NationStates Jolt Archive

geez
i thought this thread was for whether or not the universe was created by a god or not

:fluffle:
:D :fluffle: :fluffle:

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296
The probability does not exist unless you define the circumstances. Your figures, as presented above, are nonsense.

Besides, the first cell, the self replicating system at the start of the chain of evolution was not one protein, only RNA.

meteorites when they DO land on earth, are so rare and minimal that it doesn't really affect the closed system thing. Earth is not absoltely a closed system.
LOL! Oh boy. :rolleyes:

geez
i thought this thread was for whether or not the universe was created by a god or not
umm...

As much as I'm enjoying just watching, this is ridiculous.

Have you heard of the Sun? You know what it emits? ENERGY!!!

EARTH is NOT a closed system.
ROFL! Easy there! Don't have a frakkin' historectomy over this! ;)

The probability does not exist unless you define the circumstances. Your figures, as presented above, are nonsense.

Besides, the first cell, the self replicating system at the start of the chain of evolution was not one protein, only RNA.

Go easy on him. Remember, he's storing 3,000,000 years worth of "facts" in his brain, and imagine how much room it takes to store the idea that "the earth is a closed system" with its supporting logic.

ROFL! Easy there! Don't have a frakkin' historectomy over this! ;)
I'm completely enjoying myself dear. :D But thanks for the thought.

woops, thats supposed to be 10 to the 4,478,296th power
So what, there are an infinite number of instants in one second. You have to define the circumstances before a probability makes sense.

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.

I'm completely enjoying myself dear. :D But thanks for the thought.
You're welcome. You'll get my bill in the mail in three to four days. It's due NLT the end of the month. We accept all major credit cards and money orders, but not personal checks. :D

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.
Um ... "closed" means "nothing in, nothing out." Kinda like "no deposit, no return." :D

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.
Okay..... you *really* need to define what the heck you think a "closed" system is.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people would say energy can not come in or leave a "closed" system. So what are you talking about?

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.
A closed system takes nothing in.

I'm saying it will be impossible to replicate conditions before the big bang because they will be purely speculative and therefore not testable hypotheses.
And I'm saying you know nothing of that. In the theory were time starts with big bang, there is not even an instant berfore it. So the fact that we can't model the moment before is not a problem, it is enough that we can model big bang and everything after. Which is hard enough (it still hasn't been done), but is not theoretically impossible.

So what, there are an infinite number of instants in one second.

Easy now. Remember, to have any idea of the circumstances that resulted in his number, he/she would have had to actually read the study he's quoting from. It may not be in the 3,000,000 year knowledge capacity of his/her brain. EDIT: For those just coming in, Legendel has claimed that the human brain is designed to hold 3,000,000 years worth of knowledge.

There is still a debate about whether a virus is living or not.
Take a look at this:

There's still debate as to what "life" itself means.

Generally, viruses are taken to exist on the cusp between non-life and life, with bacteria and other microorganisms on the life side of the fence, and prions, etc, on the non-life side.

As it is, viruses are thought to have evolved from simple single celled organisms - yes, evolution can lead both to more complexity and less complexity.

I couldn't agree more. Scientists simply saying things have been there forever does not answer anything because there is no such thing as infinity, it simply does not exist.

Taking "infinity does not exist" as an axiom, yup.

The question is whether that concept is axiomatic. If not, it has no value, whatsoever.

And I'm saying you know nothing of that. In the theory were time starts with big bang, there is not even an instant berfore it. So the fact that we can't model the moment before is not a problem, it is enough that we can model big bang and everything after. Which is hard enough (it still hasn't been done), but is not theoretically impossible.
Indeed! And if you consider that time is a progression of changes, and that the changes began when the universe began, it is entirely possible that the beginning of those changes was the cumulation of a prior series of changes. In other words, that the universe, as we know it, began with the death a prior one.

But I suppose that makes for an instant before it.

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.

No, by definition, this isn't true. If energy enters or leaves a system, it isn't closed.

Unless you can be 100% sure God does not exist, put faith in him. I believe because even if I am wrong, and God doesn't exist, I have nothing to lose by my faith.
Oh c'mon--not Pascal's Utterly Refuted To Death and Completely Bastardized Wager?

What I'm saying is that a closed system can take in energy and still be a closed system. I am NOT denying that the Earth takes in energy.


Okay, those of you that have a stronger background than myself in thermodynamics, I have a question:

Isn't it the intake of ENERGY to a system that would allow it to arrive at a highly ordered state via natural processes without violating the laws of thermodynamics?

(We started on the earth as a sysem because Legendel claimed that the Laws of Thermodynamics make evolution impossible, and he says earth is a closed system)

Unless you can be 100% sure God does not exist, put faith in him. I believe because even if I am wrong, and God doesn't exist, I have nothing to lose by my faith.

Pascal's wager redux?

Pascal was a brilliant man - but subject to the affectations of his age, just as all men and women, great and small, are.

Okay, those of you that have a stronger background than myself in thermodynamics, I have a question:

Isn't it the intake of ENERGY to a system that would allow it to arrive at a highly ordered state via natural processes without violating the laws of thermodynamics?
No, not violating at all.

Complementing.

Taking "infinity does not exist" as an axiom, yup.

The question is whether that concept is axiomatic. If not, it has no value, whatsoever.

Yeah, we asked Kazyole about that earlier. No response from him just yet. Also asked him how many discrete points are in any bounded region. Nothing back.

You are talking about this act being beneficial to the whole planet, or just mankind; I talk of bettering myself and only myself. For this point, an argument is better.

My opinion is that animals are only concerned with themselves. Everything can be traced to selfishness. There is no intrinsically selfless act.

I can't quote it verbatim, but there's a story told about Abraham Lincoln.

While he was riding in a carriage one day, he and his companions were discussing ethics.

Lincoln insisted that all acts are, inherently, selfish.

En route, the carriage passed an animal [A pig? A dog? I can't recall] stuck in the mud. Lincoln had the carriage stop, and got out to pull the animal out of it.

When he got back in, his companions asked him how he could possibly square his action with his statement about selfishness.

He replied: "If I hadn't helped that animal out, I would have felt awfully miserable all the rest of the day."

No, not violating at all.

Complementing.

So its fair to say that Legendel's distinction between a closed system taking in energy but not matter doesn't really make sense anyway?

(I have always understood the idea of a closed system to mean closed to matter AND energy. Has anybody other than Legendel ever seen it presented differently?)

umm...

Don't worry yourself, brother/sister.

Threads within these fora - or indeed most fora - rarely remain on one topic, perhaps least especially the topic they are supposedly covering.

You are talking about this act being beneficial to the whole planet, or just mankind; I talk of bettering myself and only myself. For this point, an argument is better.

My opinion is that animals are only concerned with themselves. Everything can be traced to selfishness. There is no intrinsically selfless act.
Nothing can't be attributed to selfishness. There's a difference.

Indeed! And if you consider that time is a progression of changes, and that the changes began when the universe began, it is entirely possible that the beginning of those changes was the cumulation of a prior series of changes. In other words, that the universe, as we know it, began with the death a prior one.

But I suppose that makes for an instant before it.

Yes it does, but we cannot test this theory, making it not a hypothesis, and therefore, not science but merely speculation. Here you again run into the concept of infinity. If our universe was created in the destruction of another, what created the other? You see that whatever scientific speculation you put in place calls for time being infinate without being able to test it. This kind of speculation is what caused most early scientists to be widely discredited on most theories. It is not until you can test your hypothesis that it becomes science.

on closed systems, it really depends on which definition you use. some will say it can transfer energy but not matter, another def. will say not even energy can ne transfered

The fallacy of Pascal's wager:

"Pascal's Wager has commonly come up in arc-t as a reason to believe, for both Christians and non-Christians. There are many variations of Pascal's original wager floating around. This FAQ addresses the following version (though it could likely be applied to other versions as well):

* If you don't believe in [the Christian] God, and you're right, you gain nothing
* If you don't believe in [the Christian] God, and you're wrong, you lose everything
* If you do believe in [the Christian] God, and you're right, you gain everything
* If you do believe in [the Christian] God, and you're wrong, you lose nothing

Therefore, you should wager on [the Christian] God, so you get the best of all outcomes.

There are several fallacies to this argument, and it is considered one of the weakest reasons to believe, both by non-Christians as well as some Christians. Please note that not all of these fallacies will necessarily apply in every case.

Fallacy One: It assumes that there is only one god which can be believed in, the Christian one. This is not true, since there are a plethora of gods that have been believed throughout the millennia. This would have to be applied to each and every one of those gods to be true, and this would clearly be impossible, due to the clashing natures of many of the said gods.

Fallacy Two: It assumes that simply wagering on [the Christian] God will buy one entrance into Heaven. While this may be so, the Wager does not instill a belief, it instills an appearance of a belief. Since the god in question is presumed to be all-knowing, he would be able to tell a false from a true belief. Therefore, the belief from the Wager would not qualify should belief be the requirement for entrance into Heaven.

Fallacy Three: It creates a moral dilemma. You, by using this, are sending the most dedicated humanitarians, who just happen to not be Christian, to Hell, while you set a place in Heaven for those mass-murders who happen to be Christian. Since [the Christian] God is supposed to be a loving god, how then could he entertain the embodiment of hatred, yet turn away the embodiment of love?

Fallacy Four: It ignores too many alternate possibilities - some of which are addressed by existing religions, and some which are not. Some examples: A God could reward on criteria which seem meaningless to us - hair colour, taste in clothes, music etc. or A God might not be concerned with humans at all - the universe could be here for hydrogen for all we know. Or God may even reward those who don't believe.

Fallacy Five: It assumes any person is overly fearful of death to be worried about it being a conclusion to their life.

Fallacy Six: It assumes that a belief in God is all that is needed, when many Christians would disagree and would suggest that there are "guidelines" that you should live by (and that God requires you to live by if your belief is sincere). If these guidelines require a change on your part (for example: No sex before marriage, no smoking, denying you are a homosexual, not marrying a non-Christian, etc.), then it could be argued that you have lost something if the Christian God turns out to not exist."

Yeah, we asked Kazyole about that earlier. No response from him just yet. Also asked him how many discrete points are in any bounded region. Nothing back.

