I just can't wrap my head around it

[Dan]

No theory is too crazy, I mean, the idea of space itself is as crazy as it gets...

I never called it crazy. I called it stupid. Like saying imagine if 1+1=3 and then proclaiming HOLY SHIT THAT'S ****ING AMAZING. THINK OF THE IMPLICATIONS!! I JUST BLEW MY MIND. That a set of interactions, other than what we know, can be described is pretty self evident and has absolutely zero implications for anything.

 

[No Limit]

Huh? What in the world makes you say they went to the same place you go when you die? Or that they went to nothing? No, they went somewhere. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, the atoms didn't just disappear as that isn't pysically possible as far as we understand physics. They went somewhere. That somewhere is another universe. How ****ing cool is that?

We can't see or interact with galaxies outside of our view because they are so far away the light will never reach us. But does that mean those galaxies don't exist? Of course they do. What an absurd argument to be making.

You seem really hostile to science and the arguments you are making could have been made throughout the history when it comes to things like magnetism, electrons, atoms, quarks, etc, etc, etc. In the old days people knew there was something funny about certain materials attracting each other but they didn't have the capability to understand it. If you were around back then you would have been making the argument that those forces don't actually exists because we can't see them and as a result we shouldn't give a shit.

Just because we can't directly see it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it. Great things have come from us understanding things we couldn't see.

 

[morgs]

No theory is too crazy, I mean, the idea of space itself is as crazy as it gets...

Oh sorry I should have made my post clearer, I wasn't really addressing anyone in general, it's just what I say to those who write off ideas as being too 'out there' or 'crazy' when it comes to space because let's face it, space is crazy as!

 

[Remus]

Well No Limit, you are a lot more patient than I am that's for sure.

To add to what you already said, I've also read that it's possible that there is actually interaction between universes, through the force of gravity.

 

[Dan]

Huh? What in the world makes you say they went to the same place you go when you die? Or that they went to nothing? No, they went somewhere. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, the atoms didn't just disappear as that isn't pysically possible as far as we understand physics. They went somewhere. That somewhere is another universe. How ****ing cool is that?

Well you just described atoms disappearing. You tell me, what is the difference between atoms suddenly ceasing to exist or interact with our universe, vanishing, and atoms going to their own universe and atoms going to a magical happy fun world of atom amusement rides? What can we measure that would tell us which of these hypothesis is true? What difference does it make which is true? If all outcomes have the same exact effect, then it is just as correct to say that they disappeared. So yes, because we can't see it (in any sense, not just visually), is exactly the definition of not existing.

We can't see or interact with galaxies outside of our view because they are so far away the light will never reach us. But does that mean those galaxies don't exist? Of course they do. What an absurd argument to be making.

Actually, we can see and interact with mass beyond the cosmic microwave background. We can see their gravitational impact on the most distant galaxies which we can see. But supposing that we could in no way see, interact with, sense or infer the presence of that mass, then yes that mass does not exist. That is the definition of not existing. Their could be a magical land of pink fluffy dinosaurs far beyond the edge of our galaxy that never interacts with us or sends light to us, or exerts any forces or fields on anything that we see, and it has absolutely no effect. That magical land therefore does not exist.

You seem really hostile to science and the arguments you are making could have been made throughout the history when it comes to things like magnetism, electrons, atoms, quarks, etc, etc, etc. In the old days people knew there was something funny about certain materials attracting each other but they didn't have the capability to understand it. If you were around back then you would have been making the argument that those forces don't actually exists because we can't see them and as a result we shouldn't give a shit.

Magnetism, electrons, atoms, have all been shown to have an impact on the universe. We can measure their impact. Their existence is inferred through their effect on the universe. You are talking about something which has by definition no effect on the universe. I am telling you that thing also by definition does not exist.

Just because we can't directly see it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it. Great things have come from us understanding things we couldn't see.

We can't see it, we can't indirectly see it, we can't relate it to anything. You might as well try to understand something you make up off the top of your head: Snirks are Snorks. All Snorks can ziggle. All Snirks can ziggle. Whoopdeedoo. I now understand something which does not exist and so do you.

 

[Dan]

Well No Limit, you are a lot more patient than I am that's for sure.

