Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[phaedrus]

Well, there is ANTI-matter, but the name alone implies it is quite impossible.

anti-matter is "no matter." no matter, no existence. so if God is "ANTI-matter" (deduced from Sorovis' claim that God is "above matter"), then God does not exist, because ANTI-matter means "no matter," which means no existence.

[Sorovis]

as i've seen before, i'll say it here: Even if you win a debate [on the Internet], you're still retarded. i do read posts. you sound ridiculous to me. also, note how i apparently "selective read", not "DIDN'T READ".

Not necessarily. Obviously intellect alone cannot win a debate, it requires time and charisma (and endurance). And if you're going to selective read just about everything I post, why should I bother to respond to you? Obviously you don't wish to take me seriously; so why should I take you seriously?

1. one who cannot say "inifinite time" doesn't believe in infinite time.
2. beginning = Big Bang
3. so, Point A = Big Bang, and Point B = Now. i think the big bang is a beginning point. that's a beginning. time didn't exist until the world existed. asshat.

But if time did not exist until the world existed, then there could have been no time when the Big Bang happened, and when the Universe was developing. That quite clearly contradicts your 'time is a measurement' point.

And also; what set the Big Bang into motion then? There must have been something, because as I have said events and matter need causing; the Big Bang I would say counts as an event, thus needs something to cause it.

seems quite like a communist or a dictator, i'd have to say. apparently, because this God is above all of "His own creations", this God is a fruitcake, because a "Rightful Ruler" would let himself be bound by his own laws.

You obviously do not understand the concept of Creator. If you could refer back to my example of the lego builder or the (hypothetical) example of the creator and his AI inventions set in their computer environment. That should pretty well explain it.

do you not see that matter and energy are needed to exist? no matter or energy, no existence.

Unless of course there is a God to Create them who is not composed of them, which is what I am proving.

Also, I am not very knowledgable on anti-matter, but I do believe it exists. I am fairly certain it has to do with black holes, but again, I don't know much about it.

[phaedrus]

Not necessarily. Obviously intellect alone cannot win a debate, it requires time and charisma (and endurance). And if you're going to selective read just about everything I post, why should I bother to respond to you? Obviously you don't wish to take me seriously; so why should I take you seriously?

that one, i selectively read, because that one was too long.

1. if you don't want to respond to me, by all means, go ahead. it just means my points go by unchallenged. your pick. your religion or your reputation.
2. i don't take you seriously because you base yourself off the fact that GOD HAS TO EXIST. if you started by proving that, maybe the reputation factor would go up, and maybe i would start to take you more seriously.

But if time did not exist until the world existed, then there could have been no time when the Big Bang happened, and when the Universe was developing. That quite clearly contradicts your 'time is a measurement' point.

time began at the Big Bang. of course, there is no proof of how it happened. like how there's no proof that God exists.

And also; what set the Big Bang into motion then? There must have been something, because as I have said events and matter need causing; the Big Bang I would say counts as an event, thus needs something to cause it.

no one knows how it began. read my previous comment. if you say something needed to cause the Big Bang, then something had to happen that resulted in God.

You obviously do not understand the concept of Creator. If you could refer back to my example of the lego builder or the (hypothetical) example of the creator and his AI inventions set in their computer environment. That should pretty well explain it.

obviously, you do not understand that something had to create God. he can't go "poof, i'm here because i damn well can." unless he is a dictator, of course.

Unless of course there is a God to Create them who is not composed of them, which is what I am proving.

awkward wording, can't tell what the **** you're saying. if God created people, then something had to have created God.

Also, I am not very knowledgable on anti-matter, but I do believe it exists. I am fairly certain it has to do with black holes, but again, I don't know much about it.

When an object gets sucked into a black hole, it becomes anti-matter. In a sense, a black hole is a fat bastard that can't stop eating. There isn't an explanation for the reason why black holes exist, but there are a whole lot of things that don't have reasons or logical explanations. like the existence of God.

[Sorovis]

that one, i selectively read, because that one was too long.

1. if you don't want to respond to me, by all means, go ahead. it just means my points go by unchallenged. your pick. your religion or your reputation.
2. i don't take you seriously because you base yourself off the fact that GOD HAS TO EXIST. if you started by proving that, maybe the reputation factor would go up, and maybe i would start to take you more seriously.

Perhaps you would see that I already have presented numerous reasons supporting God's existence. It's not my fault you have chosen to look over them; nor will I labor again to restate them. If you want to see my argument as of now, you can go back to where I posted it. Have fun.

time began at the Big Bang. of course, there is no proof of how it happened. like how there's no proof that God exists.

The proof that God exists could easily been in the fact that something had to cause the Big Bang. Then of course there is my entire point regarding why life should prove the existence of God. Chances of life coming about on its own is so incredibly unlikely that there is a greater chance that within one hour I will be killed when a piece of straw is thrown down my throat by a tornado rotating counterclockwise and going East at fifty-seven miles an hour. Intelligent Design is really the only logical option.

no one knows how it began. read my previous comment. if you say something needed to cause the Big Bang, then something had to happen that resulted in God.

Not if you would consider my point that God does not need causing, because God is not energy or matter because He created both. And then of course remember that God is also not an event; saying that since the Big Bang occured God must as well dismisses the fact that they are two totally different things: one was an occurance; the other an intelligent supreme being.

obviously, you do not understand that something had to create God. he can't go "poof, i'm here because i damn well can." unless he is a dictator, of course.

Consider the term 'God'. Consider the term Creator, or at least in the way I attribute to God. Then consider once again that God is not a limited being as is assumed.

awkward wording, can't tell what the **** you're saying. if God created people, then something had to have created God.

Take it into context with what I was answering and you will see that I was saying that God created both and is comprised of neither. Again, consider the term 'God'. People are different than God, you see, in that they are the creations of a Creator; no endless cycle of Creator/creation is within the realm of proof; only speculation, as so I am going to dismiss any possible future argument regarding such.

When an object gets sucked into a black hole, it becomes anti-matter. In a sense, a black hole is a fat bastard that can't stop eating. There isn't an explanation for the reason why black holes exist, but there are a whole lot of things that don't have reasons or logical explanations. like the existence of God.

Just because God's existence may not have any logical explanation that is confirmed with evidence does not mean He does not exist though, just remember that. In any case, thanks for the information.

[Aglandiir]

When an object is sucked into a black hole, it gets ripped apart to its component atoms. We don't really know what happens after that, since you can't exactly send a probe down there, and even if you could, the nearest black hole is millions of light years away. Black holes do seem to emit odd particles, but I don't believe they're antimatter.

I never really looked into it much, but I believe antimatter is the same as matter, but with an opposite energy state. (Warning: pseudo-math follows) See, E = mc^2 is actually an oversimplified version of the real equation for energy, which boils down to E^2 = m^2c^4. Since the E is squared, the equation has two solutions: one positive and one negative. Normal matter satisfies the positive solution and fits E = mc^2. Antimatter fits the negative-energy solution. It behaves in the same way as normal matter and obeys the same physical laws. Every particle of matter has a corresponding antiparticle; protons, neutrons, and electrons have antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons, respectively.

If God was created by interaction between matter and antimatter, then God would be energy. Because that's what happens when they meet. When a particle collides with its antiparticle, both become pure energy and disperse.

About the Big Bang, time, and all that junk: scientists are working on it. Remember, time is just a dimension, like the three spacial dimensions we can see and touch. On that note, I suggest you do a little studying on string theory and M-theory... or at least read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green. As it applies to this debate, it basically says that the Big Bang might not have been the beginning at all... and that our universe might actually exist inside of higher-dimensional constructs of varying shapes. And remember: once you start talking about things outside of the universe, whether they're God or multiverses or whatever, then time has no meaning. Time is a lower dimension; these things exist outside of time, outside of three-dimensional space (though they would have projections in three-space, just like a 3D brick casts a 2D shadow on a wall), and outside of anything our 3D-evolved brains can grasp.

Basically, "everything" might exist in a state similar to what you're claiming about God... except without a God.

And before you get all worked up and say it hasn't been proven yet... don't bother. It doesn't need to be proven to serve a function here; since your arguments on the subject seem to say that God must exist because there is no other explanation... well, M-theory is another explanation. God's got competition.

About the astronomically low chances of life randomly happening: nobody denies it. Trouble is, it's a red-herring argument. The chances could be one billion, one trillion, a zillion to one... it doesn't matter. As long as there is any chance of something happening, no matter how remote, then, given an infinite amount of time, there is a 100% sure-bet chance that it'll happen eventually. Life took 12 billion years to get started on Earth. Sure, given the odds that might seem kinda quick, but it's a random chance. There was just as good a chance for life to start when it did as five billion years earlier or later. If the Earth had been destroyed before life came around, no worries; another suitable planet would eventually crop up somewhere.

Your claims about infinite time being impossible are just totally wrong. You obviously can have a here or a now in something infinite. Space is infinite (to a practical extent), and we are certainly somewhere in space. You don't need a beginning or an end in order to have a meaningful position. Beginnings and ends are just special cases of something much, much more fundamental: reference points. You don't need a reference point to have a position... but having a position is pretty useless if there's nothing to measure it against. Anyway, if time is infinite, we could still exist "now" for one very simple reason: we existed "just a moment ago," and that is a perfectly good reference point by which to measure how far along in time we've traveled.

One reminder: by the definition of God, it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. The only option us non-believers have is to provide alternatives. Speaking of the definition of God... there really isn't a meaningful one. That makes it awfully easy for believers to adapt their stories to changing times. God could always exist, just beyond the current limits of our knowledge. Thousands of years ago, he existed above the sky and the stars. Once people started look at space with telescopes, God was beyond the blackness. Then he was outside of the universe itself. He's outside of everything, always one step ahead.

[Pokemaster Matt]

The proof that God exists could easily been in the fact that something had to cause the Big Bang. Then of course there is my entire point regarding why life should prove the existence of God. Chances of life coming about on its own is so incredibly unlikely that there is a greater chance that within one hour I will be killed when a piece of straw is thrown down my throat by a tornado rotating counterclockwise and going East at fifty-seven miles an hour. Intelligent Design is really the only logical option.

Sorry, Sorovis, but you still aren't getting anywhere with this argument. By saying that God must exist, because the Big Bang can't happen without Him, destroys your own argument. I know you think that He's above of us, therefore He doesn't need a logical explaination, but really, it doesn't convince anyone. Like Strat said, he can't go: 'Poof, I exist because I damn well can.'

[Gavin Luper]

I don't see how some of you hope to get anywhere by quoting scientific evidence such as energy and matter and the rest of that crap when trying to prove the non-existence of God. It's all null and void, in my opinion, for a reason which I will attempt to explain.

God, to be frank, is an unknown. Nobody on earth (as far as I believe) would be able to perceive a greater understanding of what He is than what I can imagine. However, God is eternal - he does not die - meaning time does not bind Him.

One of those who don't believe in God (either Strat or TMM i think) brought up Newton's law of conservation of mass. I don't understand how something devised (or "discovered") by a mere human could possibly define God's parameters. I don't think I can fully explain that concept - indeed, it would probably be overlooked if I did anyway - but what I'm saying is that God is eternal, and he is everywhere. God is not like a person, who exists in one single place at any point in time; he is everywhere, throughout the universe, eternally. Suggesting that he is bound by the so-called laws of Physics are rather closed-minded.

The problem today is that people are blinded by what they believe to be concrete - physics and the sciences. Fewer people are questioning beyond that understanding and trying to discover whether those principles, such as Physics, are applicable to every being and everything in the entire universe. In my belief, whether physics is right or wrong, it can not apply to everything. It's like how there's always an exception to the rule - well, God is one. Then again, maybe the rule is an exception to Him. I do not know.

For those of you who read this, I ask you to just consider what I am saying, I definitely do not ask you to agree with it. I simply request your tolerance and open-mindedness in this debate.

Thanks.

- Gavin.

[Brain]

The universe itself simply existing out of existence is not really plausible at all; that would completely duck the question of what then created time, what created energy and mass? Matter must come from something; and a thoughtless surround of the universe itself is certainly not an answer.

So we have the universe, right. The universe is a collection of matter and energy which have a certain spatial configuration. We can thus speak of the "state of the universe" as the quantity of matter and energy the universe has, the spatial configuration is holds, as well as the radius of the universe, and all appropriate properties of the universe that I did not explicitely mention. There are as many possible states for the universe as combinatorial mathematics can come up with.

Now, what is interesting is to link all the possible states together according to a certain set of rules. In other words, you can define functions which will take the state of the universe as input and spit out another state of the universe. Let us have one such function, f, which represents the laws of physics. The laws of physics take the state of the universe as input, and then calculate another state of the universe which is the state of the universe one time quantum later (as far as I know, quantum physics imply the existance of time and space quanta, i.e. time is not continuous and is in fact a succession of "frames", and space is not continuous and is in fact a set of irreducible spatial elements - but that's besides the point for now).