Yeah, I saw that a bit after I posted. It's hard to keep up! :cool:

D'ya think that differing cardinalities of inifinities (aleph null, etc) should be brought up? ;)

on closed systems, it really depends on which definition you use. some will say it can transfer energy but not matter, another def. will say not even energy can ne transfered

Just in case I run into this in the future, can you refer me to a source on these definitions? Honestly, every closed system definition I've ever seen was described as having no matter or energy entering or leaving.

Naturally, this state can only be approximated, but if there are other definitions, I would like to be aware of them. Please post sources, if convenient. Thanks.

Yes it does, but we cannot test this theory, making it not a hypothesis, and therefore, not science but merely speculation. Here you again run into the concept of infinity. If our universe was created in the destruction of another, what created the other? You see that whatever scientific speculation you put in place calls for time being infinate without being able to test it. This kind of speculation is what caused most early scientists to be widely discredited on most theories. It is not until you can test your hypothesis that it becomes science.
Better to say then that it is a hypothesis, and recognize it as such, than to attribute it as a theory. (D'uh?)

Yeah, I saw that a bit after I posted. It's hard to keep up! :cool:

D'ya think that differing cardinalities of inifinities (aleph null, etc) should be brought up? ;)

Cantor's work? I'd love to understand it better, but I suspect that Kazyole and Legendel might not provide the most useful discourse on Georg Cantor.

On the other hand, Legendel says that the human brain can hold 3,000,000 years worth of knowledge (he hasn't sited the study yet), so maybe its in there somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

An open system can be influenced by events outside of the declared boundaries of the system. A closed system is self-contained: outside events are separated from the system. The total energy of the system stays the same; there is no input or output of energy, just transferrence within.

Earth is not a closed system.

Also, infinity does exist.

Cantor's work? I'd love to understand it better, but I suspect that Kazyole and Legendel might not provide the most useful discourse on Georg Cantor.

On the other hand, Legendel says that the human brain can hold 3,000,000 years worth of knowledge (he hasn't sited the study yet), so maybe its in there somewhere.
Arrr! No offense, but how can someone so educated not know the difference between "site" and "cite"?
;)

Arrr! No offense, but how can someone so educated not know the difference between "site" and "cite"?
;)

I never said I was educated...

I never said I was educated...
Could'a fooled me! Oh wait...

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

The flying spaghetti monster did it .

Yes it does, but we cannot test this theory, making it not a hypothesis, and therefore, not science but merely speculation. Here you again run into the concept of infinity. If our universe was created in the destruction of another, what created the other? You see that whatever scientific speculation you put in place calls for time being infinate without being able to test it. This kind of speculation is what caused most early scientists to be widely discredited on most theories. It is not until you can test your hypothesis that it becomes science.
I could possibly agree with you that it's impossible to know what the universe before our own looked like. But I'm not so sure that there couldn't be evidence that showed there *was* another universe before ours.

Could'a fooled me! Oh wait...

Seriously, though, even if a "closed system" can take in energy (like Legendel says), doesn't that implode his statement the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible?

Better to say then that it is a hypothesis, and recognize it as such, than to attribute it as a theory. (D'uh?)

I did not mean scientific theory but rather speculative theory. Whether or not you believe in infinity's existance or not, it all comes down to whether or not you can accept the existance of a being higher than yourself, or if you would prefer to chase your tail in never-ending circles about the destruction of other universes. Quite honestly, I believe that I do not know everything just as mankind is doomed never to know everything. You guys are welcome to spin in circles until you eventually get so dizzy you have to stop, Perhaps then you will see that the answer has been staring you in the face the whole time. As for me, I have to go film a movie now so I guess I'll have to return arguing for no point (as we're all opionated bastards and no one's changing their minds anyway) later.

Have fun.

Yeah, we asked Kazyole about that earlier. No response from him just yet. Also asked him how many discrete points are in any bounded region. Nothing back.
LOL! That was rather cruel! :p

Also, infinity does exist.
Mucho :fluffle:.

As I exist, I can do that.

I did not mean scientific theory but rather speculative theory.

Wow. You should run for office.

Arrr! No offense, but how can someone so educated not know the difference between "site" and "cite"?
;)
Mutters: "" frakkin' lil grammar nazi "" :D

LOL! That was rather cruel! :p

No, cruelty is when I have to go in tomorrow and tell a PhD in mathematics that all his crap about using Mathematical Induction just won't fly, because a dude a on Nationstates dropped the bombshell that "infinity doesn't exist".

I guess now, instead of asymptotic lines, we'll just write "Jesus loves us" on our cartesian graphs when something approaches infinity.

All those poor, starving Greeks...they'll never have rabbit again.

And now, when the Prof says that something "increases without bounds to become arbitrarily large", I can tell him, "Nuh-uh".

Just in case I run into this in the future, can you refer me to a source on these definitions? Honestly, every closed system definition I've ever seen was described as having no matter or energy entering or leaving.

Naturally, this state can only be approximated, but if there are other definitions, I would like to be aware of them. Please post sources, if convenient. Thanks.

no problemo.

LINK 1 (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/types_of%20systems.html)
LINK2 (http://www.edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_37_39.html)
LINK 3 - scroll down to "closed system" (http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/c.html)

many of you probably read from talk.origins and one author from there, Tim Ikeda, says this: A closed system is one in which neither matter nor energy cross system boundaries. It has no interaction with anything outside it. An isolated system is no different from a closed system.

The Earth is definitely not a closed system. The NSF, SSEC & CIMMSS have never said that the Earth is a closed system with respect to energy or matter fluxes. It's possible that your confusing "closed" with "steady-state". The Earth may be close to a steady-state with regard to energy input and output but that's a completely different matter from whether it is a closed system.

its getting deep in here

Mutters: "" frakkin' lil grammar nazi "" :D

No, Willamena is correct. And if, Flying Spaghetti Monster willing, I ever did have the opportunity to become educated, I would want to spell it correctly.

I can admit when the other side is rite.

Originally Posted by Kazyole
Yes it does, but we cannot test this theory, making it not a hypothesis, and therefore, not science but merely speculation. Here you again run into the concept of infinity. If our universe was created in the destruction of another, what created the other? You see that whatever scientific speculation you put in place calls for time being infinate without being able to test it. This kind of speculation is what caused most early scientists to be widely discredited on most theories. It is not until you can test your hypothesis that it becomes science.
I did not mean scientific theory but rather speculative theory. Whether or not you believe in infinity's existance or not, it all comes down to whether or not you can accept the existance of a being higher than yourself, or if you would prefer to chase your tail in never-ending circles about the destruction of other universes. Quite honestly, I believe that I do not know everything just as mankind is doomed never to know everything. You guys are welcome to spin in circles until you eventually get so dizzy you have to stop, Perhaps then you will see that the answer has been staring you in the face the whole time. As for me, I have to go film a movie now so I guess I'll have to return arguing for no point (as we're all opionated bastards and no one's changing their minds anyway) later.

Have fun.
And, yet, you assign to it the quality of being testable. I accept that there is a god, and I accept an infinite universe. I do not buy into the Christian idea of God. As to "chasing my tail" on the concept of infinite cycles, they are present in the current universe, and so not at all inconceivable on a macro scale.

I too believe I do not know everything, and ...go figure! ...the hypothesis I put forward are speculation. (How did you guess?)

I can admit when the other side is rite.
LOL!!!!
:fluffle:

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing.

True... but our conception of "nothing" always involves projection in space, as an "emptiness." Thus, without space (and time), there can be no such thing as what we think of as "nothing." Therefore, our beliefs about "nothing" have nothing to do with the origin of the Universe.

The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter.

But again, if you are imagining reality "anterior" to space and time, you are necessarily discussing a reality in which our laws of causality -- e.g. "something cannot come from nothing" -- do not apply. It is therefore possible that the Universe -- space and time included -- "came" from "nothing" without violating causal principle, which only operates within space and time.

You very successfully undermine your own argument.

All those poor, starving Greeks...they'll never have rabbit again.
ROTFL! I have had more occasion to laugh today than in the past year...

No, cruelty is when I have to go in tomorrow and tell a PhD in mathematics that all his crap about using Mathematical Induction just won't fly, because a dude a on Nationstates dropped the bombshell that "infinity doesn't exist".

I guess now, instead of asymptotic lines, we'll just write "Jesus loves us" on our cartesian graphs when something approaches infinity.

All those poor, starving Greeks...they'll never have rabbit again.

And now, when the Prof says that something "increases without bounds to become arbitrarily large", I can tell him, "Nuh-uh".

A number can get as large as it wants, but for every value of x, lets assume vertical asymtotes, there exists a value of y. At no point on any graph or on any function can you plug a value in and get back infinity. It may approach "infinity" but can never get there. Infinity is not a value, it is an abstract concept. You said it yourself "approaches", You can't get there.

(waits impatiently as camera rewinds...)

Look, any definer of science says that science follows the same rules everywhere in the universe.

Exactly. See above.

i would rather know if sasquatch could mate with nessie for the benefit of all hobbits

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I've no desire to weed through all 21 pages of posts today. What if the universe was never created? What if it has just always been here? Infinity is beyond human comprehension, but that doesn't make it non-existent.

The Earth is definitely not a closed system. The NSF, SSEC & CIMMSS have never said that the Earth is a closed system with respect to energy or matter fluxes. It's possible that your confusing "closed" with "steady-state". The Earth may be close to a steady-state with regard to energy input and output but that's a completely different matter from whether it is a closed system.

Actually, it was Legendel (the thread originator) who said earth was a closed system. He was using the idea to support his belief that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible.

Muchos Gracias for links. When using the phrase "closed system", I will take greater care, but I personally still believe the earth is not a closed system in the purest thermodynamic sense, particularly for the purposes of relating enthalpy, entropy, and Gibbs free energy.

Legendel's statement was that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible. Do agree with him?

A number can get as large as it wants, but for every value of x, lets assume vertical asymtotes, there exists a value of y. At no point on any graph or on any function can you plug a value in and get back infinity. It may approach "infinity" but can never get there. Infinity is not a value, it is an abstract concept. You said it yourself "approaches", You can't get there.

(waits impatiently as camera rewinds...)
Do we have to explain to you the concepts of "aleph-null" and "aleph-one"?

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

You come up with some evidence for the existance of a god and I'll have a look at it.

But at the moment we neither have evidence for a god nor evidence for the need for a god.

How can the universe have come from nothing if nothing doesnt exist ? Where in the universe is nothing anyway ? There's always something ..even if its just a little something. How nothing exist if even nothing is something ?

