345 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Elus:
Note: I agree with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it's mathematical and scientific ramifications. I disagree with it's use to justify belief in God. Here is why:

You used an example: A straight line can extend forever in both directions, and no one has been able to prove this. This is a reasonable assumption that is necessary.

The first part of your example is a comparison, I assume, to God. You believe in God, and nobody has been able to prove that he exists, but you choose to believe in him anyway.

The point is you can’t prove everything that is real. What would you accept as proof?

You use Gödel's Theorem to assert the following (I paraphrase):"Some things are true, such as God, but can never be proven."

You go on to claim, via indirect comparison to Gödel's Theorem, that this is a reasonable assumption that is necessary, just as Euclid's 5 postulates are necessary in mathematics.

I disagree. Let's say I choose to believe in something with no proof, such as "Pigs fly when I don't look." I too can use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify this silly argument.

So you are comparing, “Pigs fly when I don’t look.” to Euclid’s 5 postulates?

So what is the difference in the use of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics and its use to justify the flying pigs? The difference lies in the utility of the assumption.

In the first case, the mathematical assumptions yield working mathematics which help quantify and model our world accurately. We have tested the mathematics countless times in building nuclear reactors, airplanes, and basically every possible technology in existence. These assumptions have been tested over and over, with definite physical and quantifiable accuracy.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify the flying pigs? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in flying pigs yield anything remotely useful

.

Of course pigs can fly and sometimes there is great usefulness when they do. Your illustration needs more specificity. Keep defining your statement until you get something really useless.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify god? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in God yield anything remotely useful.

Tell that to the majority of the people in the world. What kind of a test would you accept?

Thus, it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for God, as much as it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for the existence of undetectable planet-sized water bottles or invisible zombies.

Of course I am not doing this and I specifically said it was not evidence for the existence of God..

[Elus]

Elus:
Note: I agree with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it's mathematical and scientific ramifications. I disagree with it's use to justify belief in God. Here is why:

You used an example: A straight line can extend forever in both directions, and no one has been able to prove this. This is a reasonable assumption that is necessary.

The first part of your example is a comparison, I assume, to God. You believe in God, and nobody has been able to prove that he exists, but you choose to believe in him anyway.

The point is you can't prove everything that is real. What would you accept as proof?

You use Gödel's Theorem to assert the following (I paraphrase):"Some things are true, such as God, but can never be proven."

You go on to claim, via indirect comparison to Gödel's Theorem, that this is a reasonable assumption that is necessary, just as Euclid's 5 postulates are necessary in mathematics.

I disagree. Let's say I choose to believe in something with no proof, such as "Pigs fly when I don't look." I too can use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify this silly argument.

So you are comparing, "Pigs fly when I don't look." to Euclid's 5 postulates?

So what is the difference in the use of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics and its use to justify the flying pigs? The difference lies in the utility of the assumption.

In the first case, the mathematical assumptions yield working mathematics which help quantify and model our world accurately. We have tested the mathematics countless times in building nuclear reactors, airplanes, and basically every possible technology in existence. These assumptions have been tested over and over, with definite physical and quantifiable accuracy.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify the flying pigs? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in flying pigs yield anything remotely useful

.

Of course pigs can fly and sometimes there is great usefulness when they do. Your illustration needs more specificity. Keep defining your statement until you get something really useless.

So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify god? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in God yield anything remotely useful.

Tell that to the majority of the people in the world. What kind of a test would you accept?

Thus, it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for God, as much as it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for the existence of undetectable planet-sized water bottles or invisible zombies.

Of course I am not doing this and I specifically said it was not evidence for the existence of God..

I'm the guy on the very bottom right, contorting his face at your ignorance.

It would have been a great personal triumph for me if I convinced you that it's pointless to believe in a deity. Alas, I can't convince you of this, but I have convinced the majority of my Christian family (Through months of debate) and the majority of my friends, so I suppose that this is victory enough. It is apparent that you do not understand science, because if you did it would be become clear to you that your outdated Christian bible is full of bullshit. It is utter nonsense. It is the kind of intolerable and adamant stupidity that only decades of religious hypnosis could produce. By believing in god, you promote ignorance. You teach those around you not to question the world - a world far more vast and remarkable than your petty Christian deity could ever encompass.

Since you like to pray, you'd better pray that I never become a billionaire, or even a millionaire. If I do, I promise that I will launch one of the the biggest anti-religion campaigns that the world has ever seen. Sooner or later, the power of science will shine through the shroud of ignorance that is cast by religious imbeciles like you.

The sooner we eradicate religion from the world, the better off we will be. For now, I can only hope that the increasing numbers of atheists in my country, America, will lead a revolution.

Have fun living in delusion.

Edited by Elus, 20 August 2010 - 02:07 AM.

[Luna]

Also in relation to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem... We know:
1. Lines properties.
2. That lines exist.

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists We haven't observed it or anything.

Another thing is - the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not prove the existence of line, it is used to say the assumption that a line (a thing which is in existence and that we know of and of its properties) can properly stretch to infinity. An assumption which will be false if we were to find the universe, energy or information to be smaller than infinite.

If the universe is smaller than infinite then we cannot have an infinite line physically.
In case energy if smaller than it simply can't stretch there and we cannot even create a virtual one in a computer because we don't have enough energy to do so.

If information is limited, then again we cannot do a virtual line to infinity.

Did I miss something? Are we in disagreement?

Ha! yes we are, but as usual you seem to skip that point, allow to me quote myself and you will have to go back up and read it all again to see the reasons for my argument again using this theory to prove God:

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists We haven't observed it or anything.

[shadowhawk]

Elus:
I'm the guy on the very bottom right, contorting his face at your ignorance.

And I thought you were on the very bottom left... Well that goes to show you, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your argument is a cartoon and made up..

It would have been a great personal triumph for me if I convinced you that it's pointless to believe in a deity. Alas, I can't convince you of this, but I have convinced the majority of my Christian family (Through months of debate) and the majority of my friends, so I suppose that this is victory enough. It is apparent that you do not understand science, because if you did it would be become clear to you that your outdated Christian bible is full of bullshit. It is utter nonsense. It is the kind of intolerable and adamant stupidity that only decades of religious hypnosis could produce. By believing in god, you promote ignorance. You teach those around you not to question the world - a world far more vast and remarkable than your petty Christian deity could ever encompass.

Now the best you can do is call names. Go ahead. My family was all Atheist and then I became a Christian. They eventually all became Christiana. My wife is Jewish as is her family.

Since you like to pray, you'd better pray that I never become a billionaire, or even a millionaire. If I do, I promise that I will launch one of the the biggest anti-religion campaigns that the world has ever seen. Sooner or later, the power of science will shine through the shroud of ignorance that is cast by religious imbeciles like you.

Sound like a real freedom loving type. Don’t claim science because Science is a process not a position and has its own limitations. http://www.teach12.c...2.aspx?cid=1235
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

If you really understood Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. You would know this will not happen in science..

