunch, for him, that is the end of the universe into a singularity from which it never expands again.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning.

Sorry to butt in here, but I hear this a lot and unfortunately it's wrong.

 

Matter CAN be destroyed. A nuclear explosion actually reduces matter. So does a nuclear reactor.

 

The "matter can't be destroyed" is a mantra from chemistry. You can't destroy matter through a pure (traditional) chemical process.

 

But you can through a nuclear process.

 

What can't be destroyed is energy.

 

You're right and I should have stated it that way in my previous post as well. Thanks for clarifying.

 

LNC

[Mriana]

I was thinking the same thing as you, but then I realized that a bell curve accelerates at the edge.

 

His argument is not that it's a inverted parabola, but a bell curve with the >1 slope tangents at the fringe. If the universe expansion/contraction would follow a bell curve, we would have an increasing rate of expansion at the moment. Until some force (perhaps dark matter will overcome dark energy at some point, no one really knows), and it starts to slow down, and then eventually contract. At the moment, no one can really say for sure if this is impossible or not.

 

I guess that is theoretically possible, however, the Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang theory still faces significant challenges as there would not be sufficient usable energy to re-expand the universe following the crunch. We are not exactly sure what dark energy is, but it apparently has observational effects on the expansion of the universe. I am still dubious of this explanation for multiple reasons, including the fact that the subsequent inflation would require a completely different set of physical laws than what we observe. It doesn't end up with a past eternal universe for many reasons, these being some of them. I posted some articles and in one, Andre Linde says that the oscillating model based on these ideas has many mistakes in its calculations and even though he holds to a Big Crunch, for him, that is the end of the universe into a singularity from which it never expands again.

 

LNC

 

Well the idea of a god existing faces bigger challenges than The Big Bang/Crunch theory, because it is not scientific. I could prove the Big Bang theory easier than I could prove a god exists, despite it's challenges. Although I must admit, JW could have phrased his opening statement in which to challenge you better. However, you would have better luck proving there was a Big Bang than proving a god exists. Therefore, my first statement of "I've got nothing" still stands, because no one has anything in which to prove a god, any god, exists and that is the whole point of the thread. He is asking for evidence that your god or any other god exists. In fact, I could prove 0 faster than I could prove a god. Even a mathematician could prove 0 exists easier than s/he could prove a god exists.

[J.W.]

Trade involves contributions between TWO people. Im not interested in entertaining you with mental gymnastics. I may be dumb but thats just a dumber

 

So, are you saying that you are not willing to pull your side of the evidential equation? You claimed that somehow science and Occam's razor help your argument, but are unwilling to say how. That would be called an ungrounded assertion and that means that you still haven't backed up your first assertion that God doesn't exist. You have to give me more to work with than tossing out words like science and terms like Occam's razor.

 

LNC

 

I did present a theory that did not require god, the first cause, or a magical it out there.

 

Stated again Mass and attraction period. Thats all there is, and I don't think matter can be destroyed. It probably depends on what you call matter-- but I contend that there is a physical substance that can not be destroyed. You can mash it into hot plasma, or a liquid like substance, you can change its shape, you can compress it to a certain point, BUT-- it never, never, never goes away and has always been there. Before you refute that I would like to ask you to prove to me that God has always been there. I say matter and attraction [really simple]. You say a very complex, immaterial, all powerful, all good, all knowing God that has always been there. Occams Razor that-- mine is much simpler and makes sense.

 

By the way I am a Nihilist. Not that a label would disprove a theory as you later insinuate. My philosophy has nothing to do with whether the theory is correct.

[J.W.]

 

 

Entropy means that energy goes from a usable to an unusable state. It does not have anything really to do with mass.

 

It has everything to do with mass. Roll with this. Energy primarily comes from movement-- movement from polarity, attraction, and repulsion-- polarity is a property of the mass its self. So mass attracts mass, makes mass move, creates energy-- that can be applied to the universe. A cycles between big bang and big crunch.

 

The reason we have not created a perpetual moving machine its that is requires a zero sum. It requires everything [all mass]. We can build a machine but it needs to work against gravitational forces much larger than itself. A car pushes against the gravity of the whole earth. The universe is a perpetual machine. The fact we are here is proof of it. It boils down to something existing forever-- you say complex being and I say matter.

 

If something did not exist forever than it has to come from nothing. That is not proven anywhere

 

So lets go over the possibilities [feel free to add some]

 

1. A very complex God existed forever and created everything

2. Matter existed forever and goes through cycles of expand and contract

3. Stuff just appears and disappears all over the place

 

 

[scratches head] Um number 2

[J.W.]

 

OK, so time does not exist for you, again, that is a non-scientific statement, a philosophical statement that defies our observation and intuitions. If time is an illusion, then you cannot use terms like "now" as that is a time-based observation. It has to be measured against past and future to determine what now is. If there is movement, why cannot we say that movement happened in the past? If you say that the past is illusion, then you have discounted knowledge since all past knowledge would be illusion as well. You would have to continue retesting and reconfirming theories since anything tested and confirmed in the "past" would be illusion. The other problem is that now you would also have to prove that movement itself was not an illusion since movement happens in time. No, your statement goes against scientific and philosophical understanding and you will end up a nihilist by pursuing such an idea.

 

You also say, it is only a concept and therefore doesn't exist. Does that mean that concepts themselves are illusory to you? Numbers are concepts, as is logic, are they too are illusory? If so, then your whole argument is moot as it relies both of these "concepts."

 

LNC

 

Time is an illusion. So is math. There is no perfect number 1's just floating around everywhere. It is an abstract concept created to define and measure this world. You need something unmovable and unchangable to measure against.. and so the magic math. It is very useful, practical, and repeatable-- it doesn't mean its real. Abstract is not real. Our money moves the world [seems real], but its just paper and if enough of it is printed its worthless. It's only real because we agree to honor it. The same with time-- its practical and used to track previous movement but it is abstract. You will never be able to go back in time, because there is only now.

[Ouroboros]

I guess that is theoretically possible, however, the Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang theory still faces significant challenges as there would not be sufficient usable energy to re-expand the universe following the crunch.

I'm not sure about that being a problem since all energy would be once again gathered in one spot. But in some sense I do agree. I'm not all convinced about the Big Crunch, but mostly because of the increasing expansion rate, rather than loss of energy after a crunch.

 

We are not exactly sure what dark energy is, but it apparently has observational effects on the expansion of the universe. I am still dubious of this explanation for multiple reasons, including the fact that the subsequent inflation would require a completely different set of physical laws than what we observe. It doesn't end up with a past eternal universe for many reasons, these being some of them.

And I won't argue about the "Past Eternal" Universe. I have my views, and I'm not going to go that direction of discussion again.

 

I posted some articles and in one, Andre Linde says that the oscillating model based on these ideas has many mistakes in its calculations and even though he holds to a Big Crunch, for him, that is the end of the universe into a singularity from which it never expands again.

If there's not enough energy to inflate the universe after a crunch, then there's not enough energy to crunch it to begin with.

 

Think of the inflation/crunch as a pendulum, but a pendulum suspended and swinging in a non-friction environment. If it swings from point A to point B, then back to point A, what has chanced that it can't once again swing to point B?

 

The thoughts that all energy collected after a crunch wouldn't be "enough" to inflate the universe again looks like an attempt to apply classical physics (with loss of energy, friction, heat loss, etc) unto the physics of a Universe. I don't believe it can. The laws are different.

 

Like you said, we don't know what dark matter or dark energy is (which btw are two different things), so how can we say that there won't be this or that if A or B? We don't know enough to make absolute statements about how it works.