America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Ewok126. 264 replies replies.
6 Pages<123456>
The existence of God.
bgz Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
You may have a point with a tornado blowing out a 747... as I'm not sure a valid configuration exists for a tornado blowing over a shed and a 747 popping out... Not even sure where you got that one from.

But the monkey problem you mentioned, there's already a simulation and it's reproduced complete works in segments as a proof of concept. Given enough time (infinite amount)... it would most certainly happen at some point... though you and I wouldn't live to see it, nor our children, or their children or.....

Oh, for the record, I love entropy and do my best to encourage it.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Victor, Google... I'm not addressing your childish antics...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
bgz wrote:
You may have a point with a tornado blowing out a 747... as I'm not sure a valid configuration exists for a tornado blowing over a shed and a 747 popping out... Not even sure where you got that one from.

But the monkey problem you mentioned, there's already a simulation and it's reproduced complete works in segments as a proof of concept. Given enough time (infinite amount)... it would most certainly happen at some point... though you and I wouldn't live to see it, nor our children, or their children or.....

Oh, for the record, I love entropy and do my best to encourage it.

Care to link to that study?
victor809 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Google what Opel. Give us an actual idea of what you're trying to say...

Or just make vague statements and call others childish.

Either way
bgz Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Care to link to that study?


Just google it, I remember when the dude started the experiment like 15 years ago... apparently he's been running it ever since.
victor809 Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
No bgz... Opel's the one who gets to say "Google it" and call others childish... Geez
bgz Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Oh...

Well, he'll just have to take my word on it then.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
bgz wrote:
Just google it, I remember when the dude started the experiment like 15 years ago... apparently he's been running it ever since.

No luck man... Just a bunch of sites debunking the theory...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
No bgz... Opel's the one who gets to say "Google it" and call others childish... Geez

If you can't accept that this planet is fine tuned for the life that exists in it, you don't want a scientific conversation... You want a science fiction conversation... That's not my genre... Not into making things up on the spot to fit my fantasy...
victor809 Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Dude.... Wtf sort of search engine do you have??? "We Google Jesus"?

The first page is a wiki page which explains the mathematical theory behind the concept and states the mathematical proof. That should be enough for anyone. However the references section has links to articles about the practical test.
bgz Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
opelmanta1900 wrote:
If you can't accept that this planet is fine tuned for the life that exists in it, you don't want a scientific conversation... You want a science fiction conversation... That's not my genre... Not into making things up on the spot to fit my fantasy...


You're going backwards, the Earth isn't fine tuned for the life in it, the life in it is fine tuned to the Earth.

... I used the term "fine tuned" because you did... there's plenty of failed species that clearly weren't fine tuned to the Earth... or conditions changed as such to render the species to no longer be fine tuned.
victor809 Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
.... The planet... Is fine tuned for the life that lives on it....

Yeah.... That's less wrong than your original statement, which was that the universe is fine tuned for the life that lives on it.

But it's still wrong.
What about the life that didn't survive to now?
What about the planet before aerobics bacteria developed? Sure as hell wasn't fine tuned to our current life.
What happened to the anaerobic bacteria as the environment changed? (Spoiler... Most of them died out)

You are missing almost the entirety of the planets history to look at it in a single moment and claim everything that's here is specifically supposed to be here....
victor809 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I feel like bgz and I keep racing to say the same damn thing....
tailgater Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
One doesn't know that tail. And I would posit that it's the logical default assumption until further evidence contrary to it is presented.

Simply put the best assumption would be the easiest. That there is no intervention. Very religious people will claim that a creation is "simpler" because evolution is complicated, but that ignores the problem of having to also find a method by which and from which your creator was created... Nothing is infinite... Then you're also faced with the literally infinite number of possibilities for both a creator and a reason for creation... All of which must hold absolutely equal weight without additional information to make one more likely than others....

None of this makes the idea of a creator impossible, but it makes every existing religion highly unlikely from a statistical standpoint.

Bottom line, a creator isn't impossible. But then you have to go through the entire exercise in my previous posts for the creator to think through how they came to be... So you may as well do the mental exercise for ourselves and if it turns out a higher intelligence from the other side of the Galaxy created us as a biological weapon to use against their enemies... Then we can apply the same thought processes to their creation.