Therefore, you have the following elements:

1- the state of the universe: data
2- the laws of the universe: f: algorithm

How do you make an universe as we know them out of this?

1- you arbitrarily define state zero: s(0) = whatever
2- you define the recursive function: s(t+1) = f(s(t))
3- you launch it: you give state zero to the universe and apply the recursive function on it, then on the result, then again and again and again

Now, from this definition, and from that particular recursion, you can easily see that:

1- every state is entirely calculated from the previous state by f...
2- EXCEPT STATE ZERO

In other words, state zero has no cause. Whatever matter and energy existed at time zero has no origin. It is uncalculated. It was just there, it isn't the consequence of anything, it doesn't come from anywhere. State zero is the FIRST STATE, and as such, it is not subject to any rules as to its composition. The first moment of the universe can be any random junk you want, it doesn't matter one bit, because it is only subject to rules starting with state ONE. The rules apply between the first and second moment, and every interval from there on, but it has no say in the composition of state zero. When you start your computer, it acts in a predictable manner, following strict rules, but it doesn't change the fact that the registers and main memory is full of random junk before the programs clean them, even if no existing program could actually create that random junk.

In other words, no, matter and energy don't have to come from anywhere. Conservation of matter and energy are rules that apply between state zero and state one and every subsequent interval between two states in order to calculate them.


Now you will reiterate that state zero has to be initiated by an intelligent agent, etc. I will therefore pursue my argument in order to show you that it does not have to, and that if it was caused by an intelligent agent, then we would still have the same problem.

When you say "B comes from A", or "A created B" what does that mean? Quite obviously, when someone tells me that, I must conclude that:

1- This is an event. Therefore, there exists an integer t representing the frame of time where the creation occurred.
2- If I create something, it means that this something did not exist before. Therefore, B did not exist before time t.
3- If I create something, it means that this something exists now. Therefore, B exists at time t.
4- Obviously, in order to create something, you have to exist before you created it. Therefore, A existed before B, therefore it existed before time t, therefore it existed at time t-1.
5- Subjectively, A performed an action which resulted in the existence of B. It is the most important thing about creation, but for my argument, it is totally irrelevant.

In any way, when you speak about creation, you must admit the existence of at least two states of the universe. The first state, dubbed s(t-1) is a state in which A exists and B does not exist. The second state, dubbed s(t) is a state in which A may or may not exist, and B exists. Furthermore, the relation which exists between the two states is a relation of chronology. s(t-1) must absolutely precede s(t). To say this, implies the existence of time.

Therefore, time is a logical pre-requisite for creation.

Therefore, time cannot be created.


Now, let us apply the definition of creation to state zero. In this case, B, which is the created object, is all the matter and energy of the universe existing at state zero. Therefore, t = 0 and s(t) = s(0). Therefore, t-1 = -1 and s(t-1) = s(-1).

Therefore, if you wish to say that state zero comes from somewhere (God?), then the process of creation was performed between moment MINUS ONE and moment zero. But that's contradictory, because the first moment is moment zero. There is no moment minus one. And if there is a moment minus one, then from where does s(-1) originate? s(-2)? Now YOU are the one who's talking about a timeline which has no beginning.

In other words, whatever exists at the beginning of time cannot be created by anything, because creation implies that there was a state previous to the state where the creation appears and that is a blatant, obvious contradiction. If the universe was created, then the beginning of our universe was not the beginning of time, it did not occur at state zero, and our timeline is contained within another timeline. From this, one can either conclude to the existence of an infinite timeline or to the existence of a state zero which is uncaused.

When you give an initial state to a program, for that program, that initial state is state zero. From within its own timeline, time starts when you press the "GO" button. However, you must admit that this timeline is enclosed within ours. Therefore, that state zero which is uncaused within that universe, is caused by an event in our timeline. But in our timeline, the state zero of the program is not state zero, and the moment we pressed "GO" is not time zero either. It could not be otherwise. If there is a cause to a state zero, then that state zero is part of a state n in another timeline. If a timeline is the "last" timeline, and that no other timeline encloses it, then state zero is absolutely uncaused, and the matter which seemingly came from nowhere, in fact, didn't come from anywhere (there's a difference). The first moment in the universe had matter and energy which did not come from anywhere, as in, it could not come from something and still be the first moment. This said, the first state is as likely to be nothing, random junk or a bouquet of roses. There is no conceptual difference between the three.

Note that you may calculate a cause to state zero in its own timeline - I call that a virtual cause, or a retropolated (?) cause. The theory of the Big Bang, basically, retropolates the state of the universe until a point where no known rules can cause it. Therefore, time zero cannot have been before that point. However, time zero might have been yesterday. There would be no real cause to this state, however, there would be many virtual causes, as in, states which never actually happened in the timeline but who would have resulted in state zero if they did. It's like a movie - time zero is when the movie starts, and even though there are causes to the first events in the movie, these causes are virtual since they never really happened in the movie.

I'll repeat this: the rules of conservation of matter and energy are applied in each interval between two states, and the first such interval is between states zero and one. State zero is not subject to them. It's an exception, and it could not be otherwise, because it is a logical necessity for it to be an exception. The rules apply recursively and you need a seed to start it off. There's no "cause" to the seed, it just exists, period. If there is a "cause", then IT IS NOT TIME ZERO.

This said, causality is a void concept if time does not exist: a god outside of time cannot cause nor create anything. Saying otherwise is akin to not knowing the language you're speaking in.


Conclusion:

1- Time cannot be created
2- If matter and energy at state zero have a cause, that cause is a state of rank greater than or equal to zero from an enclosing timeline, and then the same reasoning can be applied for the state zero of that timeline ad infinitum or up to the encounter of an uncaused state zero


I'll come back on the "extremely small chances of life occurring" later. In the meantime learn about the "Game of Life", "fractals", "emerging complexity", "self-organizing systems", "statistical entropy" and such. It'll show you some very interesting ideas and examples about simple rules generating very complex structures, and theories about how complexity can come from chaos.

Also understand that the people who calculate these odds usually don't know what they are talking about. The calculations leading to the incredibly small chances you are basing your arguments on, if they weren't taken straight out of context, have been pretty much obliterated by the scientific community.

[Heald]

The Law of the Conservation of Matter

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into one form of another.

However, in the beginning, there was only antimatter and matter. When antimatter and matter collide, they are both destroyed. However, because there was more matter than antimatter, there was still matter left over. The reaction of this matter and antimatter colliding caused the Big Bang. It is believed there is no antimatter left in existence.

Also, Sorovis, saying it does not make sense that the universe cannot come to exist on its own is not proof at all. Rather, it just shows that human minds cannot comprehend that possibility. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is not possible. Believe it or not, we are not infallible (except me ).

[Sorovis]

About the Big Bang, time, and all that junk: scientists are working on it. Remember, time is just a dimension, like the three spacial dimensions we can see and touch. On that note, I suggest you do a little studying on string theory and M-theory... or at least read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green. As it applies to this debate, it basically says that the Big Bang might not have been the beginning at all... and that our universe might actually exist inside of higher-dimensional constructs of varying shapes. And remember: once you start talking about things outside of the universe, whether they're God or multiverses or whatever, then time has no meaning. Time is a lower dimension; these things exist outside of time, outside of three-dimensional space (though they would have projections in three-space, just like a 3D brick casts a 2D shadow on a wall), and outside of anything our 3D-evolved brains can grasp.

Basically, "everything" might exist in a state similar to what you're claiming about God... except without a God.

Considering I have only heard of such a theory in the passing it would become necessary for you to perhaps link to a site explaining it, or maybe explain it yourself. Quite obviously I am not going to just take your word on it yet simultaneously I am not going to deny it could be great potential debate material.

About the astronomically low chances of life randomly happening: nobody denies it. Trouble is, it's a red-herring argument. The chances could be one billion, one trillion, a zillion to one... it doesn't matter. As long as there is any chance of something happening, no matter how remote, then, given an infinite amount of time, there is a 100% sure-bet chance that it'll happen eventually. Life took 12 billion years to get started on Earth. Sure, given the odds that might seem kinda quick, but it's a random chance. There was just as good a chance for life to start when it did as five billion years earlier or later. If the Earth had been destroyed before life came around, no worries; another suitable planet would eventually crop up somewhere.

A red herring argument? Not intentionally, nor does it function as one as I will explain. First, twelve-billion years to get started on Earth? From everything I have looked at Earth isn't even twelve-billion years old; I forget what exactly I have read but somewhere between three and five-billion seems much closer to the true number. And here also you assume that ever since the Earth was created there has always been a chance for life to come into being; along with the rest of the planets. This is a flawed assumption. Life quite clearly could not have begun without the necessary gases and elements being present in the atmosphere, and without the necessary molecules to be present as well. The random chance for something to happen is great; but if there are so many settings and situations that must be correct before it even begins, that greatly limits the amount of time life would have had to begin on any given planet. Not only this, but you must consider how incredibly complex the earliest life must have been; I have used catalysts and how precise the two other molecules must be designed in order for the reaction to be accelerated. That would have to happen randomly, first of all, before any life could begin. At the same time, happening randomly in the same place, DNA and RNA would also have to randomly assemble themselves; no simple task, I might remind you. And if a sufficiant means of reproduction was not available at the time, all of this would be lost. Life is simply too complex to have happened by any random chance; unless by Intelligent Design.

Your claims about infinite time being impossible are just totally wrong. You obviously can have a here or a now in something infinite. Space is infinite (to a practical extent), and we are certainly somewhere in space. You don't need a beginning or an end in order to have a meaningful position. Beginnings and ends are just special cases of something much, much more fundamental: reference points. You don't need a reference point to have a position... but having a position is pretty useless if there's nothing to measure it against. Anyway, if time is infinite, we could still exist "now" for one very simple reason: we existed "just a moment ago," and that is a perfectly good reference point by which to measure how far along in time we've traveled.

Yes but if time went on without an end we would not be here yet because time would still be attempting to travel from point A; with no beginning and time simply going farther and farther back, reaching any particular destination becomes impossible; we wouldn't even have reached the creation of our own solar system yet. If time, you see, spanned for infinity, then there would be an infinate amount of time between the beginning of time (point A) and the present time (point B). Try counting backwards from negative infinity and try to reach zero. Not that fun, nor is it even possible.

One reminder: by the definition of God, it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. The only option us non-believers have is to provide alternatives. Speaking of the definition of God... there really isn't a meaningful one. That makes it awfully easy for believers to adapt their stories to changing times. God could always exist, just beyond the current limits of our knowledge. Thousands of years ago, he existed above the sky and the stars. Once people started look at space with telescopes, God was beyond the blackness. Then he was outside of the universe itself. He's outside of everything, always one step ahead.

Because He's God. The concept of a God is that they are above physical matter and energy; this one that He is the Creator. Is it so unreasonably ridiculous to claim that the ultimate supreme being would not be sitting right next to the farthest star? Back in that period of time, space was the limit to their thinking, thus God would be right beyond it. When we learned about the Universe and its extent, God was not there because that was within percievable knowledge. In truth, God is everywhere, as I believe Gavin Luper stated. You will not find God made of energy and matter because He is the Creator. It is a concept that must be understood before debating such a matter.

Well it seems that once again Brain has forced me to back down from the claim that God is not governed by time. If I am to find a counter for this, or perhaps set aside the time to reread the post to every detail (I understand it completely; for flaws, I mean), then I will attempt to resume this argument. For now, though, it goes to Brain as I have previously stated. I am however much more prepared to go about arguing the probability of the occurance of life, so it is much more doubtful, Brain, that I will back down on that specific point without at least a few posts on my part.

But I do still have a few questions and points regarding that post nonetheless: first and foremost, God, as you have stated, must have created the Universe and the Beginning under time (in which you also say that it must not have been the Beginning if time was taken to create it), to which I will ask if that necessarily means that God Himself exists under time, or simply operates under time? I suspect this point may be ignorant to something you have already posted, but if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it was answered I will be glad to read it again. If not, that as of now is my only standing point aside from speculations as to how other dimensions may affect our perception of this very topic; if you want to continue something on that issue, please state so and I will be happy to further state my ideas.

Also, Sorovis, saying it does not make sense that the universe cannot come to exist on its own is not proof at all. Rather, it just shows that human minds cannot comprehend that possibility. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is not possible. Believe it or not, we are not infallible (except me ).

An argument suggesting that the actual cause of the Universe may not be comprehendable to humans is moreso speculation than anything else; it also benefits the other side. In which case all I have to say is 'maybe the concept of God and the way He works is beyond the realm of human understanding'. For lack of an argument, however, and the fact that I am still laboring to prove God exists in the first place, I cannot and will not.

