17 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenLMAO! That's what you're saying, moron. Super Duper God just whipped up some matter "out of thin air".
lol. that says alot about you and now i understand why you usually make no sense. So consciencness created the universe. Did it create matter out of thin air? Who created the thin air to make the matter with.. you're funny.
The universe is a manifestion of the Eternal Consciousness. It's not created like a pot. There is one thing that we and everything else is a part of. There is no second.
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI think the theory that the universe is uncaused and eternal is far more believable than the theory that there is a god who is uncaused and eternal and that he created the universe. You don't seen to be able to grasp that if you demand a first cause, your god is insufficient to the task. The same questions that you put to the universe also apply to god. Saying "god done it" is an intellectually lazy answer. Science has NOT proven that the universe is not eternal, by the way.
no begining? what kind of point is that? Obviously there was a begining unless you believe the universe has been here forever, which a. science has proven is not the case and b. does not make any logical sense.
And to your second point, which is more logical to you? That the universe existed "always" with no begining? Or that a supreme being c ...[text shortened]... ctions of the universe are simply an accident? I guess that is a intellectually lazy answer..
Of all the probable billions of planets in the universe, there are bound to be many that harbor the necessary conditions for life. Our Earth is obviously one of those lucky planets. There are probably others out there somewhere as well.
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis clears things up very nicely. Thank you.
Definitions describe the possible states of a system being studied.
Information is an observation that distinguishes which state the system is in....The system under study here is not what sort of deck I have, but rather the order of its cards....Information comes into being upon observation of that well-defined system.
To the casual -- or perhaps clumsy -- observer, it would seem that definitions and information
are similar terms, but I get it now. The former defines the system itself (the sorts of states it
could take), the latter provides information about the likelihood of each state's existing.
If I said I had a coin with two heads on it (that is, there is only one state to be had) or a die
with only the number '3' on its six sides, does that mean that there is no information, only definitions (and thus no probability)?
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by no1marauderare you talking abut t.h. green's beliefs? you are nuts. and all the rest of us (millions) that believe in a God are all wrong huh?
LMAO! That's what you're saying, moron. Super Duper God just whipped up some matter "out of thin air".
The universe is a manifestion of the Eternal Consciousness. It's not created like a pot. There is one thing that we and everything else is a part of. There is no second.
I'll assume from your lack of an answer you have none as to how the universe was created.
17 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWell, it would mean that no information about such a system could exist, as there is nothing that could possibly distinguish the states. That the probability of each state is 1 simply corresponds with there being no missing information (since there is no information to be available at all), that there is complete certainty, that the system has only one state which it must be in.
If I said I had a coin with two heads on it (that is, there is only one state to be had) or a die
with only the number '3' on its six sides, does that mean that there is no information, only definitions (and thus no probability)?
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by Nemesiono, because there had to be a First Cause. Thus, something had to be un-created. I think it is more logical that a supreme being, God, was un-created and created the universe as opposed to "matter" being uncreated in the universe. The first answer would further explain the perfections of the universe (sun, moon, tides, etc), the second would not. Thus, I believe the first is much more logical.
You object to the idea that 'x is uncreated,' right?
But you are comfortable with the idea that God is uncreated.
Do you see the problem?
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHmm. So, both definitions and information contribute to the sorts of probabilities available, but in
Well, it would mean that no information about such a system could exist, as there is nothing that could possibly distinguish the states. That the probability of each state is 1 simply corresponds with there being no missing information (since there is no information to be available at all), that there is complete certainty, that the system has only one state which it must be in.
different ways.
That is, if I have a six-sided die and I roll it behind a screen, you would definitely take a bet that
it was a '2' on 10:1 money and would never take a bet on the same results on 4:1 money against
someone also unable to see the die. You would stop taking the former bet on a twelve-sided die
and you would take the latter bet with a coin (with a '1' and a '2'😉.
So to return to the question at hand -- the probability that some sort of Supreme Being exists (and
not a specific one, like the Judeo-Christian God) -- the issue is whether there exists information or
not such that one could make a probabilitistic judgment, and this hinges on the definition of
Supreme Being.
Am I straight-minded so far?
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenBecause you say there had to be a first cause doesn't mean it's so. And if it does, it does not follow that the first cause is your particular god. If matter was "created", then which is more believable, that it was created by perfectly natural means, or that it was created by an unnatural god?
no, because there had to be a First Cause. Thus, something had to be un-created. I think it is more logical that a supreme being, God, was un-created and created the universe as opposed to "matter" being uncreated in the universe. The first answer would further explain the perfections of the universe (sun, moon, tides, etc), the second would not. Thus, I believe the first is much more logical.
17 Apr 07
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhy can't the universe be uncreated? After all, physicists define matter/energy as being unable to
no, because there had to be a First Cause. Thus, something had to be un-created. I think it is more logical that a supreme being, God, was un-created and created the universe as opposed to "matter" being uncreated in the universe. The first answer would further explain the perfections of the universe (sun, moon, tides, etc), the second would not. Thus, I believe the first is much more logical.
be created or destroyed. It's part of the fundamental definition of the universe.
That things are 'perfect' only means this universe survived. There could have been an infinitude of
previous universes that lasted trillions of years that 'failed' because they were imperfect.
Think of it this way, that your father's sperm combined with your mother's egg was a one in a
billion sort of affair. If it had not happened that way, then you would not have existed. But had
you not existed, you would never have known what it was like to exist. Similarly so with the
universe. There is nothing to exclude the idea that millions of previous 'imperfect' universes occurred
and then imploded. You merely know of this one (just like the millions of your father's sperm
and hundreds of your mother's eggs never came to fruition).
So, what is there to say that the universe isn't the 'First Cause?'
Nemesio
17 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"nothing" cannot create matter, that's fact not my opinion.
Because you say there had to be a first cause doesn't mean it's so. And if it does, it does not follow that the first cause is your particular god. If matter was "created", then which is more believable, that it was created by perfectly natural means, or that it was created by an unnatural god?