The sooner we eradicate religion from the world, the better off we will be. For now, I can only hope that the increasing numbers of atheists in my country, America, will lead a revolution.

Sounds like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. This has been tried before by Atheists you know.
Armed with this understanding, the authors of The Black Book present the following statistics regarding how various communist atheist governments killed their own citizens by the millions.
http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM
http://en.wikipedia....ok_of_Communism

* U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths
* China: 65 million deaths
* Vietnam: 1 million deaths
* North Korea: 2 million deaths
* Cambodia: 2 million deaths
* Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
* Latin America: 150,000 deaths
* Africa: 1.7 million deaths
* Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths



Have fun living in delusion.
You too.

[shadowhawk]

Also in relation to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem... We know:
1. Lines properties.
2. That lines exist.

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists We haven't observed it or anything.

Another thing is - the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not prove the existence of line, it is used to say the assumption that a line (a thing which is in existence and that we know of and of its properties) can properly stretch to infinity. An assumption which will be false if we were to find the universe, energy or information to be smaller than infinite.

If the universe is smaller than infinite then we cannot have an infinite line physically.
In case energy if smaller than it simply can't stretch there and we cannot even create a virtual one in a computer because we don't have enough energy to do so.

If information is limited, then again we cannot do a virtual line to infinity.

Did I miss something? Are we in disagreement?

Ha! yes we are, but as usual you seem to skip that point, allow to me quote myself and you will have to go back up and read it all again to see the reasons for my argument again using this theory to prove God:

While we made assume what God's properties may be, we don't know God exists We haven't observed it or anything.

Now if you read what I said I was not trying to prove gods existence with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. I said this. My problem is you inject a lot of ideas I did not say. My point of using Gödel' was that everything that is true is not prove able and that goes for God. That is also why you can’t disprove god. either Some things while real are not prove able. Do you agree or disagree?

Given what you said above I do not see where we disagree. Need more data.

[Pour_la_Science]

Sounds like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. This has been tried before by Atheists you know.
Armed with this understanding, the authors of The Black Book present the following statistics regarding how various communist atheist governments killed their own citizens by the millions.

Have you counted the number of deaths/violence due to religious reasons for 2000 years too? And you can continue to count still now...

Edited by Pour_la_Science, 20 August 2010 - 09:17 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Sounds like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. This has been tried before by Atheists you know.
Armed with this understanding, the authors of The Black Book present the following statistics regarding how various communist atheist governments killed their own citizens by the millions.

Have you counted the number of deaths/violence due to religious reasons for 2000 years too? And you can continue to count still now...

Selected Pre-20th Century Democide and Totals
Cases Years Democide3 Religious?
China 221 B.C.-19 33,519,0004 No
Mongols 14 C-15 C 29,927,000 No
Slavery of Africans 1451-1870 17,267,000 No
Amer-Indians 16 C-19 C 13,778,000 No
Thirty Years War 1618-1648 5,750,000 No
In India 13 C-1 9 C 4,511,0005 No
In Iran 5 C-19 C 2,000,0004,5 No
Ottoman Empire 12 C-19 C 2,000,0005 No
In Japan 1570-19 C 1,500,0005 No
In Russia 10 C-19 C 1,007,0005 No
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000 Yes
Aztecs Centuries 1,000,0006 Yes
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000 Yes
French Revolution 1793-1794 263,000 No
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000 Yes
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000 Yes

Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000 2,650,000
Hypothetical Total 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 625,716,0007

from STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE:
http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE5.HTM
http://www.godandsci...atrocities.html
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0674076087
http://en.wikipedia....ok_of_Communism
http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html
http://www.serfes.or...ox/memoryof.htm
http://en.wikipedia....n_of_Christians
http://www.oodegr.co..._atrocities.htm
http://www.toughques...-religion-kill/


The comparison with religions are not remotely close when we ask who killed more, Atheists or the religious. What did you think of Elus's statement "we eradicate religion from the world." ?

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 August 2010 - 11:55 PM.

[the_colossus]

Sounds like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. This has been tried before by Atheists you know.
Armed with this understanding, the authors of The Black Book present the following statistics regarding how various communist atheist governments killed their own citizens by the millions.

Have you counted the number of deaths/violence due to religious reasons for 2000 years too? And you can continue to count still now...

How do you determine that? As pagan priests first goal was to justify wars. If people want to fight they will use any reason, a religious one is better then I just wanna kill you.

[Cameron]

My problem is you inject a lot of ideas I did not say. My point of using Gödel' was that everything that is true is not prove able and that goes for God. That is also why you can’t disprove god. either Some things while real are not prove able. Do you agree or disagree?

You cannot disprove the deist God, but a God that literally did every thing in say the bible, that literal God has been virtually killed by science. And even more metaphorical interpretations demand evidence, you don't need to disprove a hypothetical DEIST GOD, you just need to disprove that there is a CONNECTION BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS TEXT and the DIVINE, disprove that and all its claims crumble.... it becomes nothing more than a myth about God, akin to unfounded gossip about a celebrity or political figure.

Yet all the evidence points against there being any connection between virtually any religious text and the divine. Without that connection it is nothing more than some wild tall tale, no different than a drunk's inspired writings of extraordinary things on a napkin, for which there is no rational reason to believe.

[shadowhawk]

Cameron
You cannot disprove the deist God, but a God that literally did every thing in say the bible, that literal God has been virtually killed by science.

Since Science is a process not a position this is obviously wrong. I was not trying to prove the existence of God with the incompleteness theory which should be clear from what I said.
I posted this elsewhere for those who have questions on the Bible.

Here are a few good books on Biblical difficulties for those who don’t want to remain ignorant and are seriously looking for answers.
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sbs_02_02
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1

Here are a few good web sites where you can ask hard questions about the Bible. There are many more.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/
http://www.4truth.net/
http://www.biblestudytools.com

And even more metaphorical interpretations demand evidence, you don't need to disprove a hypothetical DEIST GOD, you just need to disprove that there is a CONNECTION BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS TEXT and the DIVINE, disprove that and all its claims crumble.... it becomes nothing more than a myth about God, akin to unfounded gossip about a celebrity or political figure.

Are you saying you have proven this? Where is your proof? I don’t see it.

Yet all the evidence points against there being any connection between virtually any religious text and the divine. Without that connection it is nothing more than some wild tall tale, no different than a drunk's inspired writings of extraordinary things on a napkin, for which there is no rational reason to believe.

All the evidence? What evidence? Your argument has no rational reasons or evidence. http://www.mtio.com/...es/bissart1.htm
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_5

[N.T.M.]

I’m glad to see that my position has been championed despite my absence. Really though this circular argument is becoming somewhat of a banality.

Let me redelineate my stance:

-The existence of matter can be ascribed to science (Einsteinian theory).

