Debate Mansion

   

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 73)

Post Reply New Post

Page 73 of 149

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 07 October 2012 at 11:31pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Summer3

They say the ONE appears as many; perhaps individuality is like bubbles on the waters whose fate is to rejoin the rest sooner or later.
Whatever it is I do love variety and multiplicity, or else it could be boring.

That same philosophy could be applied to the physical. Basically we all are nothing but atoms. One thing in many forms. Why bring supernatural in it?

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 73)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1113

Posted: 07 October 2012 at 11:45pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Okay let's forget the razor. See it from a simply logical point. You say something can always exist. We observe that there is a Universe. We can apply the logic to it. And we have explanation for existence. Now you assume the existence of another being. You attach the property to that entity and have it create our world. But you have no data of this being. Now tell me what benefit does the second explanation offer? What more does the God bring in the explanation? Why prefer the second one?


Because it sounds astonishing (understatement by the way) that something like the universe can come about seemingly out of no where. Because it is dis-satisfactory to the mind to accept that something like the universe can come about seemingly out of no where.

May be it did, may be it didn't. We owe to ourselves to find out which is the truth between these two.

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 07 October 2012 at 11:52pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


Because it sounds astonishing (understatement by the way) that something like the universe can come about seemingly out of no where. Because it is dis-satisfactory to the mind to accept that something like the universe can come about seemingly out of no where.

May be it did, may be it didn't. We owe to ourselves to find out which is the truth between these two.

And a being that can create something like Universe came out of nowhere doesn't sound astonishing? In fact, if you find that notion astonishing, you should find this more astonishing because creator of an object is more complex than the creator.

Universe came out of nowhere, astonishing. Such a powerful being that can create Universe, which is more complex than Universe itself, came out of nowhere, logical? I am sorry, but I just can't absorb that. That doesn't sound a bit reasonable.


Edited by Freethinker112 - 07 October 2012 at 11:53pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Samraat_92

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1113

Posted: 08 October 2012 at 12:01am | IP Logged
I know what you are saying.

I am not sure if there is a satisfactory answer at all. So far, any possibility (God, spontaneous universe, multiple dimensions, multiverse, simulation etc) one could throw at me is proving to be dis-satisfactory.

I don't know how some people can be content with any one answer. You are content because you decided to go with the law of parsimony. I can't because it is extremely dis-satisfactory to me.

(Apologize for the overuse of the word dis-satisfactory but that is the only feeling I have in this context)

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 08 October 2012 at 12:14am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

I know what you are saying.

I am not sure if there is a satisfactory answer at all. So far, any possibility (God, spontaneous universe, multiple dimensions, multiverse, simulation etc) one could throw at me is proving to be dis-satisfactory.

I don't know how some people can be content with any one answer. You are content because you decided to go with the law of parsimony. I can't because it is extremely dis-satisfactory to me.

(Apologize for the overuse of the word dis-satisfactory but that is the only feeling I have in this context)

I think you still don't understand my take. As I said, this was me applying the logic of theists to them. I don't agree with either of them. There is not enough data. As I said, science doesn't bother to explain what was before t=0. I am myself dis-satisfied as you put it. I am also searching for the truth. I will happily take a God if that provided the answer, but my experience says it is a mere speculation to satisfy curiosity. Which disappoints me because it made people lazy when they could have been working to find "the answer". 

We will always run in the problem of backtracking creation. This came from that, that from that. At last some point will come when something has to come right? Or has that "something" always existed, because how can something come from nothing? And what exactly is nothing? We always create a duality concept. Nothing is absence of everything. Is that even possible? How can nothing exist without the idea of it existing which requires something to exist with the idea? That statement came out complex but please try to understand it. There will always be a mind, wouldn't there, with the idea? It all comes back to "mind", doesn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I am also interested in the "truth". I am just not gonna get too lenient on my journey, resorting to speculations because I could not find the answer. That hinders the journey more than anything IMHO. Smile

"Believe those who are seeking truth, doubt those who find it"

People shouting God as an answer to everything without bothering to understand have made it all too easy.