To add to what you already said, I've also read that it's possible that there is actually interaction between universes, through the force of gravity.

Then that is by definition not a separate universe. You don't seem to understand the concept of a completely self contained universe. It includes everything.

 

[No Limit]

Well you just described atoms disappearing. You tell me, what is the difference between atoms suddenly ceasing to exist or interact with our universe, vanishing, and atoms going to their own universe and atoms going to a magical happy fun world of atom amusement rides? What can we measure that would tell us which of these hypothesis is true? What difference does it make which is true? If all outcomes have the same exact effect, then it is just as correct to say that they disappeared. So yes, because we can't see it (in any sense, not just visually), is exactly the definition of not existing.

The difference is that the laws of physics tell us those atoms can't actually disappear. They must go somewhere. So when we measure that happening we are measuring multiple universes.

Actually, we can see and interact with mass beyond the cosmic microwave background. We can see their gravitational impact on the most distant galaxies which we can see. But supposing that we could in no way see, interact with, sense or infer the presence of that mass, then yes that mass does not exist. That is the definition of not existing. Their could be a magical land of pink fluffy dinosaurs far beyond the edge of our galaxy that never interacts with us or sends light to us, or exerts any forces or fields on anything that we see, and it has absolutely no effect. That magical land therefore does not exist.

Again, this is absolutely absurd. We are not talking about the microwave cosmic background left over from the big bang. We are talking about galaxies that are so far away we can't see them and we can't see their impact on anything in our visable universe. Does that mean those galaxies don't exist? Of course they do.

Magnetism, electrons, atoms, have all been shown to have an impact on the universe. We can measure their impact. Their existence is inferred through their effect on the universe. You are talking about something which has by definition no effect on the universe. I am telling you that thing also by definition does not exist.

You are absolutely right, they have all been shown to have an impact on the universe. But before that impact was shown people like you would have denied it's existance. If we infact lose matter in the LHC that will show that we can infact interact with multiple universes and that they exist.

You are saying that until we see something that something doesn't actually exist. What kind of crazy irrational thinking is that?

We can't see it, we can't indirectly see it, we can't relate it to anything. You might as well try to understand something you make up off the top of your head: Snirks are Snorks. All Snorks can ziggle. All Snirks can ziggle. Whoopdeedoo. I now understand something which does not exist and so do you.

What is the evidance behind anything you just said? You keep trying to suggest that science just makes this shit up. No, there is actual evidance behind everything science says. Jesus dude.

Then that is by definition not a separate universe. You don't seem to understand the concept of a completely self contained universe. It includes everything.

Again, you are hung up on the word "universe" and you don't have a good understanding of it. Your argument keeps boiling down to "if we can't see it it doesn't exist until we finally see it". And when we finally do see it it's all the same thing. That makes absolutely no sense. By your logic electrons didn't exist until we were able to see their effect. Gravity didn't exist until we knew what it was. Other planets didn't exist until we could finally see them.

 

[Asknoone]

The idea of ANYTHING appears from nothing, never mind something like the universe, I find absurd quite frankly. Take it how you will.

and because you find it "quite absurd" it's...what, what is it?

 

[Escaep]

I think that the outside of the universe is filled with yummy Velveeta Shells and Cheese.

 

[Dan]

The difference is that the laws of physics tell us those atoms can't actually disappear. They must go somewhere. So when we measure that happening we are measuring multiple universes.

That isn't a difference in the result. You haven't actually answered the question. Tell me, how would you know the difference between an atom doing the supposedly impossible, disappearing, and an atom doing something else equally impossible, teleporting to another universe. How can you tell the difference? How do you say with certainty that this atom did not in fact disappear into nothingness, it in fact went to another universe? What would prove to you that the atom is in another universe and still existing?

Again, this is absolutely absurd. We are not talking about the microwave cosmic background left over from the big bang. We are talking about galaxies that are so far away we can't see them and we can't see their impact on anything in our visable universe. Does that mean those galaxies don't exist? Of course they do.

No of course they don't. If they have no impact whatsoever, that would mean they never influenced the big bang, they never interacted with any matter. Those galaxies do not exist. You can never see them. You can never go out there and touch or sense them because they are further away in light years than the age of the universe. If by definition they have no interaction with our universe, then they by definition do not exist.

