shimmyjimmy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:36 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  Miss Meng cannot contain her excitement. Oh, oh, a wonderful few questions. May I?

Is there a God? Yes.
Is there an afterlife? Yes.

Very simple!

~ Miss Meng

Facepalm

That beautiful woman in your signature shouldn't be associated with you. Please leave so that my preference towards Asain women does not cede to untrue association that they are as uneducated and ignorant as you.

~ Atothetheist

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
11-03-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:43 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:37 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because there's no evidence to support your claim that "something" "had" to have created all the energy in the universe.
Even if "something" did it brings up the question "what created that".

The simple truth is that we don't know where everything came from.
That's your answer "we don't know".

You're trying to force a puzzle piece into another puzzle piece when it clearly just doesn't fit. Accept that the puzzle piece that does fit is lost, for now but also potentially forever. Just stop trying to force the wrong puzzle piece into the puzzle.

It's an assumption based on an appeal to causation.

And that's the issue because that's a wrong assumption.
Cause and effect applies to every day stuff. I push you, you fall over.
What we're talking about is quantum stuff and start of the known universe stuff.
The smaller you get the less things play by the rules.

edit: What Mathilda said.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
11-03-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:50 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:33 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  How so?

If quantum mechanics has taught us anything then it is that the common sense learned from personal experience does not necessarily correspond to what happens at the quantum level or that it can be used to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

But can't that then be argued for just about any explanation of the fundamental nature of reality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  What we're talking about is quantum stuff and start of the known universe stuff.
The smaller you get the less things play by the rules.

That's convenient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:57 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:36 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  Miss Meng cannot contain her excitement. Oh, oh, a wonderful few questions. May I?

Is there a God? Yes.
Is there an afterlife? Yes.

Very simple!

~ Miss Meng

Facepalm

That beautiful woman in your signature shouldn't be associated with you. Please leave so that my preference towards Asain women does not cede to untrue association that they are as uneducated and ignorant as you.

~ Atothetheist

Quite yer bitching.
That image isn't remotely attractive enough to warrant any sort of flustering on your behalf Steven.

Then again, this troll isn't even remotely fun enough to warrant a feeling of entertainment...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:58 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  What we're talking about is quantum stuff and start of the known universe stuff.
The smaller you get the less things play by the rules.

That's convenient.

It's actually expected.

Speaking of causation: Instresting as it is, we have never observed ANYTHING being caused INTO EXISTENCE. But how is this? Surely we must have witness it? I mean, something must have caused the internet enabled device I am using to type this out? Well, in actuality, it's irrelevant.

While the iPad I write this on indeed had a cause, it was by no means 'created,' or at least not in the sense we are talking about in terms of the 'creation' of the universe.

The materials that created this iPad were already in existence, they were just merely converted into this handy dandy machine. In fact, this is true for everything in the world that has been observed to have been 'created.'

So when people say that everything has cause, it's not true, because we have never witnessed something cause something to form from nothing.

Meaning that the statement 'The universe had to have a cause.' is not only flawed in the fact that it's an assumption, but it isn't even a warranted assumption since we haven't witnessed anything being created by something else (created here is used in the same meaning as in god created the universe).

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Atothetheist's post
11-03-2014, 07:09 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:36 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  Is there a God? Yes.

Which god is the one that exists?

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 07:11 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 07:08 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:58 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  That's convenient.

It's actually expected.

Speaking of causation: Instresting as it is, we have never observed ANYTHING being caused INTO EXISTENCE. But how is this? Surely we must have witness it? I mean, something must have caused the internet enabled device I am using to type this out? Well, in actuality, it's irrelevant.

While the iPad I write this on indeed had a cause, it was by no means 'created,' or at least not in the sense we are talking about in terms of the 'creation' of the universe.

The materials that created this iPad were already in existence, they were just merely converted into this handy dandy machine. In fact, this is true for everything in the world that has been observed to have been 'created.'

So when people say that everything has cause, it's not true, because we have never witnessed something cause something to form from nothing.

Meaning that the statement 'The universe had to have a cause.' is not only flawed in the fact that it's an assumption, but it isn't even a warranted assumption since we haven't witnessed anything being created by something else (created here is used in the same meaning as in god created the universe).

There's a distinction between energy/material being created, and energy/material being manipulated.

Where then did this energy/material derive from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 06:58 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 06:57 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  What we're talking about is quantum stuff and start of the known universe stuff.
The smaller you get the less things play by the rules.

That's convenient.

We can test many things in science. We can test the speed of light, we can test Einsteins theory of relativity etc... we can prove and show all these things.
Eventually we will be able to create life from non-life etc.. and we can prove and show these strange things that occur at the quantum level. We can learn about blackholes, gravity etc.. because they exist this very day.

The big bang happened a while ago, it happened once and it was over in the blink of an eye. We can prove certain things, such as it actually happened but obviously due to the nature of the event we known very little in the ways of why the fuck it happened.

The key point, and what I'm trying to get across, is that scientists acknowledge this, that we simple don't know. What you're doing is taking 9th grade science of cause and effect and applying it to a one off unique extremely complex significant event that happened before even Chas was born and saying "this is correct", which is wrong.
We simply don't know enough to say "yes, cause and effect applies here", especially when we can see at the quantum level that cause and effect does not always apply.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 07:16 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 07:11 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 07:08 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  It's actually expected.

Speaking of causation: Instresting as it is, we have never observed ANYTHING being caused INTO EXISTENCE. But how is this? Surely we must have witness it? I mean, something must have caused the internet enabled device I am using to type this out? Well, in actuality, it's irrelevant.

While the iPad I write this on indeed had a cause, it was by no means 'created,' or at least not in the sense we are talking about in terms of the 'creation' of the universe.

The materials that created this iPad were already in existence, they were just merely converted into this handy dandy machine. In fact, this is true for everything in the world that has been observed to have been 'created.'

So when people say that everything has cause, it's not true, because we have never witnessed something cause something to form from nothing.

Meaning that the statement 'The universe had to have a cause.' is not only flawed in the fact that it's an assumption, but it isn't even a warranted assumption since we haven't witnessed anything being created by something else (created here is used in the same meaning as in god created the universe).

There's a distinction between energy/material being created, and energy/material being manipulated.

Where then did this energy/material derive from?

Indeed, and I think that it should be noted that simply because a cause is needed to manipulate energy/material, we can't assume it works the same way with energy/material CREATION.

There is this wonderful little theory, I think you might like it.

I'm not sure if you heard of it, but I think the title will attract you enough to read it.

Bang!

Now, in case that didn't help you, let me answer it in a more clearer way.

I don't know where it all came from, but you shouldn't assume a god did it.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: