|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 16, 2010 0:03:30 GMT
To little electromagnetic force between protons and electrons and atoms wouldn't be able to form. Too much and they'd be too unstable. Technically, electrons and protons would still have canceled each other out in charge and (non radioactive and/or isotopic) atoms would have still been stable.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 16, 2010 1:54:10 GMT
Lemme just say I've only read to page 4 ;) I am very surprised with you Qwerty. I would have thought you would be the one to say this. Maybe i didn't read your posts correctly or maybe your beleifs (which i haven't gotten the chance to read much into sadly) state something otherwise, but technically there was nothing before the big bang. If i remember correctly, wasn't there supposedly no time before the before the big bang (as there were no dimensions) ergo nothing before it. Therefore there wasn't something here forever ago, because there was no forever ago. I hope that i'm not terribly mistaken, as i'm just going off memory here. You are correct in that you read my post wrong. According to string theory, there was plenty before the Big Bang.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 16, 2010 1:56:14 GMT
Micro Farad, the thing i hate most about this god thing is that nobody ever asks, "Was it God that trapped him under the ice in the first place?" Well obviously that was the working of Satan trying to crush his spirit :PSomeone been reading Dante?
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 16, 2010 12:41:43 GMT
@kuraik
That's something I was wondering.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 16, 2010 21:31:41 GMT
i totally wasn't being sarcastic
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Nov 17, 2010 0:39:01 GMT
This debate isn't serious anymore.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 17, 2010 3:12:35 GMT
Yeah, we all could use sandmaster's slightly aggressive tactics at times... However, it's fair to say that I will NOT overexplain my rather simple points and repeat the exact same thing over and over again. It's no fun if people don't understand... It's better than passively ignoring every point the opposition makes. Also, how the hell do you think you can get away with saying that your triple-integral-which-is-apparently-a-quadruple-integral is proving a point if nobody at all understands it? You should correctly explain else your point is regarded as absurd and ignored.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 17, 2010 21:44:52 GMT
I think my fallacy of proof by verbosity is no more fallacious than scientists idea of, "If we say it, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched, it's right. If you disagree, you are wrong. If you agree, you are right. Everything opposing us in unquestionably wrong because we say it is. So God is wrong, since we never said it was right.". It's some bizzare fallacy that people use to say that if their opponent disagrees or uses certain things in the argument, they must be wrong. It is called, "Proof by bias". It is commonly used by either megalomaniacal , defiant, people, or people who refuse to confront the idea of control and accountability.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 0:08:42 GMT
The difference is, Scientists spend years gathering evidence for things they say, and they are perfectly accepting of other theories ONLY when there is evidence to support them. They aren't people that stand in ivory towers and say "What we say goes and screw you if you disagree" just because they don't want to be held accountable. It's not "Because we say it is", it's "Because these replicable results from this test with this particle accelerator say it is". It's not "You can't defy us", it's "If you defy us you must bring at least as much evidence as we do if not more". It's not "We can't handle the idea of God because we are megalomaniacal and hate the idea of being held accountable", it's "We don't believe the idea of God because it makes absolutely no sense from a scientific standpoint".
The ultimate problem of this debate is that we have different warrants. Yours is that God exists until we prove you wrong, and ours is God does not exist until you prove us wrong. Even if Earth really is 6000 years old, and the Big Bang never happened, and Evolution is a fairy tale, that still provides no evidence FOR God, only counterarguments against evidence against Him.
The laws of logic dictate that in a situation where something may or may not exist it is assumed to not exist until there is evidence for it. On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being God existing, the argument is at about a -5, from a conservative standpoint. -10 is "No way God exists", and it isn't there due to counterarguments from theists. However, those counterarguments are just that, and can only possibly get the scale as far as 0, which is, by the way, the same rank as "Aliens have tentacles": Nothing for it, nothing against it. There is no way to get past 0 on faith alone, and if you don't admit that religion is based on faith then you are missing the point entirely.