-God posits an issue of infinite regression which cannot be accounted for.

-Evolution and the big bang render God superfluous.

-Probability theory allays the testaments to divine intercession which “defies the odds.”

-Abiogenesis can be scientifically accounted for.

Just a few right there.

[Cameron]

Since Science is a process not a position this is obviously wrong.

Science can actually virtually kill the foundation of many a belief: lamarckism, the possibility of perpetual machines with ordinary every day materials, the mormon ideas regarding the history of america, flatearth believers, literal fundamentalist creationists, the belief that in modern days supernatural miracles are abundant.

Those beliefs rests on assumptions, or hypotheses as the evidence against these accumulate to vast levels the likelyhood of them being true falls in the minds of most informed individuals.

Are you saying you have proven this? Where is your proof? I don't see it.

If I claim president Bush said something or Obama said something, I do not see why the burden of proof rests on the one questioning my claims. It should actually rest on me, and IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CLAIMS ABOUT SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ARE OLD OR BELIEVED BY MANY. Right now there's a man going around America claiming to be jesus christ. Despite this idea being, as far as any one can see nonsensical, he has gained strong following especially across Latin America.

Now this is a man in modern days, where massive amounts of technology exists to disprove any claims of miracles, and where strongly backed churches with massive media influence cannot shut him down. This happened now, why not in the past? In fact countless pseudo-churches are popping out and have popped out all over America, founded by people claiming to be 'prophets' of the lord and claiming to be able to perform supernatural miracles. All of them have gained various levels of followers, and many actually claim to directly have experienced supernatural miracles from these quacks.

It is clear that even amongst modern day people, substantial numbers hold ridiculous unsubstantiated beliefs such as the president being a muslim, the earth being flat, creationism, etc. In the past we had individuals who were biologically virtually identical, only without the benefit of science or modern media to disprove claims of the supernatural, only word of mouth and eyewitness testimony to go on. In a world of ignorance and mystery, how could these people be any more resistant to acquiring false beliefs than significant chunks of modern day populations?


In sum, the bible makes extraordinary claims about 'God', and in turn its believers spread these extraordinary claims. It rests on them to provide evidence for why these claims are truly divine, just as any claim regarding a politician, a government, an event, a celebrity, etc requires evidence and can't be taken on faith. Faith is a privilege, it must be earned, it is not a default state towards the claims of strangers. It rests on those making these extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence, not on the skeptics questioning them.

As today we know that for millenia man has stubbornly held countless erroneous superstitious and mystical beliefs, we know that false beliefs, and false prophets, psychics, fortune tellers, and all sort of scam artists and cons have success with substantial portions of the population. In some religions like scientology or the mormon faith we have some evidently questionable foundations coming into being in more recent times, we see them as evidently ridiculous, what makes the Jewish or Christian faith with its equally strange claims, any different? That they are older, came much earlier? That they have more believers? Or was it simply a myth that propagated easily as false beliefs tend to do in significant chunks of the population.

The rational idea is that locally there has been undetectable or no change in the physical laws, in modern days the supernatural is nonexistent nor has it seemingly left any measurable trace in the past. If this is so, then between the following: A.) A false belief akin to scientology or mormonism spreading earlier as these two have shown is quite viable for evidently false beliefs in modern times occurred in the distant past. B.) Supernatural parlor tricks to impress a few men to start strange rituals took place while an all loving being ignored and continued to indefinitely ignore countless suffering innocents. A. makes sense and perfectly meshes with modern day knowledge and does not require extraordinary claims of violation of physical laws, while at the same time not containing evidently contradictory claims.

All the evidence? What evidence? Your argument has no rational reasons or evidence.

Let me put it this way, besides the inconsistencies and more reasonable, down to earth ,explanations for the various texts. (I assume we can all agree that the greek gods, and egyptian gods, and the incan gods, and the mayan gods, are all in all likelyhood false for starts?). Many of these texts claim that specific deviations from physical laws, laws that have held up in thousands of experiments, took place for questionable purposes. Things like Noah's ark have been brought into question, genesis accounts too, also there are suggestions that many of the claims regarding the kings of israel seem to be great exaggerations. We can even take more recent claims like some in the new testament regarding prayer, faith and miracles happening.


There is also the fact that the WORD OF MEN seems to not mesh too well with the LAWS THAT GOVERN THE HEAVENS. For example natural selection is merciless, countless suffering has occurred because of it, not only that but its product a rational mind is one that will tend to question things and lead to a substantial percentage of the population not accepting things without sufficient evidence. It is but an inevitability. The idea that a being with the characteristics ascribed to God, would handle and depend for his desired and highly sought connection with each human on some ancient unsubstantiated texts(that won't even reach a good chunk of the pop. before death), providing a vast pool of competing texts along(various religions), borders on the absurd.

When the laws of the universe mercilessly inevitably lead to the needless butchery, suffering, torture and rape of countless innocents. How can one accept that a God that does not intervene to ease the suffering of so many, would deem it necessary to intervene by performing some token parlor tricks to impress a few men? He leaves them with insufficient evidence to convince any serious skeptic. All for what? for what ridiculous purpose?, so that they worship him by performing strange rituals and repetitive uttering some phrases?

Then people come on the "Evil and suffering is necessary". Oh but evil and real suffering is NOT PRESENT IN THE LIVES OF ALL HUMANS. So the real question is why is evil and suffering necessary for some but not others? But let's be honest here some have grown in privileged environments with young disease-free healthy family members, and suffered quick short painless accidental deaths in their teens, twenties, etc. These individuals that did not witness any real significant suffering, were their lives actually "less worthy" did God somehow fail to pump their lives full of evil and pain? or were they privileged not only materially but spiritually by God such that they need not experience real suffering(disease, severe physical pain, loss of loved ones, betrayal, etc)?


If a deist believes that God was directly involved in the creation of the world... and the LAWS THAT GOVERN THE WORLD, IT IS SEEN LEAD TO SOME INEVITABILITIES. THEN THESE LAWS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE THE DIRECT EMBODIMENT OF DIVINE WILL, and the fact is these ruthless laws and their inevitable outcome does not mesh well with many a religious text. When the LAWS OF MEN LIE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CELESTIAL LAWS that govern the universe... the laws of men cannot hope but to crumble, like the feeble things they are, before that which cannot be broken.

Edited by Cameron, 11 September 2010 - 06:00 AM.

[chrwe]

I don`t want to get into the main body of the argument here, being an agnostic, however I would like to point out that I do not understand why atheists think their atheism will in any way save the world.

It`s a bit like saying that facism will be gone if you kill all Germans (I`m German, I`m allowed to say this^^^). If that were true, I`d be first to jump off a cliff, but you will find that it is not. Same with "religious" killing. I`m quoting Red Dwarf: "Why, they took religion as a pretext to be complete a-holes to each other.". If that reason is gone, they will find some other reason, like Mao or Stalin. Sadly.