P.S. : I am definitely NOT content. I used to be so discontent that I was sucked into the world of conspiracy theories for some time. LOL Embarrassed But, I now form my beliefs with more discipline. Approve


Edited by Freethinker112 - 08 October 2012 at 12:20am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe.Samraat_92

Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26770

Posted: 08 October 2012 at 12:28am | IP Logged
People belive God has finished his work in six days...Ab ye 70+ pages hua still the Loop is running lolLOL

Edited by Prometeus - 08 October 2012 at 12:27am

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 08 October 2012 at 12:35am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


You make two contradictions.
First, people say that it is the soul that makes you "you" <<<<   I'm free to contradict or concur with people as I ain't representing their point of view. I'm looking at everything in a renewed way with my own perspective and vision and I'm open to garner my clues outta all branches of knowledge indiscriminately.

Well, that is the definition of soul which you are using too. It is the thing that makes you "you", you are not your body, yada yada.


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


Everything is done by brainThat means that brain is the "me", if it is the one doing everything.So, that implies that body is what makes me "me" not soul. <<<< Okay so let's assume the Brain is you = Your soulless body ..Then why can't you choose NEVER to DIE ? I know everyone wants to go to the heavens ..But None wants to die. So why can't your brain keep powering your diseased body perpetually?  Are you trying to suggest that Body needs no energy peculiar to it's mechanism which is pretty complex? Unlike those Battery powered Wall mart toys we buy ..The body has a MIND which can think ...  Does science believe in the existence of the Mind ? Or does it simply assumes that it exists on the basis of one's THOUGHTS  and choose to believe that the MIND created them? Sounds pretty crude and conceptual again .. Body and Soul together make you a YOU ...

Because I can't keep my body from dying. As we age, cells die off at greater rate than they are created. That's why we die. If we can reverse this process, we will live forever. No soul required. Science knows there is consciousness. But we don't know anything about it. And again, if body does everything and soul has no part in our life, how exactly is it a part of me?


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


Now that is a stupid system, isn't it? You are attaching punishments or rewards to the thing that didn't do anything. <<<<  Punishment ? Karma isn't the same as PUNISHMENT or a REWARD ..Its the RECORD / LOG of one's life encoded and embedded in the soul that guides it through it's further journey ...Now here we have to resort to the words written 1000s of years ago ..which describe the Soul    "  Nainam Chhindanti Shastrani, Nainam Dahati Pavakah, Na Chhainam Kledyantyapo,Na Shoshyati marutah"   <<< Its something that's immortal ..that can't be burnt by the fire, made wet by the water , Dried by the wind, pierced by the weapons ... Which in turn means an Energy ..This description was written / known even before the science defined the energy. 

Doesn't Karma theory states that you get what you give? Good begets good and bad begets bad? How is that not reward and punishment?

And typical religious apologist argument. When science discovers something, you come up with the vague verses and claim you knew it. If you knew it all, why not explain it to us before science? If it was written so long ago, why not give me a detailed description of soul and mechanism behind it? Because that is nothing but a imagination. And the verse fits any type of energy. So, now heat is soul? What about light? They are all energy. A rock held at some distance above ground has potential energy. So, it has a soul too?


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


Again, I just doesn't understand how you make so big claims and then say that you know nothing about it. Seems oxymoron to me.  <<<<   Science makes even bigger claims about the Big Bang that it only assumes to have happened ..It defines the beginning of the TIME ..The existence of something the science ain't sure about. but still measures it.  Science acknowledges existence of thoughts, The numbers ...like  ZERO = 0 <<< Which itself something that's equal to nothing LOL  So science  chooses to assume a few things and declines to accept other such things that can only be reckoned according to its own choice and convenience ..  They accept the existence of Gravity ..Something that's only conceptual and be felt but can't be seen .Much like the human who is ALIVE = Body that has a SOUL in it .. Which can be felt ..LOL What keeps your body functioning when your brain becomes unconscious? You are trying to say you are the power behind your existence..And you ll end yourself one day at your own choice and discretion ..WTH LOL Its the same as YOU Claiming to be Your OWN DAD LOL  <<<< 

 I don't have a proof of SOUL ? I have a proof ..It's YOU and ME ..you the BODY in co ordination with your brains that is typing here cause its powered adequately by the SOUL ..You are the proof of Soul's existence ..And you are declining to reckon yourself.. LOL 

Science makes claims when it has evidence pointing towards it. We have measured Big bang as t=0. The model considers it to be the first event. The concept like time didn't make sense due to existence of singularity. Some research is going on a model which didn't start as singularity. Only time will tell. (No pun intended. LOL)

Seriously, you are comparing Gravity to soul? We can measure the effects of gravity. Although we don't exactly understand the cause, we have a pretty good understanding considering we can make very precise estimations.

