Logical proof of ***

[url=http://why***exists.ytmnd.com/]Interesting[/url]

Discuss

EDIT: Blast. Replace the '***' in the URL with G to the O to the D.

EDIT 2: http://why***exists.ytmnd.com/ Paste that in.

The answer to not knowing the "First Cause" is the holy man up above? Sounds like every other attempt to "prove" existence. The universe itself, which kind of corresponds to the Big Bang theory, could've been the first cause when it was supposedly just one form. Saying alone that *** created man in his own form, I think, is total bull because there has to be another planet out there with life similar to ours where bears are kings and plants can walk. Life was probably out of something random, like some freak accident.

The YTMND is just saying, according to logic, that the first cause has characteristics of ***. It's not saying its the logical proof of a Christian ***. No where in the YTMND did he say *** created man in his own form. Did you actually watch it?

some of the comments look pretty good, which is a rarity, to argue the points he/she makes. I'm looking in particular at "phire" and "ART" or something like that (can't remember and am not looking at it right now). Man, that o0Ender0o fellow seems rather dashing, does he not?

If Deity could be logically proven wouldn't that defeat the point?

Quantum Physics destroys Reason 1. Try again.

According to Quantum Physics, absolutely anything can, and does happen for no reason whatsoever.

According to quantum physics, Speedy, every calculation you computer makes is merely a correct guess. Somehow, I highly doubt that is the case.

Interesting, Bebop. I enjoyed it.

[insert Douglas Adams quote]

But yeah, interesting stuff. Though I don't see why the "First Cause" has to be "intelligent" or even "alive." Definitely a long way off from proving anything, it's just a better argument than what you usually hear.

I've already tried this arguement. It doesn't work, for one very simple reason- a "supreme being" could not be the first cause, because then nothing would have caused the supreme being. Speedy is also right with quantum physics, but that only applies if matter already exists. Quantum physics doesn't say that matter can just "appear" out of nothing, so it couldn't explain the origin of the universe.

But who is to say that the laws of a "G0d" can be bound by the laws of physics that we, humans, have created? Science can constantly be modified as knowledge is aquired. For example, if I were to have suggested 3 months ago that Pluto was not a planet, I would have been shot down immediately, no? But just recently, scientist modified the rules which govern whether or not a planet is a planet, and after this modifying took place, Pluto was kicked out. So, what I am trying to say is, why let laws WE, beings that barely know anything of the universe, govern what can and cannot happen to prove a "G0d" exist?

Another thing, this "G0d" thing goes back to the whole "What came first? The egg or the chicken?" subject. If G0d created the universe...then what created G0d?

There fix'd it. I meant to say "the laws of physics".

Several of the assumptions it relies on are either wrong or unproven. Fail, but gets points for being convincing enough to win morons.

It assumes that inteligence cannot come from nonintelligence, for one. To think that, one would have to believe in a literal, 7 day interpretation of the bible and COMPLETELY disregard evolution. Furthermore, despite the author's saying "lol ur kwestion iz dum" it goes entirely against the nature of one of his own arguments (i.e. that everything has a begining) to say that nothing caused ***.

Everything has a cause but nothing has a beginning (Matter and energy can't be creted or destroyed, nature and the cosmos all run in cycles with no defined beginning point). Ergo the universe is cyclical.

*shrug*

Cycles need no creator, thus obviating the need for a creator or "g0d":cookie:

Very interesting Arwon. A cause doesn't necesarily have to be a beginning. So maybe, the cause of G0d is everything he has created or needs to create in a sense? Meh, it's not for me or anyone to decide so I'm going to drop it now....

[COLOR="Yellow"]If everything that comes to be has a sufficient prior cause, there's no reason to exclude G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]d from the equation. There was no president before Washington, but there was a prior cause which led to there being a first president.[/COLOR]

Thats a terrible analogy. Washington being president had nothing to do with the creation of america.

And there IS a reasont o exclude *** from the equation: outside of novelty philosophical debates, there is NO reason to think that he exists.

Thats a great analogy, he said nothing about the creation of america, america already was when he became president..i.e. *** already was when the universe was created.

actually. . . yeah the washington analogy works out. Was there an American president before Washington? No. He was the first. Thus, the chain started with Washington, and the chain, theoretically, started with G0D. It's just a relation of two chains. . .

