Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
5 registered members (Quad, TipmyPip, degenerate_762, AndrewAMD, Nymphodora), 997 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 41 of 54 1 2 39 40 41 42 43 53 54
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69171
05/30/06 15:45
05/30/06 15:45
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
Quote:

I fail to see how any of what I've said relating to science is superstition. According to the definition, you believe a lot of superstition yourself.




We had this already. Superstitions are based on beliefs in supernatural forces:

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

According to the common definition, creationism is a theory based on superstition (= actions by supernatural forces), but science isn't.

Not all bible-based belief is superstition. For instance, the Ptolemean world view - the assumption that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe - is scientificially wrong, but not a superstition.

Quote:

When we see common aspects of DNA, we literally only know for sure that there is DNA in common. Every other conclusion except that DNA is similar is merely speculation.




It's a lot more than speculation, but I accept that it's not a direct observation. Let's call it just "evidence".

Quote:

I thought infinite time couldn't exist because it caused all sorts of paradoxes. Or am I wrong?




There are no paradoxes with infinite time, but I was referring to an universe of infinite size, not infinite time.

Quote:

My theory would predict that, even if there are certain calculations that might lead to an old earth, there will be some that lead to a young earth. In fact, it won't be compeletely certain. Salinity of the ocean, reef growth, etc all give a maximum young(er) age. Oh yeah! And the moon is escaping, giving a young age even for our solar system.




Hmm. In this very thread, some weeks ago, you have made fun of Ran Man who used those very arguments for a young earth. Why are you now posting the same low-level stuff?

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: jcl] #69172
05/30/06 18:12
05/30/06 18:12
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

We had this already. Superstitions are based on beliefs in supernatural forces:




Evolutionists love to redefine things. Superstition is a belief (in this case) that is maintained despite the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

You have a superstitious belief in impossible chance. I have a non-superstitious belief in a creator. What I believe about that creator could be said to be superstitious, but the creator exists nonetheless.

I'm not going to do as good a job as someone else in explaining why, because I'm too lazy. But here's a link which also touches on why infinite time cannot be used in regards to the universe.

http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/doesGodexist/index.html

Quote:

For instance, the Ptolemean world view - the assumption that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe - is scientificially wrong, but not a superstition.




If anyone believed this today, they would be superstitious. This goes against the laws of nature.

Quote:

It's a lot more than speculation, but I accept that it's not a direct observation. Let's call it just "evidence".




Evidence of what? Its evidence that we were designed by the same designer, just as much as its evidence that we have a common ancestor. And if its evidence for both, then its evidence for neither.

Quote:

but I was referring to an universe of infinite size, not infinite time.





No paradoxes with infinite time? I have to disagree. But they kind of touch on it in that link I gave you. Maybe you'll have a rebuttle.

However, if the universe is infinite in size then your big bang has a problem. How could the universe go from the size of a period, to infinity in ANY amount of time. Unless time is infinite too, which creates more problems than it solves.

Quote:

Hmm. In this very thread, some weeks ago, you have made fun of Ran Man who used those very arguments for a young earth. Why are you now posting the same low-level stuff?




I made fun of ran man? I have to see this. I think there's a difference between giving someone a hard time, and making fun of them. But perhaps I also mistook his point, because I don't remember him using these as arguments for a young earth. The only similar event I remember is him trying to use the specific conditions of earth and all of that to prove that we were created.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69173
05/30/06 22:53
05/30/06 22:53
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

Evolutionists love to redefine things. Superstition is a belief (in this case) that is maintained despite the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.




This is the first time I've heard this definition of superstition. However it's really not that different from JCL's quoted definition.

Quote:

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Most of us have no problem accepting this principle. We assume its truth in virtually every aspect in our daily lives. Our experience always confirms it and never denies it. But surprisingly philosophers have been unable to prove its veracity.

Nevertheless, it has always been a fundamental first principle of philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes", "being cannot come from non-being". Even the great sceptic David Hume, who argued that we could not prove the causal principle through ordinary means, still believed it to be true and thought a denial of it was absurd, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."2

Surely it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing.




It's not really that surprising ... 'cause' is something semi-artificial, a bit like 'time' is.