Consciousness can be felt, so we acknowledge it's existence. But when you claim that it is due to soul, you gotta back that statement up. No one is denying the existence of consciousness, but when you start making claims that you know how it works or the source behind it, you need some evidence.

Brains has two parts. Brain never shuts down, the involuntary muscles keep on doing their work. You will die if the brain shut down. I don't exactly remember because I read it in school's biology, but it was a part called Medulla Oblongata which controls functions like breathing and heart and digestion.

What do you mean by power behind existence? I was created by procreation, have consciousness whose source we don't know, and will die one day and my consciousness will cease to exist as my brain will shut down.

And how is any of this like me claiming to be my dad? LOL



Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


 I don't have a proof of SOUL ? I have a proof ..It's YOU and ME ..you the BODY in co ordination with your brains that is typing here cause its powered adequately by the SOUL ..You are the proof of Soul's existence ..And you are declining to reckon yourself.. LOL 

Yes, I have a brain. And no, that is no evidence of the soul. My brain is powered by oxygen which my lungs are absorbing from the air around me. And by nutrition which my digestive system provides, courtesy of the food I ate.


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


What about cloning? We make a new organism that is living. So does that mean we can create souls? Or the new being is alive without a soul? How do you explain it? Cloning is gonna make game tough for you lot, isn't itLOL   <<<<<  Hahaha ..So you are admitting here that by cloning you can create a moving object without needing any energy ? LOL Thereby contradicting the science that energy can't be created ..You are creator here ...LOL  Well what makes ya assume the SOUL can't enter a cloned body ?  How do we CREATE BABIES ? We carry out the rituals commonly known as the SEX thats required to make the babies ..A process that has existed even before you and I had existed let aside Cloning which is NEW.. 
LOL  ..You are not creating the SOUL ..you are creating an object that can have a soul in it ..LOL
 

So, creating a body automatically transfers a soul in it? How does it know that there is body? There's a vacancy list? www.serach-a-body.com? Again, more and more bold claims. But nothing to back up as usual, right?


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


And if it is energy, then it should be detectable.
 Show me some detection. And how exactly that energy gets transferred to poeple and out of them? And if it just gives matter life, why doesn't a rock becomes alive when the energy  
<<<<<<<   Energy can be FELT too LOL ..You are not detectable to my FIVE senses ...I can't smell ya right now , Touch , See or hear ya ..You exist because what you type here with the same ID exists ... LOL  I won't decline to accept your existence cause I can't see or hear you .. A rock can't move cause it doesn't have parts that ll help it to move ...As I said earlier on ..SOUL doesn't choose such objects to enter into..  Plastic can be molded into a TOY that can be powered and RUN by Electricity ..It can be Switched on and back ON ...What's powering you ? Where is your SWITCH  ? LOL You refuse to accept a concept but you are not ready to invalidate or prove that wrong. You yourself have stated that the UNKNOWN exists ..So let's name that Unknown .. GOD is not a magician as portrayed by a few ..Its sheer energy ..which endlessly keeps transforming in other energies .which after reaching a a stipulated level of Karma transforms back into it's original form ...The original energy ...The Process called as the MOKSHA ..LOL

That's your way of observation. Show me any way to observe soul? You claimed some pages back that it is in UV spectrum. What happened to that? That was BS, easily falsifiable. OK, rocks don't have part. Vehicle has parts to move, right? Get me a soul to move that. If soul is what powers matter, why can't it move a vehicle? I am powered by nutrition and oxygen and so are you. If the soul is powering you, let me take those things away and we will see how you hold up.

I cannot prove that there isn't a wine bottle orbiting Pluto, doesn't mean I will start believing it. As I have said before, it is pretty stupid to try to prove a negative. Energy is energy. And there is no "original" energy. There are various forms. 