Sorry, Sorovis, but you still aren't getting anywhere with this argument. By saying that God must exist, because the Big Bang can't happen without Him, destroys your own argument. I know you think that He's above of us, therefore He doesn't need a logical explaination, but really, it doesn't convince anyone. Like Strat said, he can't go: 'Poof, I exist because I damn well can.'

First of all: think of the concept of God. Then, remember that I have stated repeatedly that God is not matter nor is He energy, nor is He an event; thus He does not need causing. In order to argue a person who claims that as God the Creator is above mass and energy, you cannot say 'that doesn't make sense who made him?' because I have already stated that as God, and the fact that He is not composed of physical properties and elements, He does not need to be created. From now on, I might as well do The Muffin Man's favorite thing and copy/paste this argument, because it looks like I will be repeating many times in the future. In order for you to disprove all of this by the way, you must first disprove the existence of God. Remember that.

[Tainted]

The earth is 4.6 billion years old while the sun, I believe, is what he was referring to. Sure, there was a very small chance of the big bang happening-- but how many other planets do you see that hold life on them? Look at how large just our galaxy is-- and as far as we know, we're the only life in our galaxy. Now look at the galaxy-- it's a mere speck in the size of the universe, and once again, it has not been proven that there is life other than us. I personally believe there is somewhere, but until it's proven, the argument is void.

So, if there are 5 planets in every solar system (a severe understatement) and 100 solar systems in every galaxy (a severe understatement) and 1,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe (a severe understatement) and we are the only planet with life on it: well, that's a ratio of 1:500,000,000,000.

One planet in five hundred billion (a severe understatement of the actual amount of planets) bears life. Life is a coincidence, why we exist here and not somewhere else is another coincidence-- it just so happened on Earth, it could've happened anywhere else, but we happened here.
It's pure chance, hell, if there was life on every planet, I might be a bit more partial to the theory of some higher being interveining-- but there's life on one planet as far as we know. And that's one planet compared to the near infinite amount of planets that actually exist-- coincidence? Yeah.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

Such a conclusion presupposes that each planet in each system has an equal chance to support and sustain life in the first place; along with create it. Such an assumption is extremely inaccurate; there are many conditions which must be right in order for life to even continue; much less appear. The appropriate gases must be present in sufficiant quantities; the necessary temperature must be constant (or at least mild enough). I realize that not all life is the same, and that theoretically there could be other ways of creating life from different elements and environments. My point still stands, however, that not all-- or even half-- of all of the planets in the Universe would be able to begin or support life.

[Heald]

In order for you to disprove all of this by the way, you must first disprove the existence of God. Remember that.

This is a good idea. Everybody stop: let this topic drop off page 1 and save Misc. Thank you.

- The 'Shut Up Fool!' Party

[Sorovis]

This is a good idea. Everybody stop: let this topic drop off page 1 and save Misc. Thank you.

Well its not like one topic is going to destroy the boards forever. Or will it...

[Aglandiir]

For the record, I was referring to the rough age of the universe. Earth formed just about 11 billion years after the Big Bang event (I'm making no claims here about what that event actually signifies). It took another billion years (not really, but you get the idea) for life to form on Earth after Earth formed out of our sun's nebula cloud. 11 + 1 = 12 billion years. By the way, the Sun is technically the same age as Earth, along with all the other planets, with the possible exception of Pluto, which seems to be a captured satellite.

Anyway...

Considering I have only heard of such a theory in the passing it would become necessary for you to perhaps link to a site explaining it, or maybe explain it yourself. Quite obviously I am not going to just take your word on it yet simultaneously I am not going to deny it could be great potential debate material.

I would explain it, but there's a good reason there are many thick books on the subject and the world's brightest minds are currently devoted to figuring it out: it's very complicated. You'd be much better served by reading the book I mentioned, or publications by people who make a living studying the equations involved.

But here, have a link to some links.

Such a conclusion presupposes that each planet in each system has an equal chance to support and sustain life in the first place; along with create it. [...] My point still stands, however, that not all-- or even half-- of all of the planets in the Universe would be able to begin or support life.

It's true that not every planet is capable of creating life. But you're not digging deep enough by saying that.

Every planet, at the moment of its birth has an equal chance of becoming a planet that could support the emergence of life. For many (most) planets, that chance becomes zero immediately; the planet could be too far away from its sun, it could have no moon or too many moons, it might not be large enough to hold an atmosphere with gravity... etc etc. But all planets have, if even for the shortest of instants, the potential to become a life-bearing planet.

And because all planets have that potential... due to what I said earlier about chances given infinite time, eventually, it is mathematically certain that a suitable planet will eventually come in to existence. Moreover, given infinite time, it is mathematically certain that an infinite number of such planets will eventually exist. And since there is a chance for each of those planets to develop life... given infinite time, an infinite number of those planets will eventually develop life. It's just simple mathematical limits. It could take a trillion years and just as many Earth-like planets dying before it happens, but life will eventually get going somewhere. What's more, life will eventually get going somewhere and keep going for an appreciable period of time. And, given infinite time, it will keep happening in different places in the universe, once in a very, very long while.

Not only this, but you must consider how incredibly complex the earliest life must have been

This also isn't exactly true. What we call "simple life" these days, things like ameoba and paramecium, are indeed very complicated. But those were not the first life forms. Even the considerably simpler bacterium was probably not the first. There are non-living structures in existence today with some intriguingly life-like characteristics; take, for instance, the prion, the feared antigen behind mad cow, Kuru, and CJD. It is a protein, and proteins are not living. They are merely molecules. The prion, however, is different: it is twisted in just such a way as to allow it, upon contact with another, normal protein, to force that other protein to twist itself and become a prion. Sounds like reproduction, doesn't it?

A protein that was randomly harder for other proteins to alter, or had a shape that allowed it to more easily alter other proteins, would eventually become dominant in numbers. That's very simple natural selection. Perhaps that better protein was formed by a combination of two other proteins, or a protein and other ambient materials: simple adaptive behavior. These are still just proteins, not alive in any way, but they already display several characteristics of life. Carried further through time, it's easy to see how a situation like this could eventually produce structures that could replicate themselves without having to collide with another structure, and then life would be born.

I'd like to mention a very important aspect of the early Earth that most people forget: the Moon. Four billion years ago, Luna was much closer to the Earth than it is today; due to the law of conservation of momentum, the Earth was thus also rotating faster around its axis (I believe the day was 20 hours long). The importance of these factors is profound: the Moon, beind closer to the Earth, would exert an exponentially greater gravitational force on the planet's surface, thus causing more powerful tides. The Earth's faster spin would also tend to exert greater forces on things at the surface. The net result would be the infant Earth's liquid seas being massive blenders; the tides, the meteor strikes, and everything else would mix whatever was in the primordial ooze (such as prion-like proteins) around, making collisions more frequent and exposing the material to new environmental conditions by moving it to a different part of the planet.

Just for your information.

Yes but if time went on without an end we would not be here yet because time would still be attempting to travel from point A; with no beginning and time simply going farther and farther back, reaching any particular destination becomes impossible; we wouldn't even have reached the creation of our own solar system yet. If time, you see, spanned for infinity, then there would be an infinate amount of time between the beginning of time (point A) and the present time (point B). Try counting backwards from negative infinity and try to reach zero. Not that fun, nor is it even possible.

Why, exactly, are you talking about going back? Of course you'd never get to the beginning of infinite time, because there is no beginning. And your number analogy is flawed, because infinity is a concept, not a place something can actually be at. You can't possible count backwards from negative infinity to anything, because you can't start at infinity. You can only start your counting at a finite number, and reaching zero from any finite number is trivial.

See, if time is infinite, then we don't need to go back to the non-existent, infinite beginning to figure out where "we" started. If time is infinite, then "we", meaning the physical world, just got plonked into time at some arbitrary point, as Brain previously explained. Our beginning is this arbitrary time zero; it can be absolutely anywhere on the infinite timeline you want to put it. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that time zero is before everything else: a constant reference point.

God is, by definition, always a possibility. That's all I was trying to convey by what I said earlier. There is no possible way to disprove anything about God (one could make the case that there is therefore no way to prove anything about Him, either, but I won't say that here). The only way science could ever do away with God would be to come up with an alternative that is much more useful to everybody, and easier to understand and see in action, than belief in God. Due to the several practical benefits of faith (and ignoring the several practical drawbacks), discussed at length in many anthropology and psychology journals, I doubt such a universally superior scientific alternative is nearby. Science is fighting an unfair war against an opponent which cannot be beaten.

HealdPK: there is plenty of antimatter in the universe today. Antiparticles (positrons, specifically) are created by atom-smashers all the time. Every time two high-energy photons collide, they release a particle and its antiparticle and lose a corresponding amount of energy.

[ShadowPikachu]

I don't plan on getting very far into this debate as I am not very good at debating, but I have been reading this thread and could not help posting this.

Also, Sorovis, saying it does not make sense that the universe cannot come to exist on its own is not proof at all. Rather, it just shows that human minds cannot comprehend that possibility. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is not possible. Believe it or not, we are not infallible (except me ).

HealdPK, would not this logic also be applicable for God? Just because our human minds cannot comprehend Him, would not mean that He could not exist, because, like you said, just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is impossibe.

[Sorovis]

I would explain it, but there's a good reason there are many thick books on the subject and the world's brightest minds are currently devoted to figuring it out: it's very complicated. You'd be much better served by reading the book I mentioned, or publications by people who make a living studying the equations involved.

But here, have a link to some links.

I will further investigate as soon as is possible. Just to make it clear though, I will be gone for about seven days in about forty-eight hours; whether or not I have successfully read through the length and understood it before that time has yet to be seen.

It's true that not every planet is capable of creating life. But you're not digging deep enough by saying that.

Every planet, at the moment of its birth has an equal chance of becoming a planet that could support the emergence of life. For many (most) planets, that chance becomes zero immediately; the planet could be too far away from its sun, it could have no moon or too many moons, it might not be large enough to hold an atmosphere with gravity... etc etc. But all planets have, if even for the shortest of instants, the potential to become a life-bearing planet.

And because all planets have that potential... due to what I said earlier about chances given infinite time, eventually, it is mathematically certain that a suitable planet will eventually come in to existence. Moreover, given infinite time, it is mathematically certain that an infinite number of such planets will eventually exist. And since there is a chance for each of those planets to develop life... given infinite time, an infinite number of those planets will eventually develop life. It's just simple mathematical limits. It could take a trillion years and just as many Earth-like planets dying before it happens, but life will eventually get going somewhere. What's more, life will eventually get going somewhere and keep going for an appreciable period of time. And, given infinite time, it will keep happening in different places in the universe, once in a very, very long while.

I recognize the mathmetical probabilities of such an event occuring; I recognize that due to these same probabilities it will occur given time. What I also recognize is that twelve-billion years after the Universe began and some one-billion years into Earth's existence and life appeared. That is by no means an infinity; it is infinately far away from such. The appearence of life would not be so incredible if there had been much more time between the Universe's appearence and the first forms of life. No, however, that we have established that not all planets will bear life, we can look at the individual chances of a single planet suitable for life to bear it.

Another point regarding the complexity of life is how amino acids themselves are assembled to form proteins. The probability of getting L-amino acids as opposed to D-amino acids is of course fifty percent. Joining two such acids with a peptide bond is also fifty percent. Getting the right amino acid out of twenty into a the correct position can be seen as five percent; a rough estimate due to the actual number varying due to other factors. The probability of getting everything correct while placing one amino acid can be seen as .5 X .5 X .5 = .0125. The probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 X .0125 and so on for N number of times. If one such protein had one-hundred active sites, the probability of getting an accurate assembly would be .0125 multiplying itself one-hundred times, or 4.9 X 10 to the negative one-hundred-ninety first power. Such a random assembly for proteins alone, not factoring all of the other essential structures of life, is ridiculous; especially for twelve-billion years. The complexity of life alone; even the most basic forms simpler than the simplest we have today, is almost unimaginable.

This also isn't exactly true. What we call "simple life" these days, things like ameoba and paramecium, are indeed very complicated. But those were not the first life forms. Even the considerably simpler bacterium was probably not the first. There are non-living structures in existence today with some intriguingly life-like characteristics; take, for instance, the prion, the feared antigen behind mad cow, Kuru, and CJD. It is a protein, and proteins are not living. They are merely molecules. The prion, however, is different: it is twisted in just such a way as to allow it, upon contact with another, normal protein, to force that other protein to twist itself and become a prion. Sounds like reproduction, doesn't it?