Anyways, this is where the fun starts, because creationism seems to me pretty much like 'things popping out of nowhere'. It seems more likely to me that something comes from something else, be it smaller things, larger things or whatever. Creation itself implies making something. Creator or no creator, I think most of us here will agree that from nothing comes nothing, and most of the theories about the origin of life do not claim the opposite of this. Creationism does however.

Because; how can a God create matter? Magic or some kind of powers? Energy? Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.

You don't know how a God would do it, even if it could, but he would nevertheless make something from nothing? Sounds pretty unlikely to me, since nothing we know of in this world is created or 'came into existance' from nothing. And you are talking about our socalled 'assumptions'...?!

When we know enough about the building blocks used in the process of how life came to existance, then we come closer to where life's origin lies.

Edit and slightly off topic: That site jumps to some weird conclusions or am I wrong here?;

Quote:

Suppose you withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found a way to get them home! Suppose you withdrew the books numbered 4,5,6...and so on. Now how many books are left? THREE! Something surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books and we're left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an infinite number and we're left with three - a clear logical contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the hypothesis must be false - a library with an actual infinite number of books cannot exist.




The author isn't talking about infinity anymore the moment he sticks a number on those books and substracts. In this mathematical example he extracts the infinity part; "4,5,6...and so on", so it's no wonder it's not infinite anymore. What contradiction is he talking about then?

(Besides that, it's not unimaginable that there could still be an infinite amount of numbers before number 4.)

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 05/30/06 23:14.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69174
05/31/06 07:33
05/31/06 07:33
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Quote:

Because; how can a God create matter? Magic or some kind of powers? Energy? Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.




You see, thats why your trying to figure it out by human standards.

Its also impossible to walk on water, and calm a storm by speaking to it. God is almighty. We cant even try to grasp it.

People always say demons and magic and stuff either doesnt exist, or involves crazy people. Wait untill you have a 1st hand encounter mr phemox.

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69175
05/31/06 09:16
05/31/06 09:16
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
The Michael Horner website is indeed interesting - and sort of funny. This person seems to be not unintelligent, but he apparently never looked into any mathematics or physics book that was written later than the 15th century.

His "god proof" was from Thomas Aquinas. His "thermodynamics proof" just proves that he has no clue about thermodynamics. And his green book "proof" of the impossibility of infinity was already made fun of by Galileo Galilei in his fictional dialogue with the dimwit "Simplicio", in the 16th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_paradox

As to the question about the Big Bang and the infinity of the universe:

Some people seem to assume that "Big Bang" means the universe sort of exploded from a point. However, nowhere in the Big Bang model you'll find any assumption about the initial size or previous history of the universe. Nowhere does the theory claim that time and space began with the Big Bang. It's quite likely that the universe was already infinite at that time. The Big Bang affected only the density and temperature of the universe, but not necessarily its size. If you multiply infinity with any expansion factor, you'll still get - infinity.

Re: evolution vs creation [Re: capanno] #69176
05/31/06 12:36
05/31/06 12:36
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

Its also impossible to walk on water, and calm a storm by speaking to it. God is almighty. We cant even try to grasp it.




We don't need to grasp any of those things when there's no shred of evidence such things actually happened at all. So why not look at it in a more realistic way? Seeing is believing.

Quote:

People always say demons and magic and stuff either doesnt exist, or involves crazy people. Wait untill you have a 1st hand encounter mr phemox.




I don't think that would convince me either, I don't believe in exorcism either. Yes, witnessing that might not be fully 1st hand, but I do think it involves crazy or 'psychologically unstable' people who are mistakenly thought to be possesed by demons. Having said that, I don't think I will ever be possessed by demons, so I'm not going to wait for that. Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69177
05/31/06 22:37
05/31/06 22:37
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Hm, JCL I think you sidestepped the point that Horner made. In fact, you basically stated half of what he did. But I don't have time to respond now. I will later.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69178
06/01/06 00:43
06/01/06 00:43
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Ok, this one should be easier to manage now.

Quote:

This is the first time I've heard this definition of superstition. However it's really not that different from JCL's quoted definition.




There is an important distinction, but its going to be harder for a materialist to see (no offense, everyone has a bias ). By its definition, the belief in a creator is not superstitious. In fact, its the opposite of. It would be superstitious to believe that matter can create itself, because this goes against the laws of nature.