If you mean to say that one would get more research into science that will prevent death through atheism, just look at Dawkins and weep.

Edited by chrwe, 13 September 2010 - 01:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
I'm glad to see that my position has been championed despite my absence. Really though this circular argument is becoming somewhat of a banality.

Let me redelineate my stance:

-The existence of matter can be ascribed to science (Einsteinian theory).

The existence of matter cannot be ascribed to science. Science is not the cause of existence. What do you mean by this?

-God posits an issue of infinite regression which cannot be accounted for,

http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5732
God does not post an issue of infinite regression. Source?
If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

-Evolution and the big bang render God superfluous.

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang make God superfluous.
Did God Create From Nothing? --William Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0ii7sh6W0c
Here the issues of infinite regression, and Big Bang are dealt with

http://vimeo.com/8897865
Evolution DNA speech by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, now Head of the National Institute of Health. Here is a top scientist who finds evidence for God in RNA and DNA.

-Abiogenesis can be scientifically accounted for.

It is still hotly debated. The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form is still unproven.. I remember when the Miller-Urey experiment were thought they explained something There are other possibilities

1. Life is the result of unguided chemical reactions and random processes
2. Life is the result of purposeful physical laws and initial conditions
3. The laws of nature and fine-tuning of the initial conditions are sufficient to account for the origin of life
4. natural processes alone prohibit the origin of life

I think the Law of Biogenesis, that life proceeds only from pre-existing life is in error.? Thus the biological cell is an irreducibly complex structure and that abiogenesis is a myth of modern science and a faith proposition of those that maintain that only naturalistic explanations should be considered in explaining our ultimate origins.

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 September 2010 - 02:03 AM.

[thughes]

Sorry to interject so late in the conversation but:

God does not post an issue of infinite regression. Source?
If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

If you posit a god in an attempt to end this infinite regression, then it must have been around forever. Same deal as the universe. Ergo infinite regression no matter what we do. That tells me there's something wrong with the model. Adding starting points ad infinitum won't help you. Turtles all the way down, gods all the way down, its still infinite.

This is a pretty well known and solid refutation, so I don't know why people bother to make this argument for a god anymore. Something had to be around forever (or more likely time is a little weirder than we can grasp).

I think the Law of Biogenesis, that life proceeds only from pre-existing life is in error.? Thus the biological cell is an irreducibly complex structure and that abiogenesis is a myth of modern science and a faith proposition of those that maintain that only naturalistic explanations should be considered in explaining our ultimate origins.

Yup the "law" of biogenesis doesn't apply to all situations. It doesn't apply to abiogenesis. Thats just a language/categorization difficulty though, its not like this wasn't perfectly clear to begin with.

Don't see any reason to believe the cell is irreducibly complex. Since the modern cell is a symbiosis of archaean and bacterium structure (DNA actually) it really can't be irreducibly complex, because it came from 2 sources. I suppose you could regress that and try to say that bacterium and archaeum (sp) are irreducibly complex... but again, we have no reason to believe that (other than arguments from ignorance).

Its much more fun to try to figure out how things came to be than to insert a god to hide our ignorance.

- Tracy

[shadowhawk]

[b]Thughes[/b]
Sorry to interject so late in the conversation but:

God does not post an issue of infinite regression.
If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

I

f you posit a god in an attempt to end this infinite regression, then it must have been around forever. Same deal as the universe. Ergo infinite regression no matter what we do. That tells me there's something wrong with the model. Adding starting points ad infinitum won't help you. Turtles all the way down, gods all the way down, its still infinite.

This is a pretty well known and solid refutation, so I don't know why people bother to make this argument for a god anymore. Something had to be around forever (or more likely time is a little weirder than we can grasp).

http://www.leestrobe...ip=strobelT1203
Your argument falls because God did not begin to exist. Therefore there is no infinite regression to God but there is a finite regression to everything that came into being. This is what is wrong with your model. God is not a turtle but I suspect you know that.

Theists don’t posit a God to end an infinite regression because that is a problem of things that come into being in a universe of cause and effect like ours.

I think the Law of Biogenesis, that life proceeds only from pre-existing life is in error.? Thus the biological cell is an irreducibly complex structure and that abiogenesis is a myth of modern science and a faith proposition of those that maintain that only naturalistic explanations should be considered in explaining our ultimate origins.

Yup the "law" of biogenesis doesn't apply to all situations. It doesn't apply to abiogenesis. Thats just a language/categorization difficulty though, its not like this wasn't perfectly clear to begin with.

Your point here suffers from the same issues as your first point.
http://idpluspetersw.../blog-post.html
You nave no evidence that life ever proceeded from non existing life. Hence abiogenesis indeed does not apply. “The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known.”
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

Don't see any reason to believe the cell is irreducibly complex. Since the modern cell is a symbiosis of archaean and bacterium structure (DNA actually) it really can't be irreducibly complex, because it came from 2 sources. I suppose you could regress that and try to say that bacterium and archaeum (sp) are irreducibly complex... but again, we have no reason to believe that (other than arguments from ignorance).

So you are saying this is not an argument from ignorance? Something is irreducibly complex when you run out of adequate causes which could have produced an effect. I think you are still at that stage.

Its much more fun to try to figure out how things came to be than to insert a god to hide our ignorance.

Who has tried to do this?

- Tracy

[Soma]

If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.

Finally cosmologists are developing a model for what I have always intuited.

The "cyclic model" of the universe is an interesting theory that agrees with all of the current mathematical and observational data. It is an impeccably researched and, heretofore, uncontested alternative to the "big bang" theory.

In brief- the "big bang", rather than being a beginning, was rather a phase of a cycle of a universe forming process that is without beginning.

I'm reading the book now entitled "Endless Universe" written by the cosmologists who were instrumental in formulating this model (Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok).

A couple quotes from the book:

"In contrast to the inflationary model, the cyclic story has an overarching principle that ties its components together. Cosmic evolution is endlessly repeating with no beginning or end."

"The new model is also tightly interwoven. No form of energy in the past or the future ever goes out of existence. Each reappears from cycle to cycle."


Concerning the universe, you really have only two options- preexistence, or the "something out of nothing" conundrum. As thughes was saying, if you are looking for an ultimate "cause" to the universe, you inevitably have to follow the cause-and-effect process until you have to reach an "uncaused cause". You have to find the original "domino". A preexistent "something". Now, don't misunderstand me. I am by no means implying the existence of some sort of deity.

Some are content with the logical contradiction of "something out of nothing". Others feel that something preexistent must exist. Some call the preexistent "God" and think that it created the universe and everything in it. Others, including prominent cosmologists, are now realizing that the preexistent may indeed be "energy" which is eternally transforming. Endlessly transforming into universes, galaxies, planets, rocks, plants, animals, and people.

