Opinions on Life/Reality

[SailorAlea]

It's only possible to reach that infinity if you admit that each of those infinite points has an indefinite size. Since they have no size or mass, they are meaningless and the ball indeed reaches the ground.

 

[Morrone]

10 characters

I still don't understand your infatuation with whether or not God has a penis, or what this penis has to do with creating the universe.

You call God "he". You are basically saying God has a penis and since God created the Universe the Universe was created by penis.

And I don't understand how those paragraphs that you posted twice in a row make your point. I am no more convinced that there is a God than I was before I read them 3 times.

Thank you for exagerating but I only posted one part of the article twice. I knew oyu wouldn't understand but I'm not bothering to tpye what I did before all over again. You wouldn't comprehend it anyway. Your stubborness isn't worth it.

All we know for sure is that the universe couldn't have created itself. We don't know that it didn't always exist in one form or another and we don't know what exists outside of it. There *is* a theory that the universe just expands and collapses on itself, becomming infinitely dense, then explodes again and relives out its life span before collapsing one more time. lather. rinse. repeat.

Ok, you are obviously not reading the articles. You are hopeless. If you read the articles you would realize the Universe doesn't have enough energy and isn't old enough and isn't large enough to "lather, rince, repeat".

What put the ball there? Maybe it was God. Maybe it was another ball next to it that divided itself into 2 balls.

Another sign that you aren't read the articles. Another Universe could not have created the Universe because they need to be seperate from eachother. "Compared to the inorganic systems comprising the universe, biological systems are enormously complex. The genome for the DNA of an E Coli bacterium has the equivalent of about two million amino acid residues. A single human cell contains the equivalent of about six billion amino acid residues. Moreover, unlike inorganic systems, the sequence in which the individual components (amino acids) are assembled is critical for the survival of biological systems. Also, only amino acids with left-handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis; the amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds; each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme; and multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.

The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young to permit life to be assembled by natural processes. Researchers, who are both non-theists and theists and who are in a variety of disciplines, have arrived at this calculation.15 - 20

Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another; that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. Thus the only explanation for how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information. "

That is what I meant to type when I pasted another passage twice. I thought I had copied this but was mistaken and I just pasted the same passage twice. These are your mathematics.


Maybe we are just one marble in a sack of marbles that some kid is using to play marbles. Maybe that kid is God. Maybe that kid is Mighty Mouse. Nobody can prove anything, not God, not that there even is anything outside of the Universe. Nobody can prove that this isn't all there is and all there will ever be. Arguing something that has no chance in hell of *ever* being proven at all let alone without a doubt is nonsense.

You really havent read the articles then. They conclude the chance greater of God with a personal cause to begin a Universe. Not that it's fact but that logic and chance are in that theories favor and it is infact the atheists with the B L I N D F A I T H.

If you believe in God, great for you. You can use those articles to help you justify what you believe. I don't, and there is nothing in this modern universe that will sway me aside from God walking up to my front door and proving it to me.

Yes I am aware of your stubborness. This is actually humorous because your saying "God walking up to my front door and proving it to me" was very similar to what I said in my original explanation that was destroyed, about how no matter what I say you wont admit it. But I do not debate all this long without reason. I know you will still ponder and perhaps ACTUALLY READ my articles and passages and concider them, and others. Pehaps they are above your comprehension at the moment. Perhaps you need some more time before you can understand the concepts, because nothing you say proves to me that you are capable of thitat.

 

[Morrone]

Neither "god created the universe" or "the universe simply went shabang" is more proboble. You just have to take a step back with the God theory: it's improboble to believe that there is a being that has existed forever, outside the rules, that moved without definable reason to create the universe. Just as improboble, at least, than it is to believe the universe moved by itself. Both theories involve an unexplained creation or existence.

You are incorrrect. It is not improbable but infact MORE probable than ANY atheist theory.

And the thing you said, about how time could never get to the present? It's called a paradox. Here, let me show you:

You drop a ball from 1 meter off the ground. The drop point we will call A, the ground we will call B. Now, in order for the ball to move from point A to point B it must pass halfway between the two points, a point we will call point C. In order to pass point C the ball must then pass through the halfway point of A and C, a point we will call point D. In order to get to point D the ball must pass through the middle of A and D, which we'll call point E, and half of that, and half of that.