You are absolutely right, they have all been shown to have an impact on the universe. But before that impact was shown people like you would have denied it's existance. If we infact lose matter in the LHC that will show that we can infact interact with multiple universes and that they exist.

You are saying that until we see something that something doesn't actually exist. What kind of crazy irrational thinking is that?

The key difference is that what you are describing by its very definition does not interact with our universe. It is in a separate universe. A completely contained system of interactions. If we interact with another universe, then that is not another universe, it is still part of our universe.

I am not saying that it doesn't exist until we see it. I am saying if we can never see it or interact with it or have any impact from it, then it does not exist. If there is precisely 0 consequences as to whether something theoretical exists or not, then that thing does not exist. What do you think the definition of existence is? When you say something exists outside of the universe, what you are actually saying is that it does not exist.

What is the evidance behind anything you just said? You keep trying to suggest that science just makes this shit up. No, there is actual evidance behind everything science says. Jesus dude.

Again, you are hung up on the word "universe" and you don't have a good understanding of it. Your argument keeps boiling down to "if we can't see it it doesn't exist until we finally see it". And when we finally do see it it's all the same thing. That makes absolutely no sense. By your logic electrons didn't exist until we were able to see their effect. Gravity didn't exist until we knew what it was. Other planets didn't exist until we could finally see them.

Why do you keep using the word "see". Gravity certainly existed. Electrons certainly existed before we understood them. They both have very tangible effects and interactions with the universe. Gravity has always influenced our universe. What you are saying that there is something which by definition cannot ever have any tangible effect or interaction with the universe and saying that it exists. I would like to hear you define what it means for something to exist please.

 

[No Limit]

That isn't a difference in the result. You haven't actually answered the question. Tell me, how would you know the difference between an atom doing the supposedly impossible, disappearing, and an atom doing something else equally impossible, teleporting to another universe. How can you tell the difference? How do you say with certainty that this atom did not in fact disappear into nothingness, it in fact went to another universe? What would prove to you that the atom is in another universe and still existing?

I have answered your question. The laws of physics say that all energy must be conserved. If energy in a particle accelerator (for example) suddenly disappears then that energy had to go somewhere according to the laws of physics. If you don't agree with that you will have to prove Einstein wrong.

No of course they don't. If they have no impact whatsoever, that would mean they never influenced the big bang, they never interacted with any matter. Those galaxies do not exist. You can never see them. You can never go out there and touch or sense them because they are further away in light years than the age of the universe. If by definition they have no interaction with our universe, then they by definition do not exist.

The big bang did interact with them as the big bang created them. But again, you have no way of seeing them because their light will never reach us. You also can never get to them because you can't go faster than the speed of light. But they do exist.

The key difference is that what you are describing by its very definition does not interact with our universe. It is in a separate universe. A completely contained system of interactions. If we interact with another universe, then that is not another universe, it is still part of our universe.

No, that is not what I describe. Remember, this started when you said multiverse theories were total bullshit invented by the internet. In a later post you then added parallel universes to that definition. Again, if we lose energy in the LHC that energy went to a parallel universe. That would prove they exist unless everything we know about physics is wrong. And if physics is wrong you will have to explain why.

I am not saying that it doesn't exist until we see it. I am saying if we can never see it or interact with it or have any impact from it, then it does not exist. If there is precisely 0 consequences as to whether something theoretical exists or not, then that thing does not exist. What do you think the definition of existence is? When you say something exists outside of the universe, what you are actually saying is that it does not exist.

That's exactly what you are saying. Again, this started with your idea that the idea of multiverses is internet gossip. We can't yet interact with those universes. But how can you say we never will? You can't. So in effect you are saying something doesn't exist until we prove it exists. What a silly and absurd argument.

Why do you keep using the word "see". Gravity certainly existed. Electrons certainly existed before we understood them. They both have very tangible effects and interactions with the universe. Gravity has always influenced our universe. What you are saying that there is something which by definition cannot ever have any tangible effect or interaction with the universe and saying that it exists. I would like to hear you define what it means for something to exist please.

When I say "see" I mean what we can actually measure. There are many things that were predicted long before we could measure them. You are making the insane argument that those things didn't actually exist until we could measure them.