Quantum mechanics tell us that everything is the universe is energy- swirling vortexes of energy- some of which takes of the appearance of matter (even solid matter) although nothing fundamentally "solid" exists at all. Everything seen and unseen is the manifestation of energy. And beyond this, it is fundamentally ONE energy. Erwin Schrodinger said, "Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe." David Bohm said that the universe was "undivided wholeness."

There are no "parts". There are just aspects of this one energy.

"In this movement, there is NO THING. Rather, things are abstracted out of the movement in our perception and thought, and any such abstraction fits the real movement only up to a point, and without limits. Some ‘things’ may last for a very long time and be fairly stable, while others are ephemeral as the shapes abstracted in perceptions of clouds." - David Bohm (1976. Fragmentation and Wholeness. Jerusalem: Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation, p. 40).

In this model, the process of the cycling universe is uncreated, for it never began and it will never end. It consists of the continuous transformation of an uncreated, indestructible "something" (we'll call it energy for the sake of convenience). This energy is always changing form on both a micro and macroscopic level. People are born and die, planets are born and die, universes are born and die. All of this part of the eternal transformation of an energy that was never created and will never be destroyed.

This corresponds to what the mystics of every traditional of told us throughout millennia- that YOU are "God" (as is everything else). No, you are not "God" in the exoteric religious sense.

You are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, but what you are "made" of is because it is a manifestation that that uncreated energy and according to the most recent cosmological theory, it never began and it will never end.

Edited by Soma, 15 September 2010 - 03:11 AM.

[N.T.M.]

I don`t want to get into the main body of the argument here, being an agnostic, however I would like to point out that I do not understand why atheists think their atheism will in any way save the world.

Nobody here's contending that. I will say, however, that religion is inherently pernicious, even in regards to our movement.

I wrote about it here actually: http://blightofdeath...01_archive.html

The existence of matter cannot be ascribed to science. Science is not the cause of existence. What do you mean by this?

I thought I would have said this already, but I guess not: matter can be derived from energy, and the net energy in the universe is actually zero since positive energy is perfectly canceled out via negative energy imparted by gravity. It's quantum fluctuations (the state of nothingness) which induced the big bang. Strangely enough, matter is the natural state of the universe. For there to be nothing it'd require some extrinsic force to modulate it.

*edit* Watch this: http://spikedhumor.c...s-AAI-2009.html

Edited by N.T.M., 16 September 2010 - 08:20 AM.

[shadowhawk]

cyclic models
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Cyclic_model

Soma
Finally cosmologists are developing a model for what I have always intuited.

Actually this model has been developing for quite some time and I find it interesting too.

The "cyclic model" of the universe is an interesting theory that agrees with all of the current mathematical and observational data. It is an impeccably researched and, heretofore, uncontested alternative to the "big bang" theory.

There are several Cyclic modes and they are all contested.

In brief- the "big bang", rather than being a beginning, was rather a phase of a cycle of a universe forming process that is without beginning.

I'm reading the book now entitled "Endless Universe" written by the cosmologists who were instrumental in formulating this model (Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok).

A couple quotes from the book:

"In contrast to the inflationary model, the cyclic story has an overarching principle that ties its components together. Cosmic evolution is endlessly repeating with no beginning or end."

"The new model is also tightly interwoven. No form of energy in the past or the future ever goes out of existence. Each reappears from cycle to cycle."

This takes care of the entropy problem.

Concerning the universe, you really have only two options- preexistence, or the "something out of nothing" conundrum. As thughes was saying, if you are looking for an ultimate "cause" to the universe, you inevitably have to follow the cause-and-effect process until you have to reach an "uncaused cause". You have to find the original "domino". A preexistent "something". Now, don't misunderstand me. I am by no means implying the existence of some sort of deity.

Nor does this deny one. I agree that you reach an uncaused cause and in this case the universe has the attributes of God without the person of God. This kind of universe produces and contains consciousness and persons..

Some are content with the logical contradiction of "something out of nothing". Others feel that something preexistent must exist. Some call the preexistent "God" and think that it created the universe and everything in it. Others, including prominent cosmologists, are now realizing that the preexistent may

Something preexistent exists In both cases. You still have an infinite cause and effect with all the issues that brings up. If God is a logical contradiction so is this. Define logical contradiction.

indeed be "energy" which is eternally transforming. Endlessly transforming into universes, galaxies, planets, rocks, plants, animals, and people.

As it is now with the exception it is eternal.

Quantum mechanics tell us that everything is the universe is energy- swirling vortexes of energy- some of which takes of the appearance of matter (even solid matter) although nothing fundamentally "solid" exists at all. Everything seen and unseen is the manifestation of energy. And beyond this, it is fundamentally ONE energy. Erwin Schrodinger said, "Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe." David Bohm said that the universe was "undivided wholeness."

There are no "parts". There are just aspects of this one energy.

All models essentially say this.

"In this movement, there is NO THING. Rather, things are abstracted out of the movement in our perception and thought, and any such abstraction fits the real movement only up to a point, and without limits. Some ‘things’ may last for a very long time and be fairly stable, while others are ephemeral as the shapes abstracted in perceptions of clouds." - David Bohm (1976. Fragmentation and Wholeness. Jerusalem: Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation, p. 40).

I have a problem here.

In this model, the process of the cycling universe is uncreated, for it never began and it will never end. It consists of the continuous transformation of an uncreated, indestructible "something" (we'll call it energy for the sake of convenience). This energy is always changing form on both a micro and macroscopic level. People are born and die, planets are born and die, universes are born and die. All of this part of the eternal transformation of an energy that was never created and will never be destroyed.

This corresponds to what the mystics of every traditional of told us throughout millennia- that YOU are "God" (as is everything else). No, you are not "God" in the exoteric religious sense.

This is not true. I know many mystics who would reject this

You are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, but what you are "made" of is because it is a manifestation that that uncreated energy and according to the most recent cosmological theory, it never began and it will never end.

I enjoyed what you have written though I disagree with some of it. Thanks.

[thughes]

Your argument falls because God did not begin to exist. Therefore there is no infinite regression to God but there is a finite regression to everything that came into being. This is what is wrong with your model. God is not a turtle but I suspect you know that.

You have not provided a reason that God does not need to begin to exist and the universe does (other than that you want to make up the attribute "always existing" and apply it to God...) that's not a very convincing argument.

If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions.

Just replace "universe" with "God" above and you will see what I mean. If God is real, he has a history. There are past events in his life. But, that leads to self-contradictions.

Turtles are well known in this context btw: http://en.wikipedia....ll_the_way_down

our point here suffers from the same issues as your first point.
http://idpluspetersw.../blog-post.html
You nave no evidence that life ever proceeded from non existing life. Hence abiogenesis indeed does not apply. “The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known.”

You miss my point. I was simply explaining that the "law of Biogenesis" does not refute abiogenesis, since in context it was never meant to apply to abiogenesis. Using the law of Biogenesis to try to refute abiogenesis is a simple misunderstanding of both.