In other words, there are an infinite number of points this ball must pass through. So technically this ball should never reach the ground, since it is passing through an infinite number of destinations.

Except the ball hits the ground. My point being that if something that small can defy that exact logic, so can something as big as the universe exist infinitely. Try and explain that eh?

Lol, thanks for proving that there is a beginning. "Point A" would be the beginning. Thanks.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Moronne, your articles are some of the most religiously biased articles I have ever read on the issue of the universe's creation. It is offensive to me that you would continue to use them in an attempt to prove your points to me. Why don't you go find a nice aethiest article that agrees with you and come on back if you want to continue this.

That last article you gave us was full of silly examples like a house collapsing over time. How does that relate to the universe? Obviously (very obviously) the universe does not follow the same principles of a wooden structure which is forced to endure gravity, erosion, and whether. The universe may yet reach a point where it falls apart. People do. Perhaps it is still developing, and once it reaches a certain point it will start breaking down. So what? STOP USING RELIGIOUS ARTICLES IN A VAIN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS! USE AN UNBIASED SOURCE! Just because they say "A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument" doesn't mean it is true, Moronne. You need to tripple check your sources before you rely on them as your crutch, because the woodwork just fell out from under both of them.

And guess what Moronne? I have a penis too. Does that mean that if I make something my penis does?

And you cannot get away with making ridiculously stupid comments like "it isn't improbable it's more probably than ANY aethiest theory" considering you haven't shown us a SINGLE aethiest theory. You're too biased to argue these points.


Let me also point out that your argument and the article's argument about a universe being unable to divide like a single cell'd organism are incredibly flawed, as you yourself have already gone to great lengths to prove that anything that happens outside of our universe is not bound by the laws and restrictions of our universe. You can't push both theories.

 

[Morrone]

10 characters

Moronne, your articles are some of the most religiously biased articles I have ever read on the issue of the universe's creation. It is offensive to me that you would continue to use them in an attempt to prove your points to me. Why don't you go find a nice aethiest article that agrees with you and come on back if you want to continue this.

Then how about trying to counter them.

That last article you gave us was full of silly examples like a house collapsing over time. How does that relate to the universe?

Obviously (very obviously) the universe does not follow the same principles of a wooden structure which is forced to endure gravity, erosian, and whether. The universe may yet reach a point where it falls apart. People do. Perhaps it is still developing, and once it reaches a certain point it will start breaking down. So what?

Yes, I do know you can't comprehend even the simplest of things, you don't have to tell me. Furstly, that wasn't the last article I posted I also posted other passages but somply not via a link. Next, it easily relates to the Universe. One thing moves another just like erosion, gravity, and whether. If all of these things were traced back to their mover and those things to their mover we could come to the source of the moving: the creator.

STOP USING RELIGIOUS ARTICLES IN A VAIN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS! USE AN UNBIASED SORC!

You tried to dispute a single point of hundreds all together ina ll of the articles I have posted and FAILED. For the last time the articles do not PROVE God exists and the sources are using fact and logic to prove their point not opinion. You are getting very hostile over all this. Very pathetic. If you can't take the heat don't sit in the sun.

Just because they say "A superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation to this argument" doesn't mean it is true, Moronne. You need to tripple check your sources before you rely on them as your crutch, because the woodwork just fell out from under both of them.

Your reading is so inadequate that you have failed spelling my name correctly TWICE. That would normally be an understandable flaw if you haven't been forced to read it over half a dozen times in order to know who you are talking to. It explains why a superior non-physical power and creator is the only possible explanation, thats what makes the chance of it being true, true. You really need to understand what you are reading before you try knocking on the wood with a feeble mallet.

And guess what Moronne? I have a penis too. Does that mean that if I make something my penis does?

God created the Universe thus he is a part of the Universe just like if you were to make something the fact you have male genitalia would represent the object just like suggesting God has male genitalia suggests that it had something to do with the Universe and that iff God had female qualities the Universe would be different.