 

[Eejit]

You're coming across as being pretty anal Dan. You say if 'alternate' universes don't interact with ours then they don't exist (by definition) but if they do interact then they are part of our universe (by definition). What does it matter?

 

[Bad^Hat]

I think he's trying to ask how you get from particles "going somewhere" to particles "going to another universe." He's just doing a pretty awful job of separating semantics from science.

Christ I'm glad this discussion hasn't turned to the big bang theory, as long as we're conforming to definitions.

Also;

Again, if we lose energy in the LHC that energy went to a parallel universe. That would prove they exist unless everything we know about physics is wrong. And if physics is wrong you will have to explain why.

Haha, I can just imagine them banging down Dan's door and forcing him to explain how he BROKE SCIENCE.

 

[Eejit]

Haha, I can just imagine them banging down Dan's door and forcing him to explain how he BROKE SCIENCE.

While he hops out the window and cycles into the sunset. Before breaking some bones in a collision with another universe.

 

[Asknoone]

and only then does it exist.

 

[Krynn72]

And until that happens, we will never know.

 

[Dan]

I have answered your question. The laws of physics say that all energy must be conserved. If energy in a particle accelerator (for example) suddenly disappears then that energy had to go somewhere according to the laws of physics. If you don't agree with that you will have to prove Einstein wrong.

That is a terrible terrible understanding of logic. A particle disappearing and a particle teleporting to another universe are functionally the exact same thing. There is no way to discern these two events because they are really the exact same event from within our universe. The only difference would be to a perceiver existing in another universe. For us they are the same result. The laws of physics are based on experimental results within our universe. Experimental results are not created by laws of physics. To say that your experimental result was that the particle went to another universe rather than disappeared BECAUSE of the laws of physics is doing science backwards. Laws of physics are applied to our single universe. If it included other universes, then conservation of energy/mass would be meaningless because energy and mass could disappear willy nilly and still conform to that theory.

The big bang did interact with them as the big bang created them. But again, you have no way of seeing them because their light will never reach us. You also can never get to them because you can't go faster than the speed of light. But they do exist.

If the big bang did interact with them, then we have interacted with them. Therefore they are part of our universe. They have a tangible interaction with the universe. If they did not exist there would be a measurable difference.

No, that is not what I describe. Remember, this started when you said multiverse theories were total bullshit invented by the internet. In a later post you then added parallel universes to that definition. Again, if we lose energy in the LHC that energy went to a parallel universe. That would prove they exist unless everything we know about physics is wrong. And if physics is wrong you will have to explain why.

You still don't get that physics applies only to our universe. If a particle goes to a parallel universe or disappears, it is the exact same result. Any physical prediction based on a theory that predicts either event would be exactly the same. Physics doesn't have any relevance to anything beyond the universe.

That's exactly what you are saying. Again, this started with your idea that the idea of multiverses is internet gossip. We can't yet interact with those universes. But how can you say we never will? You can't. So in effect you are saying something doesn't exist until we prove it exists. What a silly and absurd argument.

Time is just another dimension. You seem to be caught up in the possibility of future interactions. If something interacts with our universe in the future, it is still part of our universe. If something ever has any tiniest bit of effect or impact on anything our universe, it is part of our universe. I can say that we will never interact with other universes because that is the exact ****ing definition of another universe. You still have yet to define what it means for something to exist. I don't think you even have a clear idea in your head of what you are talking about.

When I say "see" I mean what we can actually measure. There are many things that were predicted long before we could measure them. You are making the insane argument that those things didn't actually exist until we could measure them.

I never once said that nothing exists until we measure it. I said that things which do not have ANY effect at all on ANYTHING at all do not exist. This applies across all of time and space within the universe. If something makes absolutely zero difference or impact to the universe, then it does not exist. You cannot measure it, see it, interact with it, now or ever. It has a sum total of zero effect on anything in our universe. Multiverses, parallel universes, pink dinosaurs, unicorns, all fall into this category. You need to define existence, because I think you have some crazy ideas about what is real.

You need to think a while and clarify in your mind what you think you are saying, because your argument is a big contradiction.

I think he's trying to ask how you get from particles "going somewhere" to particles "going to another universe." He's just doing a pretty awful job of separating semantics from science.