Hehe.
You claim that you're not trying to disprove the existence of god, then you go on and on and on about essentially disproving god.

Without arguing any specific point, it would be easy to discuss/debate you virtually point for point on what has been presented thus far.
I could say that DNA wasn't random. the creator made the earth with dinosaurs and let it stew for billions of years so we would have an energy source to carry us over until we found newer renewable sources. Just for instance.

And I'm not talking about evolution deniers or the 4,000 year old earth crowds. The vast majority of non-extreme people of religion embrace the truths of science. Science is the best way to understand the HOW. It's OK to disagree on the WHY. Unless you're a religious zealot or pig headed atheist.
victor809 Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You can say all those things tail.
But there is no reason for them to be probable.

I can say that we were created by a species of sentient antelope which evolved billions of years ago, developed faster than light travel and telekinesis, flew here and created the planet by moving asteroids together with their mind until they had a sphere... After creating the earth, they used their telekinesis to bind RNA together into the precise code necessary to encode translation machinery, and mixed that with their own denucleated cells to create the first creature. They then left and eventually died off. The reason we have antelope today is because of cross contamination.

Do you see the problem with the above creation scenario? It's the same one all of them have.
bgz Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Tail,

I don't know many atheists who discount the possibility of a creator of the universe, I think most of us think that it is unlikely, but don't flat out discount the possibility.

Further, if a being did create the entire universe, I think it would be highly unlikely that it would give a sh*t about any individual sentient within it's system.

Think about you for instance... do you care about an individual blood cell in your system? You drip a little blood, throw some duct tape on the wound and call it a day. You don't weep and pray for the individual souls of your lost blood cells do you? After all, technically, each of them are individual lives that got lost because you ripped your arm on a staple or whatever.

Personally, I could care less about disproving god, a god, gods or otherwise beings more powerful than us... that's a waste of time, as any hypothesis you come up with is either going to be extremely difficult to formulate a test for or flat out impossible to test... so why put the effort in?
victor809 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail... My intention isn't to disprove a god (did I actually say that? Doesn't sound like me)... Although that may be a side effect.

But I do require that an argument against an evolution or other non creator based concept should be internally consistent. ie... If you're argument against the big bang is that it's too complex or you cannot create something out of nothing.... You still have to apply those same questions to whatever Deus ex machina you have used in place of the prevailing scientific thought.

opelmanta1900 Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Gotta disagree strongly with that... The whole concept of a creator God is that he would operate outside of space and time, would not be bound by the limitations placed on the creation itself...

Saying the big bang is too complex isn't an argument I've heard... Too silly, yes... Mathematically impossible, yes... The idea that everything that is does not comply with logic as we know it...
bgz Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Opel,

There's a lot of people who have a problem with the big bang theory (myself included). Unfortunately, it's the best model we currently have that fits observational data. I think I would be more comfortable with it if we were actually able to find the theoretical dark matter, or find an alternative to dark matter and dark energy that would adequately fit observation. I have high hopes for Modified Newtonian dynamics, but it too currently has issues where critics say it doesn't completely eliminate the need for dark matter. Going into this in further detail would be beyond the scope of this thread;)

I could see why you would have a problem with the big bang and accelerating inflation... but you made a claim earlier in the thread that actually supports the prevailing model (not sure if you knew it or not).

Quote:

Randomness never results in order... Even infinite randomness... It results in infinite chaos


What you are describing there is entropy, and that same concept in our current model leads to the ultimate death of the universe (heat death). That is when the expansion of the universe reaches a point to where no further entropy is possible.

Anyway, I don't see how it's beneficial to our understanding of the universe to scrap the best model we have and say f*ck it, this is too silly, let's just assume a creator who exists outside of what we can see created everything and go from there.

That's not logical.

The big bang theory is actually a product of mathematics and logic, not the lack thereof.

