Best argument for god? ... From an atheist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Shouldn't we first agree on what a 'god' is because 'creator being outside of spacetime' is a bad definition. What kind of being? How do they create? Where is outside spacetime and how is that possible? If you can't answer these questions in detail then what are you even talking about because all you have provided is some amorphous creature with mysteriously convenient abilities.

You assume that we have the capability of a complete definition or that a complete definition is necessary for us to know that something must exist.

When we use words like infinite, all powerful, timeless and so forth, those words do have meaning, despite them all being beyond our direct experience. They describe concepts that most people really have no difficulty with.

There are many things beyond our capability to fully describe, but that doesn't mean that we doubt that a gravitational singularity could exist, or that the universe could be open and expand forever. We can conceive of these things and even explain how such concepts come about.

With all due respect, I call BS. Without proper definition there cannot be proper research and verification. What you describe is hypothesis, conjecture that depends on assumed properties and behaviors that we can never actually explore firsthand. The words you use can't be weighed for actual measurable parameters, only investigated in the most epistemological sense because of how intangible the whole concept is. And intangible concepts are really f@$#ing hard to "trust but verify" you know what I mean? We need to test these ideas and witness the results of such factors in action to take any of it seriously.

That's like suggesting we can't do calculus because the limits approach infinity.

The closer you get to infinity, the more fuzzy the results of your math wizardry. If you could approach infinity without losing track of even a single number, then you have a computer capable of simulating the universe and proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how life happened. Maybe you can use that computer to email the cosmos and find out why God is so quiet lately.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

What do you mean, the beginning? I think in the beginning your mommy was going down on your daddy.

Yep you are correct the universe started with me... I am GOD!

originally posted by: chr0naut


Life didn't start once, and only once. It started many times and they have been at war and in symbiotic relationship since the beginnings. The suggestion that all life is related is as much religious faith as any other.

Much of the life we see today is related from the last snowball earth 600 to 700 million years ago, so even though I agree life can start many times the life around us today is much more related than what you suggest with many starting points. Even something like a grapevine has 19% shared DNA with us as example.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's what I thought.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance


That's what I thought.

If you think about it everyone's universe starts and ends with them. You only see your own perception of the universe, not mine or anyone's else. If you looked though my eyes you might just say WTF is that!!!

a reply to: Raggedyman

You've heard it before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and proving that there is or could be one pretty extraordinary. The idea of Superman does comes to mind, or even making water into wine, even though it kind of sounds like sorcery to an extent...but still need proof.


I guess one could interpret it that way, but it not like the religious books could really elaborate with any of the technicalities science could bring. Although, most religious theologies or wisdoms have there underlying truths, but seem to serve as more or less as guides.

Wouldn't it, in the strict religious sense, be heresy to say that it was the sun thawed miles of ice to cause a flood, rather then God made it rain for a fort night as a punishment on the children of Cain. Or that Adam an Eve were chimps instead of modern day humans, or the Dinosaurs, even though the serpent turning into dust is kind of sounds close.

I did struggle with chemistry in high school.

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: Raggedyman

You've heard it before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and proving that there is or could be one pretty extraordinary. The idea of Superman does comes to mind, or even making water into wine, even though it kind of sounds like sorcery to an extent...but still need proof.

Do you think sorcery exists?

a reply to: Xtrozero

We're all in it together.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

We're all in it together.

Are you even real?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Does thinking black magic powder summon infernal forces so bad, that the moment they enter, they get kicked back out, count?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Different and real.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

Different and real.

I don't know if even I'm real....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

Different and real.

I don't know if even I'm real....

I'm not sure how I could be a figment of my own imagination unless something was imagining me in the first place. And to minimize the number of speaking characters to keep the budget down, I'm playing the parts of both the one who imagines and the imagined. However, if I'm the one doing the imagining, then it's too bad that I haven't imagined something better. As George Carlin once basically said, "If there is a super creator god, then the most you can say is that that he's an underachiever." Even if I'm not a god, I can still see where a few simple improvements in the design would make existence a thousand times nicer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Shouldn't we first agree on what a 'god' is because 'creator being outside of spacetime' is a bad definition. What kind of being? How do they create? Where is outside spacetime and how is that possible? If you can't answer these questions in detail then what are you even talking about because all you have provided is some amorphous creature with mysteriously convenient abilities.

You assume that we have the capability of a complete definition or that a complete definition is necessary for us to know that something must exist.

When we use words like infinite, all powerful, timeless and so forth, those words do have meaning, despite them all being beyond our direct experience. They describe concepts that most people really have no difficulty with.

There are many things beyond our capability to fully describe, but that doesn't mean that we doubt that a gravitational singularity could exist, or that the universe could be open and expand forever. We can conceive of these things and even explain how such concepts come about.