A number can get as large as it wants, but for every value of x, lets assume vertical asymtotes, there exists a value of y. At no point on any graph or on any function can you plug a value in and get back infinity. It may approach "infinity" but can never get there. Infinity is not a value, it is an abstract concept. You said it yourself "approaches", You can't get there.

(waits impatiently as camera rewinds...)

Save your film. How can you approach something that doesn't exist? Any discrete point can be approached and still be real.

I ask you for the third time, how many discrete points are in any bounded region?

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.

I've spent over 40 years looking for evidence and never found it.

Go on. post some evidence. I dare you!

Discussing the existance of God is quite pointless. There's no way to prove or disprove that God exists. No matter how much evidence you find that God isn't "necssary", there's no way to prove or disprove his existance.

Personally, I don't need him. I'm quite happy with the scientific explanations of the universe and all.

It's also not important if God exists. Neither for me, who doesn't believe in him, nor for someone who does believe in him.

I've spent over 40 years looking for evidence and never found it.

Go on. post some evidence. I dare you!

There has never been any proof of a God. There has been alot of speculation though does that count ?

... but I personally still believe the earth is not a closed system in the purest thermodynamic sense, particularly for the purposes of relating enthalpy, entropy, and Gibbs free energy.
Is that Andy Gibbs? or his brother Barry?

I personally dispise the citing (yes, citing) of sources that few outside the field would know about (as if everyone knows about it). It is not helpful on a discussion forum.
Do we have to explain to you the concepts of "aleph-null" and "aleph-one"?
Another one! Ahhh!

*runs in circles*

Is that Andy Gibbs? or his brother Barry?

I personally dispise the citing (yes, citing) of sources that few outside the field would know about (as if everyone knows about it). It is not helpful on a discussion forum.

Sorry, my bad. The guy I was responding to seemed to be conversant in this stuff, but in general, yeah, it wasn't helpful.

However, I can be forgiven because of my lack of education, one would hope.

In fact, some on this thread no doubt believe I can be forgiven anything because another man was horribly butchered a long time ago, so I'm in the clear.

Great animation, but you cant use Ockhams razor for this because GOd is necessary to explain the Universe. Nothing can't explain it.

There is no evidence for god(s).

In fact there is no evidence for the need for god(s).

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

Actually, the correct statement of your first principle would be:

1. Everything which has a beginning in time has a cause.***

Then:

2. The Universe has no beginning in time.
3. Therefore 1) tells us nothing about the beginning of the Universe.

*** I understand that quantum mechanics allows for exceptions to this rule. However, I think it is nevertheless worthwhile to point out that Legendel's argument falters even when we allow his basic assertion of causality.

Another one! Ahhh!

*runs in circles*
I know it's been posted before. He ignored the first posting, so I decided to post it.

However, I can be forgiven because of my lack of education, one would hope.
LOL.
More importantly, you can be forgiven for your sense of humour.

There is still a debate about whether a virus is living or not.
Please don't post Chick tracts. Chick is a lunatic paranoid delusional whack-job. He's on par with Hovind and Baugh.

take the kalam arguement:
I'd rather not, since it's been refuted to death, special pleads, begs the question, drops context, and steals the concept.

God is necessary to explain the universe because God is necessary to explain the universe!

The universe can't have always existed, because God always existed first! So therefore God is necessary to explain the universe! Because the universe can't be explained without God! That's why! :p

There is no need for a god to explain the universe.

Legendel's statement was that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible. Do agree with him?

i do not agree...

misconception : "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws. - from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

also see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

There was an earlier question about Gibbs free energy, and whether it refers to Andy or Barry (frequently noted subscripts "a" and "b"). Without getting too far off topic, and avoiding needlessly esoteric language, I would like to clarify.

Gibbs Free Energy is energy available to create bad music. Mathematically, this is frequent rendered as G = Enthalpy (sappy seventies lyrics) minus Temperature (in Disco Inferno Units) X Disorder (Terrible dancing of aging suburban people in ugly clubwear).

In general, the striking of an adult caucasian male in the scrotum with a 12 kilogram mass of Carbon-12 will result in a scream of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Andy) Free Energy.

Conversely, the waxing of 0.5 cubic meters of chest hair from the same man will result in the screaming of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Barry) Free Energy.

I believe this information is useful and meaningful as compared to some of the other ideas on this thread, such as the brain holding "3 million years" of information.

There was an earlier question about Gibbs free energy, and whether it refers to Andy or Barry (frequently noted subscripts "a" and "b"). Without getting too far off topic, and avoiding needlessly esoteric language, I would like to clarify.

Gibbs Free Energy is energy available to create bad music. Mathematically, this is frequent rendered as G = Enthalpy (sappy seventies lyrics) minus Temperature (in Disco Inferno Units) X Disorder (Terrible dancing of aging suburban people in ugly clubwear).

In general, the striking of an adult caucasian male in the scrotum with a 12 kilogram mass of Carbon-12 will result in a scream of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Andy) Free Energy.

Conversely, the waxing of 0.5 cubic meters of chest hair from the same man will result in the screaming of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Barry) Free Energy.

I believe this information is useful and meaningful as compared to some of the other ideas on this thread, such as the brain holding "3 million years" of information.
*dies laughing*

Nice knowing you all.

i do not agree...



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

I don't agree with him either, but my point is that his varying definitions of a closed system make no difference.

I believe that if a system can take in energy, it can achieve a more ordered state without violating thermodynamics.

Your posted information seems to be consistent with what we've been telling him. (Except my sarcastic bit about adenosine triphosphate being made by trolls on treadmills).

What kind of Christian would call God "the Judeo-Christian God?" Legendel is an agent provacateur , and a lot of people fell for it.

I don't agree with him either, but my point is that his varying definitions of a closed system make no difference.

I believe that if a system can take in energy, it can achieve a more ordered state without violating thermodynamics.

Your posted information seems to be consistent with what we've been telling him. (Except my sarcastic bit about adenosine triphosphate being made by trolls on treadmills).


What?! You made that up?!! I'm soooooooooo disappointed. :(

*dies laughing*

Nice knowing you all.

*gets bodybag*

very funny :)

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = 1/2 * M * C2

No it doesn't, it actually proves it.

But where does your 1/2 come from?

What kind of Christian would call God "the Judeo-Christian God?" Legendel is an agent provacateur , and a lot of people fell for it.

Yep, you're right. It was called back in post #59 and again in #109. A lot of people came in on his side, though (whatever that suggests).

Cantor's work? I'd love to understand it better

Me too.

But I would love to see "infinity doesn't exist" squared with set theory, etc.

Scientists can test the background radiation of space. The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin. So I would say that nothing could have "sparked" the bang.

And no, I'm not talking out of my ass. That kind of violates what we know about anatomy. :)

You really are ignorant of cosmology.

The cosmic background radiation comes from all directions because we are INSIDE the product of the Big Bang.

*gets bodybag*

very funny :)
I am a fan of Mandy Patinkin, so it's okay.

Perhaps, but there is virtually no evidence to back that up. It is the consensus within the scientific community that the Universe had a beginning.

Ah, so you call on the authority of science whenever scientists agree with you, but when they disagree (e.g. claiming that a "creator" is not necessary to the theory of the Big Bang, or that human beings evolved from a series of similar species), then suddenly scientists are not a valid authority on the state of knowledge.

How convenient for you.

A number can get as large as it wants, but for every value of x, lets assume vertical asymtotes, there exists a value of y. At no point on any graph or on any function can you plug a value in and get back infinity. It may approach "infinity" but can never get there. Infinity is not a value, it is an abstract concept. You said it yourself "approaches", You can't get there.

(waits impatiently as camera rewinds...)

Try taking the tangent of pi/2.

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

The universe was the cause of itself.

I am a fan of Mandy Patinkin, so it's okay.

I don't get it.

Try taking the tangent of pi/2.
Undefined and infinity are different concepts in mathematics. Of all the examples you could have used, you picked an invalid one.

I have to ask: which evolved first: stomach acid to digest or the stomach organ to contain the digestive juices? or how about which came first: red blood cells or platelets? each are useless without their conterpart, so how could a creature survive with only one and it still be a usefull mutation?

There are creatures without stomachs, there are creatures without blood.

There was an earlier question about Gibbs free energy, and whether it refers to Andy or Barry (frequently noted subscripts "a" and "b"). Without getting too far off topic, and avoiding needlessly esoteric language, I would like to clarify.

Gibbs Free Energy is energy available to create bad music. Mathematically, this is frequent rendered as G = Enthalpy (sappy seventies lyrics) minus Temperature (in Disco Inferno Units) X Disorder (Terrible dancing of aging suburban people in ugly clubwear).

In general, the striking of an adult caucasian male in the scrotum with a 12 kilogram mass of Carbon-12 will result in a scream of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Andy) Free Energy.

Conversely, the waxing of 0.5 cubic meters of chest hair from the same man will result in the screaming of 1 Kilojoule of Gibbs (Barry) Free Energy.

I believe this information is useful and meaningful as compared to some of the other ideas on this thread, such as the brain holding "3 million years" of information.

Now that is some interesting info.

I'm now equipped to explain mathematically why I don't like modern pop or club music. ;)

I am a fan of Mandy Patinkin, so it's okay.

you get a fluffle :fluffle:

Me too.

But I would love to see "infinity doesn't exist" squared with set theory, etc.

Yeah, I wish he'd submit that to be published. "Infinity Doesn't Exist, by Kazyole".

So, if something doesn't exist, none of its subsets exists...hm. Gee, though, I wonder how much of the real number line is a subset of infinity.

S'okay, though. In Kazyole's universe without infinity, we've only lost both rational and irrational numbers (and transcendental subsets). We can just express everything in units of radical negative one.

I don't get it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/

Undefined and infinity are different concepts in mathematics. Of all the examples you could have used, you picked an invalid one.

Could we use the limit of the tangent function at some point?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/

Thank you, I feel better, now. I was worried we were headed toward some sort of "He's only MOSTLY dead" reference.

Could we use the limit of the tangent function at some point?

No calculator! I see one calculator, you fail my course. :mad:

Kids and all their silly gadgets, can't think for themselves, *grumble grumble*.

Undefined and infinity are different concepts in mathematics. Of all the examples you could have used, you picked an invalid one.