This isn't a question of science. It is simple logic. No Limit is making contradictory statements and refuses to clarify his definitions of either existence or the universe. So yes it is semantics.

You're coming across as being pretty anal Dan. You say if 'alternate' universes don't interact with ours then they don't exist (by definition) but if they do interact then they are part of our universe (by definition). What does it matter?

Exactly my point. An alternate universe by definition does not matter. That is why it is a huge waste of time.

 

[Remus]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHzU3fgID3o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVfw1XOIFGk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-mLF23JzKA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRBz9b6mvA&feature=related

 

[Eejit]

Exactly my point. An alternate universe by definition does not matter. That is why it is a huge waste of time.

No I was not agreeing with you. I mean what does it matter what word people use? You're just arguing semantics, at length. It's completely uninteresting.

 

[Dan]

No I was not agreeing with you. I mean what does it matter what word people use? You're just arguing semantics, at length. It's completely uninteresting.

I think that No Limit has the same definitions of words that I do. He refuses to define these words, but I am pretty sure he uses them in the same way as me. I am making a big fuss because the contradiction in what he says is quite clear to me, but apparently not to him. I also like to argue on the internet, especially when I think people are saying very erroneous things.

But if it is really that uninteresting, there are plenty of other threads about wacky news articles that Stern has read or how to date a girl that just wants to be friends.

 

[No Limit]

I'm gonna try to do as little quotes as possible and just address your "points" one by one.

Again, the laws of physics say that energy must be conserved. A particle can't just disappear. Other theories (I want to say string theory but not sure if that's accurate) predict that there are multiple universes and if you smash particles hard enough parts of those particles will be "teleported" to another dimension. These theories aren't something that was pulled out of some guys ass, they are based on very good mathematical models.

Now if in the LHC energy is lost as a result of a very powerful collision that would confirm or atleast strenghten the theory of mulitple universes as that's what they predict would happen. If you don't like that theory fine, give us another explaination of what happened to that particle. If you say that it simply disappeared (as you have before) then you are saying all our modern physics are totally wrong. Because according to Einstein nothing can simply disappear. And I think you're a rational enough person not to dispute basic laws of physics. So the question is where did that particle go? Again, there are theories that this particle went to another dimension that we can't interact with at this time. The logic you are using is that this dimension doesn't actually exist even if we sent a particle there until the day that we can interact with.

The big bang might have created those galaxies that we can't see but how do we know that if we don't see those galaxies out there? Does the cosmic radiation somehow show us that they exist? Not that I'm aware of, maybe I'm wrong and you can fill me in on this. But if we can't see it in the background radiation left over from the big bang according to your logic those galaxies don't exist eventhough we know that they do.

If a particle goes to another universe it is not the exact same result as disappearing. I don't know how you can be confused about this. If the particle disappears then it no longer exists. If it goes to a different universe then it does exist even if we can't yet interact with that particle once it leaves our dimension. Again, physics tells us that particles can't simply disappear, therefore that particle has to go somewhere. And there are theories that tell you where that particle went. You don't like those theories then by all means give us some better ones.

Time is just another dimension. You seem to be caught up in the possibility of future interactions. If something interacts with our universe in the future, it is still part of our universe. If something ever has any tiniest bit of effect or impact on anything our universe, it is part of our universe. I can say that we will never interact with other universes because that is the exact ****ing definition of another universe. You still have yet to define what it means for something to exist. I don't think you even have a clear idea in your head of what you are talking about.

What your statement here means is nothing exists until we can measure it. We could be interacting with another universe constantly right now, we simply can't measure it. How do you know? You don't. But in the future we might very well be able to measure it (starting with the LHC losing energy).

I know what you are trying to say about the word "universe". You are trying to have an argument about vocabulary and not about science. When the word universe was added to our language the universe was a tiny place by our measurements. Since then our measurements have shown it is much much bigger. Instead of the 3 dimensions we knew of before we now are certain it has atleast 4. Now we know it is actually likely there are many more dimensions.

So yes, you have a point about the problem with the word "universe". Technically the universe is everything that exists. You don't have a point when you say that multiple universes are total bullshit invented by the internet. Yes, technically they are part of the entire "universe" whatever that might be but they are totally different from the universe that we can measure today.