Quote:

It's not really that surprising ... 'cause' is something semi-artificial, a bit like 'time' is.




This is the sort of confusion that secular humanism/materialism allows. Time exists, I can assure you. If not, then I'll just jump back to a few days ago when I lost my wallet and stop myself from losing it.

Except I never would have been able to lose it in the first place.

The quote you're referring to admits that they can't prove 'cause.' However, that doesn't really mean anything to a rational person, which is the sort of logic I've seen you use time and again. For instance, I can't really prove gravity, but I can prove its effects. Our experience always confirms it, just like Horner said.

In fact, to say that something can exist without cause is completely irrational. Unless you can point me to an example of something on the scale of our universe existing without cause? Even a fraction of the scale?

Quote:

Anyways, this is where the fun starts, because creationism seems to me pretty much like 'things popping out of nowhere'.




So cause can't be proved, but since creationism (according to you) doesn't have a cause, you say its ridiculous. This just proves my point.

Furthermore, this statement says more about you than creationism. You've rejected God so thoroughly that you can't even consider him within the safety of rhetoric. God is the cause. Things in our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere, that would be atheistic creation.

Quote:

It seems more likely to me that something comes from something else, be it smaller things, larger things or whatever.




Yup, everything has a cause.

Quote:

Creationism does [postulate that things come from nowhere] however.




No it does not.

Quote:

Because; how can a God create matter?




You've got a bigger problem than me here. How can NOTHING create matter?

Quote:

Magic or some kind of powers? Energy?




I admit that I don't know how God did it. That would make me a god in some ways, because my knowledge would be supernatural.

These are all physical constructs. I imagine God's power lies in something completely indescribable by any language we could invent in the physical universe. Nor could it be comprehended. We can't comprehend His power, but we can comprehend the effect of His power.

Quote:

Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.




That's a strawman, since no one seriously thinks that God used physical means to create the universe in which physical means exist.

Quote:

Sounds pretty unlikely to me, since nothing we know of in this world is created or 'came into existance' from nothing. And you are talking about our socalled 'assumptions'...?!




Ok, and your solution to this 'problem' is that instead of an all-powerful God, the all-powerful Nothing created matter. Sounds likely.

Quote:

When we know enough about the building blocks used in the process of how life came to existance, then we come closer to where life's origin lies.




No. If you've been keeping tabs on origin of life research you'll notice they aren't trying to figure out the physical properties of matter, they're trying to find a certain combination of matter that could act as a bridge between non-living matter and living matter.

Quote:

The author isn't talking about infinity anymore the moment he sticks a number on those books and substracts.




Yeah, that's kind of the point. But I won't get into that just yet.

Quote:

(Besides that, it's not unimaginable that there could still be an infinite amount of numbers before number 4.)




Ok, then imagine that he subtracted all books labelled 4 or more, and then subtracted all books labelled 0 or less.

Quote:

And his green book "proof" of the impossibility of infinity was already made fun of by Galileo Galilei in his fictional dialogue with the dimwit "Simplicio", in the 16th century.




I would agree if it was even referring to the same thing, but you missed one of the points horner made. In mathematics, it works. In reality, it does not. I can't be applied to the physical realm.

His point was to say that infinity works in math, just like Galileo pointed out. However, in reality, it fails miserably.

Quote:

Some people seem to assume that "Big Bang" means the universe sort of exploded from a point.




If by 'assume' you mean, 'extrapolated it from various quotes by materialists' then yes. Its in textbooks.

Quote:


We don't need to grasp any of those things when there's no shred of evidence such things actually happened at all. So why not look at it in a more realistic way?




There's no 'evidence' of the big bang either, but I'm sure you don't find it that hard to believe. We know the universe is expanding (probably) and has a general pattern of background radiation. Beyond that you can insert anything you want, big bang, flying sphagetti monster, etc.

Quote:

Seeing is believing.




Quite. In that case you won't mind if I don't believe macro evolution or the big bang. But then you'll excuse me for believing in God. I can see the universe, I can see the laws that reveal its inability to create itself. Therefore, seeing is believing and I believe in God.

Quote:

Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.