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

Science is not a "thing" that it will exist. It's just a method that we use to study about things. So, yeah that method was always there and can be used by anyone, not necessarily humans. Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is still an open question. What science says that it has no edge, there is no boundary to the Universe. Why? Because current knowledge shows so. If you want, you can study the maths behind it.  <<<<  Ahahaha LOL  ..Cough Cough ! ..  Yeah NOT a THING =  NOTHING LOL  ...Science as in it's theories and laws always existed in a form of a method ? Then All the Claims of inventions were fake LOL And what are we waiting for ..The Method even to STOP us from dying must exist ..The TIME Machine too should exist ..I mean a method to build that ...So why not travel back in time and visit the big bang?  and exist even before that ? LOL We can't go on ridiculing other theories cause they are beyond the scope of science.. And then science chooses to rely upon Assumptions ..that the UNIVERSE is Infinite ...Current knowledge? Whats a current knowledge ? If all methods existed forever at the same time ? LOL .. What is the Math formula that established the fact that the UNIVERSE is infinite? 

Look I would continue to call that UNKNOWN as the GOD until such time when everyone including  YOU and me reckon it's existence..Yay! That's the name I have chosen for that Unknown ..LOL

*Facepalm*

The method have existed which was the basis of forming theories. Please read better. Yes, absolutely there can be a way to stop the ageing process or travel in time. But we haven't discovered it yet. 

There is nothing beyond the scope of scientific method. If you are so sure, go do some research and prove to us that soul exists. You are free to do so. But no, who needs evidence when you yourself are the greatest authority right? This is akin to saying, "I am right. How? Because I say so."

Scientific method and current knowledge are two different things. Please comprehend better. And I said that it is still an open question whether the Universe is infinite or not. Or better say whether space is infinite or not. What we do know is that it does not have a boundary. You can find and read the maths.


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

Can you even measure time without motion? If everything in Universe came to a standstill will time exist?"  <<<<   If science can bring everything to a halt ..Time too would halt LOL Time is a concept ..to reckon the events ..Its not an object like you and me ..That can be SEEN . its as occult but existing as the SOUL which is a part of a greater energy ..ie The God LOL ..TIME will halt for your body.. the moment you cease to be the part of this world It ll still exist for those who are alive ..If time can exist when one thing stops to function / move ..it sure can exist when everything stops moving ...LOL Is time dependent on the motion ? Can the either of the true be derived from each other by some scientific method ? LOL  
 

By making that statement, you are saying yourself that time is way of tracking motion and is of no sense without motion. Again, greater energy and comparing time and soul? Please make your mind first because your definitions change in every post. And that's what I asked you, you answer me. If nothing is moving, how do you keep track of time?



Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

Infinity + 100 = Infinity
Infinity * 2 = Infinity.
OK?

^^^^^^^^^    Yeah Okay LOL  Now what is  INFINITY X ZERO ?  INFINITY Multiplied of ZERO that is LOL Eh ? ZERO ? So infinity becomes zero then ? Yehahahaha LOL  Alright What is ZERO / INFINITY LOL 

Infinity * 0 is indeterminate. They appear only in limit forms.
0 / Infinity = 0. Technically ,it will make sense when denominator will be x and x->Infinity. 


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

 
Current model points to a heat death. Universe will cool as it will expand and at some point the temperature will become so low that no work will be possible  <<<<  Yeah ..So science admits that everything would come to a standstill ..and become cactus ..That's when the times too should stop ? LOL Cause there ll be no motion ...As stated earlier by you .. 

The cooling off ..would take place...The things / the material would accumulate ..The state might last for billions of years ..The cold material that  the universe is would then contract ..The contraction in itself is a motion ..It ll lead to another atomic , molecular reaction that ll trigger a chain action ..That might lead to another Big Bang ...Everything is  based on assumptions and as rightly pointed out by you ..on current knowledge ...which is not ripened or reached a point of saturation / maturity ...

There will be no way to measure time. We can't still say whether time has an objective existence or not.
No the matter would not accumulate. There would be no motion. So no, no contraction. And the rest of your post is not true as your premises were wrong.


