There is no God - discuss:

[Oakman]

_Damian S_ wrote:

Are you currently asleep or awake?

Yes.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

?what?

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

[soap brain]

There's a great big wall of China between wanting to have sex with an underage person and actually doing it.

[Lost User]

Bum! And there've been fifteen inappropriate responses :(

Rob Graham wrote:

Insisting that others discuss a proposition is not the same as participating in a discussion of that proposition

I know it's not the same - what's your point? And there has been no insisting here - please yourself. If proof was offered, then the only possible response would have been "OK, So?" (or Wow!) There is no necessity to express a point of view when eliciting discussion; in some cases it is extremely preferable NOT to express an opinion. You ever do any debating at school? The MC doesn't introduce the topic (generally) with an opinion - just a premise for discussion, with teams taking one side or the other. And the whole topic was just an idea of a joke (humour somewhat lacking in this area for a while!) hence the 'it's been quiet' - i.e. "It's been quiet recently, so I though I would propose an outrageous topic in the hope that it would elicit some response" Sorry if that wasn't quite clear enough for you - I'll remember to dumb it down next time. Oh, yes, :)

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

[Oakman]

If one accepts the hypothesis that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density, one can predict an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions. Max Tegmark argues that these volumes are contained on other quantum branches in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Since one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely, and instead, there is range of possible observations each with a different probability, there are some volumes, where the Lord God Jehovah reigns supreme, or Zeus still cheats on Hera, or Christ sits at the right hand of His Father, another where we die and spend awhile in the Summerlands before returning for another cycle, or where there is no afterlife at all. The real trick is for you - the you that resides in the same volume of the multiverse that this me resides in (no, not that me, this me) - need to figure out which version you were born in. Pascal's Wager would be much more attractive as a lifestyle choice - except that the choice is no longer binary but has n possibilities. :~

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

There's a great big wall of China between wanting to

Not really, if you go back to the original discussion of belief. If you BELIEVE something is OK (let's get off paedophillia, it makes me uncomfortable) then the fact that you don't do it could be merely the lack of opportunity (or the fear of being caught, should the prevailing social mores deem it inappropriate) Sure you can argue that one's beliefs should be of no concern to others - but how far do you take that? A serial killer who thinks cannibalism is fine is up for parole - his belief that it is fine, in my book, is a good enough reason to keep him away from my loved ones, and out of the kitchen!

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

[soap brain]

Maxxx_ wrote:

Sure you can argue that one's beliefs should be of no concern to others - but how far do you take that? A serial killer who thinks cannibalism is fine is up for parole - his belief that it is fine, in my book, is a good enough reason to keep him away from my loved ones, and out of the kitchen!

A serial killer is up for parole? :confused: It's not necessarily his belief in cannibalism that should keep him locked up, it's the fact that he went from thought to action in a seriously unforgivable way. :~ .

[_Damian S_]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

it's the fact that he went from thought to action in a seriously unforgivable way.

That's actually one of the better, more coherent things you have said recently... However, the fact that the serial killer still *believes* that cannabilism is alright surely indicates that he would have no issues in killing and eating another person, and therefore should remain behind bars!

-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!

[soap brain]

_Damian S_ wrote:

That's actually one of the better, more coherent things you have said recently...

:suss: How recently?

_Damian S_ wrote:

However, the fact that the serial killer still *believes* that cannabilism is alright surely indicates that he would have no issues in killing and eating another person, and therefore should remain behind bars!

Well yeah, but his main problem is that he didn't keep it at thought-crime.

[Lost User]

There seems to be a popular misconception that in an infinite universe all possibilities must happen. This is simply not the case. Sorry.

If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

[BoneSoft]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

A serial killer is up for parole?

Ol' Chucky Manson comes up for parole now and again. Not sure he's classified as a "serial" killer, but he's about as nasty as they come.

---

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

[BoneSoft]

Though he has in recent years lured a few serious scientists to his side, I'd argue that Mr. Tegmark's infinite alternate universes theory is a little less provable and documented than God. I put it a few notches above string theory on the Scientist-Generated-Fiction-BS-o-meter. But Michael Crichton sure made a neat book out of it. :-D

---

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

[R Giskard Reventlov]

I would rather posit Russell's teapot[^] and invite you to prove[^] the existence of something for which, in my exeperience and view, there is no evidence. I will, naturally, remain open minded and examine any demonstrable evidence you, or anyone, is able to provide.

me, me, me

[hairy_hats]

Why would a creator god who existed *before* the universe was created be subject to the laws of physics of the world he created? As he/she/it clearly cannot be, quantum mechanics can have no effect on whether or not our universe does or not come with a creator god in the Christian sense.

[Le centriste]

I don't know if there is a God, but I know that I don't base my life on his existence and what he thinks about it. If God is merciful, I have nothing to worry about.

[hairy_hats]

You're gonna fry!

[Le centriste]

I want to go to hell, all my friends will be there.

[Oakman]

Maxxx_ wrote:

There seems to be a popular misconception that in an infinite universe all possibilities must happen. This is simply not the case. Sorry.

The whole post was just an idea of a joke in the hope that it would elicit some response Sorry if that wasn't quite clear enough for you - I'll remember to dumb it down next time.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

The problem with Russel's Teapot is that the corollarycontrary is equally valid. It is also impossible to prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting the sun. The analogy is also an association fallacy - specifically a falsus in unus, falsus omnibus fallacy. It's very wording reveals its weakness, since it depends on ridiculing religion to make its point, rather than on any solid logical conjecture. I would argue that neither position is provable from the evidence we are capable of perceiving, leaving the determination of which to chose to accept up to personal preference. Some (including Einstein, at various points in his life) find it unacceptable that the universe is merely an accident. You clearly do not find that premise difficult, but that does not mean you are necessarily correct. I am inclined to share your view, but am not willing to out of hand reject the possibility that the universe is the result of an intelligent causality of some sort. I do find it a stretch to go from creation by an external agent to the concept of a deity with detailed personal concern for each and every individual.

[R Giskard Reventlov]

Neither do I reject anything out of hand; however I've never seen any evidence to point to anything other than the utterly random nature of the universe. Whilst I'm happy to conced that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I do find it odd that there is not a single shred of demonstrable evidence of a god whilst if there were no god then there is nothing to prove and the absence of evidence would be as expected. Phew: hard subject whatever you believe and therein lies the rub.

me, me, me