Being any lower than a 0 on this scale means it almost definitely doesn't exist, even at a -1. Being at a -5, at a conservative estimate, means that this debate is pointless. Even things at 2 or 3 can be called hoaxes. Things aren't really considered fact until about 5 or 6.
Take the duck-billed platypus. Before it was discovered, it was at a 0 on the scale. There was no evidence for or against it. When it was discovered, it moved to maybe a 2 or 3, cause counterarguments pushed it back. However, there was still no evidence actually AGAINST it. When the existence was confirmed, it went right up to a 10, because today we all know platypuses exist.
My point is that when following the laws of logic and not assuming something is there without being prompted to do so by evidence (imagine someone saying the platypus existed before they had been discovered), God is less believable than the deep-sea Nonjafish. Yes, that fish does not exist, but there are many creatures we have not discovered in the deep sea so far and there is no evidence against them.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 18, 2010 1:46:28 GMT
Actually, you could just personally rename any of the existing fish a "Nonjafish" and ergo have the Nonjafish (which would then be a name you assigned to a fish that actually exists at a 10) exist at a 10. The fact that a fish has been given a different name by someone does not make that fish cease to exist. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... With fuzzy logic (a continuum between 0 and 1, unlike Boolean algebra's discrete "perfectly false 0" and "perfectly true 1") used to rank existence... - 0 would be "General Veers would troll the forums worse than Artik, BladeofListo, Dhoom, and Nmagane could combined AND reveal all his identification."
- 0.00000001 would be "The forum user General Veers is actually Natasha Bedingfield (from your point of view, while my point of view would either be 0 or 1)."
- 0.04926 would be "Nonjalia imperius is a fish that exists in our universe."
- 0.25 would be "The time as represented with a 24 hour clock is between 0:00 and 6:00 by the time you read this statement when the clock is in the same reference frame as you."
- 0.5 would be "Schroedinger's cat is alive," xor "Schroedinger's cat is dead."
- 0.501 would be "Cogito, ergo sum."
- 0.60877 would be "Wikipedia is reliable as a source of accurate information."
- 0.9903 would be "The user with the username V.I.R.O.S. is indeed a human, not an artificial intelligence."
- 1 would be "Rebel scum are scum!"
Also, you should probably see this joke about society's views of the burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 1:55:41 GMT
The difference is, 0.25 is actually statistically the same. It has evidence to say that there is a chance it could be between 0 and 6. 0.499 is suggesting there is a 50% chance God exists, which as I just explained is quite incorrect. 0 does not represent a 50% chance, scientifically speaking. Otherwise there would be a 50% chance unicorns xor faeries exist.
Besides, we all know Shroedinger's cat got bored and walked away.
Oh, and that image is horrifically inaccurate. It suggests that more people believe in ghosts, aliens, and Santa Claus than Global Warming. It also suggests more people believe in the Lock Ness Monster than believe people can be born gay. That graph would be better if flipped upside-down, but still pretty inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 18, 2010 1:58:26 GMT
Alright, but I still go by what I have at 0 and 1...
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 18, 2010 2:59:47 GMT
Proof is requested by that who states a claim. Kuri cannot say that unless we prove him wrong, God exists, and QtP can't say unless Kuri proves him wrong, do doesn't exist.
I did not claim that God doesn't exist because I only stated counterevidence to Kuri's post. I am no longer asserting the existence of God in debates like this because it's irrational to try to show people how 'right' I am, and to be honest, when the person is moderate or an agnostic believer, it's pretty demeaning. On the other hand, it applies the same way to Kuri. If you are going to try to disprove science itself, a system based entirely on having logical conclusions based on solid evidence collected over the past two millenia, which is constantly evolving is contradictory (REPEATABLY DETERMINED) evidence is shown, and so far has done thousands of things which you would never even dream of being able to do in, for example, the Dark Ages.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 5:31:23 GMT
I'm not saying that unless Kurai proves me wrong, God doesn't exist. I'm saying he isn't proving me wrong. From a neutral standpoint, there are two conditions on anything: "Evidence it exists", or "No evidence it exists". There is also "Evidence it does not exist". You can counterargument all the "Evidence it does not exist" that you want, but without "Evidence it exists" you won't get anywhere. Generally speaking, if something is at "No evidence it exists", people don't believe in it, eg, fairies and a fish that knows how to speak English.