The square root of -1 and 1/0 are both undefined, classically.

I'm not aware of most calculators defining either - some higher end ones, perhaps.

However, 1/0, when defined, is equivalent to infinity.

While perhaps not authoritative, as a verification (as I'm absent minded), I divided 1.0 by 0.0 (that is, 1.0/0.0) in C#, compiled, ran, and, voila, the result it prints out is "Infinity". :)

Edit: Also, Wikipedia provides good data on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Edit: Although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29 insists x/0 is undefined. I'm a computer scientist, though, so I'll take the computer science approach. ;)

Thank you, I feel better, now. I was worried we were headed toward some sort of "He's only MOSTLY dead" reference.

The Princess Bride = greatest movie ever made...

Could we use the limit of the tangent function at some point?
Doesn't exist.

The square root of -1 and 1/0 are both undefined, classically.

I'm not aware of most calculators defining either - some higher end ones, perhaps.

However, 1/0, when defined, is equivalent to infinity.

While perhaps not authoritative, as a verification (as I'm absent minded), I divided 1.0 by 0.0 (that is, 1.0/0.0) in C#, compiled, ran, and, voila, the result it prints out is "Infinity". :)

That's it! Turn in your paper! :mad:

Klackto marks it with a big red 'F' across the top.

The square root of -1 and 1/0 are both undefined, classically.

I'm not aware of most calculators defining either - some higher end ones, perhaps.

However, 1/0, when defined, is equivalent to infinity.

While perhaps not authoritative, as a verification (as I'm absent minded), I divided 1.0 by 0.0 (that is, 1.0/0.0) in C#, compiled, ran, and, voila, the result it prints out is "Infinity". :)
Wrong. The limit x-> pi/2 of tan(x) does not exist.

A one sided limit does. Limit x->pi/2 from the right is infinity, pi/2 from the left is -infinity. lim x->pi/2 does not. Your calculations are most likely just taking a one sided limit because computers can't do what we do :D

True, red cells COULD survive without platelets, but if an organism got a mere cut, without platelets it would bleed to death. And in the animal world, I doubt that an organism has gone even a year without getting a scratch.

As pointed out by another poster - platelets are not the only thing that is involved in clotting.

Read: http://www.medicdirect.co.uk/clinics/default.ihtml?step=4&pid=164

You will also find this very interesting: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Wrong. The limit x-> pi/2 of tan(x) does not exist.

A one sided limit does. Limit x->pi/2 from the right is infinity, pi/2 from the left is -infinity. lim x->pi/2 does not.

So, we can take the right handed limit and get infinity. May we be satisfied that infinity exists?

Wrong. The limit x-> pi/2 of tan(x) does not exist.

A one sided limit does. Limit x->pi/2 from the right is infinity, pi/2 from the left is -infinity. lim x->pi/2 does not.

Eh, umm...

I wasn't talking about limits. I was providing an example that didn't require limits.

Congrats to all you guys who have found infinity to exist based on a number system CREATED BY MAN. Kudos to you, between three and four there are as many points as you care to find, but infinity is still an abstract idea that still does not exist in the real world. Congratulations again on proving the existance of infinity in real life by comparing it to something completely irrelevant. In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between, but it has a beginning and an end. We are not talking about number lines here.


Ok, good chatting with you but I really should be getting going (I now get to edit my movie and you guys are chewing up my RAM)

Eh, umm...

I wasn't talking about limits. I was providing an example that didn't require limits.
Umm... tan(pi/2) does not exist. The limit doesn't even exist. Not even close. You need to take a limit to prove that asymptotical lines are infinite. Use 1/x^2 to prove that.


1/x^2 lim x->0

lim x->0 from the left = infinity
lim x->0 from the right = infinity

lim x->0 = infinity.


There.

Congrats to all you guys who have found infinity to exist based on a number system CREATED BY MAN. Kudos to you, between three and four there are as many points as you care to find, but infinity is still an abstract idea that still does not exist in the real world. Congratulations again on proving the existance of infinity in real life by comparing it to something completely irrelevant. In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between, but it has a beginning and an end. We are not talking about number lines here.


Ok, good chatting with you but I really should be getting going (I now get to edit my movie and you guys are chewing up my RAM)

You don't think bounded spaces exist in the real world?

Umm... tan(pi/2) does not exist. The limit doesn't even exist. Not even close. You need to take a limit to prove that asymptotical lines are infinite. Use 1/x^2 to prove that.


1/x^2 lim x->0

lim x->0 from the left = infinity
lim x->0 from the right = infinity

lim x->0 = infinity.


There.

Ah, but Kazyole says infinity doesn't exist because its in a number system created by man. Evidently, he got his number system elsewhere.

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.

We also take in millions of tons of matterial every year.

infinity is still an abstract idea that still does not exist in the real world.

In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between,

Congratulations on blatantly contradicting yourself!!

In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between, but it has a beginning and an end.

Do you realize that in your own explanation, you just used a concept that you said doesn't exist?

You say, the beginning exists, the end exists, there are infinate (sic) points inbetween, but you still say infinity doesn't exist.

Congrats to all you guys who have found infinity to exist based on a number system CREATED BY MAN.
No.

Discovered by Man.

God is God, he's always been, there, read the Bible and you'll find out, that there is no reason in questioning God's existance :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

There is no evidence for god - just a bunch of fairy stories.

Ah, but Kazyole says infinity doesn't exist because its in a number system created by man. Evidently, he got his number system elsewhere.
What a crock. Numbers are numbers. Even god has to use numbers. They're concrete things, not something we can make up...

OK, one more post.

First of all, 1/0= undefined, lim 1/X as X->0 equals infinity, but for every value of X, there exists a Y that is not equal to infinity. Calculus just allows us to say Infinity so our minds don't blow up calculating values.


Second of all, Bounded space is what we have and I was arguing the bounds, not the in-between. There was a beginning and there will be an end, but there is no stretching out to infinity. I am not contradicting myself, I am merely saying that there may be an infinate amount of points between two given points, but there are two given points. For everything there exists a beginning and an end. If I was unclear on that I apologize, but you misunderstand my meaning.

There is no evidence for god - just a bunch of fairy stories.
But what if those fairy stories are evidence?

Even god has to use numbers.
What?! You say, God has limitations?

But what if those fairy stories are evidence?

:) what if they are just fairy stories? who decides what is evidence and what is falsehood?

Umm... tan(pi/2) does not exist. The limit doesn't even exist. Not even close. You need to take a limit to prove that asymptotical lines are infinite. Use 1/x^2 to prove that.


1/x^2 lim x->0

lim x->0 from the left = infinity
lim x->0 from the right = infinity

lim x->0 = infinity.


There.

Unless I'm terribly misunderstanding you, yes, tan(pi/2) exists, being the result of sin(pi/2)/cos(pi/2), which evaluates to 1/0 (well, or -1/0). 1/0 isn't a complex function - it is, simply, a value, which doesn't need limits applied. Limits, as I understood them, apply solely to individual functions, not values.

The point is that I was providing an instance that wasn't asymptotic, that didn't invoke limits, because, simply, the instance was a singular value (or, again, well, two singular values), to indicate that it wouldn't even matter if functions didn't approach infinity, because some functions do indeed return infinity. I took a trig example, as opposed to a calc example, mostly because it provided a quick and simple result (as opposed to calculating an integral that provided a product of infinity - I'm not up to doing calc in my spare time, I somehow didn't think that the poster insisting infinity didn't exist was about to!).

Can't take in material, eh? I guess those meteorites displayed up at the obsevatory are stool samples from when god takes a shit, eh?

I had just picked up a cup of tea when I read that - you owe me a clean monitor :)

OK, one more post.

First of all, 1/0= undefined, lim 1/X as X->0 equals infinity, but for every value of X, there exists a Y that is not equal to infinity. Calculus just allows us to say Infinity so our minds don't blow up calculating values.


Second of all, Bounded space is what we have and I was arguing the bounds, not the in-between. There was a beginning and there will be an end, but there is no stretching out to infinity. I am not contradicting myself, I am merely saying that there may be an infinate amount of points between two given points, but there are two given points. For everything there exists a beginning and an end. If I was unclear on that I apologize, but you misunderstand my meaning.

So, by your own axiom, when was God born and when will He die?

And if God has some characteristic that lets him exist outside the rules you yourself have tried to apply, why can't the Big Bang or any other theory do the same?

But what if those fairy stories are evidence?

If you go by that as your "evidence", then any othe religious text must be taken as equally valid- for instant, in Norse mythology, they believed that the Earth was carved out of the corpse of a frost giant. If one set of myths are considered relevant evidence, then they all are.

Of course, none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny, but science is just belief, anyway, right? Nevermind that modern day society couldn't function without it- no more cell phones, computers, electricity, central heating, etc...

I had just picked up a cup of tea when I read that - you owe me a clean monitor :)

Eh, bill me if you can find me. :p

:) what if they are just fairy stories? who decides what is evidence and what is falsehood?
Depends.

If you consider the universe to exist for someone else (i.e. God) then you cannot predict what is evidence and what is falsehood. For "him".

On the other hand, if you decide for yourself what is useful as god (image of God) then you decide what is evidence and what is falsehood.

Somebody on this board said "For everything there exists a beginning and an end".

He refuses to address how this applies to his God, (or if this doesn't apply to God, why it should apply to any other explanation.)

I'm going to go chase the wife now. May your trolls run fast.

If you go by that as your "evidence", then any othe religious text must be taken as equally valid- for instant, in Norse mythology, they believed that the Earth was carved out of the corpse of a frost giant. If one set of myths are considered relevant evidence, then they all are.
Comparative mythology is the answer, indeed. :D

This is my belief.

Of course, none of them hold up to scientific scrutiny, but science is just belief, anyway, right? Nevermind that modern day society couldn't function without it- no more cell phones, computers, electricity, central heating, etc...
They all hold up to comparative scrutiny, though. In mythology, as in psychology, much that we see is symbolic, and therefore interpretetive. If you look only for a literal truth, you will not find it.

Really? My science teacher lied to me!

No, you just failed Science 101.



I am in a 3-d world. Yet I can change things on my 2-d computer screen.

You are not in a 3D world, you are in an 11D world though only 4 of them are accessable to you.