Its funny watching the way atheists view the bible. Playing the 'devil's advocate' as you do in a sense here, you're admitting that you'll trade your soul because people will go as far as despising, persecuting, making fun of, and even killing you. Interesting.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69179
06/01/06 01:49
06/01/06 01:49
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

Quote:

Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.




Its funny watching the way atheists view the bible. Playing the 'devil's advocate' as you do in a sense here, you're admitting that you'll trade your soul because people will go as far as despising, persecuting, making fun of, and even killing you. Interesting.




I see what you mean, but I've meant it slightly different. Who is going to fall for a trap construction like that? It's basically stating that you better believe in it on one hand, but on the other hand it claims there's no way back and the world will become more hostile. It seems to me you've sold your soul instead my friend. Anyways, back on topic and I'm not going to sell my soul, since there is no buyer anyway.

Quote:

The quote you're referring to admits that they can't prove 'cause.' However, that doesn't really mean anything to a rational person, which is the sort of logic I've seen you use time and again. For instance, I can't really prove gravity, but I can prove its effects. Our experience always confirms it, just like Horner said.

In fact, to say that something can exist without cause is completely irrational. Unless you can point me to an example of something on the scale of our universe existing without cause? Even a fraction of the scale?




I have to admit that I've mixed up 'purpose' and 'cause' a bit earlier, however it doesn't really matter.
Cause in my opinion doesn't really exist at all, or can be many things.

For example push one of your keyboard's buttons. Let's assume you've pushed the button with number [1/!] Then what caused the button to be pushed and the number 1 to be displayed on screen? Was it your action of actually pressing the button or was it your mind causing you to take action? Or was it my text telling you to do so as an example? Well there you go, at least 3 possible and very true causes. One could even go further and state that the manufacturer cause the button to be made and thát made it possible in the first place to use that particular button, so infact the manufacturer caused the 1 to appear on screen. Yes, it's farfetched off course, however without the manufacturer making that button, there would be no button to push.
The reason why you won't find anything without a cause, is because a cause can be so much things. The reason I've mentioned 'time' is because 1 minute is time, 2 hours is time but millions of years is also time. Time is a natural but artificial indicator or factor in order for our minds to make sure events that happen make sense in a way. The same way that we need 'causes' in order for events to make even more sense.
Yes, actions require time in a way, however you can label those required moments with anything you want, we've just agreed upon the 'seconds, minutes, hours'(there's more to it) time system. You see, it's artificial. Having said that, this does not imply it's useless, same goes for 'cause'.

If God exists then he would have a cause, right? Nothing can exist without cause, you've stated yourself that no rational thinking person can state otherwise. Infact I would go even further, if God exists, then what caused or created God? You see, it doesn't make sense. Infinite amounts of creators, (who created the creator of God?) or another cause would be needed for a God to even possibly exist. I thought the Bible said there's only 1 God, so that would clearly leave that question unsatisfiedly open, or did your God came from nothing?

I believe the origin of everything lies in the fact that it came from something, not that it came from nothing. Infact there's no evidence we know off that something can come from nothing, so I definately don't believe in such a theory, however when you go far enough back in your theory, you do state that something came from nothing.

Quote:


Seeing is believing.



Quite. In that case you won't mind if I don't believe macro evolution or the big bang. But then you'll excuse me for believing in God. I can see the universe, I can see the laws that reveal its inability to create itself. Therefore, seeing is believing and I believe in God.




You may believe whatever you want, that's your right off course.
However you haven't literally seen God, so why do you believe in him anyways? We find all sorts of causes for events that have happened and none of any event you can possibly think off explicitely needs a God as cause.

We may very well be looking at the effects of explainable or not yet explainable causes, but where's the evidence that clears this gap so to speak and makes a God as cause 'needed' in the first place? Give me one example of an event that needs a God.

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/01/06 01:58.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: evolution vs creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69180
06/01/06 06:02
06/01/06 06:02
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
M
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert
Matt_Aufderheide  Offline
Expert
M

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Quote:

back on topic and I'm not going to sell my soul, since there is no buyer anyway.




I'll buy it... I need to fill some soul gems...


Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.
Page 41 of 54 1 2 39 40 41 42 43 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1