My point is not that unless Kurai proves me wrong, God doesn't exist. My point is that even if he proves me completely wrong and somehow shows all of science is a sham, God is still about as likely to exist as invisible unicorns from Mars.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 20, 2010 2:41:31 GMT
Well, I'd have to say, I for one refuse to take part in this further. Veers last post on the 8th page shows about how serious this is. Until absolutely definitive proof is give to say God doesn't and can't exist, don't ask for me to give FURTHER proof. If you ask for anything further without satisfying that condition, then you are guilty of using the "Demanding negative proof" fallacy. I mean sure, I could wait 4 days, get a 10 integral integral equation to define all possibility in kotidic form, but is it really a good use of my time? I think Shadow has, however, given significantly good arguments here, and a rather respectable one in the Gay thread, so I'll reward his logic with +1 karma. Me? I'm done unless you can prove definitively, with an indisputable argument (which makes Riemann's look easy...), I provide no further proofs.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 20, 2010 3:13:16 GMT
So you're pretty much asking him to give evidence while excusing yourself from doing the same? It sounds to me like you're getting a bit trollish with that one.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 20, 2010 5:26:22 GMT
Okay. Don't post here again.
Well, since your proof was so logically fallacious, you have no more evidence. What other atrocious-yet-meaningless equation do you have to present now?
Okay, I searched 'kotid' and 'kotidic' and it returned no result. You're a troll and a bad one at that.
Respectable? Citation needed.
I'm sorry, but didn't you accuse us of this?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 20, 2010 21:26:04 GMT
That's it, I'm also done with this debate until people start using actual evidence instead of making it up on the spot just to sound smart.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 21, 2010 0:15:11 GMT
Okay. Don't post here again. Well, since your proof was so logically fallacious, you have no more evidence. What other atrocious-yet-meaningless equation do you have to present now? Okay, I searched 'kotid' and 'kotidic' and it returned no result. You're a troll and a bad one at that. Respectable? Citation needed. I'm sorry, but didn't you accuse us of this? My final post is this: 1. After this, I won't. 2. I find it hilarious that someone so quick to exert ad hominem stance and Poison the well is not horrifically fit to judge what is or is not fallacious. 3. I'd explain, but I neither have the time nor confidence it would sink in. 4. You attacking him because he has a different opinion is like the US wanting to shoot all the Arabs in the face on possibility of them being terrorists. Or does your own logic not suit you, Sir Non Sequitor? 5. According to me, you provide no proofs that are suitable. According to you, I provide none that are suitable. Quite a nice stalemate, is it not? Bottom line: This is an unwinnable discussion on either side. Both sides are equally sticking to their opinions. Opinions, you see, are fallible, because they are made by those of limited perspective. In addition, we also cannot state that any given opinion is truth as we know it. Truth is definition; we cannot mold or shift it. It is not tangible on our own means. Whatever is not truth must be false, as what is not definition and creation must be machination and fabrication. Our opinions, simply put, are lies, since none of us, not me, not anyone, can fully understand every part of everything and everything that everything can be and every of it's parts. What I say is truth is, in broadest sense, a lie. Same for yours. Mine is no more false, yet no less false, than any other limited being's opinion. No falsity has ANY truth, no truth ANY falsity. The laws of truth, nature, and logic are things we CANNOT shift, things we CANNOT define, and things we CANNOT fully understand. Since we cannot know all, and all all could be, and we continue to form fallible opinion based off of fabricated and machinated constructs of our limited perspective, none of us, I repeat, NONE OF US, can say what we say is truth, no matter what evidence we give, for even THAT is the fabricated and machinated construct of some fallible being's limited perspective. Since no side can possibly win, and never can, I officially say this thread is simply a waste of time for all involved past this point, as futile as a game of chess with just the two kings.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 0:21:11 GMT
I don't understand how he was attacking you personally by saying your equations prove nothing.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 21, 2010 0:24:06 GMT
It doesn't really matter does it? I referred to his abrasive tone and cursing towards me. Nonetheless:
LOGIC HAS LOCKED THIS UNWINNABLE THREAD. (Like it really needed to... this thread has not had a point in quite a while.)