Since I'm not going to take the time to read all of your posts -

Throughout time Man has referred to everything as a God. In all retrospects, after many years of philosophy, people began to worship the parts of a supreme being and not so much as a priest. Some referred to each part as a seperate God, and othere referred it to a seperate gift or punishment in which God gave to those who did things that entailed to those " other Gods ".

Really there is no one GOD. There is a Supreme Being who refers to us as little play things and we all really know if he gave a damn about showing his face he would have already. But then again maybe he does give a damn and just can't show his face and prefers that his creations decide for them selves.

" Did we just come from dirt and are we going to rest in dirt? Or did something more superior then man create us? Put us on this dirt. Gave us the will to decide to live in many more ways then one. Is he laughing at us as we slaughter each other off? Or is he incapable to reach us because he is either not that supreme, or wants us to learn from trial and error and decide for our selves. "

---

Really, I don't think there is Apollo and Athena and Baal, I don't think there is a Judeo-Christian God...I just think it is one Supreme Being. In which, of course, is the definition of God so there fore he is referred as God in many more then one language. English - God, Hebrew - Jaweh, Arabic - Allah, and so on and so forth.

So really just starting these threads are useless because in the end, God is what you make of him. You may think he is non-existant and therefor feel that you may live a life with out fear of punishment for whatever things you do, or you may think he is out there and explore and explore untill the Human concious is full and dies out along with you after your fulfilled life of questioning your logic, others' logic, and God's logic. It is the Human curiosity in which you always are referring too when you speak of God, it is what drives us to see what happens if I cut my skin or kill another being in means of suffication. It is what tells us what not to do and what to do.

But if you want my opinion, as I have stated probably because I am not really thinking of what to type the words are just flowing out onto the screen as I think to my self, I believe there is one almighty superior being out there in which has made us and is giving us the chance in believing him or not.

In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between, but it has a beginning and an end.
Some proof of this would make you famous.

The universe runs on mathematics and without it, we have zero chance of ever understanding it.

Somebody on this board said "For everything there exists a beginning and an end".

He refuses to address how this applies to God, (or if this doesn't apply to God, why it should apply to any other explanation.)

I'm going to go chase the wife now. May your trolls run fast.

a christian/god beleiver will prolly say that the real "law" states that everything that "came into being" has an end. since god has always been, then it has no beginning and no end...

In the real world, everything has a beginning and an end with an infinate amount of points in between, but it has a beginning and an end.
Some proof of this would make you famous.

The universe runs on mathematics and without it, we have zero chance of ever understanding it.

*looks at the last 4 posts* Whoa

I am concious of my surroundings. I can reflect, make guesses about the future. I have free will. Matter cannot produce that.

The brain has the capacity to hold 3 million years worth of knowledge. Why would evolution give us a brain that is not ncessary for the current lifespan of humans?

You really must stop comparing how long it would take you to fill your brain to the rest of us.

I just don't know where you get your daft ideas from - 3 million years indeed, what comic book did you get that from?

First of all, 1/0= undefined, lim 1/X as X->0 equals infinity, but for every value of X, there exists a Y that is not equal to infinity. Calculus just allows us to say Infinity so our minds don't blow up calculating values.

This is a common belief resulting from a very common misunderstanding of what a limit is. Personally, I blame calculus teachers for failing to properly define a limit for their students.

I find this easiest to explain in the case of infinite series. Consider the series 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + 1/(2^n).

Now, as you no doubt already know, in order to get the sum of that series, I essentially take a limit on the partial sums as n approaches infinity. As you should also know, the sum of this series is 1. That means that the sum of the infinite terms = 1.

Of course, it is also true that for any particular 'n' that you choose, there is a particular partial sum less than 1. So what does it mean to say that the sum of the infinite terms = 1?

Surely it does not mean that you just get "closer and closer" to 1, but never arrive, and we only talk about "infinity" as a convenience. If that were true, movement would be impossible, as per Zeno's famous paradox.

Instead, what I mean is this: For any small number you name, as close to zero as you want to go, I can name an 'n' that makes the sum of the above series (and all further partial sums) closer than that to 1. Think about that: The sum of that series, taken to infinity -- to a higher 'n' than any other 'n' -- brings the sum of that series closer to 1 than any other number.

Now, given that we know that between any two real numbers, there is another real number, what one number is closer to 1 than any other number? That's easy: it has to be 1 itself.

Thus, the limit of the above series (1/2 + 1/4 + ...) = 1. It is not "arbitrarily close to 1," it does not "get closer and closer to 1," it is 1. That is it's value when all of the infinite terms are included in the sum.

If "infinity" did not exist, there could be no such thing as a "value" of the "infinite sum."


Sorry for the length of this explanation, but I wanted to be as clear as possible. I run into this misunderstanding of limits all the time, and it can be really frustrating.

The universe runs on mathematics and without it, we have zero chance of ever understanding it.
I love how you give away the spoiler as if it actually represented the plot. ;)

Again, God transcends space. Dimensions cannot contain him.

Then he does not exist.

On the other hand, if you decide for yourself what is useful as god (image of God) then you decide what is evidence and what is falsehood.

isnt that still guessing?

i dont see why it matters whether or not there is a god. just try to be good people. that way no matter whose right, your on the winning side. god (if he/she exists) cant condemn you for being a compassionate person.

isnt that still guessing?
Not if it's done subconsciously, i.e. if it represents a real need.

i dont see why it matters whether or not there is a god. just try to be good people. that way no matter whose right, your on the winning side. god (if he/she exists) cant condemn you for being a compassionate person.

unless the said god has created a hell for those that did not follow its precise commands...

i dont see why it matters whether or not there is a god. just try to be good people. that way no matter whose right, your on the winning side. god (if he/she exists) cant condemn you for being a compassionate person.
Oh, but he can!

He can say, "The only way to God is through me, and you don't believe in me, so regardless of your being a good person, you go to Hell!"

But the big bang is something that will never fully be explained by science. No matter what, you cannot take me to the moment before it and that is where science fails us. When you start asking the really tough questions science begins to draw blanks.

Care to ask a question?

We never will understand through science how matter got here, we will never understand the vastness of space.

We understand both quite well.

Even the theory of evolution, the Athiests bible if you will, is flawed,

In what way?

Darwin himself admitted that. Athiests in general exhibit the same behavior you denounce by not admitting the possibility of an almighty. You do not understand it, so it is easier to reject than think about.

There is no evidence for a god, nor the need for one.

unless the said god has created a hell for those that did not follow its precise commands...

Okay, last for sure now...unless I get another break. None of that is in the bible/any holy book really. The whole follow the rules or go to hell thing in reference to Christianity was created by the Catholic church some before but mostly during the Reformation to get the people back in line, so to speak. The bible anyway says Salvation through faith (I dont have time to look up the lines but believe me theyre in there) That was one of the main reasons for Martin Luther to break away for any of you history buffs out there (that, nepatism and the selling of indulgences, among others).

Oh, but he can!

He can say, "The only way to God is through me, and you don't believe in me, so regardless of your being a good person, you go to Hell!"

than that is definitely not god. the true god(s) (if there is one/are any) would judge people based on their morality not their membership to a religion.

you would be condemning Gandhi and Schweitzer for gods sakes.

Not if it's done subconsciously, i.e. if it represents a real need.

but then it becomes relative and not absolute. the way you see god is "such and such" and the way another sees god is "this way." if it is all on the way "you" see god, one way may be in contradiction from another...how could this be any way in seeing what god really is other than making an image of god that we make for ourselves out of need?

maybe the image of god that we create is only there because we desire something to fill in the void of our emotions and understanding. maybe god is not a true entity, and is only an image of an entity that we desire to be real...

than that is definitely not god. the true god(s) (if there is one/are any) would judge people based on their morality not their membership to a religion.

you would be condemning Gandhi for gods sakes.
Then that is not god, indeed (or even God). It is an image of god.

The true god would not judge people at all, as that would be placing a limitation on him.

Okay, last for sure now...unless I get another break. None of that is in the bible/any holy book really. The whole follow the rules or go to hell thing in reference to Christianity was created by the Catholic church some before but mostly during the Reformation to get the people back in line, so to speak. The bible anyway says Salvation through faith (I dont have time to look up the lines but believe me theyre in there) That was one of the main reasons for Martin Luther to break away for any of you history buffs out there (that, nepatism and the selling of indulgences, among others).

thats what i ment. in the bible, there is an unforgiveable sin that if you commit it, you will go to hell. that sin is denying god/jesus christ. therefore, you must follow this rule or go to hell...

but then it becomes relative and not absolute. the way you see god is "such and such" and the way another sees god is "this way." if it is all on the way "you" see god, one way may be in contradiction from another...how could this be any way in seeing what god really is other than making an image of god that we make for ourselves out of need?

maybe the image of god that we create is only there because we desire something to fill in the void of our emotions and understanding. maybe god is not a true entity, and is only an image of an entity that we desire to be real...

exactly
and when in fact we dont even need any god(s) because we are able to be compassionate without the threat of eternal damnation (or atleast we should be.)

But what if those fairy stories are evidence?

They have been studied long enough to have been proven worthless as evidence.

than that is definitely not god. the true god(s) (if there is one/are any) would judge people based on their morality not their membership to a religion.

whos morals? christians? aztecs? being a good person in one place could be completely different in another...

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Lame argument... so where did your "entity" :rolleyes: come from anyway? You're back to the same question then :p

but then it becomes relative and not absolute. the way you see god is "such and such" and the way another sees god is "this way." if it is all on the way "you" see god, one way may be in contradiction from another...how could this be any way in seeing what god really is other than making an image of god that we make for ourselves out of need?

maybe the image of god that we create is only there because we desire something to fill in the void of our emotions and understanding. maybe god is not a true entity, and is only an image of an entity that we desire to be real...
Absolutely relative. 100%. Unique and individual for each person who experiences it, as is existence for each person who experiences it.

My buddy Iakeaokeo knows it as "it is". God as existence.

One's image of god is often in conflict with others --if it weren't, we wouldn't have these treads. What god is "really" takes a second seat to what we envision god to be. (As I have said in other posts, our relationship with the image of god is what matters most.)

Whether it is there because we desire it or because we have actually experienced something we associate with god doesn't matter. i.e. If the association was with something imagined, it is equally as useful. It is an "other" with which to associate, to form a relationship. Even if that other is just an ideal, it is useful to form a relationship with it.