Sounds like reproduction, but is not. A prion crashing into a molecule and turning it into a prion by no means transfers information now does it? Anything accomplished by what we would say is the first prion would not be passed on to the next molecule it crashed into; thus anythind developed in the first prion is not going to be replicated. I am also aware that life itself in the first years of its appearence was even more simplistic than what we have today. Does that change the probabilities of proteins randomly assembling themselves, or DNA, or catalysts? Not a bit. Also remember that living systems differentiate from nonliving ones due to their ability to reproduce, process energy, and store information. All of these are very complicated tasks, even assuming some form of replication had been discovered.

A protein that was randomly harder for other proteins to alter, or had a shape that allowed it to more easily alter other proteins, would eventually become dominant in numbers. That's very simple natural selection. Perhaps that better protein was formed by a combination of two other proteins, or a protein and other ambient materials: simple adaptive behavior. These are still just proteins, not alive in any way, but they already display several characteristics of life. Carried further through time, it's easy to see how a situation like this could eventually produce structures that could replicate themselves without having to collide with another structure, and then life would be born.

Not structures past the simplicity of a single protein; then of course there is the point that single proteins do not make up life, but many. In order for life itself to exist, many different proteins would be necessary. What I have been using as examples already suppose the necessity of more than one protein; that includes the catalyst point, the most recent point above, and I believe that is it. Your idea on how a protein that is able to most easily alter another is noted; that however does not explain how a protein would fit itself into a three-dimensional shape that is compatable with an ATP and glucose; it involves outside materials and could not be retained without some form of reproduction that passes on such information.

I'd like to mention a very important aspect of the early Earth that most people forget: the Moon. Four billion years ago, Luna was much closer to the Earth than it is today; due to the law of conservation of momentum, the Earth was thus also rotating faster around its axis (I believe the day was 20 hours long). The importance of these factors is profound: the Moon, beind closer to the Earth, would exert an exponentially greater gravitational force on the planet's surface, thus causing more powerful tides. The Earth's faster spin would also tend to exert greater forces on things at the surface. The net result would be the infant Earth's liquid seas being massive blenders; the tides, the meteor strikes, and everything else would mix whatever was in the primordial ooze (such as prion-like proteins) around, making collisions more frequent and exposing the material to new environmental conditions by moving it to a different part of the planet.

Just for your information.

I am already aware of such a scenario; all of the points I bring up automatically assume that primordial soup with all of the necessary componants is present at the time that life supposedly began. I believe I mentioned at one point the conditions of early Earth most likely being closer to such chaos as you have mentioned; then again, I may have not and I can see where you would get the idea to mention it.

Why exactly, are you talking about going back? Of course you'd never get to the beginning of infinite time, because there is no beginning. And your number analogy is flawed, because infinity is a concept, not a place something can actually be at. You can't possible count backwards from negative infinity to anything, because you can't start at infinity. You can only start your counting at a finite number, and reaching zero from any finite number is trivial.

That is exactly my point. Assuming life has gone along on line as it has now, you could not start at the beginning and reach this current state because there was no beginning and thus no beginning point for time to begin on. The entire point I have been trying to convey is that time is not infinate and so at some point it must have started. After Brain's post I must say I need to regain my bearings; Either God's actions are what began time when the Universe was created or something along those lines. Still however, my point stands. Time could not have begun and reached this point with no point to start from.

See, if time is infinite, then we don't need to go back to the non-existent, infinite beginning to figure out where "we" started. If time is infinite, then "we", meaning the physical world, just got plonked into time at some arbitrary point, as Brain previously explained. Our beginning is this arbitrary time zero; it can be absolutely anywhere on the infinite timeline you want to put it. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that time zero is before everything else: a constant reference point.

But it must be there for some reason. Things do not just plop out of nowhere, regarding anything percievable by man; unless of course there was a higher being or existence that put it there. The continuation from a point zero is an event, you see, and events need causing. Events, matter, energy, whatever; they cannot suddenly appear for absolutely no reason with nothing to precede them.

God is, by definition, always a possibility. That's all I was trying to convey by what I said earlier. There is no possible way to disprove anything about God (one could make the case that there is therefore no way to prove anything about Him, either, but I won't say that here). The only way science could ever do away with God would be to come up with an alternative that is much more useful to everybody, and easier to understand and see in action, than belief in God. Due to the several practical benefits of faith (and ignoring the several practical drawbacks), discussed at length in many anthropology and psychology journals, I doubt such a universally superior scientific alternative is nearby. Science is fighting an unfair war against an opponent which cannot be beaten.

And vice versa. Science as well can change its theories on a whim of new information or new concepts; it is just as flexible as any concept of God, and so there is no 'unfair' in such a never ending fight. The only ultimate proof will be when one dies, or when the Rapture or second coming occurs. Since once a person is dead they do not make contact with the living (let us assume so for arguments sake), then we cannot learn from them. Since such events as the Rapture are not until the future we also cannot tell from them. I do agree with you that as of now there is no hardcore evidence that absolutely demands the existence of a God; at least none that cannot be contested (which completely defeats the purpose anyways), and that there is no hardcore evidence demanding the nonexistence of said God. That does not stop both sides from continuously arguing, however, and searching for signs. So this is what I do, search for signs of God in events and things that are simply too random to happen on their own; so you will most likely be here to tell me how they are not as unlikely as I think. Such a debate could go on forever if we both had the strength.

On a related note, remember I will be gone for some seven days coming soon, so I will try to make my last response until then particularly well crafted. Until my return, keep preparing. You have my word that I will.

[The Muffin Man]

HealdPK, would not this logic also be applicable for God? Just because our human minds cannot comprehend Him, would not mean that He could not exist, because, like you said, just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is impossibe.

I think this was Healds point. if we can't deny Gods existance because we 'can't comprehend it' then he can't deny the Big Bang because he couldn't comprehend it.

[MetalScyther]

Trying to prove a point by saying the bible isn't logical is one of the stupidest points you could make. Likewise, attempting to prove that the bible is factually correct is equally, if not more, stupid. What you people don't understand is that the Church itself teaches that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. hat means that the Church doesn't factually believe that God created the world in 7 days. Sheesh.

[Aglandiir]

Quick post, before sleep.

The beginning of time could not be an event, because an event needs time to exist; it requires that there be distinct "before" and "after" states, with an optional "during" state. Saying something like "before time existed" is nonsensical, because there is no "before time." The temporal concept of before only makes sense when time exists. Thus, since there can be no before time, there can also be no beginning of time. The same can be said about after, and the end of time. So unless you want to argue that time doesn't exist at all (which some people do), it seems that the proper conclusion to draw from this is that time has no beginning and no end; it is infinite.

This does not preclude the possibility that time goes in long circles, of course.

And about life and proteins, etc. What use would the earliest life have for ATP, or even glucose (two highly interrelated substances)? Glucose is used for energy by current life forms because it is abundant, but also because that's just how our bodies work. If we had evolved over billions of years to break down silicates for energy, then we'd be eating rocks without a second thought. The earliest life forms had not yet evolved any dependence on a single outside energy source. The earliest things that might meet the definition of life were probably made of a small number of interlocked molecules, each of which changed the shape of the others when in contact with various substances. For "food", all they would need would be a replacement protein, in case one broke away for some reason. No complicated biological structures would be necessary. All of the life functions could be carried out by relatively simple chemical reactions.

Eventually, one protein structure would stumble upon a carbohydrate or a related structure and manage to break it apart and use the pieces to improve its survival chances, automatically, through chemical reaction; after that happened, that protein structure could have a significant natural advantage over its primitive competition and become widespread, quickly creating a great many copies of itself, all of which would continue to evolve via random chance. Baby steps, yes... but a billion years of baby steps. A whole lot can happen in a billion years.

If a randomly probably event has infinite time in which to occur, two things can be said about it:
1. It will occur with 100% certainty.
2. It will take a finite amount of time to occur.
Physical laws allow for the possibility of life, thus life has a chance to exist. Life occured in 12 billlion years, a very finite amount of time. If it had taken 75 billion years for life to show up, would this debate really be any different? 75 billion is also very finite; just as finite as 12 billion. There was just as much chance for life to take 75 billion years to appear as to take 12 billion, or 5 billion, or 1 trillion years. Random chances do not discriminate.

[Leon-IH]

Holy crap. Hey The Muffin Man, strat, read what Sorovis posted like about a page ago. Not that I actually agree with all of it, but it actually makes sense. Then I see what you post in response and its like bashing my head against a wall made of spikes.

it'd be nice if SOMEONE countered my sig by now but not yet.

anyway, i'd like to add 10 things for you unquestioning christians to think about.

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' -- including women, children, and animals!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about god sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations
old.!

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most 'tolerant' and 'loving'.

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in 'tongues,' may be all the evidence you need.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a "Christian."

[Heald]

it'd be nice if SOMEONE countered my sig by now but not yet.

anyway, i'd like to add 10 things for you unquestioning christians to think about.

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' -- including women, children, and animals!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about god sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations
old.!

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most 'tolerant' and 'loving'.

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in 'tongues,' may be all the evidence you need.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a "Christian."

Give this man a medal.

Now shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.

(this applies to all of you, not just this dude)

[phaedrus]

Give this man a medal.

Now shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.

(this applies to all of you, not just this dude)

limed for ****ing truth. close this damn thread. or at least let it rot in wherever ye might consider a horrible place. *Michael Jackson's house*

[Sorovis]

Quick post, before sleep.

The beginning of time could not be an event, because an event needs time to exist; it requires that there be distinct "before" and "after" states, with an optional "during" state. Saying something like "before time existed" is nonsensical, because there is no "before time." The temporal concept of before only makes sense when time exists. Thus, since there can be no before time, there can also be no beginning of time. The same can be said about after, and the end of time. So unless you want to argue that time doesn't exist at all (which some people do), it seems that the proper conclusion to draw from this is that time has no beginning and no end; it is infinite.

Fair enough. Time however is a measurement, yes? I believe it may have been you who stated this, then again I am not certain. If time is a measurement, then what would become of it if there was nothing to measure? Such as no matter, no energy, no events? Would time really be in existence, even though there was nothing to measure? What may have been is that God (again who is not matter, energy, nor an event) created, or at least gave time (a concept) something to measure at the creating of the Universe. That means that time itself was not literally created in a sense, but merely given something to measure. Not that I am going to argue that time itself does not exist, but rather that it does not exist in the way I have at least seen it in the past. As a form of measurement, time I suppose could be infinate, with not creation and no destruction; it however had nothing to measure until the Creation of the Universe, thus it has not been in effect until something measurable appeared. I suppose I may be repeating myself, but I am merely trying to convey my point clearly.

This does not preclude the possibility that time goes in long circles, of course.

Of course, but I am not interested in arguing a point, and, from what I can tell, neither are you.

And about life and proteins, etc. What use would the earliest life have for ATP, or even glucose (two highly interrelated substances)? Glucose is used for energy by current life forms because it is abundant, but also because that's just how our bodies work. If we had evolved over billions of years to break down silicates for energy, then we'd be eating rocks without a second thought. The earliest life forms had not yet evolved any dependence on a single outside energy source. The earliest things that might meet the definition of life were probably made of a small number of interlocked molecules, each of which changed the shape of the others when in contact with various substances. For "food", all they would need would be a replacement protein, in case one broke away for some reason. No complicated biological structures would be necessary. All of the life functions could be carried out by relatively simple chemical reactions.

Such a molecular structure however does not meet the definition of life. Living organisms are recognized by their complexity, and abilities to store information, process energy, and replicate. With none of those three things covered, the structures of molecules would only be eerily reminiscent of life; not truly life on their own. And regarding what indeed would have served as a source of energy for early life, it is generally agreed that that would have been sunlight. Even using the energy given off from light, however, requires a very complicated system of breaking down molecules and the utilization of ATP and other molecules and simple structures; again, no simple form of life could have been simplistic on the level that you are speculating on and still truly be considered life; it is the difference between fire and bacteria.

Eventually, one protein structure would stumble upon a carbohydrate or a related structure and manage to break it apart and use the pieces to improve its survival chances, automatically, through chemical reaction; after that happened, that protein structure could have a significant natural advantage over its primitive competition and become widespread, quickly creating a great many copies of itself, all of which would continue to evolve via random chance. Baby steps, yes... but a billion years of baby steps. A whole lot can happen in a billion years.

With the first point on the complexity of life I addressed how catalysts would be necessary for a successful and optimal chemical reaction; again the protein structure on its own could not perform such a function without a great amount of time of developement and some form of replication that stored information and passed it on (which I have already pointed out it does not have). Secondly regarding the baby steps such a structure would have taken over billions of years; it would, again, need some form of replication that passed on information. Without that, all it would be doing is altering the shape of ther molecules and perhaps changing itself.