 

[Eejit]

But if it is really that uninteresting, there are plenty of other threads about wacky news articles that Stern has read or how to date a girl that just wants to be friends.

It was much more entertaining previously. Why should I abandon it to a fate of tedium? What kind of person would that make me?

 

[comradesean]

I find its make much more sense logically to suggest a higher creator, rather than just a massively complex universe appearing out nothing suddenly, its like saying you are just driving down the road and then suddenly an elephant appears in the middle of the road, in layman's terms.

The universe is a physical presence and therefore had to have a physical catalyst, where it be blackholes, gravity and what have you, they all had to come from somewhere, forces of nature cannot just magic into existence by themselves. And ok if there is a multiverse, where the hell did all those other universe's come from? If the universe is infinite (which anyway has be proven against) then why can't god be infinite? Actually it makes more sense to suggest that god is infinite, rather than the universe, because god is supernatural, physical laws don't apply.

The idea of ANYTHING appears from nothing, never mind something like the universe, I find absurd quite frankly. Take it how you will.

But how did this god come into existence? The supernatural universe created him, methinks.

 

[Polaris]

What did God do before he created the universe? He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions!

 

[Shift]

Says who? Which "holy book" written by primitive men? Because they aren't exactly reliable evidence. Do you have any real evidence to back up such a claim?

Primitive men? Jesus's disciples were anything but primitive, Mathew is regarded as one of the greatest historians ever by many modern historians, was very intelligent, one of the apostles was a doctor. Many of the writers in the old testament were wise philosophers and kings etc.

The evidence is that Jesus appeared and performed miracles, healed people with a mere touch, calmed storms and rose from the dead, the voice of God said he was his son, it was all witnessed by his disciples. And they weren't just easy believers, they were highly skeptical about it all, even after his death they were hiding and refused to believe he had risen again until he appeared again amongst them. And they certainly didn't just make it up because believing what they believed at the time put your life in serious danger, they preached and recorded everything, despite the violent protest and violence from the Jews even after Jesus's time, because they certain of what they believed in.

We're talking to a brick wall... but here goes anyway.

I'm christian so therefore I can't take other viewpoints into consideration? Wow your ignorance is astonishing...

Shift... if a god exists outside of space-time (multiverse) and is not subject to logic or the laws of physics, it would not only make he/she/it's existence impossible to prove, but it would also make the descriptions in any religious text irrelevant. According to this, god could be anything from a bearded old man, to a flying pink unicorn, or the spaghetti monster.

Ok first of all I wish atheists would STOP just copying terminology used by Dawkins, some even go as far as to copy exactly what he says which I find amusing.

And the scripture is quite clear about what God is, and his existence has been backed up by MANY in the Bible, including those from the New Testamant. Jesus's resurrection is proof enough and I could make an entire essay post on the evidence of Jesus's resurrection.

You can't call something out for being improbable and say that it needs something vastly more improbable to create it. You are shooting down your own argument here and no, saying this new vastly improbable thing happens to be magic doesn't make it less stupid.

So you are suggesting that the universe popping into existence by itself is LESS improbable than a higher being creating the catalyst for it? Sorry your logic confuses me.

We can observe things coming from nothing in the form of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, particles will pop in an out of existence but the net energy of the fluctuation remains zero. It is possible for the universe to arise from nothing if the net energy is zero, no magic needed.

So you'd wager the massively complex universe appearing out of nothing because its 'possible' for mere particles to pop into existence IF the net energy of the fluctuation remains zero? Not to mention the vacuum still needs to be there, where did that come from in the first place?

1. Find problem.
2. Fail to solve problem.
3. Make up a god.
4. Give the god magical properties that solve problem.
5. Post on halflife2.net

I didn't make up a God and give it its qualities, there is an entire ancient scripture about him and his work, and at least God provides an answer unlike the wild stabs in dark that quantum mechanics and string theory provides. Plus the same can applied to a lot of scientific approaches:

1. Find problem.
2. Fail to solve problem.
3. Take educated guess using other scientific variables and call it fact BECAUSE its science or
4. Meh science will find an answer eventually...

 

[No Limit]

I need to get some popcorn, brb.