And if that "other" is as real as a concept, for instance as real as gravity, then it is useful. It can be used to compare ourselves with (the purpose of a relationship).

whos morals? christians? aztecs? being a good person in one place could be completely different in another...

morals that make sense to you. morals upon which you have contemplated deeply. morals that are logical and not based in religion but on thought and not by blind faith. we should all become conscious of what morals we practice and not just follow a guideline that some clergy member (of any religion) gives us.

They have been studied long enough to have been proven worthless as evidence.
If you are speaking about ancient myths, and you proclaim them as worthless, then you know nothing about them.

If you are speaking about ancient myths, and you proclaim them as worthless, then you know nothing about them.
He said "worthless as evidence", wrt "evidence for god", and he is correct. Ergo, either you know nothing about them, or you were creating a strawman. Which is it?

Absolutely relative. 100%. Unique and individual for each person who experiences it, as is existence for each person who experiences it.

My buddy Iakeaokeo knows it as "it is". God as existence.

One's image of god is often in conflict with others --if it weren't, we wouldn't have these treads. What god is "really" takes a second seat to what we envision god to be. (As I have said in other posts, our relationship with the image of god is what matters most.)

Whether it is there because we desire it or because we have actually experienced something we associate with god doesn't matter. i.e. If the association was with something imagined, it is equally as useful. It is an "other" with which to associate, to form a relationship. Even if that other is just an ideal, it is useful to form a relationship with it.

And if that "other" is as real as a concept, for instance as real as gravity, then it is useful. It can be used to compare ourselves with (the purpose of a relationship).

ahhh! stop turning my brain to mush! every time you and I talk about god my head hurts... :(

I say the universe didn't come from noting, but was a prior universe. One we don't know the origin of. What happened was the original universe got so incredibly big, it started to go backwards, evetually compressing into a vwery very dense ball of matter. Probably around a billion tons per square millimeter. Then a chain-reaction happened, blowing it apart, forming our ever expanding universe.

Also, to kinda prove that the universe came from something, like a bang, some scientists from the 1980's heard a signal from space, which is supposidly the bang, from theBig Bang.

Thats all my phylosophy.(I know that it is spelled wrong)

ahhh! stop turning my brain to mush! every time you and I talk about god my head hurts... :(
It's another point of view.

My apologies for the mush.

It turned me around, when I first learned to think in this manner, and I was 35 years old then. Our modern schooling does not teach us, often, to think in this manner. I think it is important, though.

An image of god is not god, it is not real. It's just an image (in the imagination).

This is based in an understanding similar to that of Metaphysics 101: there are real things, and there are mental entity things.

As an astrologer, I would claim, there are things that happen in the real world and things that are attributable only to our understanding of the real world. So many people mistake the latter for the former. They say, "The planets influence us," when really it is us who "see" (interpret) an influence from the planets.

So much that can be attributable to us is handed away, given away to the idea of Fate (or God).

He said "worthless as evidence", wrt "evidence for god", and he is correct. Ergo, either you know nothing about them, or you were creating a strawman. Which is it?
It depends entirely on what evidence you are looking for.

If you are looking for evidence of literal truth, you will not find it in the myths.

Also, to kinda prove that the universe came from something, like a bang, some scientists from the 1980's heard a signal from space, which is supposidly the bang, from theBig Bang.

are you thinking of Penzias and Wilson discovering background radiation? (1965)

http://www.transtopia.org/OCCAMSRAZOR.gif

If the universe needs a creator, then god needs one. Who created god?


I KEEP SAYING THIS IT STATES IN THE HOLY BIBLLE THAT, YOU SHALL NOT QUESTION GOD'S SUPREME E: :(XSISTANCE :sniper: :mad: :) :rolleyes: :mp5: :p :fluffle: ;) :confused !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It depends entirely on what evidence you are looking for.

If you are looking for evidence of literal truth, you will not find it in the myths.

and the truth shall set you free...

Here's something to think about:

If God is perfect, then why did he create Earth? If he didn't need to create Earth, then that would be wasteful and therefore not perfect, if he did need to, then God would have needs and therefore not be perfect. Either way, God disproves his own perfection by creating the Earth.

It depends entirely on what evidence you are looking for.
For existence, there is only one type.

Arapahoe Cove: I guess I'm lucky I don't consult the "Holy" Bible for everything I do. People that do that tend to end up killing other people because they dont believe in god.... f**cking psychos.

Not really...

Arapahoe Cove: I guess I'm lucky I don't consult the "Holy" Bible for everything I do. People that do that tend to end up killing other people because they dont believe in god.... f**cking psychos.

hey
do you ever wonder why they bleep out the hole part of asshole on TV. dont you think you would want to bleep out the ass part?

hey
do you ever wonder why they bleep out the hole part of asshole on TV. dont you think you would want to bleep out the ass part?
Is that at all relevant?

are you thinking of Penzias and Wilson discovering background radiation? (1965)

That must be it, thanks.

Faith answers what science cannot. It is when man stops seeking the truth with his mind, where man will gain understanding. This is not religion, this is Faith. Maybe you could even say, Faith is an applied science of man's soul.

We ask these questions because its not enough to believe that an Entity i.e. Creator "always was" or could of created something out of nothing. If we could believe in that, we would understand the simple difference between that Entity being the Creator, and We being the Creation and accept it.

The world gets hung up on a billion and one religions, and religion has been spoiled by its own politics. In the end it has harmed us all and made man turn from Faith.

Faith answers what science cannot. It is when man stops seeking the truth with his mind, where man will gain understanding. This is not religion, this is Faith. Maybe you could even say, Faith is an applied science of man's soul.

We ask these questions because its not enough to believe that an Entity i.e. Creator "always was" or could of created something out of nothing. If we could believe in that, we would understand the simple difference between that Entity being the Creator, and We being the Creation and accept it.

The world gets hung up on a billion and one religions, and religion has been spoiled by its own politics. In the end it has harmed us all and made man turn from Faith.
I have faith: in logic, in reason, in the scientific method, in the unlimited potential of humankind, and in my family and myself. All of these pillars of my faith have been proven effective time and time again.

Amen.

I have faith: in logic, in reason, in the scientific method, in the unlimited potential of humankind, and in my family and myself. All of these pillars of my faith have been proven effective time and time again.
The problem is that the bloody theists will say "See! See! You have faith that they work!"

Clearly, we neither need faith in logic nor reason, since they are capable of vindicating themselves. And since the scientific method utilizes the above, there's no need for faith in that, either.

Faith answers what science cannot.
Depends on what you mean by "answers". If by "answers" you mean "allows you to pull something gloppy and smelly from your ass and call it a diamond", then yes, it does provide "answers".

The problem is that the bloody theists will say "See! See! You have faith that they work!"

Clearly, we neither need faith in logic nor reason, since they are capable of vindicating themselves. And since the scientific method utilizes the above, there's no need for faith in that, either.
"Faith" in the sense that I trust them to eventually yield correct answers, not "blind faith" as in believing that every word of a repeatedly-altered book of ancient oral traditions is completely true.

Have not the written findings of science been repeatedly altered, disproved, cancelled out, re-tested, re-written, and discovered? One might say, science is dynamic...always changing. Therefore one must continuously change their understandings. The Faith I speak of comes from understanding with one's heart. It is simplistic Not "blind" , for we are not blind creatures. We are continually seeking tangible proof to all things, but as we have learned, all tangible things change...they are dynamic. I.E. Evolution.
It is the intangible, unseen, non-physical things that are static, that never change. We all have a personality correct? You cannot touch it, you cannot take a tissue sample of our souls and map it. You just know its there.

As I hold , Faith answers the static questions (with belief) what dynamic science cannot prove.

thats what i ment. in the bible, there is an unforgiveable sin that if you commit it, you will go to hell. that sin is denying god/jesus christ. therefore, you must follow this rule or go to hell...

Actually, the only unforgivable sin, according to the Bible, is blasphemy against the spirit.

Also - for at least two reasons, you are wrong, anyway...

1) There is a day of judgement in Revelation, in which souls are judged on their merit.

2) With god, all things are possible... even forgiving the unforgivable.

thats what i ment. in the bible, there is an unforgiveable sin that if you commit it, you will go to hell. that sin is denying god/jesus christ. therefore, you must follow this rule or go to hell...
Um ... not quite accurate, I'm afraid. There is an "unforgiveable sin," but it consists of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Actually, the only unforgivable sin, according to the Bible, is blasphemy against the spirit.

Also - for at least two reasons, you are wrong, anyway...

1) There is a day of judgement in Revelation, in which souls are judged on their merit.

2) With god, all things are possible... even forgiving the unforgivable.
You beat me to it! :(

Actually, according to the Bible, the one thing God cannot do is anything contrary to his own nature, which includes being in the presence of "sin."

Have not the written findings of science not been repeatedly altered, disproved, cancelled out, re-tested, re-written, and discovered? One might say, science is dynamic...always changing. Therefore one must continuously change their understandings. The Faith I speak of comes from understanding with one's heart. It is simplistic Not "blind" , for we are not blind creatures. We are continually seeking tangible proof to all things, but as we have learned, all tangible things change...they are dynamic. I.E. Evolution.
It is the intangible, unseen, non-physical things that are static, that never change. We all have a personality correct? You cannot touch it, you cannot take a tissue sample of our souls and map it. You just know its there.

As I hold , Faith answers the static questions (with belief) what dynamic science cannot prove.
Well then ... why did God, in his infinite wisdom, create both a universe in constant flux and the human mind to perceive and understand it? The reason science is constantly changing is twofold: it must change as new information or perceptions become available, and because the universe itself changes. All of which make a good argument, IMHO, for not restricting oneself to any permanent, eternal, unchanging view of reality.

"Understanding with the heart" translates to "understanding with emotions" which is often hazardous to your health, not to mention hanging your perceptions of the universe on highly changeable emotions.

You beat me to it! :(

Actually, according to the Bible, the one thing God cannot do is anything contrary to his own nature, which includes being in the presence of "sin."

While this IS true, it is well within the grasp of our omnipotent buddy to forgive the unforgivable... and, once the sin is covered by the blood of Christ, it is as nothing.

So - nothing is impossible... he can even forgive the unforgivable... he can choose to blood-wash even the unbeliever, should he choose to do so.

Actually, the only unforgivable sin, according to the Bible, is blasphemy against the spirit.


Yeah as I said, blasphemy against the holyspirit = rejection of christ/god. its the same thing...