The evidence for abiogenesis is another situation entirely. That science is definitely in its infancy. They have some interesting and fun hypotheses though.

So you are saying this is not an argument from ignorance? Something is irreducibly complex when you run out of adequate causes which could have produced an effect. I think you are still at that stage.

Yes, your argument about the irreducible complexity of the cell is an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure where you get the idea that science has run out of adequate research avenues into the origin of the modern cell.

- Tracy

[shadowhawk]

Your argument falls because God did not begin to exist. Therefore there is no infinite regression to God but there is a finite regression to everything that came into being. This is what is wrong with your model. God is not a turtle but I suspect you know that.

You have not provided a reason that God does not need to begin to exist and the universe does (other than that you want to make up the attribute "always existing" and apply it to God...) that's not a very convincing argument.

If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions.

Just replace "universe" with "God" above and you will see what I mean. If God is real, he has a history. There are past events in his life. But, that leads to self-contradictions.

Turtles are well known in this context btw: http://en.wikipedia....ll_the_way_down

our point here suffers from the same issues as your first point.
http://idpluspetersw.../blog-post.html
You nave no evidence that life ever proceeded from non existing life. Hence abiogenesis indeed does not apply. "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known."

You miss my point. I was simply explaining that the "law of Biogenesis" does not refute abiogenesis, since in context it was never meant to apply to abiogenesis. Using the law of Biogenesis to try to refute abiogenesis is a simple misunderstanding of both.

The evidence for abiogenesis is another situation entirely. That science is definitely in its infancy. They have some interesting and fun hypotheses though.

So you are saying this is not an argument from ignorance? Something is irreducibly complex when you run out of adequate causes which could have produced an effect. I think you are still at that stage.

Yes, your argument about the irreducible complexity of the cell is an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure where you get the idea that science has run out of adequate research avenues into the origin of the modern cell.

- Tracy

The Kalam agreement argued another way.







In order to not make this confusing I won’t try to answer all your issues which are drawn from a number of past posts, the Kalam is enough here. I will address them all as we go along.

[N.T.M.]

Oh God, more syllogisms.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the possibility of the universe creating itself naturally was uncleverly excluded? Yeah, instead something else had to initiate it.

Again, I’d like to adduce this video as a counterargument:

http://spikedhumor.c...s-AAI-2009.html

*edit* I watched the videos. Seriously, it was unconvincing. First, they thoroughly dismiss infinity in any form as impossible. Second, they postulate an infinite entity that began the finite universe. That sounds like a contradiction.

When they’re talking about God transcending space-time it seems like they’ve really grown desensitized to what they’re saying. God is simply not the intuitive answer like they’re suggesting. In fact, you need an incredible amount of evidence to even entertain the idea, and obviously none of the videos you’ve provided constitute any such evidence.

*edit again* 5:43 (last video) Really? And that's logical?

Edited by N.T.M., 11 October 2010 - 09:58 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Oh God, more syllogisms.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the possibility of the universe creating itself naturally was uncleverly excluded? Yeah, instead something else had to initiate it.

Again, I’d like to adduce this video as a counterargument:

http://spikedhumor.c...s-AAI-2009.html

*edit* I watched the videos. Seriously, it was unconvincing. First, they thoroughly dismiss infinity in any form as impossible. Second, they postulate an infinite entity that began the finite universe. That sounds like a contradiction.

When they’re talking about God transcending space-time it seems like they’ve really grown desensitized to what they’re saying. God is simply not the intuitive answer like they’re suggesting. In fact, you need an incredible amount of evidence to even entertain the idea, and obviously none of the videos you’ve provided constitute any such evidence.

*edit again* 5:43 (last video) Really? And that's logical?

So you have answered the question, “why is there something rather than nothing.” It came from nothing! You have really accomplished something. Not. Here is a response by Craig to Lawrence Krauss who convinced you. I listened to Krauss also.



Creation out of nothing Krauss says? You are convinced by that? The Kalam argument begins with the observable universe and everything we see in it needing a cause. Do you believe in evolution? I won’t go into the argument again because the videos I presented did it well. Here is Craig’s version again which I still like.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Anything that is cause and effect is an insufficient cause for the universe. That is why anything that is caused must face an infinite regress a problem which has been debated since ancient times. That is why you need something different than something caused, to begin existence of a caused cosmos.

[N.T.M.]

Oh God, more syllogisms.

Doesn’t it seem odd that the possibility of the universe creating itself naturally was uncleverly excluded? Yeah, instead something else had to initiate it.

Again, I’d like to adduce this video as a counterargument:

http://spikedhumor.c...s-AAI-2009.html

*edit* I watched the videos. Seriously, it was unconvincing. First, they thoroughly dismiss infinity in any form as impossible. Second, they postulate an infinite entity that began the finite universe. That sounds like a contradiction.

When they’re talking about God transcending space-time it seems like they’ve really grown desensitized to what they’re saying. God is simply not the intuitive answer like they’re suggesting. In fact, you need an incredible amount of evidence to even entertain the idea, and obviously none of the videos you’ve provided constitute any such evidence.

*edit again* 5:43 (last video) Really? And that's logical?

So you have answered the question, “why is there something rather than nothing.” It came from nothing! You have really accomplished something. Not. Here is a response by Craig to Lawrence Krauss who convinced you. I listened to Krauss also.



Creation out of nothing Krauss says? You are convinced by that? The Kalam argument begins with the observable universe and everything we see in it needing a cause. Do you believe in evolution? I won’t go into the argument again because the videos I presented did it well. Here is Craig’s version again which I still like.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Anything that is cause and effect is an insufficient cause for the universe. That is why anything that is caused must face an infinite regress a problem which has been debated since ancient times. That is why you need something different than something caused, to begin existence of a caused cosmos.

The arrogance in that video was impressive, really. First, he “debunks” Krauss’ theory by applying a true state of nothingness. And he actually goes on a while there. Eventually, however, he readdresses the issue, now applying the correct definition of nothing: quantum fluctuations. Funnily enough though, his new point of criticism is “regressional issues.” Obviously at this point he’s become completely preoccupied with his own erroneous critiques that he’s totally forgotten about his theism and its adjunct (MASSIVE) regressional issues. And remember: such issues stand since their only outlet is not justified by probability; since god is superfluous, there’s absolutely no coherent reason to bend over backwards to make his existence plausible (“transcending space-time”? Really?). Here Craig has neglected rudimentary critical thinking patterns in pursuit of circular fallaciousness. He truly should be an embarrassment.

So, to recap: Krauss doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he can’t explain the origin of quantum fluctuations (which isn’t even needed), and God, in his infiniteness, solves all problems because people like Craig are willing to throw themselves into embarrassing contortions.

Now as for evolution: should you choose to digress to this I can guarantee you that you will get embarrassed, even more than you already have.

Don’t do it.