Like I said before the guilty are the first to deny facts when G0D is being reflected in a good way.

See that there is a true fact!

Get off my VGC, now.

You are the most useless boy ever.

Interesting YTMND none the less.

[quote=GameMiestro]I've already tried this arguement. It doesn't work, for one very simple reason- a "supreme being" could not be the first cause, because then nothing would have caused the supreme being. Speedy is also right with quantum physics, but that only applies if matter already exists. Quantum physics doesn't say that matter can just "appear" out of nothing, so it couldn't explain the origin of the universe.

It actually can. When combined with an infinite amount of time, literally anything can happen.

bebop: apples are food. They require no assistance from man to be produced. Owned.

Everyone with the washington analogy: it fails. It is saying that washington is *** in regards to america, as he created it. The only problem with that, is you can ask what created washington (his parents having sex) and answer it. Once again, by the persons own arguments everything must have a cause, and since he hints that *** has to play by his own rules in the "cant make a stone so big he cant lift" section, it would imply by his own argument that something would have had to cause ***.

Basically, his argument trades a logical train of though that ends in "I'm not sure, science is still working on it" for "LOL *** DID IT."

Quantum theory proves that God both exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.

I've never seen why people need to see proof of God. If you need proof, then you'll never believe it, and if you have faith, then that's all you need. There's no reason to argue that someone else's viewpoint is wrong, even when you're both right.

So is seeing believing or is believing seeing? It all goes back to Santa Claus. :(

G0d is more a faith that gives some people strength to live on and such. On going on what Wings said. If you have faith, G0d can exist to you 100% in plain light. But, if you don't believe, G0d is just something that has never affected you in the least bit. For all I know, G0d may exist, just not in the form most people imagine. G0d can be anything ranging from your spiritual source to your mental power, it all depends if you have faith.

I wrote something on this a while ago, about how everyone was their own God because God was created only through faith, and therefore He can only exist in the minds of those who have enough faith to believe He exists. If I found it now and read through it I'd probably hate it, though.

Well, that sort of make sense. If you think about it, what also determines your faith in G0d is the environment that you grew up in. If you grew up within a very spiritual Christian family your odds are greater in believing in G0d opposed to a person who grew up with a very strict, dark family who doesn't believe whatsoever in G0d.

With me it's interesting. I grew up in an agnostic household, but went to church every month as part of the boy scouts. I was able to make up my mind for myself, and while obviously biased, I think I was a lot less indoctrinated than a lot of people are about religion (and other things, as well).

The fact remains, though, that most faith is mass belief, and I have trouble believing in anything that someone else has prescribed. If you believe some things but not others from the Bible you are somehow going to Hell? Not something I can endorse.

Multiverse theory, as well as being insane, also knocks out any arguments based on the suspiciously perfect nature of fundamental properties of the universe that allow complex matter, galaxies, stars, gravity, and so forth. If there's universes with all different configurations and many that were stillborn, then we just happen to exist in one of the ones where hydrogen can convert into helium, etc. It'd be like pulling a card from a deck and saying "Wow what are the chances of getting the 6 of spades... it must have been DESIGNED that way".

That the perfect analogy for what I've been trying to explain to people for years now. Thankyou!

I thought that science proved that *** was real by providing enough infomation that nothing turned into something. Nothing turning into one particle. Then that particle being accelerated and growing bigger. There for duplicating itself. Becuase everything has an opposite. Hell and heaven, the dark and light side of the force, death and life. So there for, there is another demension, another universe, another earth. That is opposite ours. Imagine, a nice Raptor, an ugly Fate! It's just not possible.......or is it?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]this has always been my major hangup with the whole *** thing (yes, I consider other sides too :P ) People say that that universe, and all that it contains, has too much order, and that different aspects (cell respiration, heat exchange, the weather on our planet, that whole complexity of the eye in comparison with a watch story [look it up], yadayada). they all revolve around the notion that these things are too uniformed, complex, and brilliant to just "up and happened" and that they had to be the work of a divine being. I always thought ". . .well sure, the odds are very very slim, but when you've got an infinite amount of time, don't those odds get better? I mean. . . there could have been big bangs firing off 2 billions years ago in which everything was screwed up and our universe is the 34341th attempt and the one that finally worked, right?" I don't know, it's hard to explain what I'm getting it, but I hope speedy at least realizes I'm going along with what he said.