There's a lot of subjects that have been scientifically proven that defy logic from what we see on a daily basis... #1 on that list... quantum mechanics. If you're beating your head on the wall over the big bang theory... don't even bother looking up wave particle duality... and don't bother looking up quantum entanglement. That sh*t will blow your lid.
RMAN4443 Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
So,entropy is global warming...it's not man made, but part of God's greater plan????Think
Speyside Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
You want to throw parallel universe theory in there just for fun?
bgz Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
He should run into that if he looks goes down the quantum mechanics rabbit hole.
RMAN4443 Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Please,step away from the mechanic's hole, do not approach the mechanics hole...Shame on you
bgz Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Sounds like you're speaking from experience :P
RMAN4443 Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
bgz wrote:
Sounds like you're speaking from experience :P

Not I. ..I still say the chicken came first...how else did the egg get fertilized? ...Think
victor809 Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So... Once you decide to go outside the bounds of understood space and time, and the bounds of current theories of creation you really step outside the boundaries of a rational argument.

I mean, at that point you can say it was anything you can imagine for any reason you can imagine, and no argument can support or refute the statement. You can say it was Christian God, and he created us because he wanted to. I can say it was Victor god... And he is almost omniscient, except for an inability to rhyme orange, and nearly omnipotent, except for a lactose intolerance, which he didn't discover until he created lactose. Victor god did not create us out of some desire to create and love however. He created us to be snarky with each other, and when the four unicorn-men of the victopocalypse arrive the snarkiest of us will be rewarded with 100 ugly virgins. The rest of us will be fed to the unicorns.

Rational discussion cannot be engaged in when one side will not be rational. And the irony is that the truly religious cannot engage in rational discussion about whether a God exists... Because their religion requires they believe in something outside the bounds of evidence. We are left with only atheists making masturbatory statements about the non existence of God to each other....
victor809 Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I am looking forward to my 100 ugly virgins.
bgz Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Well, at least you don't have to blow yourself up to get them.

I'll take being eaten by the unicorns victor, at least I can dream about nailing 100 hot sluts as I pass through the bowels of carnivorous horned equine.
Speyside Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
2 paper bag ugly? I find outside the bounds of time and space fascinating. It is presently beyond anything scientificly verifiable. The theories I have read are diverse, interesting, speculative, and probably incorrect. What is nothing?
frankj1 Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
RMAN4443 wrote:
Not I. ..I still say the chicken came first...how else did the egg get fertilized? ...Think

I'm guessing the rooster came first
RMAN4443 Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Nothing is something in it’s own way. ..Anxious
RMAN4443 Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
frankj1 wrote:
I'm guessing the rooster came first

Yes, but isn't the rooster a chicken?Think
frankj1 Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
RMAN4443 wrote:
Yes, but isn't the rooster a chicken?Think

he flinched when I waived my fist at him...
or do you mean like a she/he fowl?
RMAN4443 Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Either way. ....chickenAnxious
frankj1 Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
then yes...first.
RMAN4443 Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
I win I win I win...wait,what did I win????Think
bgz Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
The egg came first knuckleheads (except frank, your post was awesome).

The chicken came from the egg, the egg came from some kind of mutated jungle fowl... (had to look it up, forgot what they were called).
victor809 Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Sigh... We try to have intellectual conversations here and end up with rooster s3m3n....
frankj1 Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
RMAN4443 wrote:
I win I win I win...wait,what did I win????Think

winnah, winnah, chicken dinnah, of course.

duh.
frankj1 Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
bgz wrote:
The egg came first knuckleheads (except frank, your post was awesome).

The chicken came from the egg, the egg came from some kind of mutated jungle fowl... (had to look it up, forgot what they were called).

I appreciate that.
frankj1 Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
victor809 wrote:
Sigh... We try to have intellectual conversations here and end up with rooster s3m3n....

I'm sorry, but I needed a break.
I was being so good too...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
So... Once you decide to go outside the bounds of understood space and time, and the bounds of current theories of creation you really step outside the boundaries of a rational argument.

I mean, at that point you can say it was anything you can imagine for any reason you can imagine, and no argument can support or refute the statement. You can say it was Christian God, and he created us because he wanted to. I can say it was Victor god... And he is almost omniscient, except for an inability to rhyme orange, and nearly omnipotent, except for a lactose intolerance, which he didn't discover until he created lactose. Victor god did not create us out of some desire to create and love however. He created us to be snarky with each other, and when the four unicorn-men of the victopocalypse arrive the snarkiest of us will be rewarded with 100 ugly virgins. The rest of us will be fed to the unicorns.