 

[Eejit]

I lack belief in all gods. You lack belief in all but one. I rejected yours for similar reasons to why you rejected all the others.

 

[No Limit]

Primitive men? Jesus's disciples were anything but primitive, Mathew is regarded as one of the greatest historians ever by many modern historians, was very intelligent, one of the apostles was a doctor. Many of the writers in the old testament were wise philosophers and kings etc.

So when Matthew wrote:

Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Was he lying or was Jesus?

The evidence is that Jesus appeared and performed miracles, healed people with a mere touch, calmed storms and rose from the dead, the voice of God said he was his son, it was all witnessed by his disciples. And they weren't just easy believers, they were highly skeptical about it all, even after his death they were hiding and refused to believe he had risen again until he appeared again amongst them. And they certainly didn't just make it up because believing what they believed at the time put your life in serious danger, they preached and recorded everything, despite the violent protest and violence from the Jews even after Jesus's time, because they certain of what they believed in.

Muhammad had a similar story when it comes to religious intolerance. His life was in danger as a result of his preachings. I guess Muhammad wasn't lying then, amirite?

So you'd wager the massively complex universe appearing out of nothing because its 'possible' for mere particles to pop into existence IF the net energy of the fluctuation remains zero? Not to mention the vacuum still needs to be there, where did that come from in the first place?

I would wager that. Because there is actual physical evidance for that. And your argument against that possibility is that it couldn't have come from nowhere? What an absurd statement for you to be making when you have no explaination for where God came from. Yes, yes, I know. God is infinate. How do you know the universe isn't?

I didn't make up a God and give it its qualities, there is an entire ancient scripture about him and his work, and at least God provides an answer unlike the wild stabs in dark that quantum mechanics and string theory provides. Plus the same can applied to a lot of scientific approaches:

1. Find problem.
2. Fail to solve problem.
3. Take educated guess using other scientific variables and call it fact BECAUSE its science or
4. Meh science will find an answer eventually...

The same scriptures and accounts exist for Islam, mormons, and most other religions. What makes your religion so special?

 

[Remus]

Ok first of all I wish atheists would STOP just copying terminology used by Dawkins, some even go as far as to copy exactly what he says which I find amusing.

OK I worship the flying grand piano which rides on the back of a magical rhino. Better?

And the scripture is quite clear about what God is.

OK, good, great. Define God.

and his existence has been backed up by MANY in the Bible, including those from the New Testamant.

I'm sorry but the testimony of primitive (take offense as much as you like, but compered to us they really were primitive) people from 2000 years ago does NOT constitute proof. How about some current verifiable, testable, evidence of the existence of a god.

Jesus's resurrection is proof enough and I could make an entire essay post on the evidence of Jesus's resurrection.

Firs of all as far as I know there is no concrete evidence Jesus even existed, let alone the miracles he did or the resurrection. Even if the so called resurrection really did take place, I could write an entire essay on how that doesn't prove squat. To them something like clinical death could've been seen as miraculous.

 

[Darkshines]

Was he [Matthew] lying or was Jesus?

Um, sorry what? I don't understand why it's implied that either would be lying...

The same scriptures and accounts exist for Islam, mormons, and most other religions. What makes your religion so special?

Islam par example, pray towards Mecca, the place where their prophet, a man, was buried. Christians pray wherever and in whichever direction because their 'prophet' was more than that and was resurrected. Not a complete human. Plus, once Christians are saved, they can't lose their salvation, unlike in Islam, Mormonism and most other religions.

 

[Shift]

So when Matthew wrote:


Was he lying or was Jesus?

And why would any of them lie? Not entirely sure what you are getting at that.

Muhammad had a similar story when it comes to religious intolerance. His life was in danger as a result of his preachings. I guess Muhammad wasn't lying then, amirite?

Muhammad is one of the main prophets of Islam, who worship the same God I worship pretty much.

I would wager that. Because there is actual physical evidance for that. And your argument against that possibility is that it couldn't have come from nowhere? What an absurd statement for you to be making when you have no explaination for where God came from. Yes, yes, I know. God is infinate. How do you know the universe isn't?

Because the universe will die eventually:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

The same scriptures and accounts exist for Islam, mormons, and most other religions. What makes your religion so special?