If a randomly probably event has infinite time in which to occur, two things can be said about it:
1. It will occur with 100% certainty.
2. It will take a finite amount of time to occur.
Physical laws allow for the possibility of life, thus life has a chance to exist. Life occured in 12 billlion years, a very finite amount of time. If it had taken 75 billion years for life to show up, would this debate really be any different? 75 billion is also very finite; just as finite as 12 billion. There was just as much chance for life to take 75 billion years to appear as to take 12 billion, or 5 billion, or 1 trillion years. Random chances do not discriminate.

Random chances do not discriminate, yes; and twelve-billion and one-trillion are both equally distant from infinity of course, but you are forgetting one point: in a longer amount of time, the chance for life would have had a greater possibility of occurance. Infinity is a concept, not an actual measurement. What we need to focus on is what the probability of life occurring is without judging within the realm of infinity (an oxymoron, really). I am saying that the chances of it occuring would require much more time than twelve-billion years; not an infinate amount more, but enough to where proposing it occured within twelve-billion years is extremely unlikely to the point where speculating on it is unrealistic.

Leon IH, I have a question for you. Why when the debate has taken a percievable form (trying to prove or disprove the existence and power of God and Jesus), do you ask frivolous questions that quite clearly convey your own lack of intellect on that subject and ignorance towards the truth of such matters? Why do Checkmate and I refuse to answer the 'questions' in your post? Because they are ridicuous; the evidence which they are generally based off of comes from some personal reality which we do not all share, and in no way to I intend to answer your questions on a matter which you quite clearly do not take seriously. You march around, proclaiming your own knowledge on the futility of religion in your posts and signatures, and yet you seem to have little to no knowledge on how these religions actually work or on that fact that they are actually too different in many aspects to actually classify in the same category. Learn about what you are talking about, then I will take you seriously. On the issue of your own questions, Checkmate has told me to rest easy in that he is dealing with them.

[Brain]

But I do still have a few questions and points regarding that post nonetheless: first and foremost, God, as you have stated, must have created the Universe and the Beginning under time (in which you also say that it must not have been the Beginning if time was taken to create it), to which I will ask if that necessarily means that God Himself exists under time, or simply operates under time? I suspect this point may be ignorant to something you have already posted, but if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it was answered I will be glad to read it again. If not, that as of now is my only standing point aside from speculations as to how other dimensions may affect our perception of this very topic; if you want to continue something on that issue, please state so and I will be happy to further state my ideas.

I was discussing with my father on this yesterday and there's another image that we agreed is better to show the point.

Time is the name we give to the concept of order between two different states. If there is no time, it means, basically, that the universe is a still frame. It does not move, it does not change, it is completely frozen. Without time, all you can have is data, and matter and energy is a way to understand data. Without time, everything is simultaneous. How would you define a hierarchical relationship of cause or creation between elements which exist on a still frame? If you replace that within the bounds of time, it is akin to seeing two lights light up at the same time (forget the theory of relativity) and trying to argue that one caused the other. Obviously, you can't say that unless one was turned on before the other. Well that's the same thing. Without time the universe and whatever encloses it is a still frame, a single state, where everything is, by default, simultaneous. Therefore there are no inherent relationships to be seen between anything. You can interpret what you see in any way you like.

Besides, how do you define thought and intelligence without time? As I said, without time, everything is a still frame and only data exists. Intelligence is the ability to have a reasoning: A therefore B therefore C. Intelligence, logic, obviously function on a step by step basis, and that is precisely what the concept of time allows. A God existing, or working outside of time (which is the same thing) would not be intelligent, because intelligence requires time the same way creation and causality do.

Also note that, more specifically, the christian God is unable to predict the actions of humans because of free will. Therefore, he cannot know what someone will decide to do without waiting for him to do it, therefore he is obviously subject to time, and moreso that my previous arguments made him. I had pretty much proved that God has to be subject to time in order to be an intelligent creator, but the fact still remained that he could theoretically start, stop, rewind and replay our universe at will, the same way we can start, stop, rewind and replay a movie or a simulation, and these actions would take place in his timeline. That's what I meant by enclosing timeline - you can translate our time into God's time, but it isn't necessarily linear. However, because of the shaky concept of free will, the christian God wouldn't be able to rewind or replay the same events, which is an even greater limitation than the limitations I already gave. From how I see it, the Bible pretty much implies that God's time is linearly translated as ours.

First of all: think of the concept of God. Then, remember that I have stated repeatedly that God is not matter nor is He energy, nor is He an event; thus He does not need causing. In order to argue a person who claims that as God the Creator is above mass and energy, you cannot say 'that doesn't make sense who made him?' because I have already stated that as God, and the fact that He is not composed of physical properties and elements, He does not need to be created. From now on, I might as well do The Muffin Man's favorite thing and copy/paste this argument, because it looks like I will be repeating many times in the future. In order for you to disprove all of this by the way, you must first disprove the existence of God. Remember that.

The Universe, including its own timeline, is not an event either.

And energy and matter only need causing to the extent that rules dictate that it must, and how it must. State zero, as I already stated, is not subject to these considerations.

Your mistake, I believe, is that you consider that state zero cannot be anything else than nothingness - in that case, of course, your worries are justified, because nothing can come out of nothingness and thus if state zero is empty then all subsequent states will be empty. However, you have to understand that state zero doesn't have to be nothingness. It can be non-empty, and then your argument is void. Think about that, because I'm quite sure that it is the mistake you are making, even if it is not necessarily conscious: if you say matter has to be created, then it means you consider that there was nothing before. But there has never been nothing in the universe.

If you need some help to understand this, imagine that the universe is a collection of one billion switches. If the universe is empty, then all switches are at OFF. But now, think about it. If there is no god, does that mean all the switches have to be off? Why would they be off rather than on? Is there some kind of universal preference for nothingness? Or is it rather your human mind which imagines that by default everything must be empty or equal to zero? Does that really make sense? For example, if the universe is random, it would start with random switches, wouldn't it? And then, there would be one in two to the billionth power chance that the universe would start empty! That's absurdly unlikely now isn't it!

If the universe was empty right now, couldn't I say that God exists, because it is so unlikely that the universe would start off empty that divine intervention had to empty it in some way?

All that to reiterate that matter and energy didn't need to come from anywhere - saying so supposes that the universe's beginning wasn't the beginning of time, and it supposes that at the beginning of time there would be no matter and no energy, albeit there is no logical reason for that. The universe could perfectly start off with, as I like to put it, random junk.

And because all planets have that potential... due to what I said earlier about chances given infinite time, eventually, it is mathematically certain that a suitable planet will eventually come in to existence. Moreover, given infinite time, it is mathematically certain that an infinite number of such planets will eventually exist. And since there is a chance for each of those planets to develop life... given infinite time, an infinite number of those planets will eventually develop life. It's just simple mathematical limits. It could take a trillion years and just as many Earth-like planets dying before it happens, but life will eventually get going somewhere. What's more, life will eventually get going somewhere and keep going for an appreciable period of time. And, given infinite time, it will keep happening in different places in the universe, once in a very, very long while.

Well no, sorry. As far as I know, the supply of planets is not infinite, and as far as I know, there is no reason to assume that the probability for life is constant in time. During the early states of the Big Bang, such a probability was obviously almost null because it was too hot, and eventually, if the universe keeps expanding, it might become too cold for life to develop.

I agree with the core point but you push it too far.

God is, by definition, always a possibility. That's all I was trying to convey by what I said earlier. There is no possible way to disprove anything about God (one could make the case that there is therefore no way to prove anything about Him, either, but I won't say that here). The only way science could ever do away with God would be to come up with an alternative that is much more useful to everybody, and easier to understand and see in action, than belief in God. Due to the several practical benefits of faith (and ignoring the several practical drawbacks), discussed at length in many anthropology and psychology journals, I doubt such a universally superior scientific alternative is nearby. Science is fighting an unfair war against an opponent which cannot be beaten.

Albeit the most general concept of God cannot be disproven, it is untrue to say that particular cases, such as the christian God, cannot be disproven. In a way, it is also possible to disprove God altogether, assuming that God necessarily bears a certain number of characteristics in order to be considered as God.

To understand this, you have to understand the exquisite difference between the laws of physics and the laws of semantics. Whereas you probably agree that we cannot apply the laws of physics to God (and christians love to point that out), it is certain that God is subject to the laws of semantics. It is nonsensical to change the meaning of words when God is involved - if a word means something, that's what it means, and you won't make it mean anything else. Thus, you could prove that the description of God is contradictory on the semantic level (for example, you could try to prove that the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory), and you would disprove God. I did such a thing when I showed that God must be bound by time, and I can perfectly imagine to do the same thing on core concepts, although it would probably be harder.

It is also possible to prove God's existence, or at the very least, the existence of immaterial spirits or souls with the same level of certainty as scientific truth. To understand this, let us suppose that souls exist and convey emotions (which I find totally absurd, but that's besides the point). This means two important things:

1- The soul must get input from matter: you will not feel any emotions if you can't see, feel, smell or hear anything. That input is taken from our physical senses, and therefore, we can imagine that electrical pulses representing what we see, hear, etc. are gathered and circulate through our brain. The soul must be able to read these pulses, or it can't do its job. You could imagine that the soul can read them directly without interacting with them.
2- However, most importantly, the soul must give output: when you feel an emotion, it can be translated, physically, as an expression on your face, as words, etc. Therefore, the soul must be able to communicate to the body information about the emotions it feels. We must then imagine that the soul will interact with matter within our brain in such a way that the brain will be able to read it and process it.

Therefore, if a soul exists, it means that studying the brain carefully will reveal "magical transitions" between two points. That is, science will trace back emotions and show that one particular transition transforms incoherent input into organized emotions in a way that is unexplainable by science. Of course, the argument is flawed, because the mystery could be solved by further science. However, as science becomes better and more precise, if the gap remains, the soul will become a scientific explanation (although I can guarantee you it won't be called a soul). Note that science always changes, and that nothing is ever certain - soul will never be a certainty, but if you can't find anything better, albeit you should be able to with the equipment you have, then you bear with it. Scientists do it all the time, as long as they feel it is practical.

Note that in the absence of collective consciousness, the soul could theoretically be used to create human thinking machines. If you can understand how the body communicates with the soul, then you can theoretically reproduce that interaction in a laboratory. The possibility remains that the soul will magically understand that it's being tricked, though it doesn't make that much sense in my opinion. Everything that interacts with matter is potentially useable. I therefore look forward to the day human souls will be tricked, fabricated, engineered and incorporated to highly performant machine engines in order to be eternal. Who knows, souls may even serve to create perpetual motion machines!

If, on the other hand, no mysterious gap is ever found, and if the algorithms behind human thinking and emotions are understood by careful study of neuronal networks, the existence of a soul will be scientifically discredited... and so will the christian God.

All that to say that science isn't as weaponless against God as one may think All core concepts will be progressively destroyed, or assimilated by science, until there is no incentive at all to consider the existence of God (besides philosophical discussions which bear no consequences), or vice versa. The key idea here is that souls, and God, must interact with matter, that it must be possible to pinpoint the places where that interaction occurs, and that it may be possible to take advantage of it. If we cannot find any irregularities, then it either doesn't exist or it doesn't do anything, which is practically the same thing.

Another point regarding the complexity of life is how amino acids themselves are assembled to form proteins. The probability of getting L-amino acids as opposed to D-amino acids is of course fifty percent. Joining two such acids with a peptide bond is also fifty percent. Getting the right amino acid out of twenty into a the correct position can be seen as five percent; a rough estimate due to the actual number varying due to other factors. The probability of getting everything correct while placing one amino acid can be seen as .5 X .5 X .5 = .0125. The probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 X .0125 and so on for N number of times. If one such protein had one-hundred active sites, the probability of getting an accurate assembly would be .0125 multiplying itself one-hundred times, or 4.9 X 10 to the negative one-hundred-ninety first power. Such a random assembly for proteins alone, not factoring all of the other essential structures of life, is ridiculous; especially for twelve-billion years. The complexity of life alone; even the most basic forms simpler than the simplest we have today, is almost unimaginable.

Onto the probability of the creation of life.

There is one huge flaw in your argument that no one seems to have challenged: you suppose that events of combination of several proteins have a random chance of happening. That is untrue. The universe is not random. It works according to a certain set of rules, and although randomness may play a role in these rules, it is certainly not dominant.

You therefore calculate probabilities on the basis that all events are random. However, you do not calculate the probabilities on the basis that events AREN'T random, and that they obey to simple rules. There is a fundamental difference which may change your insanely low odds into a near certainty.

In order to illustrate my point, I will give the example of a well known mathematical construct, which is the cellular automaton. Basically, it's an infinite (or toroidal) space with N dimensions (usually N=2), composed of cells. If N = 2, it's like a grid (or a doughnut if you opt for the toroidal structure). Each cell can have a certain number of states (alive, dead, and you can add other states at will), and the next state of a cell depends on its own state and the states of its neighbors.

