|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 27, 2009 3:08:31 GMT -5
There is nothing illogical about being created. Indeed! How is it so that the notion of being created is shunned by so many? I would like to know how we could have came to exist without being created! Please, resident atheists on the forum, enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 27, 2009 11:54:36 GMT -5
As far as I can tell...we either: -Always were -Created ourselves -or, were created. Anybody disagree? *edit* this assumes that we do exist. forgot to mention that. I like where you're going with this, personally. For something to be something always must have been. It's illogical any other way. Because, logically, something can never come from nothing...(without denying science, reality and logic altogether.) So that calls for something in our universe to be eternal (it could be us...I guess? I've never heard it put that way, though.) In any case, the "Creating ourselves" option is more illogical than believing that we don't exist at all. I'm not an atheist, but a good friend of mine is. He says that the "eternal" thing that the universe calls for could be literally anything. Possibly an unconscious force (like gravity, he said), ever-present, immortal, no beginning or end, that somehow caused human existence. Basically, anything other than a conscious deity. However, while I respect his opinion, the organization of matter in general is so complex that the idea of it coming about by accident instead of on purpose seems somewhat irrational. /2cents
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 27, 2009 16:59:51 GMT -5
Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural causes. There is a thing called anti-matter, but it also has the same properties.
There is the idea/theory that everything has existed forever. Although I don't understand that, I admit it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by blacksmith on Nov 27, 2009 17:33:36 GMT -5
Did the big bang create matter? Or did it just disperse matter.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 27, 2009 17:54:33 GMT -5
How the f**k could it create anything? In order for something to explode, there has to be reactions with pre-existing elements and stuff... I've reached the end of my knowledge right there.
|
|
|
Post by blacksmith on Nov 27, 2009 18:25:28 GMT -5
Well, I was just thinking. If the big bang created matter, and matter cannot be created by any natural force... Seems illogical to me.
I don't know a lot about the big bang, but I would like to hear some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Nov 27, 2009 18:30:33 GMT -5
God wanted to create everything, and bang it happened.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 27, 2009 18:30:52 GMT -5
The bigbang is very illogical.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Nov 27, 2009 18:43:54 GMT -5
For something to be something always must have been. It's illogical any other way. Because, logically, something can never come from nothing...(without denying science, reality and logic altogether.) So that calls for something in our universe to be eternal (it could be us...I guess? I've never heard it put that way, though.) In any case, the "Creating ourselves" option is more illogical than believing that we don't exist at all. I'm not an atheist, but a good friend of mine is. He says that the "eternal" thing that the universe calls for could be literally anything. Possibly an unconscious force (like gravity, he said), ever-present, immortal, no beginning or end, that somehow caused human existence. Basically, anything other than a conscious deity. However, while I respect his opinion, the organization of matter in general is so complex that the idea of it coming about by accident instead of on purpose seems somewhat irrational. /2cents I agree. We know that choice 2 i off the table. We cannot have created ourselves. It would be philosophical absurdity to say that "no-thing" can act/create. That means SOMETHING must have always been...which could be the universe, or something outside the universe, not bound by the laws and principles of our universe. Anybody here familiar with thermodynamics? I am not a genius in the field by any means, but I am pretty sure its second law states that the universe has a limited, decreasing amount of energy. No matter how large the quantity of energy is, that energy MUST eventually run out. Wouldn't this mean the universe must be finite? I can't explain it very well, but one example I read was as follows: You encounter a flashlight that is on. You want to know how long its been there. You then ask a scientist, "How long would you say this flashlight has been here?" In response, he says "That flashlight has always been, shining as you see it now." What? That cannot be. The flashlight can't have an infinite amount of power so it can't have been there forever...
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 28, 2009 2:43:31 GMT -5
I haven't researched thermodynamics in a long time, but I think that's the general idea.
Plus, (going along with the BB idea) is there anything in reality that shows that explosions create order? It's extremely unscientific to say that an explosion created the order of reality when, in reality, explosions never create order.
Yes. I agree that is catchy.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 28, 2009 3:49:01 GMT -5
So in reality, science IS telling us that such theories as the BB and macro-evolution aren't plausible.
Well, I know people are going to contradict me saying that macro-evo isn't plausible, but as far as I can tell, there is no proof to support the theory.
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Nov 28, 2009 21:27:33 GMT -5
Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural causes. There is a thing called anti-matter, but it also has the same properties. There is the idea/theory that everything has existed forever. Although I don't understand that, I admit it's possible.Actually, impossible because A: An actual infinite cannot exist* B: A beginning-less series of events is an actual infinite Conclusion: The universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past and must have come into being, or else It would be a beginning-less series of events. *An actual infinite is a natural (that is, not supernatural) occurrence of infinity, such as physical objects, potential, and other empirically measurable things. They are impossible due to the fact that they are subject to infinite regression, which is self refuting. Also, it's countered by scientific data concerning A: Expanding galaxies and B: The laws of thermodynamics
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Nov 28, 2009 22:27:50 GMT -5
who exactly are you guys debating?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 28, 2009 22:35:31 GMT -5
If god is better than satan, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 28, 2009 23:09:47 GMT -5
Somewhere along the line we invented an atheist. We're arguing against points that he might bring up.
His name is Larry.
|
|