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 1:41:45 GMT
Adhominem means he was attacking you or your reputation, as does poisoning the well. Arethose the only fallacies you know because you've been using them incorrectly for a while now.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 21, 2010 1:46:24 GMT
I love your red herring style, but not how you present it.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 2:04:29 GMT
This isn't a red herring, I'm just saying you seem to spend far to much time pointing out others fallacies even though you are often wrong. In fact, you yourself would be using ad hominem when you bring up SMs swearing and crudeness would you not?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Nov 21, 2010 2:15:04 GMT
Indubitably. Nice chatting.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Nov 21, 2010 2:20:02 GMT
ಠ_ಠ
That's an ad hominem attack on its own, and not a very good one. My colorful commentary has nothing to do with the argument I have made.
Refusal to debate points you made. Refusal to clarify points when you failed to define them correctly in the first place. Despite the universal misunderstanding of your claim.
Wait, what? Something about non sequitors and then apparently I'm Islamophobic.
Yeah, except that I provided no proofs of my own. I just shot down yours.
I can agree that this argument is worthless and unproductive, but you could just say "Bottom line: Because the concept of a God is relative to the viewer's opinions and perspectives, it is useless to try to argue for an objective truth about his existence or lack thereof." Which is what I'm kind of doing by not putting in my own doctrines about the existence of god.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 21, 2010 2:50:01 GMT
tl;dr: We have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Dec 2, 2010 22:27:46 GMT
ಠ_ಠ That's an ad hominem attack on its own, and not a very good one. My colorful commentary has nothing to do with the argument I have made. Refusal to debate points you made. Refusal to clarify points when you failed to define them correctly in the first place. Despite the universal misunderstanding of your claim. Wait, what? Something about non sequitors and then apparently I'm Islamophobic. Yeah, except that I provided no proofs of my own. I just shot down yours. I can agree that this argument is worthless and unproductive, but you could just say "Bottom line: Because the concept of a God is relative to the viewer's opinions and perspectives, it is useless to try to argue for an objective truth about his existence or lack thereof." Which is what I'm kind of doing by not putting in my own doctrines about the existence of god. Islamophobic? First off, hating some group does not warrant adding phobic to the end. Phobic indicates a FEAR. Exactly why homophobic is a bizzare term. Now, try giving logic, not evading it.
|
|
|
Post by sandmaster on Dec 4, 2010 1:47:07 GMT
The common term is Islamophobic. That's what many people, experts on the topic and otherwise, have called the US' reaction towards Islam in a post-9/11 world.
|
|
|
Post by tortureking on Dec 23, 2010 8:27:51 GMT
I believe that a god-being exists in the form of the recorded and unrecorded forces. The Thermo-Nuclear, the Gravitational, the Electro-Magnetic, the Inert... If we exist on this planet, in this galaxy right now; then it is plausable to assume that we could have existed or ceased to exist at any time. What if this is the 56th Earth to exist? Would you be suprised? I wouldn't.
Hell, the majority of the Universe is in constant creation/destruction cycles; while our own comparitively tiny marble somehow managed to beat the odds at least up until you've read this sentence. That is a huge lucky break that even an inifinite Universe could not completely ensure, this is where forces come in. If there's a breakout of some supermutating virus: Darwinistic immunity saves the day. Solarflare trying to fry our ecosystems? Magnetic field. Comet the size of Texas coming within binocular range in 2029? The combined gravitational pull of Jupiter, Saturn, and the same sun that just tried to kill us in the last example. And we wonder what happened to Mars...
So yes, I have no proof; but I do have thousands of closecalls and no reasonable scientific explanation as to why the Universe seems to coddle our blue world while killing everthing else.
|
|
|