[Ark]

I believe in a god, a all knowing god that is interwoven into all of us. I believe that I am destined to bring heaven to earth as Armageddon occurs I shall rebuild the earth and bring a final end the Babylonian occult which has defiled gods work for the last time. In 25 years roughly you'd better be in Chile if you want to survive. You can join me bringing the 8th day to the world and joy peace will rain over the land for at least 1000 years. The NWO is going to destabilize due to there own belief in themselves being masters of fate, the Georgia guide-stones attest to that.

there is a secret history of the world - religion is just another part of it, the belief in false profits can only bring misery. Being part of Islam or Cathic church is actually just subunits of the NWO occult. Notice how the crusades kept the world in the dark and those who are most holy in power of all(holy only to the devil) and the similarities in the new testimet / koron to the old testiment kinda funny it reminds me of the definition of originality (which is whoever can conceal there source best) . check into the rosemary and the society/322 check into what lurther did and then tell me that the wars weren't meant to punish the German people and gods chosen people . The fact Hitler was allowed to escape to Argentina is proof ,(sited project highjump) goerge lucas for instance didn't make up the storyline for starwars its roughly based on modern events. h1n1 was trail for whats to come, be prepared or be prepared to die. Like all wars its planned and those plans are leaked out by caring people but knowing they will die they write between the lines in hope that someone will do something. Someone did in fact his name is Ron Paul, he was up against black magic and evil minds which used all there powers to smear his ideas and push there radical forth Reich agendas of nation building for there upcoming final confrontations. Ford said on his deathbed that all presidents are decided before hand by a concise planning *(this on his deathbed*) stalin told his daughter to trust no one because he was being hunted by the Illuminati or Jesuit assassins. JFK turns against them, and is hunted down and murdered and then his family was punished as well. His brother was forced to falsely accuse the mafia of the assassination in order for the illumination to gain more control. (after this they betrayed there word and one by one destroyed them) Princess Dianna (same boat) check into skull and bones and there relation to the popicy the occult and the number 322 the year of there Babylonian arbitrator died http://en.wikipedia....ki/Demosthenes. Also the Georgia guide-stones are the measurements of the Dubia tower which was made in 1980. (aka the Babylonian tower, and its not a acquiescence that gods work of putting the Jews are back in Israel. Its all been planned and its a shame please be open minded and do some research into what god really is and he will save your soul and preserve you. Btw I believe MS in the NW is caused by our massive weather seeding program.


>Google 535 leak source<



For God wants you to have the most fun while respecting all of what nature has to offer and keeping in line with what hamanity should be, gods true Angels.

Btw anyone notice anything perhaps strange about Obama and Hitler... can anyone see?!?!?! what i see?!?!?!?!

ziotguiest is there to mislead you and give half truths but its worth a watch if you know nothing about the reason we go to war and how our empire works the oil crusade is a farce they are looking for artifacts for secret rituals. The private sector has had the means for reusable energy for sometime, but they refuse to commit to change even though its evident that there will be a major cataclysmic events if we continue the way we are. Russia vs China - State Vs State- like i said Chile the more south the better.


God told me the worthy ones would take note and only believe me when the signs are obvious, the rest will die.

What the lulz Idontkonw

I believe god is going to come down to earth one day after- I reach him with a machine; to make things right for all, rapture aka ex duex machina.



Random notes
look into HARP (war destroyed the worlds weather patterns.)
I believe that they have ways to cause earthquakes (think deep sea drilling and perhaps slowing down the earths crust with the large hadron collider.

Final note Saddam Hussein never died he was captured after he was allowed to run around through holes, when they felt he was close to death from exhaustion they captured him and used a twin to hang. They took him back to sodomize and sexually threesome him with Bush Sr and Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic because of there occult belief incest is common place along with sexual assault and snuff.(in fact if you want to advance in skull in bones you have to orgy or in some peoples cases masturbate onto a talisman. At higher levels (the very top, its to literally fuck your enemy in the ass, etc) Bush Seniors Nickname was Sex Machine due to his legendary sexual appetite for the most hardcore of sexual acts.


They use a number of lower level occults to screen for potential members of there occults everything from Scientology to http://en.wikipedia....Templi_Orientis etc, once they get everyone to commit there hearts to sin, the angles who are watching over the majority of us will leave us to our own problems and then the real game begins.


GOOD LUCK ALL IN & God Bless The World-

Edited by Ark, 13 October 2010 - 08:12 AM.

[Ark]

http://en.wikipedia....crets_of_Fatima

Attached Files

•  400px-Lutte_de_Jacob_avec_l'Ange.jpg   76.92KB   3 downloads

Edited by Ark, 13 October 2010 - 10:57 AM.

[Elus]

I believe in a god, a all knowing god that is interwoven into all of us. I believe that I am destined to bring heaven to earth as Armageddon occurs I shall rebuild the earth and bring a final end the Babylonian occult which has defiled gods work for the last time. In 25 years roughly you'd better be in Chile if you want to survive. You can join me bringing the 8th day to the world and joy peace will rain over the land for at least 1000 years. The NWO is going to destabilize due to there own belief in themselves being masters of fate, the Georgia guide-stones attest to that.

there is a secret history of the world - religion is just another part of it, the belief in false profits can only bring misery. Being part of Islam or Cathic church is actually just subunits of the NWO occult. Notice how the crusades kept the world in the dark and those who are most holy in power of all(holy only to the devil) and the similarities in the new testimet / koron to the old testiment kinda funny it reminds me of the definition of originality (which is whoever can conceal there source best) . check into the rosemary and the society/322 check into what lurther did and then tell me that the wars weren't meant to punish the German people and gods chosen people . The fact Hitler was allowed to escape to Argentina is proof ,(sited project highjump) goerge lucas for instance didn't make up the storyline for starwars its roughly based on modern events. h1n1 was trail for whats to come, be prepared or be prepared to die. Like all wars its planned and those plans are leaked out by caring people but knowing they will die they write between the lines in hope that someone will do something. Someone did in fact his name is Ron Paul, he was up against black magic and evil minds which used all there powers to smear his ideas and push there radical forth Reich agendas of nation building for there upcoming final confrontations. Ford said on his deathbed that all presidents are decided before hand by a concise planning *(this on his deathbed*) stalin told his daughter to trust no one because he was being hunted by the Illuminati or Jesuit assassins.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlghYpDx0f4 JFK turns against them, and is hunted down and murdered and then his family was punished as well. His brother was forced to falsely accuse the mafia of the assassination in order for the illumination to gain more control. (after this they betrayed there word and one by one destroyed them) Princess Dianna (same boat) check into skull and bones and there relation to the popicy the occult and the number 322 the year of there Babylonian arbitrator died http://en.wikipedia....ki/Demosthenes. Also the Georgia guide-stones are the measurements of the Dubia tower which was made in 1980. (aka the Babylonian tower, and its not a acquiescence that gods work of putting the Jews are back in Israel. Its all been planned and its a shame please be open minded and do some research into what god really is and he will save your soul and preserve you. Btw I believe MS in the NW is caused by our massive weather seeding program.