With all due respect, I call BS. Without proper definition there cannot be proper research and verification. What you describe is hypothesis, conjecture that depends on assumed properties and behaviors that we can never actually explore firsthand. The words you use can't be weighed for actual measurable parameters, only investigated in the most epistemological sense because of how intangible the whole concept is. And intangible concepts are really f@$#ing hard to "trust but verify" you know what I mean? We need to test these ideas and witness the results of such factors in action to take any of it seriously.

That's like suggesting we can't do calculus because the limits approach infinity.

The closer you get to infinity, the more fuzzy the results of your math wizardry. If you could approach infinity without losing track of even a single number, then you have a computer capable of simulating the universe and proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how life happened. Maybe you can use that computer to email the cosmos and find out why God is so quiet lately.

In Calculus, the numbers become more definite as you approach the limit of infinity.

It can be thought of as getting the slope of a tangent point on a curve by starting with two separate points on that curve and bringing them closer and closer towards the actual tangent point. Where the points which may have been separate actually overlap (and are essentially the same point) the limit of the denominator goes towards infinity (I'm awfully sorry but putting it in words is imprecise and I don't feel I have really captured the truth in an obvious way).

Best to refer you to: L'Hôpital's rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut


Life didn't start once, and only once. It started many times and they have been at war and in symbiotic relationship since the beginnings. The suggestion that all life is related is as much religious faith as any other.

Much of the life we see today is related from the last snowball earth 600 to 700 million years ago, so even though I agree life can start many times the life around us today is much more related than what you suggest with many starting points. Even something like a grapevine has 19% shared DNA with us as example.

There are only so many elements and so many proteins. Of course, there are similarities for all matter. The higher the order, the greater the similarities are likely to be.

But it doesn't mean that the actually disparate things that appear to be similar, are descendent from each other.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

I'm not sure how I could be a figment of my own imagination unless something was imagining me in the first place. And to minimize the number of speaking characters to keep the budget down, I'm playing the parts of both the one who imagines and the imagined. However, if I'm the one doing the imagining, then it's too bad that I haven't imagined something better. As George Carlin once basically said, "If there is a super creator god, then the most you can say is that that he's an underachiever." Even if I'm not a god, I can still see where a few simple improvements in the design would make existence a thousand times nicer.

Same is said about life with evolution's finish products that are only just good enough in its results and not some Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence being created it in perfection.

Take our eyes...If a TV was made the same way the wires would go right through the middle of the tube...not good, but it works.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are only so many elements and so many proteins. Of course, there are similarities for all matter. The higher the order, the greater the similarities are likely to be.

But it doesn't mean that the actually disparate things that appear to be similar, are descendent from each other.

Shared DNA/Genes is just that no matter how you want to suggest otherwise, and it makes sense as two species split their DNA can be 99% the same and as the keep splitting 100 of millions/billions of years you get a grape vine and a human with 19% DNA match and about 25% gene match. Its not that life didn't spring up at different times, it is more that the life we see today on earth came from only one source as those others didn't make it. They have identified a set of 355 genes most likely to have been present in LUCA "last universal common ancestor", so that didn't happen randomly that life today shares those genes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are only so many elements and so many proteins. Of course, there are similarities for all matter. The higher the order, the greater the similarities are likely to be.

But it doesn't mean that the actually disparate things that appear to be similar, are descendent from each other.

Shared DNA/Genes is just that no matter how you want to suggest otherwise, and it makes sense as two species split their DNA can be 99% the same and as the keep splitting 100 of millions/billions of years you get a grape vine and a human with 19% DNA match and about 25% gene match. Its not that life didn't spring up at different times, it is more that the life we see today on earth came from only one source as those others didn't make it. They have identified a set of 355 genes most likely to have been present in LUCA "last universal common ancestor", so that didn't happen randomly that life today shares those genes.

While I agree that common ancestors would ensure DNA similarities, there are other good reasons why there are similarities.

Consider that it would be wrong to assume that all cars come from Germany because Germany was the first country with the Bessemer Converter.

The similarity of all things made of cardboard doesn't mean that all cardboard products had a common ancestor.

It's like what you are waving about as 'proof' does nothing of the sort.

Similarity does not necessarily evidence descendency.

Similarity just means they appear similar. That's it! There are lots of ways that similarity can come about. Descendency is only one of the ways.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Consider that it would be wrong to assume that all cars come from Germany because Germany was the first country with the Bessemer Converter.

It is funny you say that as cars have LUCA...What you are suggesting is the Benz Patent-Motorwagen and the Model T evolved on completely different paths with no connections.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

Consider that it would be wrong to assume that all cars come from Germany because Germany was the first country with the Bessemer Converter.

It is funny you say that as cars have LUCA...What you are suggesting is the Benz Patent-Motorwagen and the Model T evolved on completely different paths with no connections.

They were designed. Without a doubt.