Yeah, I get it. I always thought the whole "the odds of this happening by chance are incredibly slim" arguement to be utterly stupid. The chances of any one combination of lottery numbers coming up is incredibly slim (and would get slimmer if you added more numbers), but that doesn't mean they're so slim that any combination might aswell be thought of as impossible, and any outcome MUST be down to G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d.

The universe could've turned out in an infinite number of ways*, it just so happens that this is just what happened. If it didn't happen exactly this way, there could well be an alien species that'd be saying the exact same thing. Or no intelligent life at all, which wouldn't cause any problems.

*Certain recent theories cite that quantum physics might not be random after all, which would mean that there is literally nothing random in the universe and it could only turn out one way. At first glance, that might support creeationism, but if there's nothing random in the universe then there is also no such thing as free will, which pretty well destroys most ideas of G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d.

I thought the whole point of quantum theory was that while everything is random, every outcome of that randomness happened, therefore making nothing random.

here is something

the U.S.says that they can only teach the truth in school but almost all the stuff they teach you is just theory and has no factual eveidense pretty much the only true thing they teach is biology the rest is al theory

Well, technically, everything is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The way that lightwaves work to give you sight is a theory. If you want to stop believing that they're true, fair enough, but they are the best explanations we have so far.

Again you fail.

The analgy is looking at the creation of American Presidents, if anything, not America. So who came before Randolph? No one OH SHI-

But having a cause is something bound by the restricitons of space, time and matter. This includes Washington. That also means space,time and matter has to follow the rules of space, time and matter so , like the rules say, it must have a cause, which ISNT bound by space,time and matter. In anycase whether its a *** or not this is the way its going to be. Accept.

EDIT: Oh and about the apples thing, I want to congratulate you on misunderstanding and over thinking about something which was just a one off tiny analgy...again.

Encore!

"The analgy is looking at the creation of American Presidents, if anything, not America. So who came before Randolph?"

his parents played a pretty big role. But I'm not going to bother quoting you anymore, because I've already won.

" Its just how it is."

You, and any credibility you had, ended right there. In a logical debate, you dont get to just say "lol thats the way it is". If someone challenges an asumption, it must be defended. thats the entire point of a debate. If you want to just say "This is teh way it is, because thats what I think and I like to think that way" then your reasoning in religious, not logical or philosophical.* To attempt to have a logical argument with someone like yourself is not worth my time, since you are willing to just say IM RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG THATS MY ARGUMENT LOL I WIN. So I'm going to go to work now. HAVE A NICE DAY.

*Before BJ eats my head, let me clarify. I'm not saying that religion cannot be logical or philosophical. I'm merely saying that using ONLY faith is the halmark of religion. All others require some form of reasoning which bebop has shown he does not possess.

I don't understand why we're arguing the washington thing. He was the first president of the United States of America. After its independence HE was the president. The analogy stands. Quit arguing semantics and get back to the point at hand.

Like... I want to know from you science type. In laymen's terms (which I can understand) how does science explain a black hole? WTF is it "supposed" to be.

1) i am not a moron the only thing that is not a theory is biology

2) there is more proof of THE CRISTIAN G0D than your precious science

3) AND BJ A BLACK HOLE IS "SUPPOSEDLY" A IMPLODED STAR SHOW ME PROOF!!!

[COLOR="Yellow"]If the Washington analogy made sense then that means there were many G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]ds after the original G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]d? The theory of everything needing a prior cause makes sense, the Washington analogy in order to explain that theory doesn't.[/COLOR]

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz]Like... I want to know from you science type. In laymen's terms (which I can understand) how does science explain a black hole? WTF is it "supposed" to be.

A rather large inconvenience.

Seriously, read a Stephen Hawking book or something (preferably a later edition with tons of pictures), it'll explain it way better than anyone else here.

