Pics For Sharing & Debating

[That Guy]

the universe is infinite so that proves god?

i dunno, i can procedurally generate game content thanks to my PC (textures, objects, worlds etc) throw in a random seed, and off it goes. artificial intelligence has been "gene-seeded" from nothing (give it a problem, have it do random things, anything that helps get the goal is kept and try it again).

there's also a lot of symmetry between water/electrical/light based system (plumbing has the equivalent of a transistor for example) and rays/waves, so maybe that's just the extrapolation of micro forces/rulesets (physics/mechanics)...

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the universe is infinite so that proves god?

No one and nothing "proves" the existence of God in the manner you seek it.
No right minded christian would assert as such. Belief in God is a leap of faith, for some, the leap is a manageable distance. For others, it is a cavernous distance that only a fool would attempt.

Originally Posted by That Guy

i dunno, i can procedurally generate game content thanks to my PC (textures, objects, worlds etc) throw in a random seed, and off it goes. artificial intelligence has been "gene-seeded" from nothing (give it a problem, have it do random things, anything that helps get the goal is kept and try it again).

there's also a lot of symmetry between water/electrical/light based system (plumbing has the equivalent of a transistor for example) and rays/waves, so maybe that's just the extrapolation of micro forces/rulesets (physics/mechanics)...

You may be right. The universe may just be running on a set of incredibly complex extrapolations from an original point. However (1) Such a theory is just as unprovable as the existence of God; and (2) The question of origin remains - how were the extrapolations set in motion? Did they spring from nothingness? Was a blank universe "programed" somehow? Even if running on giant infinitely continous "loop" program, how was the universe set in motion?

As to the origin, Atheists, as I understand it, assert either (1) nothing came from nothing and eventually we will be able to prove it; or (2) no f'ing clue, but, however, it happened it is or will be explainable by the scientific method.

Theists simply say - no f'ing clue but it was the result of a creator who's ulitmate and entire being cannot be proven by the scientific method.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No right minded christian would assert as such..

There is no such being as a 'right minded theist', you're not right minded if you believe in such things.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No one and nothing "proves" the existence of God in the manner you seek it [INSERT: i.e. the "scientific method"].
No right minded christian would assert as such.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

There is no such being as a 'right minded theist', you're not right minded if you believe in such things.

(I) The first and second part of your sentences are not a logical rhetorical tautology based on the original statements to which they refer.

Me: No right-minded Christian would believe you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method.

You (1): No such thing as a right-minded theist.

You (2): You're not right minded if you believe such things.

The term "believe such things" in the proof of your tautology refers back to the "belief" asserted in my original statement that "you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method". Thus, the rhetorical logic of your second statement is that "You're not right-minded if you believe you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method." A statement that:
(1) is applicable to the entire population;
(2) is consistent with my original statement as Christianity is merely a subset of all the population;
(3) a statement with which I am in full agreement; and
(4) irrelevant to and unsupportive of the blanket assertion that theists cannot be "right minded" [i.e. (1) A not B, if A= C; (2) A not B; (3) If C, then not B. Where A=Theists, B=right minded, and C= belief that God can be proven by the scientific method. Thus, (1) is consistent with (3) and vice versa but neither is relevant to the assertion made in (2)]

(II) However, if (as I believe was your intent) your tautology was intended to assert and support the assertion that anyone who believes in God is not in their right mind, then we clearly disagree on the meaning of the term "right" mind.

From all that you have ever said, it appears to me that you assert that only those who believe as you do can be in their right mind [i.e. To be in their right mind, a person must accept the circular tautology that (1) All that exists can ultimately be proven by the scientific method and (2) Existence can only be demonstrated by the scientific method].

On the other hand, to me, and in the light of the current scientific presumption that the Universe is infinite, anyone asserting with certainty that the infinite can be fully defined is asserting an irrational position. [i.e. (1) an infinite universe exists; and (2) the infinite universe can be proven finite so as to completely fit within a comprensible definition].

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(I) The first and second part of your sentences <SNIP>

Damn, you're a wordy mother****er!

There is NO theist who can be right-minded.

That's my statement rooted in your claim that no "right-minded" blah, blah, blah....

Have a great week.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You may be right. The universe may just be running on a set of incredibly complex extrapolations from an original point. However (1) Such a theory is just as unprovable as the existence of God; and (2) The question of origin remains - how were the extrapolations set in motion? Did they spring from nothingness? Was a blank universe "programed" somehow? Even if running on giant infinitely continous "loop" program, how was the universe set in motion?

Check out the Smolin Solution.