And you cannot get away with making ridiculously stupid comments like "it isn't improbable it's more probably than ANY aethiest theory" considering you haven't shown us a SINGLE aethiest theory. You're too biased to argue these points.

Actually you have, so I havent had to. Your the atheists, your the one with the burden of proof that there is no God. Atheism relies on logic, thats the foundation of atheism and if a theist can out-logic any theory an atheist creates then obviously logic is on the side of a Creator.

Your first suggestion was that the Universe is infinite and after repeating myself and explaning myself and proving myself many a time I finally squashed tht out of you. Then you kept creating inpractical theories that the Universe created itself or another Universe created it in which I countered with mathematics that you probably did not read.

The logic and mathematic is on the side of the Creator. Hitokiri understands this far better than you do. Hitokiri however in suggesting it is only a leap of faith for the theist is terribly mistaken and I have disputed this. With the logic and mathematics it comes down to the Big Bang in which like he said is just chance as to whether God created the Big Bang or it was random. And a beginning without a cause is far more unlikely than a beginning with a cause and that is one of the more important reasons as to why chance and logic are on the side of theists. It is proven that it is infact the theists who have the greater BLIND FAITH.

 

[Judge]

I didnt take my time reading everything.

but I ponder about life a lot..

whenever i'm sitting alone, and I put down a cup. I sometimes think why things happen the way they do, why is there a cup. I guess I sometimes have my doubts about 'reality' with thoughts like that.

I also think about space etc. and about 'time' what kind of control is there, in time. it moves, it ticks. every second is past tense. its weird that it just ticks.

 

[Morrone]

I'd recommend you read A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawkings I just started reading it and I'm only on Chapter 3 and it already explains a lot. It is a very short book aswell only 197 pages. It's pretty hard to read concidering it's Steve Hawkings, smartest man alive, but it will really help you understand a lot about the Universe.

 

[SailorAlea]

His name is Stephen Hawking, not Steve Hawkings.. /pif Anyway, I much prefer his second book, "The Universe in a NutShell" to "A Brief History of Time." You should check it out. It's about 40$ hard-cover, and it's worth every penny.

Judge..as a sidenote, did you change your sig? I preferred the old one.

 

[Morrone]

Ah yes I suppose you are right, I saw "The Universe In A Nutshell" right next to it but I was recommended "A Brief History In Time" so I chose that instead but with your recommendation I will check out the former aswell.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Morrone, sorry for incorrectly spelling your name, but you just aren't making any sense anymore, and I refuse to argue with someone who can't understand what I'm trying to tell them. Especially when other people, like Hitokiri, plainly can. I'll only make a couple of obvious notes.

First off, saying somebody had to start moving everything is nothing new, because it is the same exact theory that somebody had to create everything. It doesn't sound smell or taste new so don't hide behind it.

Nextly, using "God exists" as evidence to prove that God exists just doesn't work. You can't say that those theories prove that God is the only reasonable explanation because, first off: 1.) The information in all of those articles would have to be certifiably correct, which none is (no references are given from what I saw), and 2.) the articles would actually have to prove something, which none do. They all just present theories and then tell the reader that those threories are correct. I have read them from an unbiased perspective and I should know.

Lastly, no matter how many times you tell yourself that you've "squashed me" that just wont make it true. Go ahead though, and tell everyone that you've beaten me, using evidence you don't have to prove the impossible.

Blind faith in science... blind faith in religion... what is the difference? It's all just a big pile of bull**** when you try to break it apart and make sense of it. No matter what you believe, if you trace it back far enough, there is no logical explanation for any of it. You can say God all you want but for those of us who don't believe in God or who question the origins of God it just doesn't make sense, and it never will without blind faith. Nobody has a "greater" blind faith than anybody else Morrone, but you can think so if it makes you feel better.

You didn't address the issue that those articles are religiously biased and failed to prove that either article explored every possible theory outside of that of one true Creator before coming to its final conclusion. You continually rely on your articles to prove the value and competance of your articles which is a vicious circle I don't see you coming out of any time soon.