Also - for at least two reasons, you are wrong, anyway...

1) There is a day of judgement in Revelation, in which souls are judged on their merit.

2) With god, all things are possible... even forgiving the unforgivable.

no, actually that judgment is for the rewards given. not salvation given.

Um ... not quite accurate, I'm afraid. There is an "unforgiveable sin," but it consists of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

:confused: two people say this in a row?... im agreeing with you, what i said is what you said. blaspemy = rejection...

While this IS true, it is well within the grasp of our omnipotent buddy to forgive the unforgivable... and, once the sin is covered by the blood of Christ, it is as nothing.

So - nothing is impossible... he can even forgive the unforgivable... he can choose to blood-wash even the unbeliever, should he choose to do so.
"Without repentance, no man can enter the Kingdom of heaven." So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that if I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, then later beg forgiveness and never do it again, I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Then why have the "unforgiveable sin" in the first place? Why even mention it if it's not truly "unforgiveable?"

Something else has always troubled me. The Bible refers to "the Word of God" repeatedly. Most Christians consider the Bible itself to be "the Word of God," but the Bible, which was obviously written after the statements were made, cannot be referring to itself. Thus the phrase, "the Word of God" must refer to the actual, spoken words of God himself, yes? So why do Christians still maintain that the Bible is "the Word of God?"

"Faith" in the sense that I trust them to eventually yield correct answers, not "blind faith" as in believing that every word of a repeatedly-altered book of ancient oral traditions is completely true.
Then what you mean is "rational trust".

Have not the written findings of science been repeatedly altered, disproved, cancelled out, re-tested, re-written, and discovered?
Hint: the sciences are not dogma. That's for religions. Some in the religions use dogma to shield themselves from reality.


One might say, science is dynamic...always changing. Therefore one must continuously change their understandings. The Faith I speak of comes from understanding with one's heart.
The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. It has no understanding.


It is simplistic Not "blind" , for we are not blind creatures. We are continually seeking tangible proof to all things, but as we have learned, all tangible things change...they are dynamic. I.E. Evolution.
It is the intangible, unseen, non-physical things that are static, that never change. We all have a personality correct? You cannot touch it, you cannot take a tissue sample of our souls and map it. You just know its there.
I don't know it's there. In fact, I know that there's no such thing.


As I hold , Faith answers the static questions (with belief) what dynamic science cannot prove.
But faith answers nothing. Faith is mere wishes.

Then what you mean is "rational trust".

faith

NOUN:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs.

Something else has always troubled me. The Bible refers to "the Word of God" repeatedly. Most Christians consider the Bible itself to be "the Word of God," but the Bible, which was obviously written after the statements were made, cannot be referring to itself. Thus the phrase, "the Word of God" must refer to the actual, spoken words of God himself, yes? So why do Christians still maintain that the Bible is "the Word of God?"

Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" so basically it goes along the lines that god wrote the bible through the pens of those that wrote the bible. therefore, 'word of god.'

Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" so basically it goes along the lines that god wrote the bible through the pens of those that wrote the bible. therefore, 'word of god.'
So God's words effectively ended when the Bible was "complete" in its present form?

faith

NOUN:
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
The dictionary gets this one wrong, actually.


Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
I wonder why they use "trust" as a synonym, when it's not. Trust requires some rational reason to believe, and with faith, there is no rational reason to believe. It's wholly irrational.

And that is the definition of faith.

So God's words effectively ended when the Bible was "complete" in its present form?

i guess he said all he needed to. personally id like to see the Bible part II...

Yeah as I said, blasphemy against the holyspirit = rejection of christ/god. its the same thing...


No - it is not the same thing. Jesus was quite happy with doubt, even with disbelief. He even accepted direct question or attack against his OWN nature. What he didn't accept, was this blasphemy against the spirit.


no, actually that judgment is for the rewards given. not salvation given.

I don't know how you justify your version... from Revelation 20:5-13, it seems quite clear to me that ALL are judged, according to their ACTIONS in life:

"...The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended...And I saw [B]the dead, great and small[B], standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And [B]the dead were judged[B] by what was written in the books, [B]by what they had done[B]... And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and [B]all[B] were judged [B]by what they had done[B]"...

I just don't see any scriptural justification for reading that as anything except for ALL the dead, being judged for what they have done.

And - since the punishment for those NOT found in the Book of Life, is being cast into the eternal fire... it seems this MUST be judgement for salvation, does it not?

"Without repentance, no man can enter the Kingdom of heaven." So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that if I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, then later beg forgiveness and never do it again, I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Then why have the "unforgiveable sin" in the first place? Why even mention it if it's not truly "unforgiveable?"

Why use words like 'omnipotent', or phrasing like 'all things are possible', if there is actually a limitation?

There must be some way to reconcile the two - and the way to reconcile them, is that the sin IS unforgivable... but God is able to transcend that, through the vicarious sacrifice - just as he does with ALL OTHER sin.

Also - reading Revelation, it is clear that the resurrection before judgement is going to give the unforgiven a chance to see God. Who could disbelieve in the face of such evidence? Thus - the sinner WILL repent once he SEES God, or he will be condemned. If he DOES repent (no longer a blind hope, this is done in the PRESENCE of evidence), then he is washed clean in the blood of the lamb - because, while God CANNOT forgive the blasphemer against the spirit, the Crucified God is an intercessor that has already PAID the sin-sacrifice.

God doesn't have to be befor the Universe, because he transcends time! Which, as we know, is linked with space.
Transcends time? Am I supposed to use my logic to understand that?

Saying that the big bang doesn't exist, or that there could've been anything before the universe is to say that mathematics doesn't exist.

i guess he said all he needed to. personally id like to see the Bible part II...

It's called the Qu'ran.

It's called the Qu'ran.
ZING!

No - it is not the same thing. Jesus was quite happy with doubt, even with disbelief. He even accepted direct question or attack against his OWN nature. What he didn't accept, was this blasphemy against the spirit.

blasphemy against the spirit is not accepting it. that means, rejection. the only way for god to forgive, is if you accept his forgiveness. so if you reject gods forgiveness then you cant be forgiven. thats why its called the unforgivable sin...



I don't know how you justify your version... from Revelation 20:5-13, it seems quite clear to me that ALL are judged, according to their ACTIONS in life:

"...The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended...And I saw [B]the dead, great and small[B], standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And [B]the dead were judged[B] by what was written in the books, [B]by what they had done[B]... And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and [B]all[B] were judged [B]by what they had done[B]"...

I just don't see any scriptural justification for reading that as anything except for ALL the dead, being judged for what they have done.

And - since the punishment for those NOT found in the Book of Life, is being cast into the eternal fire... it seems this MUST be judgement for salvation, does it not?

your confusing whats going on in the text. there is different judgments going on. there is a first one with the books, which is the books of actions. this judgment is for the saints of christ, "believers." they are given rewards based on how they acted as christians. its not a judgement of condemnation. non believers are not at this judgement...

the next book is the book of life. this judgement is the one that decides whether one goes to heaven or hell. the christians have been forgiven and are therefore written in the book. the non believers are not written in the book because they are not forgiven, therefore they go to the lake of fire...
they are judged by thier actions, yet non believers are unfogiven...

It's called the Qu'ran.

:rolleyes: , the Bible part II would be consistant with the first...

:rolleyes: , the Bible part II would be consistant with the first...
You mean like the New Testament is consistent with the Old?

You mean like the New Testament is consistent with the Old?

the whole saviour/prophecy in the OT, meets the coming of saviour/filling of prohecy in the NT. so yeah...

Grave, do you remember Justifidians? just so you know that used to be me :) i was at the end of my rope with christianity and was trying to hang on to it, but i finally let go...

the whole saviour/prophecy in the OT, meets the coming of saviour/filling of prohecy in the NT. so yeah...
Let me explain this to you:

The Jews saw "The Fellowship of the Ring".
The Christians saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The two Towers".
The Muslims saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The two Towers" and "The Return of the King".

All three saw a fantasy film and think it's real, but if I was to believe anyone of those three, I'd go to those that have seen the whole thing.

Let me explain this to you:

The Jews saw "The Fellowship of the Ring".
The Christians saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The two Towers".
The Muslims saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The two Towers" and "The Return of the King".

All three saw a fantasy film and think it's real, but if I was to believe anyone of those three, I'd go to those that have seen the whole thing.

yeah well i think they all suck, IMO... :)

EDIT: oh, the Qu'ran and the NT have contradictory passages concerning JC. so the qu'ran is not the latest edition...its a new book entirely...

ah the old stand-by: "How can you look around and think this was all created by evolution?"

well, I look around and think: "How can you look around and think 'This must have been made by a huge invisible man!' "

the whole saviour/prophecy in the OT, meets the coming of saviour/filling of prohecy in the NT. so yeah...
Ummmm....no. Not if you know that jesus couldn't have been the Davidic savior spoken of in the OT, and that jesus was an hellenistic-style world-savior that isn't spoken of in the OT.

And that jesus was human, therefore unclean, therefore unfit to be sacrifice.

Things like that.

Minor little details.

Ummmm....no. Not if you know that jesus couldn't have been the Davidic savior spoken of in the OT, and that jesus was an hellenistic-style world-savior that isn't spoken of in the OT.

And that jesus was human, therefore unclean, therefore unfit to be sacrifice.

Things like that.

Minor little details.

please read more OT passages about the saviour...learn hebrew also, its better in the original language. also read the dead sea scrolls like i have, and see a jewish sect and what they were looking for in a messiah/saviour...(oh, the DSS were written before the NT also)...

please read more OT passages about the saviour...learn hebrew also, its better in the original language. also read the dead sea scrolls like i have, and see a jewish sect and what they were looking for in a messiah/saviour...(oh, the DSS were written before the NT also)...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/nt.html

Jesus doesn't fulfil much of that there prophecy...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/nt.html

Jesus doesn't fulfil much of that there prophecy...

yeah, that site isnt the best to be giving...

EDIT: and if you dont know why, keep reading...distortion is not the mark of a scholar...

please read more OT passages about the saviour...
I have. They are about the DAVIDIC savior, a great military and political leader who will unite the diaspora, rebuild the temple and usher in the age of peace and knowledge. I don't see that jesus did those things.


earn hebrew also, its better in the original language. also read the dead sea scrolls like i have,
The DSS do not support your claim, sorry. In fact, the DSS can support other saviors and other ideas, like the coming of Melchizedec, in the scroll 11QMelch (11Q13). The closest thing to the "savior" is 1QS.