Here's a clip from Wikipedia, anyway:

[quote]
A black hole is an object predicted by general relativity with a gravitational field so strong that nothing can escape it — not even light.
A black hole is defined to be a region of spce-time where escape to the outside universe is impossible. The boundary of this region is a surface called the event horizon. This surface is a set of points (not an actual substance) in spacetime. Nothing can move from inside the event horizon to the outside, even briefly.

It made perfect sense. What part of it did you not understand?

GRAFGLELREAR

WASHINGTON DID NOT MAKE AMERICA, AND THERE WAS A DEFINATE CAUSE OF HIS BEING. HE IS NOTHING LIKE THE *** YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE. YOUR ANALOGY CONTAINS MORE ****E PER CUBIC METER THAN AN ACTUAL PEICE OF FECES RAAAAAAAAAAAAR. Also, did anyone else laugh as hard as I did that keyartist thinks that columbus was looking for america?

It wasnt my analagy.
Its not about Washington creating America.
Its not about Washington being born.

then you might as well just say *** IS LIEK TEH FELLOWSHIP OIF TEH RINGZ CUZ IT WAS FURST LOL. Or, for that matter, arbitrarily pick anything that was first and say "lol it came first"

But really, not matter what you use, you arent going to find anything that will be comparable to ***. Thats sort of the whole point of ***. Generally speaking, all knowing, all seeing, all present, all powerful beings dont tend to have a lot of common correlaries on Earth. But feel free to keep trying to compare the perfect creator of the universe to a man who had fake teeth. I'm sure that'l work out well for you.

pardon the expression, but goddamn you people are slow.

the analogy is drawing a parallel between chains, nothing more. Nobody created George Washington, he was simply there as the FIRST american president. The title of AMERICAN PRESIDENT began with George Washington, much like the title of CREATOR, happens through reactions, reproductions, etc, and it all leads back to G0D, much each president leads back to GW, the first american president. The alpha and the omega. It's a parallel between beginnings and endings. So it's a fine analogy. You can't disprove an entire concept of G0d just because you're trying your ****dest to argue a mother****ing analogy used loosely. But I guess I give you guys too much credit.

It's an analogy, just not a particularly accurate one. Next.

BJ: Don't worry about sucking at maths and science, liking philosophy helps more whe you get into this realm of science. The pictures comment wasn't meant as an insult, Stephen Hawking didn't have any pictures in his original version and most people couldn't understand it. I learn and think visually a lot, and the diagrams helped me to understand the text.

Hundreds of years ago, people thought of things like lightning and rain to be acts of their g[color=indigo]ods because they didn't understand what it really was. If you ask me, this is the same sort of thing: just because we have no way of being sure what created the universe, even based on the terms given in the YTMND, it doesn't mean we have to say it was God.

Being mostly agnostic myself, I guess my response is mostly "Well, I guess it could be, but then again maybe not."[/color]

I HAVE NEVER SEEN AIR IT MUST NOT EXIST.

A black hole is a ball of magic.

the shroud of turan is more proof than theorizing that a black hole (which no one has really seen because it is just a pitch black part of space which could just be a starless area)is an imploded star

[QUOTE=chaser3592]2) there is more proof of THE CRISTIAN G0D than your precious science

What? I don't know what the second part means but show me proof of the first. ;-*

[quote=Spam]then you might as well just say *** IS LIEK TEH FELLOWSHIP OIF TEH RINGZ CUZ IT WAS FURST LOL. Or, for that matter, arbitrarily pick anything that was first and say "lol it came first"

But really, not matter what you use, you arent going to find anything that will be comparable to ***. Thats sort of the whole point of ***. Generally speaking, all knowing, all seeing, all present, all powerful beings dont tend to have a lot of common correlaries on Earth. But feel free to keep trying to compare the perfect creator of the universe to a man who had fake teeth. I'm sure that'l work out well for you.

I guess the fellowship could work too. Asking "who was before ***" is kind of like asking "who was in the fellowship of the ring before the fellowship" or "who was the president before Washington". Do you honestly not understand it?

I honestly can't see how someone could not get that analogy.

[size=5][b]WHERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS SCIENCE NOW?!?

MUAHAHAHA[/B][/SIZE]

All I will say on this is that it makes absolutely no sense for a self-proclaimed Christian to ask for proof of something.