If you get any ideas of your own, without relying on articles that haven't persuaded me of anything, and that scientifically or philosophically come to any conclusions that seperate themselves from the most basic and common place theory that there is a God, come on back and post about it. So far all I keep hearing from you is "There is a God, read my articles. My articles say it is so, and therefore it must be so. They are flawless." Sorry, it just doesn't work that way, Morrone.

 

[SailorAlea]

Unfortunately, a large amount of philosophy was written specifically so the Faculty of Sacred Theology of the Catholic Church would allow it to be published in Universities, and not placed on the 'index' forbidding them from reading it.

Even Renes Descartes, whose work eventually comes to the conclusion that God exists, was placed on the Index. Eventually it was taken off, but it was still banned and labeled as heretic, despite being accompanied by a long letter addressing the faculty, how it wasn't blasphemous.

So you never really know if this is their exact meaning, or them 'sacrificing some of the message' in order to get it published. It's one reason these are so unnecessarily religious.

 

[majin goketa]

The Universe won't end in a big crunch it'll just keep expanding forever and ever and eventually matter will break apart and all that will be left is a billion light years of nothing and a couple of photons. When I found that out I thought it's a pretty crappy end for the universe.

About the ball falling thing, that paradox has been resolved as space isn't made up of an infinite number of small points it's made up of small units called plank meters which are 10^-43 meters in size.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

People from this point forward to prevent further confusion post certified sources with informatoin like "plank meters." Obviously 10^-43 meters is *not* infinitely small. I'd like to see some research on that kind of thing. Same goes for your articles from now on Morrone.

 

[SailorAlea]

The Universe won't end in a big crunch it'll just keep expanding forever and ever and eventually matter will break apart and all that will be left is a billion light years of nothing and a couple of photons. When I found that out I thought it's a pretty crappy end for the universe.

About the ball falling thing, that paradox has been resolved as space isn't made up of an infinite number of small points it's made up of small units called plank meters which are 10^-43 meters in size.

You're wrong, Goketa. That's the thing, is that we don't know what will happen. Whether there's enough matter to halt the expansion, or enough matter to reverse it to a big crunch. Or if there's not enough, and it will infinitely expand into a "big freeze." We don't know the total amount of matter in the universe, so it's impossible to determine at this point, with our perception.

Aren't you supposed to be a professional astrophycisist? This is even in the most basic of books.

 

[majin goketa]

You're wrong, Goketa. That's the thing, is that we don't know what will happen. Whether there's enough matter to halt the expansion, or enough matter to reverse it to a big crunch. Or if there's not enough, and it will infinitely expand into a "big freeze." We don't know the total amount of matter in the universe, so it's impossible to determine at this point, with our perception.

Aren't you supposed to be a professional astrophycisist? This is even in the most basic of books.

I am. Until recently thats what was thought but we have now found that exotic matter is creating an accelerative effect on the expansion of the universe. It's hundreds of times stronger than the gravitational pul of all matter. This exotic matter never stops it's pull on the Universe. The Big Crunch was actually dismissed earlier this year.

But it's not your fault for not knowing it's a very recent(2003) discovery and most books are written before this. I'll try to find a link for you on this and the Plank meters.

Edit:
Links:
Acceleration of Universe:
No.1
No.2

Plank meter:
No.1

And sorry the Planck meter is 10^-35m, the Planck second is 10^-43s (smallest unit of time)

 

[SailorAlea]

o_o That's really depressing. Couldn't you have just let me live in my own little world?

Well, I'll just hope against hope ^_^ Since our calculations are usually wrong in these matters, especially when it's something we can't directly define, and something so new.

Don't you dare try and puncture a hole in my wall of denial, you MONSTER! :cry: ;( :no: :fight:

 

[majin goketa]

Sorry about the wall of denial man.
I forgot that the first victim of science is blissful ignorance of some horrible fact.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Oh come come now. I'm just happy that the universe isn't going to implode and explode forever. That would mean I'd have to live through this horrible life of mine again.. and again.. and again.. >.<

 

[SailorAlea]

Well.. assuming it would happen the same way.. But that's a very interesting prospect..

 

[Judge]

yeah sailoralea, I changed it

i'm gonna change it again real soon. so don't worry