The Game of Life is the most well known example: a cell can be alive or dead. If an alive cell has two or three alive neighbors, it stays alive. If a dead cell has exactly three alive neighbors, it becomes alive. In all other cases, the cell dies or remains dead. What is interesting with cellular automata such as this, is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the final state of an initial configuration. You have to run a simulation in order to find out. Therefore, seeing it in action looks very much like random junk, and you would never think that complex structures could emerge from this. However, this is wrong. A simple structure, called the glider, can move across the plane diagonally. Other bigger structures can move horizontally or vertically. Structures can create beams of gliders. A prime number generator was made. And it was proven that it was possible to make a computer in the game of life. All of this out of awfully simple rules which someone came up with on a trial and error basis. And to think there are two to the 512th power possible rules if N = 2, and 2 to the 2 to the 27th power if N = 3, that's quite a lot of possible rules for life (and we already know about awesome ones), and that's just one theory.

All this to say that extremely simple rules are sufficient to produce unexpected, unpredictable, yet awfully complex structures. Another example is Langton's Ant. You can also look into fractals, which are superb structures made from simple equations, which are found in nature, and which have been shown to be the optimal configurations for many systems.

All this to say that in the eventuality that our universe is a cellular automata, you can't calculate probabilities without knowing the key. This is important, because it is very possible that seemingly improbable events such as the occurring of life were in fact unavoidable consequences of SIMPLE yet overlooked rules. It's not necessarily the excessively simple rules of cellular automata. Simple yet unknown biological structures could have catalysed the process. Chemical processes which are not yet understood could bump up many probabilities.

In any way, it is not random. It looks random, but that's just because we don't understand enough to see the patterns and find the rules behind the first steps. This is why you have to be extremely careful when arguing that life is unlikely. Intelligent design is a gap filler and it typically exploits ignorance in order to convey religious propaganda. Sorry had to say this.

But it must be there for some reason. Things do not just plop out of nowhere, regarding anything percievable by man; unless of course there was a higher being or existence that put it there. The continuation from a point zero is an event, you see, and events need causing. Events, matter, energy, whatever; they cannot suddenly appear for absolutely no reason with nothing to precede them.

Reason is subjective. If there is a God there is a reason, because God is subjective, but if God doesn't exist, then there are no reasons for the existence of the Universe, because there is no subjectivity to speak of. Saying the universe must have been there for some reason is the same as saying God must exist, which is skipping steps.

See above for what I said about you assuming there has been nothing at some moment. That assumption is unfounded. It is a misconception that comes from typically human thinking. If there has never been nothing, then no matter ever "appeared" with nothing to precede it (because there never has been nothing!), and your argument falls flat.

So unless you want to argue that time doesn't exist at all (which some people do), it seems that the proper conclusion to draw from this is that time has no beginning and no end; it is infinite.

They are actually right about that, but perhaps for the wrong reasons.

Time cannot exist as such. It does not fit the general contract of existence, in the same way the complex pane doesn't really exist. Time is better viewed as a perspective. For example, you can view the spacetime universe as a collection of still 3D pictures which are ordered physically on a fourth physical axis. It is a perspective which is not more or less true than any other, because it is just that: a perspective. Time is a way to interpret that 4D universe as a succession of frames. You have the "big picture", which is a mega-frame containing the data about the universe since the beginning of times, and you have perspectives: you cut that space in several parts, and you find rules to go from one part to another. Time is a perspective where you cut the universe in a potentially infinite number of parts, pick one to be state zero, and try to give a rank to all the other parts by calculating them in that number of iterations on state zero with the rule of physics.

Therefore, as such, time doesn't exist in the same way matter exists. When I use the expression "the existence of time", I mean that we are interpreting the global universe under that particular perspective. There are many words in language which only make sense with that perspective: creation, causality, thought, intelligence, life, etc. But of course, you could also decide that time is a physical dimension, that the second physical dimension is time, and try to figure out rules to go from a state to another (good luck on that). Conceptually, there's no reason to choose a particular perspective other than on the basis of our personal, subjective feelings and the simplicity of rules.

It does remain that you have to use the right words with the right perspectives, though.

Also note that in the cellular automata theory, there exist spatial configurations called (oh the irony) garden of eden configurations, because no other configuration, when you apply the rules on it, will give that configuration. Therefore, in some cases, you could be obliged to admit a beginning to time, i.e. the earliest point where a state zero can exist, because if you "go back in time", at some point, you will get a garden of eden configuration and you will be unable to find any possibility for a state previous to this one, thus effectively giving an inferior bound to time.

Further note that in the eventuality that continuity, informational infinity and randomness are void concepts, the universe is either bounded as I mentioned, or cyclic.

Fair enough. Time however is a measurement, yes? I believe it may have been you who stated this, then again I am not certain. If time is a measurement, then what would become of it if there was nothing to measure? Such as no matter, no energy, no events? Would time really be in existence, even though there was nothing to measure? What may have been is that God (again who is not matter, energy, nor an event) created, or at least gave time (a concept) something to measure at the creating of the Universe. That means that time itself was not literally created in a sense, but merely given something to measure. Not that I am going to argue that time itself does not exist, but rather that it does not exist in the way I have at least seen it in the past. As a form of measurement, time I suppose could be infinite, with not creation and no destruction; it however had nothing to measure until the Creation of the Universe, thus it has not been in effect - until something measurable appeared. I suppose I may be repeating myself, but I am merely trying to convey my point clearly.

All the bolded words are void of meaning outside of time. From these hints, I'll let you figure out what I think of that point.

[Checkmate]

Now let me show just how little I know about the Bible, having
only read it through multiple times and studied it for a few years.

If this is indeed so, you seem to be forgetting a certain chapter, but in your own words...

No big.

Now, the way you put it, the NT has more relevance to the
world, since it's God's word 2000 years older than the OT.

Actually this has more to do with Acts 15:4-29 than what takes precedence over what. In
the passage I named, it is explained that there was a meeting where in order to actually
fulfill an OT prophecy, it was decided that the burden of the Jewish law would not be put
onto the gentiles. And thus, it echoes throughout Paul?s epistles that we are saved not by
the law but by our justification through the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

Now, by saying that God changed his word, that would have
made God... well, wrong in the first place, right?

No, it does make him wrong. Explained further in post.

Because why would God need to change his point of view? I was pretty sure
God was infallible.

He is infallible. That?s why Amos prophesied by the authority of God in Amos 9:11-12
what would later come to pass in Acts 15:16-17

Maybe I'm wrong. And you have still yet to tell me why we still keep the OT
in the Bible, when the NT is so much more relevent.

The Old Testament and New Testament are both the word of God. And there are still
valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, eventhough the rules were slightly
different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trying to prove a point by saying the bible isn't logical is one of
the stupidest points you could make. Likewise, attempting to prove that the bible is
factually correct is equally, if not more, stupid. What you people don't understand is that
the Church itself teaches that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. hat means that the
Church doesn't factually believe that God created the world in 7 days. Sheesh.

First off, you can?t say that ?The Church? teaches anything. All the denominations in the
world, are so different that I don?t think any of them believe in any one thing, save
maybe just maybe that there is a God. But even that is questionable. There?s
probably some church that believes that God is just a spiritual conglomeration of the
morals inside each and every one of us.

My church for instance does preach the Bible literally. I?m not sure where my pastor
stands on literal 7 day creationism, but I know he believes the Bible to be infallible, true,
and the Word of God.

The exact amount of time that God took to create the universe is irrelevant to me. Maybe
it?s eons, in which case some science would be explained. Maybe it?s literally 6 days, 144
hours. That, in comparison to how long God spends working on each individual person
(their entire Christian life) could offer a theological lesson to how hard it is to change a
person?s heart.

Don?t know. Don?t care.

I think this was Healds point. if we can't deny Gods existance because
we 'can't comprehend it' then he can't deny the Big Bang because he couldn't comprehend
it.

Apples to oranges. God is spirit. Spirit is incomprehensible to the human mind. The
universe is matter and energy, neither are incomprehensible to the human mind. Science
knows that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy, Law
of Conservation of Mass, and the Theory of Relativity)

It?s not that we can?t comprehend matter, because we can. And we know it can?t be
created by other matter and certainly not by itself. The same goes for energy.

it'd be nice if SOMEONE countered my sig by now but not yet.

As I?ve said before I figured you just wanted to rant. But since you keep belly aching I?ll
answer you.

anyway, i'd like to add 10 things for you unquestioning christians to think
about.

add away.

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other
religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

Outraged is too strong of a word. I become frustrated when people ignorantly deny
the existence of God.

See the thing to consider is that if I?m wrong, I?ve lived my entire my entire life in vain
and will rot in a grave. But as Brain has said before, I won?t care. I??ll be dead. I won?t be
able to regret. On the other hand, if you?re wrong, then you spend your eternity rotting in
hell.

I would think that most people, give the above, would at least look into the claims of
Chrsitianity. Especially when they don?t even have to work at it but just listen to the case
I and Sorovis present.

9- You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when scientists say that people evolved
from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.

Evidence and proof of both sides aside, I?d rather believe I wasn?t an accident.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity
god.

This goes back to the incomprehensibility of humans to understand spirits. God is three
parts but still one God. The father, the son, and the holy spirit. In my mind, I tend to
recognize them as three different entities, but I know at least intellectually that they are,
in fact, one.

John 1:1 says that ?In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and
the word was God.?

The word is Jesus Christ as can be inferred from later verses in the same passage. This
verse doesn?t really make sense to the human mind, but it represents that we only worship
one God.

Similar to how I once was a boy friend and a best friend to a girl. I was the same person,
but served two different functions. Likewise, God is the same God but serves different
functions and is capable of being all three at the same time.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the 'atrocities' attributed to Allah,
but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies
of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' --
including women, children, and animals!

I don?t attribute atrocities to Allah because I don?t believe in Allah. I attribute those
atrocities to mad men. God is a judge. I?ve never denied and I never I will. He is the
fairest judge around. You might disagree with me, but then who are you to say what is
and is not fair?

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about god
sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit
impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life
and then ascended into the sky.

First off, I don?t see what Hinduism has to do with any of this, considering that Hinduism
teaches that humans can attain, through their own effort, perfection. That has nothing to
do with Christianity.

The holy spirit impregnated her. Agreed. But while I agree with your literal statement, I
disagree with what, I think, might be your implication. The Holy Spirit certainly did not
have sex with Mary.

And Jesus was not ?a Man-God?. He was the God in flesh.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the
scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their
tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old!

I tend to side with God whenever God and man disagree.

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of
those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most
'tolerant' and 'loving'.

Yes. You see, Christianity is tolerant in that it will accept anyone. It?s loving in that God
is love. He sacrificed his son to save you from that hell of suffering.

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to
convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in 'tongues,'
may be all the evidence you need.

You generalize too much. I?m not pentacostal.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

Your estimates are far too liberal. It?s more like 40% for me as opposed to .01%. And
there are reasons. Some are that my mind is just too clogged with secular stuff and that
I?m not really right with God. This is frustrating but truely my own fault. Also the Bible
says ?Seek ye first the kingdom of God.? Emphasis on seek. Prayer requires serious
attention and time and focus. As does one?s Christian life.

God cannot be blamed for a human?s fault. Though, many do try to blame him.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history

I don?t deny that.

-- but still call yourself a "Christian."

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!! You wanna know why? It?s because God doesn?t give you
a final exam in order for you to earn your salvation. God offers a gift. All you have to do
accept.

Just pray to God for salvation. Put your trust in him to save your soul from the hell you
deserve and trust your life to him. Now you see why Christianity is tolerant. God loves
everyone. He loves arrogant people. He loves stupid people. He loves people that hate
him. He loves Suddam Hussein. And, believe it or not. He loves you. So I don?t have to
be the resident expert on the Bible or Church History. I just have to trust Jesus.

Doesn't it just make more sense that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good
deity created the world out of nothingness/

Yes, actually. But I know you?re being sarcastic.

and then punished us for eating a piece of fruit,

Which he specifically and indeniably told us not to eat.

and then incarnated himself in human flesh and came down to shed his own
blood so he could break his own rules,

What rules did he break. He told even Adam and Eve that he was going to send a savior.
It?s not like it was last minute decision.

and then went through hell on a temporary basis

questionable. I think Jesus was in hell fighting for something or other, but my knowledge
on that particular part of the story is not what it should be.

and then went back into the sky and promised to come back and take everyone
who believed in him to this heaven no one has ever seen?

Then, of course, scientists believe in a Big Bang which no one has ever seen?