[COLOR="Cyan"]Christians believe that the human mind is limited because G@D does not want anyone to be omniscient or omnipotent if someone found out where heaven is and how G@D uses his holy power to create the universe. My alter ego *bimillennia* gives his biblical view of G@D's futile attempt to make humans ignorant from 'I don't believe in G@D!' thread from Open Discussion:: Current Events, Politics, Philosophy, etc:: Religion/Origin Of Life at [url]www.gpforums.co.nz[/url][/COLOR]

Depends on how you define "God".
If it's a force, must it be intelligent?

All other forces are not.

So why must this one?

And frankly, I think there was something "creating" "The first" too.

Humans just can't grasp the thought of "Eternity".
Because we use "Time".

I try not to think about it as time, just events.
Does make sense if you think about it.

I belive most things are random.

What an ignorant poster.

See, I can be contraversial too!

and in all cases you have no point. So I ask that you make it now.

seriously. If you're not going to make a good point, don't get a stick up your twat when I point out that you're being a prick and insulting and expecting us to swallow it as "profound".

Okay, append 'when most of Christian belief is meant to be taken on faith, and that the Bible says that to ask for proof of God is to deny that faith.' the the end of my post.

Game, set, match.

the the fuck it is, you stuttering baffoon. Theology is a heavy part of the church, and theology is the study, in an attempt to prove, ***'s existence. Plus, you can't take one concept of faith, that being "not NEEDING proof to believe in ***" and somehow wave that over all Christians' heads when they ask that you PROVE a scientific theory, you empty-headed cockhound. Fine, I'll take your route, and use it against you. From here on out, people of "science" cannot DARE get angry when someone asks for proof of something (evolution, the big bang, ANYTHING), because SCIENCE is about asking QUESTIONS and PROVING things. When you deny someone's right to question, you are going against what science stands for. There, are you happy? See, I can be a completely uneducated, rhetorical nonsense spewing asshat too! WHAT DO I WIN? Jesus Christ, I can't believe I had to explain that. Weird how your comics suck such balls yet you can be so hilarious when attempting to be serious.

Wow, I awoke the beast.

Isn't theology then blasphemy in itself?

P.S, I don't write my comics. :)

I hate ignorance masked with intelligence. Game. Set. Match.

I can't believe you're not seeing this. It's a statement on the Christian faith's hypocrisy on more levels than one.

There's a passage in the Bible - I forget which chapter, so feel free to do your own research on that - where somebody is questioning ***'s existence, and asking for verification. The answer is, more or less, that you must accept religion on faith, and 'without faith, I am nothing.'

My point was that to ask for proof of a deity's existence is to deny that faith, and for a Christian to do that is to go against the Bible's teaching (this, by the way, is why theology is mostly un-Christian).

I think the fact that I originally posted that over two months ago and can still remember my reasoning shows how much I actually care about this particular topic - it wasn't a throw-away remark. The church's hypocrisy and bullishness is the reason I'm no longer a Christian.

and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with your original remark, which is that because of that one statement, in regards to ***'s existence, Christians shouldn't question the findings of science. They should just accept them, because some aspect of their doghma states they should accept that *** exists without proof. I can't believe you're ignorant enough to try to use that as a viable and logical assault on Christian thinking. I refuse to believe it. I know you aren't. You were just saying it as a snide passing remark, and I certainly hope you're smart enough to realize it's neither profound nor an even arguably GOOD rhetorical statement about Christian thinkers. If it is, prove it, man of science. So far you've failed to do so. Your last post, let me summarize.

Irrelevent.

Very vague, yet irrelevent reference to some biblical chapter (what does that have to do with why Christians shouldn't question the "findings" of science?

Who's asking for proof of ***'s existence? Certainly not CHristians. We're asking for proof of his nonexistence, which SURE SEEMS TO FIT THAT CRAPPY AD HOC BIBLE REFERENCE YOU PULLED OUTTA YOUR ***

You shouldn't care. Your reasoning sucks, or is flawed. If not, your writing needs work. If not that, your thinking process needs work. If not that, you're dellusional. And then follow that up with some dumb personal anecdote which nobody cares about and is also...guess what... irrelevent.

I think you put your foot in your mouth and now you have no defense because I've collapsed that house of cards you're trying poorly to maintain.

Praise Allah!