But you knew that, right? After all, you have "read the Dead Sea Scrolls".


and see a jewish sect and what they were looking for in a messiah/saviour...(oh, the DSS were written before the NT also)...
Oh, the OT is all about the DAVIDIC savior, and jesus doesn't fit the bill. Sorry. You lose.

yeah, that site isnt the best to be giving...

That's a good way to ignore all the evidence on it...You know that attacking where information is rather than what the information itself says is a logical fallacy, right?

IThe DSS do not support your claim, sorry. In fact, the DSS can support other saviors and other ideas, like the coming of Melchizedec, in the scroll 11QMelch (11Q13). The closest thing to the "savior" is 1QS.

ill answer this then go to sleep, then ill answer the other shizzle later...
yes, i knew that. but if you read Vermes "complete dead sea scrolls", you will find the fragment with the expectations of the messiah.they match what is found in the NT scriptures. i would give the name of the fragment but i dont have the book with me. its at home,, and im at my college dorm. so if you want to have this discussion after wednesday, when i go home, lets do that.

That's a good way to ignore all the evidence on it...You know that attacking where information is rather than what the information itself says is a logical fallacy, right?


taking information out of context as proof is a fallacy...

ill answer this then go to sleep, then ill answer the other shizzle later...
yes, i knew that. but if you read Vermes "complete dead sea scrolls", you will find the fragment with the expectations of the messiah.
Find it for me: http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/caves.htm

That's the index of all the scrolls at Qumran. Be a dear and tell me which one it is.

Also, you'll note that the fragment (if it exists), isn't actually in the OT. Y'know--the thing you say is all about the messiah, who supposedly is jesus. That one.

Since it's not in the OT, of what value is that fragment in proving the claim that the OT is about jesus? Answer: none.

Find it for me: http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/caves.htm

That's the index of all the scrolls at Qumran. Be a dear and tell me which one it is.

Also, you'll note that the fragment (if it exists), isn't actually in the OT. Y'know--the thing you say is all about the messiah, who supposedly is jesus. That one.

Since it's not in the OT, of what value is that fragment in proving the claim that the OT is about jesus? Answer: none.

gahh! your keeping me from my sleep. i think its the messianic apocalypse. )(4Q521)

Since it's not in the OT, of what value is that fragment in proving the claim that the OT is about jesus? Answer: none.

the relevance is about what kind of messiah were the jews expecting. a military one or something else...

taking information out of context as proof is a fallacy...

Care to demonstrate that's what they've done? You can't just point and say 'It's out of context!' and call that a rebuttal.

Care to demonstrate that's what they've done? You can't just point and say 'It's out of context!' and call that a rebuttal.

ok look. i dont support christianity. im not a christian. all i CARE about is seeing interpretation of a text within its own context. it takes a bigger understanding of what is going on instead of reading a few verses here and there and not seeing what the purpose of those verses are. im not trying to prove anything or tell you god is real. i dont believe in god. all i was saying is that looking at somehting from a biased perspective distorts all hope of understanding what is really going on... sorry if im being offinsive its just 1 23 AM and im tired and want to go teh sleep :)

Mutters: "" frakkin' lil grammar nazi "" :D
Excellent... Grammar Nazis of the world, unite!

A common argument that I face as an Atheist is the simple one of "Where did all this 'matter' come from that allowed the Big Bang to come to pass?"

Well, where did God come from? The usual answer to this that I face is that it is "just faith." Well, what stops Atheists from their faith in the Big Bang? There are theories out there concerning where the matter came from, and there are theories out there concerning an all-powerful diety. I think that we ought to simply ignore these matters of "faith" and concern ourselves with the runs of day-to-day life. Money, now that's the thing. Yay.

A common argument that I face as an Atheist is the simple one of "Where did all this 'matter' come from that allowed the Big Bang to come to pass?"
Which is of absolutely no consequence. I'm not required to believe that there was anything before the Hour Zero for the Big Bang to work. The theory doesn't cover that.

We observe stuff in the universe - forces, energy and matter. We see how they evolve, we can measure them.
Then we run a complicated regression, a mathematical model that predicts stuff given a point in time. Then you put in t=0, t=1^-10 etc and you see the big bang happening.
It's maths - no more imagination needed.

Originally Posted by Willamena
It depends entirely on what evidence you are looking for.

If you are looking for evidence of literal truth, you will not find it in the myths.
For existence, there is only one type.
Does beauty exist? Does truth exist?

Does beauty exist? Does truth exist?

Beauty and truth were subjective, last I checked.

Beauty and truth were subjective, last I checked.
Yes, they are subjectively determined. That doesn't answer the question. :)

Which is of absolutely no consequence. I'm not required to believe that there was anything before the Hour Zero for the Big Bang to work. The theory doesn't cover that.
No, but M-Theory and membranes ( "branes" ) do. :)

No, but M-Theory and membranes ( "branes" ) do. :)
Did you watch that show, or read that book? What was it called..."strange universe" or something like that?
It was good fun, but I don't know enough about those weird type theories to make a judgement. There seems to be a lot of guesswork in there, which underpins the maths (or the yet to be invented maths...) moreso than relatively simple "expansion of the universe" expressions. For the time being they don't have any practical implications, so really it doesn't take up much of my time.

Yes, they are subjectively determined. That doesn't answer the question. :)

As subjective items, they exist but are not fixed or quantifiable, since they are different for any given observer, being defined by emotions and personal prejudices rather than observation and logical analysis [one could argue that subjective items don't exist at all per se, but that would be getting too philosophical for this late at night]. The universe, on the other hand, is an objective item that acts in the same way regardless of who observes it. If clouds disgust you, you can say they're not beautiful, but you can't say they're not clouds or they're not there.

As subjective items, they exist but are not fixed or quantifiable, since they are different for any given observer, being defined by emotions and personal prejudices rather than observation and logical analysis [one could argue that subjective items don't exist at all per se, but that would be getting too philosophical for this late at night]. The universe, on the other hand, is an objective item that acts in the same way regardless of who observes it. If clouds disgust you, you can say they're not beautiful, but you can't say they're not clouds or they're not there.
Which is all fine, but still does not answer the question, which queried BAAWA about his understanding of existence. ;)

I have to disagree with you, though, about truth and beauty not being rational.

So where did "God" come from?

He did say "something that trancends this universe". That can be said not to need a creator. However since the universe cannot trancend itself, it does need one

Did you watch that show, or read that book? What was it called..."strange universe" or something like that?
It was good fun, but I don't know enough about those weird type theories to make a judgement. There seems to be a lot of guesswork in there, which underpins the maths (or the yet to be invented maths...) moreso than relatively simple "expansion of the universe" expressions. For the time being they don't have any practical implications, so really it doesn't take up much of my time.
I may have seen that show, although most of the ( admittedly limited ) information I have on M-Theory comes via books. With the development of "string theory," the precessor of M-Theory, for the first time in the history of science mathematics was driving physics, rather than the other way around. There is considerable controversy about M-Theory, but it seems to explain some things that quantum mechanics couldn't. ( Don't ask! I don't have time to look it up this morning! ) :p

I have. They are about the DAVIDIC savior, a great military and political leader who will unite the diaspora, rebuild the temple and usher in the age of peace and knowledge. I don't see that jesus did those things.

There are over 300 prophieces in the OT about the Messiah's life which are fufilled in Jesus. As for the temple issue, Jesus did say that the temple would be destroyed and he would raise it in 3 days. Of course he wasnt talking about the building.

http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/otprophet.htm

There are over 300 prophieces in the OT about the Messiah's life which are fufilled in Jesus. As for the temple issue, Jesus did say that the temple would be destroyed and he would raise it in 3 days. Of course he wasnt talking about the building.
Oh I'm glad that us "scientific" people only have to worry about simple things, like string theory...

Oh I'm glad that us "scientific" people only have to worry about simple things, like string theory...

What do you mean. I didnt even mention string theory. What are you implying here?

What do you mean. I didnt even mention string theory. What are you implying here?
That I find religious texts, and their interpretations, waaay to complicated for my liking. :)

I have to disagree with you, though, about truth and beauty not being rational.

Well, can you explain why I find something beautiful or true, as opposed to why you do?

There are over 300 prophieces in the OT about the Messiah's life which are fufilled in Jesus.
No, there are 0 that jesus filled. Sorry.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html

As for the temple issue,
It's supposed to be the literal temple, and not a figurative one. Sorry.

Apologetics are crap. Don't post links to them.

He did say "something that trancends this universe". That can be said not to need a creator. However since the universe cannot trancend itself, it does need one
That's just mere assertion.

So, why does the creator not need a creator?

the relevance is about what kind of messiah were the jews expecting. a military one or something else...
Since you claim the OT is about jesus, and since 4Q521 is not in the OT, I'm trying my best to ascertain how the OT is about jesus when clearly it isn't.

Oh I'm glad that us "scientific" people only have to worry about simple things, like string theory...
:rolleyes:

Does beauty exist? Does truth exist?
Yes, they both exist as concepts.

Actually, energy can't be created or destroyed; it can fluctuate. Energy isn't always consistant, but it always exists. It can be changed, so, therefore, there was always something that existed. Which means, even if God does exist, He couldn't have created the world or done anything of that sort, as energy cannot be created.

That is not entirely accurate. Energy can be converted to matter, and vice versa. Our current understanding of the universe tells us that the total of all the energy and matter in the universe does not change. But since our understanding of the universe is so very limited, I am not entirely sure we can even trust that belief.

If you believe God had to have a creator, then if you ever get to see him, you can ask him. No one on earth will be able to answer that question to your satisfaction, no matter what they say or what evidence they provide. Arguing an issue like that is really just an exercise in futility, as neither side really wants to hear the answer the other side has to offer.

Well, can you explain why I find something beautiful or true, as opposed to why you do?
No, but you can.

:rolleyes:
Look at it!
Would you rather sit there and debate whether to use the coefficient of e^256i or e^256j in the formula, or whether scroll XY in section Q1234 meant A or B?
They both seem complicated, but I think I'd rather discuss something where you can come to an answer without offending everyone else for a milennium to come.

Well, can you explain why I find something beautiful or true, as opposed to why you do?
Standards of beauty, at least as far as we know, are universal among humans: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/ekanayake.html