[Brain]

Apples to oranges. God is spirit. Spirit is incomprehensible to the human mind. The universe is matter and energy, neither are incomprehensible to the human mind. Science knows that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy, Law of Conservation of Mass, and the Theory of Relativity)

It?s not that we can?t comprehend matter, because we can. And we know it can?t be
created by other matter and certainly not by itself. The same goes for energy.

I know they are really long and that I talk too much but you should still read my posts and try to understand them because I already countered that argument.

In short there has never been nothing in the universe, the first moment of the universe already contained matter and energy, and saying it has to come from somewhere implies that there was a moment previous to the first moment of the universe, which is contradictory. The laws you mentioned do not apply to the first moment of the universe and to whatever happened to exist at that moment, because if they did, it would lead to a logical contradiction. The explanation is lenghtier and more complete if you scroll up.

Eventually, I am going to try to prove that data is a logical pre-requisite to the existence of God, which is conceptually equivalent to prove that God cannot exist without matter. I'll come back with this later on.

P.S. what kind of text editor do you use? All 's and "s are changed into ?s and it inserts linefeeds

[Prodigy]

Ironically, the prolonged existence of this topic is proof that there is no just and loving God.

[Syberia]

I think Raz' sig said it best:

"Too long, didn't read."

[Razola]

Ironically, the prolonged existence of this topic is proof that there is no just and loving God.

So in the end, we prove there is a God, but He's a jackass like the rest of us.

Now send this thread to Hell.

[Chris]

Are there any objections to this thread being closed?

If so, please state so now:

[Brain]

Well if you close the thread you run a much higher risk to see another pop up. Leave it open, that way all the religious crap will stay in a single thread and it will be easier for people to just ignore it.

[Heald]

Believe it or not, religious topics can turn into decent discussion, however, almost every single time, it has turned into Atheism versus Christianity, and no one can win? Why? Because it is impossible to disprove either of them. It has taken you nearly 20 pages to figure this out. I suggest that this is closed and any other topic which just turns into a slanging match between Christians and Atheists should be treated as such. Intelligent discussion is not possible in such vehement conditions.

[Sorovis]

I say leave it open for reasons Brian has already made clear. Secondly, why is it so necessary that this thread gets closed in the first place? Could someone explain that at least? I mean, last I checked Brain, Aglandiir, and I have not been insulting eachother every chance we got.

(note to Brain I will respond to your post when I have more time; most likely in four hours).

[Link]

Interesting debate. However, I have not the time to engage in one, but I will plan on reading these posts later.

[The Muffin Man]

I say leave it open for reasons Brian has already made clear. Secondly, why is it so necessary that this thread gets closed in the first place? Could someone explain that at least?

Because it's become both sides repeating themselves. The Big Bang/Science side has pretty much given every argument there is without degrading into fact-less moronity, and the God Squad has shot it down with arguments that barely make sense to any non-Christian(not meant to be offensive, but it's true. You rarely make a scientific retort to a scientific argument.)

And then Checkmate waltzes in and acts like a moron...

Apples to oranges. God is spirit. Spirit is incomprehensible to the human mind. The
universe is matter and energy, neither are incomprehensible to the human mind. Science
knows that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy, Law
of Conservation of Mass, and the Theory of Relativity)

This iratates me, and this is why you'll never be taken seriously. You assume that I'm just gonna walk away and accept "OMG You can't comprehend God" but you can suddenly comprehend everything about matter, energy, etc? That's not gonna fly Checkmate.

Chris, for Checkmates sake I hope you close this. Because if that little rat bastard comes back in here I am not gonna be very 'friendly' in my responce.

[Aglandiir]

Fair enough. Time however is a measurement, yes? I believe it may have been you who stated this, then again I am not certain.

If I said that, then I either wasn't thinking clearly or writing clearly when I did. Time is not a measurement; it is a dimension which can be measured, as all dimensions can.

When you think of it like that, it's much easier. If you have a 3D cube, and you take away two of the dimensions, what are you left with? A line segment. The one dimension you didn't remove still exists, with no trouble at all. Movement and measurement along this dimension is not restricted in any way.

Similarly, if you removed time from 4D space-time, leaving just 3D space, you would still have perfectly functional 3D space; it would merely be totally static (among a few other things), as Brain explained. If you took away one spatial dimension, you would have a "Flatland" (read it, it's amusing) with normal time. And finally, if you took away all three spatial dimensions, you would be left with one normal, fully-functional dimension: time. Time doesn't care whether there are other dimensions or not.

Such a molecular structure however does not meet the definition of life.

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no one solid Definition Of Life. People can't agree, for example, on whether or not virii are alive; they reproduce and contain genetic material to do so, but they need a host to create copies of them and do not metabolize or respond to stimuli in anything more than a simple chemical manner. There isn't an imaginary line, to the left of which things are considered non-living and to the right of which things are considered living. There is a progression.

That said, the first thing to exist which everybody would agree were alive would necessarily come from things which not everybody would say were alive... but some people would. They would certainly seem alive. The things that gave rise to those things would be even more basic. And perhaps, even furthur down the line, were pre-proteins which behaved in the way I suggested they might. Those structures would not require any energy source at all, other than the energy contained in their nuclear and molecular bonds and the kinetic energy given to them by their environment (motion, in other words). Energy would only become a factor when a protein-like structure just happened to be bombarded by heat and partially broken down by it, only to reassamble itself, according to normal physical and chemical laws, in a more advantageous configuration.

To use a simple analogy, think of mud. Take dry mud, add heat and pressure, and you get shale. Mud certainly has no complex internal processes by which it converts heat to anything. It happens naturally.

Again, I'm not saying the protein structures were alive. I'm saying they eventually became alive; that they became "more" alive, in a way, with each change that resulted in a significant survival advantage.

I am saying that the chances of it occuring would require much more time than twelve-billion years; not an infinate amount more, but enough to where proposing it occured within twelve-billion years is extremely unlikely to the point where speculating on it is unrealistic.

That isn't how it works.

Some people play the lottery once and win the jackpot. Others play it every day for 50 years and never win anything more than the instant $5 bumper prize or the free 20 oz. Sprite. All people, however, have the same odds of winning the lottery. For some people, it happens right away; for others, it never happens, because they don't have infinite time to wait.

Well no, sorry. As far as I know, the supply of planets is not infinite, and as far as I know, there is no reason to assume that the probability for life is constant in time. During the early states of the Big Bang, such a probability was obviously almost null because it was too hot, and eventually, if the universe keeps expanding, it might become too cold for life to develop.

I agree with the core point but you push it too far.

I know. I was only driving in the infinite time point so I could get the general idea out.

Following the universe's rapid initial expansion, the rate of expansion has been slowing. While the universe would eventually cool off too much for gravity wells to form anymore, and thus for stars to form, it doesn't seem that such a thing would happen for quite a long time. The window in which life-friendly conditions exist in the universe seems quite large indeed, though certainly not infinitely large. While a non-infinite time span means that random or semirandom chances may not necessarily be realized 100% of the time, long time spans still obviously mean that the odds are greatly increased, far above the realm of mathematical insignificance.

It is also possible to prove God's existence, or at the very least, the existence of immaterial spirits or souls [...]

While it's certainly possible to prove that souls/God could exist and are a perfectly viable option, it is not possible to prove that they are the only option, no matter how sophistocated your equipment is.

And even if you eventually explain everything from free will to the nature of the senses to everything else via science... there will still be a place for God, at the very least among those who would rather be comfortable than correct. Faith will always have a certain emotional appeal to some people, as long as people exist; and as long and people want to believe, they will. The changing location of the realm of Heaven throughout Christian history merely reflects attempts to rationalize faith. Such rationalization, however, is not necessary for faith to exist. God, the concept, is beyond everything and everything.

[phaedrus]

Chris:

Lock this. Now. Before it turns into "Because God will send you to Hell," or "You're too stupid to comprehend God" or "Time is not infinitive so I just owned your ass."

I beg of thee.

Use ye newly-found admin skills.

Thank ye,

strat.

[Checkmate]

Brain, your comment toward me about not reading was certainly deserved. So, I read
your last post and replied to it.

This may frustrate you supremely because I need you to further explain several concepts
that I didn?t comprehend.

I am certainly out of my element on this debate, (meanwhile you are certainly within
yours) but it is the only string of posts on this thread worth reading, so I figured I?d join if
for no other reason than to learn something and have an interesting discussion.

Sorovis will be out of town for a while and I don?t really plan on doing much until
Sorovis gets back. I?ve already done that once on this thread and it?s too frustrating for
me to do again.

With that: here?s the reply

Time is the name we give to the concept of order between two different
states. If there is no time, it means, basically, that the universe is a still frame. It does not
move, it does not change, it is completely frozen. Without time, all you can have is data,

I?m with you so far.

and matter and energy is a way to understand data.

Since you already think I?m not that bright I have nothing to lose by being honest. And
honestly, I think you?ll have to elaborate on this one for me. I would think that you could
have data without matter and energy.

Without time, everything is simultaneous . How would you define a
hierarchical relationship of cause or creation between elements which exist on a still
frame? If you replace that within the bounds of time, it is akin to seeing two lights light
up at the same time (forget the theory of relativity) and trying to argue that one caused the
other. Obviously, you can't say that unless one was turned on before the other. Well that's
the same thing. Without time the universe and whatever encloses it is a still frame, a
single state, where everything is, by default, simultaneous. Therefore there are no
inherent relationships to be seen between anything. You can interpret what you see in any
way you like.

I believe we pretty much agree here. Bottom line, without time everything is
simultaneous.

Besides, how do you define thought and intelligence without time? As I said,
without time, everything is a still frame and only data exists. Intelligence is the ability to
have a reasoning: A therefore B therefore C. Intelligence, logic, obviously function on a
step by step basis, and that is precisely what the concept of time allows. A God existing,
or working outside of time (which is the same thing) would not be intelligent, because
intelligence requires time the same way creation and causality do.

Disagreement: Logical chains (if this, then that, if that, than something else) require
chronological thinking. However, knowledge, does not require chronological thinking. I
think you could have intelligence and omniscience without time.

Also note that, more specifically, the christian God is unable to predict the
actions of humans because of free will.

Major disagreement. Don?t you know any people that are ?predictable?? I know one or
two. They have free will but I can still predict what they?ll say sometimes. Just because a
person has two choices does not mean that one cannot predict which choice they?ll
choose, making the below quote irrelevant

Therefore, he cannot know what someone will decide to do without waiting for
him to do it, therefore he is obviously subject to time, and moreso that my previous
arguments made him.

I had pretty much proved that God has to be subject to time in order to be an
intelligent creator,

I know this will sound like a cop-out but I would think that IF something created time,
then it would not be subject to it. I emphasize if to show that I have not proven and that
the statement is admittedly hypothetical.

A friend explained it to me this way in a restaurant. He took a straw and layed it down on
the table. He then basically said that in the analogy, he was God. Looking down on every
part of it at the same time.

but the fact still remained that he could theoretically start, stop, rewind and
replay our universe at will, the same way we can start, stop, rewind and replay a movie or
a simulation, and these actions would take place in his timeline. That's what I meant by
enclosing timeline - you can translate our time into God's time, but it isn't necessarily
linear.

Interesting thought. That could be a suggestion to how God has his own time. Of course, I
don?t think he would need to reply it or anything seeing as how, in my opinion, he sees
all of it at all times.

However, because of the shaky concept of free will, the christian God wouldn't
be able to rewind or replay the same events, which is an even greater limitation than the
limitations I already gave. From how I see it, the Bible pretty much implies that God's
time is linearly translated as ours.

I disagree with your theories on free will. I believe there?s supposed to be some sort of
study that reported the rotation of a particle to be like rolling two dice. Some outcomes
would be more likely than others, but you couldn?t completely know how it would turn
out.

This disregards Einstein?s catchphrase of ?God doesn?t play dice.? I still hold with
Einstein because, I?ve always held the theory that if a person knew everything about
physiology, psychology, sociology, and the like. (basically every minute detail of the
universe) and had the mental capacity to calculate it all, that they could predict the future
and be 100% accurate 100% of the time. And no one has conclusively explained the
particle theory to me.

All that to say that if I was given a choice between A and B and chose B, then was given
the choice again in the exact same conditions without any knowledge of my previous
choice or the consequences thereof, then I would again choose B and would always
choose B under the same conditions.

That?s what I?ve always figured.

The Universe, including its own timeline, is not an event either.

No, but it is constituted partly of matter and energy

And energy and matter only need causing to the extent that rules dictate that it
must, and how it must. State zero, as I already stated, is not subject to these
considerations.

And what makes State zero the exception to these rules?