Islam as said worships the same God I do, just as the Jews do, why do you think Jesus got so much stick when he appeared? Because he challenged all their beliefs by claiming to be the son of the God they worshiped and because they had no answer to when he started performing miracles etc. My religion is based on a person who defied all the odds, who prophasised his own death and came back to life as he said he would, who was called the son of God by God himself, as witnessed by a few of his disciples. None of the other religions have any of this.

 

[Eejit]

Um, sorry what? I don't understand why it's implied that either would be lying...

Hint: there are no mountains from which one can (could) see every kingdom on the planet.

Islam par example, pray towards Mecca, the place where their prophet, a man, was buried. Christians pray wherever and in whichever direction because their 'prophet' was more than that and was resurrected. Not a complete human. Plus, once Christians are saved, they can't lose their salvation, unlike in Islam, Mormonism and most other religions.

Ahahaha you're actually saying your sky wizard is more realistic than their sky wizard? And your reasoning is that yours makes things easier?

 

[Polaris]

And the scripture is quite clear about what God is

That he is crazy, jealous, genocidal control freak who cares about foreskins of the desert dwelling tribe. Sure, this is the God that created the whole universe.

 

[Remus]

Ahahaha you're actually saying your sky wizard is more realistic than their sky wizard? And your reasoning is that yours makes things easier?

My sky wizard is cooler than yours!

 

[Eejit]

Islam as said worships the same God I do, just as the Jews do, why do you think Jesus got so much stick when he appeared? Because he challenged all their beliefs by claiming to be the son of the God they worshiped and because they had no answer to when he started performing miracles etc. My religion is based on a person who defied all the odds, who prophasised his own death and came back to life as he said he would, who was called the son of God by God himself, as witnessed by a few of his disciples. None of the other religions have any of this.

Do you think this makes the god you believe in any more likely than the countless others?
And think for a second here, I'm not asking if this god appeals to you more because of the teachings of your preferred religion, but whether there's more reason to believe in his existence.

 

[No Limit]

And why would any of them lie? Not entirely sure what you are getting at that.

Do you believe in a flat earth? No? Read the quote again and actually think about it. Then please get back to me.

Also, if you don't mind. Can you let us know how old the earth is? You don't have to be exact, just a rough figure.

Muhammad is one of the main prophets of Islam, who worship the same God I worship pretty much.

So you're a muslim?

Because the universe will die eventually:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

One of a number of theories. Many other theories say the universe will actually collapse back and eventually have another big bang, making it infinate. This doesn't include the theory that there are infiniteamount of universes.

Remember, there this actual evidance for all these theories. You have none for God aside from what some dudes said 2,000 years back.

Islam as said worships the same God I do, just as the Jews do, why do you think Jesus got so much stick when he appeared? Because he challenged all their beliefs by claiming to be the son of the God they worshiped and because they had no answer to when he started performing miracles etc. My religion is based on a person who defied all the odds, who prophasised his own death and came back to life as he said he would, who was called the son of God by God himself, as witnessed by a few of his disciples. None of the other religions have any of this.

Why not perfom the miracle of getting himself off the cross?

And there are miracles witnessed in the Quran as well as most other religions, so your statement there simply is not true.

 

[Remus]

there's more reason to believe in his existence.

I think his logic is something like: christianity and islam believe in the same thing so it must be true!

 

[Asknoone]

I was going to contribute to this thread, but then I decided better of it. That would be redundant! I still don't want to believe this is actually Shift though. I mean, heh-heh-heh, not the Shift...surely...I mean, heh. No! No. It's not. Oh god it is, isn't it.

 

[comradesean]

Religious Shit

So why do you think it's more likely a god just poofed into existence than the universe?

You specifically said earlier it's more likely because he's "supernatural", but what's so natural about the universe that you think it couldn't do the same thing? Also what does supernatural mean to you since it's commonly associated with things such as Ghosts, Zombies and Witchcraft? Do you believe in those things as well or do you make a special case for god?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Christianity was heavily influenced by politics. Stories, celebrations and verses in the bible were heavily edited and voted upon, to see which applied more to the masses. After all, Christianity was one of the first religions to put the poor man at the same worth as a rich man, in the eyes of God. Which it deserves props for, mind you. But saying "it's in the bible", is not a proof for anything.