Rational discussion cannot be engaged in when one side will not be rational. And the irony is that the truly religious cannot engage in rational discussion about whether a God exists... Because their religion requires they believe in something outside the bounds of evidence. We are left with only atheists making masturbatory statements about the non existence of God to each other....


You're the one who brought up a theory of the origins of life that involves everything being created by nothing... Stevenhawking had proposed that we were seeded here by alien life... No matter what happened to make life begin, it was outside the bounds of understood space and time...
Ewok126 Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
WTF, My med kicks in, I sleep for 9 hours and I wake up to find that we have went from The existence of God to chicken and eggs (breakfast basically) to Unicorns and alternate universes. I am starting to think all of you have server ADHD and you all need some Ritalin!

Whats next? Flat earth or going from a 3 dimensional universe to a 4 dimensional universe. Oh no no I got it TIME TRAVEL while flying into an Einstein Rosen Bridge dressed like Superman all while singing the national anthem and reading a playboy magazine with our Dirty Harry 44 magnum strapped to our hips. All I can say is this, The time space continuum would have not been broken if that fat girl had not farted. Brick wall
bgz Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Stevenhawking had proposed that we were seeded here by alien life...


Guy said all kinds of crazy sh*t, doesn't mean he was the first say said crazy sh*t, and certainly doesn't mean it's true just because he said it.

opelmanta1900 wrote:
No matter what happened to make life begin, it was outside the bounds of understood space and time...


Uh, no... Steven Hawking saying that aliens MIGHT have seeded our planet does not imply that our origins come from outside the bounds of understood space and time... that's just ridiculous, not even worth counterpointing on because it's simply a false statement.

Us lowly humans are closer than you think to being able to create life from scratch...

https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633
Speyside Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Opel, I don't think you understand what outside the bounds of understood space and time means.
Buckwheat Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
bgz wrote:
Guy said all kinds of crazy sh*t, doesn't mean he was the first say said crazy sh*t, and certainly doesn't mean it's true just because he said it.



Uh, no... Steven Hawking saying that aliens MIGHT have seeded our planet does not imply that our origins come from outside the bounds of understood space and time... that's just ridiculous, not even worth counterpointing on because it's simply a false statement.

Us lowly humans are closer than you think to being able to create life from scratch...

https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633


Not to get philosophic but there is a difference between "Life" and "cells/tissue". fog
victor809 Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
A note regarding the concept of "seeding life".

If we ever manage to travel to another planet, even one which is reasonably inhospitable... If we dump out our sh&t (in whatever form we are storing/processing it on the ship) and leave it there, we would literally be "aliens, seeding the planet with life". There would be a decent chance some of the bacteria would find a niche to reproduce... Enough generations go by and they'll be able to metabolize whatever energy source is available.

Not saying it happened that way, but it literally could.
bgz Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
victor809 wrote:
A note regarding the concept of "seeding life".

If we ever manage to travel to another planet, even one which is reasonably inhospitable... If we dump out our sh&t (in whatever form we are storing/processing it on the ship) and leave it there, we would literally be "aliens, seeding the planet with life". There would be a decent chance some of the bacteria would find a niche to reproduce... Enough generations go by and they'll be able to metabolize whatever energy source is available.

Not saying it happened that way, but it literally could.


I kinda like that one... I think you just made a new theology...

Extraterrestrial Sh*tology
bgz Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Buckwheat wrote:
Not to get philosophic but there is a difference between "Life" and "cells/tissue". fog


I think I see where you're going with this... however, I have to disagree. Complex "life" is built from living cells. Obviously complex lifeforms have to achieve a certain minimum threshold of cell replication for the macroscopic life form to be considered alive, but that doesn't mean the individual cells aren't alive.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
A note regarding the concept of "seeding life".

If we ever manage to travel to another planet, even one which is reasonably inhospitable... If we dump out our sh&t (in whatever form we are storing/processing it on the ship) and leave it there, we would literally be "aliens, seeding the planet with life". There would be a decent chance some of the bacteria would find a niche to reproduce... Enough generations go by and they'll be able to metabolize whatever energy source is available.

Not saying it happened that way, but it literally could.

Why would there be a decent chance? Everything we know from a scientific point of view would indicate that nothing would survive in the atmospheres of the planet's we are aware of...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<123456>