Your mistake, I believe, is that you consider that state zero cannot be anything
else than nothingness - in that case, of course, your worries are justified, because nothing
can come out of nothingness and thus if state zero is empty then all subsequent states will
be empty. However, you have to understand that state zero doesn't have to be
nothingness. It can be non-empty, and then your argument is void. Think about that,
because I'm quite sure that it is the mistake you are making, even if it is not necessarily
conscious: if you say matter has to be created, then it means you consider that there was
nothing before. But there has never been nothing in the universe.

this boils back to the above disagreement between you and me. You say that State zero is
the exception to the laws of conservation. I still need that explained. If State zero is
indeed the exception to that rule then I would have to say that your argument is fairly
hard to counter on this point (but I?d be lying if I said I would give up)

If you need some help to understand this,

I need all the help I can get.

imagine that the universe is a collection of one billion switches. If the universe
is empty, then all switches are at OFF. But now, think about it. If there is no god, does
that mean all the switches have to be off? Why would they be off rather than on? Is there
some kind of universal preference for nothingness? Or is it rather your human mind
which imagines that by default everything must be empty or equal to zero? Does that
really make sense? For example, if the universe is random, it would start with random
switches, wouldn't it? And then, there would be one in two to the billionth power chance
that the universe would start empty! That's absurdly unlikely now isn't it!

That whole thing makes perfect sense. But still, the same disagreeement still applies.

All that to reiterate that matter and energy didn't need to come from anywhere -
saying so supposes that the universe's beginning wasn't the beginning of time, and it
supposes that at the beginning of time there would be no matter and no energy, albeit
there is no logical reason for that. The universe could perfectly start off with, as I like to
put it, random junk.

Okay, maybe it?s just me. Maybe everyone to ever post on this thread, save Sorovis,
Agent Elrond, and me are right. I am a complete idiot. But even assuming that I am idiot,
I would still appreciate you explaining how something can just spontaneously exist. To
my mind which may very well be inferior to yours I cannot comprehend how something
could spontaneously exist. You seem to be basically assuming that at point zero
everything started existing without being prompted to do so.

Albeit the most general concept of God cannot be disproven, it is untrue to say
that particular cases, such as the christian God, cannot be disproven. In a way, it is also
possible to disprove God altogether, assuming that God necessarily bears a certain
number of characteristics in order to be considered as God.

If you can disprove God than attempt to do so.

To understand this, you have to understand the exquisite difference
between the laws of physics and the laws of semantics. Whereas you probably agree that
we cannot apply the laws of physics to God (and christians love to point that out), it is
certain that God is subject to the laws of semantics.

You?re going to have to explain further before I agree.

It is nonsensical to change the meaning of words when God is involved - if a
word means something, that's what it means, and you won't make it mean anything else.
Thus, you could prove that the description of God is contradictory on the semantic level
(for example, you could try to prove that the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence
are contradictory), and you would disprove God. I did such a thing when I showed that
God must be bound by time, and I can perfectly imagine to do the same thing on core
concepts, although it would probably be harder.

I know you and I had scuffle in some thread about time being required to create
something, but I still don?t understand how a person can prove that God is bound by time.
It can be suggested. But if you proved it you?ll have to explain it to me.

The quote that follows this was whole bunch of stuff about how souls could be disproved
and ways for God to be disproved. Since it?s all hypothetical, and unproven I just say
okay. You?ll have a point when it ceases to be hypothetical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sorovis
Another point regarding the complexity of life is how amino acids themselves are
assembled to form proteins. The probability of getting L-amino acids as opposed to
D-amino acids is of course fifty percent. Joining two such acids with a peptide bond is
also fifty percent. Getting the right amino acid out of twenty into a the correct position
can be seen as five percent; a rough estimate due to the actual number varying due to
other factors. The probability of getting everything correct while placing one amino acid
can be seen as .5 X .5 X .5 = .0125. The probability of assembling N such amino acids
would be .0125 X .0125 and so on for N number of times. If one such protein had
one-hundred active sites, the probability of getting an accurate assembly would be .0125
multiplying itself one-hundred times, or 4.9 X 10 to the negative one-hundred-ninety first
power. Such a random assembly for proteins alone, not factoring all of the other essential
structures of life, is ridiculous; especially for twelve-billion years. The complexity of life
alone; even the most basic forms simpler than the simplest we have today, is almost
unimaginable.

Onto the probability of the creation of life.

There is one huge flaw in your argument that no one seems to have challenged: you
suppose that events of combination of several proteins have a random chance of
happening. That is untrue. The universe is not random. It works according to a certain set
of rules, and although randomness may play a role in these rules, it is certainly not
dominant.

You therefore calculate probabilities on the basis that all events are random. However,
you do not calculate the probabilities on the basis that events AREN'T random, and that
they obey to simple rules. There is a fundamental difference which may change your
insanely low odds into a near certainty.

In order to illustrate my point, I will give the example of a well known mathematical
construct, which is the cellular automaton. Basically, it's an infinite (or toroidal) space
with N dimensions (usually N=2), composed of cells. If N = 2, it's like a grid (or a
doughnut if you opt for the toroidal structure). Each cell can have a certain number of
states (alive, dead, and you can add other states at will), and the next state of a cell
depends on its own state and the states of its neighbors.

The Game of Life is the most well known example: a cell can be alive or dead. If an alive
cell has two or three alive neighbors, it stays alive. If a dead cell has exactly three alive
neighbors, it becomes alive. In all other cases, the cell dies or remains dead. What is
interesting with cellular automata such as this, is that it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to predict the final state of an initial configuration. You have to run a
simulation in order to find out. Therefore, seeing it in action looks very much like random
junk, and you would never think that complex structures could emerge from this.
However, this is wrong. A simple structure, called the glider, can move across the plane
diagonally. Other bigger structures can move horizontally or vertically. Structures can
create beams of gliders. A prime number generator was made. And it was proven that it
was possible to make a computer in the game of life. All of this out of awfully simple
rules which someone came up with on a trial and error basis . And to think there are two
to the 512th power possible rules if N = 2, and 2 to the 2 to the 27th power if N = 3, that's
quite a lot of possible rules for life (and we already know about awesome ones), and that's
just one theory.

All this to say that extremely simple rules are sufficient to produce unexpected,
unpredictable, yet awfully complex structures. Another example is Langton's Ant. You
can also look into fractals, which are superb structures made from simple equations,
which are found in nature, and which have been shown to be the optimal configurations
for many systems.

All this to say that in the eventuality that our universe is a cellular automata, you can't
calculate probabilities without knowing the key. This is important, because it is very
possible that seemingly improbable events such as the occurring of life were in fact
unavoidable consequences of SIMPLE yet overlooked rules. It's not necessarily the
excessively simple rules of cellular automata. Simple yet unknown biological structures
could have catalysed the process. Chemical processes which are not yet understood could
bump up many probabilities.

In any way, it is not random. It looks random, but that's just because we don't understand
enough to see the patterns and find the rules behind the first steps. This is why you have
to be extremely careful when arguing that life is unlikely. Intelligent design is a gap filler
and it typically exploits ignorance in order to convey religious propaganda. Sorry had to
say this.

Reason is subjective. If there is a God there is a reason, because God is
subjective, but if God doesn't exist, then there are no reasons for the existence of the
Universe, because there is no subjectivity to speak of. Saying the universe must have
been there for some reason is the same as saying God must exist, which is skipping
steps.

You?re gonna have to explain this better to me. I don?t get you.

See above for what I said about you assuming there has been nothing at some
moment. That assumption is unfounded. It is a misconception that comes from typically
human thinking. If there has never been nothing, then no matter ever "appeared" with
nothing to precede it (because there never has been nothing!), and your argument falls
flat.

And yet again, we run into me not agreeing with your belief that Point Zero is the
exception to the laws I mentioned.

Therefore, as such, time doesn't exist in the same way matter exists. When I use
the expression "the existence of time", I mean that we are interpreting the global universe
under that particular perspective. There are many words in language which only make
sense with that perspective: creation, causality, thought, intelligence, life, etc. But of
course, you could also decide that time is a physical dimension, that the second physical
dimension is time, and try to figure out rules to go from a state to another (good luck on
that). Conceptually, there's no reason to choose a particular perspective other than on the
basis of our personal, subjective feelings and the simplicity of rules.

Once again, I don?t quite understand how intelligence and creation are dependent upon
time.

[Aglandiir]

I'm not Brain, but I'll quickly respond to a bit of that.

Major disagreement. Don?t you know any people that are ?predictable?? I know one or two. They have free will but I can still predict what they?ll say sometimes. Just because a person has two choices does not mean that one cannot predict which choice they?ll choose, making the below quote irrelevant

"Sometimes" is quite different from "always." If you can sometimes predict what other people will do, that means it's a guess. You don't know until the person actually says something.

I know this will sound like a cop-out but I would think that IF something created time, then it would not be subject to it. I emphasize if to show that I have not proven and that the statement is admittedly hypothetical.

This would be true... except that creation requires time. Recap of earlier posts: in order for something to be created, there must be at least two distinct states: a before state, in which the object does not exist, and an after state, in which the object does exist and the creation has occured. Time is what allows those two states to be distinct; as you agree, without time, everything is simultaneous. Without time, there is no before, no after, and certainly nothing, such as creation or any other event, which requires either.

A friend explained it to me this way in a restaurant. He took a straw and layed it down on the table. He then basically said that in the analogy, he was God. Looking down on every part of it at the same time.

Replacing the word "straw" with "time"... it seems that your friend said he is looking at every part of time at the same time. The fact that he could not describe his ideas of time without using time shows that his idea would not work outside of time.

Interesting thought. That could be a suggestion to how God has his own time. Of course, I don?t think he would need to reply it or anything seeing as how, in my opinion, he sees all of it at all times.

Same deal here. God sees all of time at all times?

I disagree with your theories on free will. I believe there?s supposed to be some sort of study that reported the rotation of a particle to be like rolling two dice. Some outcomes would be more likely than others, but you couldn?t completely know how it would turn out.

I believe you are referring to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, relating to quantum mechanics, which states that the more accurately you know a particle's position, the less accurately you know its momentum, and vice versa. With accurate equations for the momentum of a particle, a physicist is forced to give up accuracy in measurements of position, thus creating probability fields: the particle is in the field, somewhere, probably somewhere towards the middle... but there's no way to know.

There are other theories of quantum mechanics which suggest that some particles do not even have definite states until such states are required. I'm much more murky on those.

All that to say that if I was given a choice between A and B and chose B, then was given the choice again in the exact same conditions without any knowledge of my previous choice or the consequences thereof, then I would again choose B and would always choose B under the same conditions.

That?s what I?ve always figured.

That belief cannot possibly be compatible with Christianity. If you think that you would always make the same choice under identical conditions, then you are essentially saying that the conditions (bodily and external) are what govern your decision. Those conditions, however, are governed by simple physical laws; even other people's decisions, which may influence the environment in which you exist, are based on conditions. Everything eventually traces back to physics. And if everything goes back to physics, and everything is merely the result of something else, governed by equations, then free will does not exist.

And if free will does not exist, then God really isn't giving people a choice between Heaven and Hell. People can't make choices at all. God is condemning some people to Hell and there is nothing they can do about it at all.

And what makes State zero the exception to these rules?

Simple: the rules did not exist at state zero, and thus could not govern it. State zero is the starting point. Rules only apply during an interval; you cannot apply a rule to a point, or a single state. It would mean nothing. You could only use a rule with a single state to produce a second state; that would be applying the rule between states, as a transition. The physical rules of the universe only apply between state zero and state one, and onward. Since there is nothing that comes before state zero, there is no interval during which a rule could be applied to produce state zero. State zero is arbitrary.

Okay, maybe it?s just me. Maybe everyone to ever post on this thread, save Sorovis, Agent Elrond, and me are right. I am a complete idiot. But even assuming that I am idiot, I would still appreciate you explaining how something can just spontaneously exist. To my mind which may very well be inferior to yours I cannot comprehend how something could spontaneously exist. You seem to be basically assuming that at point zero everything started existing without being prompted to do so.

It's not that your mind is inferior to anyone else's; it's that the human mind can't understand the idea at all. The brain evolved over billions of years in a space of three dimensions, with time ever-present. Our brains think in terms that are meaningful to the world in which we live; ie, we think in three dimensions, and we think in time. We can think in fewer spatial dimensions, but the idea of "no time" is just totally foreign to us. We can't grasp it. Nobody can. We can talk about what it might mean in theoretical terms, but nobody, not even the smartest person ever to live, could really imagine how a timeless universe would operate. Even what I just wrote makes no sense, since "operate" is a verb which requires time. See? It's pervasive. You can't think without thinking of time.

So nobody can understand how something could just exist, without a beginning or a creation. It's an alien idea to us. We can just understand that such a thing could be the case; the details are beyond us.

I'm sure Brain would disagree with some of that.