>Google 535 leak source<



For God wants you to have the most fun while respecting all of what nature has to offer and keeping in line with what hamanity should be, gods true Angels.

Btw anyone notice anything perhaps strange about Obama and Hitler... can anyone see?!?!?! what i see?!?!?!?!

ziotguiest is there to mislead you and give half truths but its worth a watch if you know nothing about the reason we go to war and how our empire works the oil crusade is a farce they are looking for artifacts for secret rituals. The private sector has had the means for reusable energy for sometime, but they refuse to commit to change even though its evident that there will be a major cataclysmic events if we continue the way we are. Russia vs China - State Vs State- like i said Chile the more south the better.


God told me the worthy ones would take note and only believe me when the signs are obvious, the rest will die.

What the lulz Idontkonw

I believe god is going to come down to earth one day after- I reach him with a machine; to make things right for all, rapture aka ex duex machina.



Random notes
look into HARP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3gKa0z7rjM (war destroyed the worlds weather patterns.)
I believe that they have ways to cause earthquakes (think deep sea drilling and perhaps slowing down the earths crust with the large hadron collider.

Final note Saddam Hussein never died he was captured after he was allowed to run around through holes, when they felt he was close to death from exhaustion they captured him and used a twin to hang. They took him back to sodomize and sexually threesome him with Bush Sr and Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic because of there occult belief incest is common place along with sexual assault and snuff.(in fact if you want to advance in skull in bones you have to orgy or in some peoples cases masturbate onto a talisman. At higher levels (the very top, its to literally fuck your enemy in the ass, etc) Bush Seniors Nickname was Sex Machine due to his legendary sexual appetite for the most hardcore of sexual acts.


They use a number of lower level occults to screen for potential members of there occults everything from Scientology to http://en.wikipedia....Templi_Orientis etc, once they get everyone to commit there hearts to sin, the angles who are watching over the majority of us will leave us to our own problems and then the real game begins.


GOOD LUCK ALL IN & God Bless The World-

[shadowhawk]

Oh God, more syllogisms.

Doesn't it seem odd that the possibility of the universe creating itself naturally was uncleverly excluded? Yeah, instead something else had to initiate it.

Again, I'd like to adduce this video as a counterargument:

http://spikedhumor.c...s-AAI-2009.html

*edit* I watched the videos. Seriously, it was unconvincing. First, they thoroughly dismiss infinity in any form as impossible. Second, they postulate an infinite entity that began the finite universe. That sounds like a contradiction.

When they're talking about God transcending space-time it seems like they've really grown desensitized to what they're saying. God is simply not the intuitive answer like they're suggesting. In fact, you need an incredible amount of evidence to even entertain the idea, and obviously none of the videos you've provided constitute any such evidence.

*edit again* 5:43 (last video) Really? And that's logical?

So you have answered the question, "why is there something rather than nothing." It came from nothing! You have really accomplished something. Not. Here is a response by Craig to Lawrence Krauss who convinced you. I listened to Krauss also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l5jbqyZ8qY

Creation out of nothing Krauss says? You are convinced by that? The Kalam argument begins with the observable universe and everything we see in it needing a cause. Do you believe in evolution? I won't go into the argument again because the videos I presented did it well. Here is Craig's version again which I still like.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

Anything that is cause and effect is an insufficient cause for the universe. That is why anything that is caused must face an infinite regress a problem which has been debated since ancient times. That is why you need something different than something caused, to begin existence of a caused cosmos.

The arrogance in that video was impressive, really. First, he "debunks" Krauss' theory by applying a true state of nothingness. And he actually goes on a while there. Eventually, however, he readdresses the issue, now applying the correct definition of nothing: quantum fluctuations. Funnily enough though, his new point of criticism is "regressional issues." Obviously at this point he's become completely preoccupied with his own erroneous critiques that he's totally forgotten about his theism and its adjunct (MASSIVE) regressional issues. And remember: such issues stand since their only outlet is not justified by probability; since god is superfluous, there's absolutely no coherent reason to bend over backwards to make his existence plausible ("transcending space-time"? Really?). Here Craig has neglected rudimentary critical thinking patterns in pursuit of circular fallaciousness. He truly should be an embarrassment.

So, to recap: Krauss doesn't know what he's talking about because he can't explain the origin of quantum fluctuations (which isn't even needed), and God, in his infiniteness, solves all problems because people like Craig are willing to throw themselves into embarrassing contortions.

Now as for evolution: should you choose to digress to this I can guarantee you that you will get embarrassed, even more than you already have.

Don't do it.

I saw no arrogance. Where? Several issues arise from your response.

1. What is your "correct" definition of nothing?
2. Does endless regressions present any problems to you? You seem to argue Craig shouldn’t mention it.
3. What probability justifies an endless regression?
4. How have you demonstrated circular reasoning?
5. I am not embarrassed. Why should I be? You argue by calling people names with no substance.
6. Why should I be afraid of talking about evolution? You are joking surely. “Don’t do it!” Or what?

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

[N.T.M.]

I saw no arrogance. Where? Several issues arise from your response.

1. What is your "correct" definition of nothing?
2. Does endless regressions present any problems to you? You seem to argue Craig shouldn’t mention it.
3. What probability justifies an endless regression?
4. How have you demonstrated circular reasoning?
5. I am not embarrassed. Why should I be? You argue by calling people names with no substance.
6. Why should I be afraid of talking about evolution? You are joking surely. “Don’t do it!” Or what?

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

My father's computer recently contracted a virus and, although it's obviously back up now, he has yet to download the requisite programs for watching any videos.

I'm tired of going in circles with these arguments. Clearly a main issue is the assumption that regressional issues presented by quantum fluctuations is even remotely on par with those presented by the god hypothesis.

As for as evolution: I'm not sure what your stance is. Are you disputing its accuracy?

[shadowhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nmJU6Ec_Mk

I saw no arrogance. Where? Several issues arise from your response.

1. What is your "correct" definition of nothing?
2. Does endless regressions present any problems to you? You seem to argue Craig shouldn't mention it.
3. What probability justifies an endless regression?
4. How have you demonstrated circular reasoning?
5. I am not embarrassed. Why should I be? You argue by calling people names with no substance.
6. Why should I be afraid of talking about evolution? You are joking surely. "Don't do it!" Or what?

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

http://www.vidbox.or..._Existence.html

My father's computer recently contracted a virus and, although it's obviously back up now, he has yet to download the requisite programs for watching any videos.

I'm tired of going in circles with these arguments. Clearly a main issue is the assumption that regressional issues presented by quantum fluctuations is even remotely on par with those presented by the god hypothesis.

As for as evolution: I'm not sure what your stance is. Are you disputing its accuracy?

Which if the many theories of evolution are you speaking of?

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 November 2010 - 08:19 PM.