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

 
But how do you know time is passing if nothing moves. Time and motion are very much related.     <<<< That's the whole point of argument ...HOW do I know ? that the time is passing / moving ? It would move regardless of me knowing that ...If I die ..The time won't stop ..If everyone dies the time won't stop ..It doesn't depend on our consciousness..We are only having two reference points ..A. The Big Bang ..we assume the time started with that  B. When the universe ends ...( And we the humans might end much before the Universe does LOL ) we say the time would halt there ...All assumptions ..We can assume the existence ..Even the beginning and the End of time ..something that can't be sensed ...but we don't acknowledge that there are many sources of energies that are active and working that we can't sense right now ..This is darn too strange LOL

How can you say that? We still don't know whether time has an objective reality. So, your rest of post doesn't make sense unless we know exactly what time is.


Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

 
What does "energy which his the source of all energies" mean? Confused  There is no "source of energy" that lasts forever. All energy lasts forever, they just change form.
  << So are you saying that the energies were transformed without a pre existing source?  Can your windmill's blades rotate without the wind ? to generate electricity ? Where did the energy come from ? Why can't we assume ONE energy can transform into different kind of energies ? A source must exist if the energy can't be created ..And why can't a source of energy last forever ? If you believe in INFINITY  something that has NO END  to IT ...Lets resort to that concept to define our INFINITE , ETERNAL source of energy ..And Name it the way we want ... GOD / PARMATMA / ALLAH Well there are a million names .. All those people of different religions that believe in the GOD can't be fooled by someone and tricked into believing such things LOL  I would stop believing in a greater source of energy that transforms into multiple forms of energy if you persuade me that all energies existed separately which is not true ..unless established as a fact with a proof if we insist on proving everything that is. And refuse to admit the existence of things that we can't prove ..LOL  I have seen a GHOST with my very eyes ..and I'm darn too sure that I was not drunk , Drugged, Hallucinating, Under the effect of anesthesia or Possessed at that time..I'm sure I saw that something which was beyond my own belief ...LOL  

The total energy is fixed. It transforms form. How all this energy came to be, we don't know. Not ONE energy, but every type of energy can transform into another type. Again there is no source that we know of. All the energy is there, it is conserved. Again, what is the source? The amount of energy is fixed. And we still don't know whether there is infinite energy or not because we still don't know whether the Universe is infinite or not. But still, there is no source. There is just energy. We have a name for it, you guessed it...energy.

People used to believe Earth was flat, so obviously the whole population can be fooled.  Again, there is no source, there are various forms which are interchanging. Total energy is fixed. 

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.WineSamraat_92

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 08 October 2012 at 3:57am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


This may sound a little Cuckoo to you but retrocausality is permissible within the known laws of nature. A real temporal order is not terribly important; a symmetrical treatment of time which allows causal movement in two directions (past to future, future to past) could be adopted, provided of course we have empirical evidence courtesy John Cramer's experiments in this area that could lend credence to the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 
You are right. It does sound Cuckoo. And that's because it is cuckoo. LOLWhat you are bringing up is psuedo-science. And it is problematic in physics. And other than science fiction books, it is not found anywhere in nature.

When you say that it doesn't square with the science we know, you were probably referring to classical mechanics and what followed classical mechanics such as general relativity where all causal processes must propagate at less than or equal to the speed of light. Entangled particles already proved that wrong where "communication" instantaneously happened between the entangled particles that was faster than light; no spooky action at a distance here.
We dont know the nature of that communication. To the extent it is not "information", general relativity still holds, all the spooky assertions notwithstanding. Note that when we talk of speed of light being a limiting factor, we are talking about useful things like "information". Closing speeds etc can be faster than the speed of light, but that will not result in cuckoo-type retrocausality.

I don't know about you but even a pulse racing thriller movie full of twists and turns should finally reveal the "killer", if there is one, at the end of two hours. Otherwise, I would get up and go.

something tells me that you are not going to get up and go, even if you knew you would never find the answer. Ditto for me.Smile

Freethinker thought QM was in it's infancy. I thought he was joking. That's pretty much it.

Great. Can you actually refute what i had? We have a model that explains a subset of things. Scientists are still coming up with interpretations that it leads to, whether it's realism or it's locality, yet you think that it's still not in its infancy? Maybe you think we already know everything you have to know. I dont.

Intuition has its advantages but science doesn't always rely on intuition when establishing facts so I am not sure why you would think that we are going by perceptions / common sense when viewing the world. Matter of fact, quantum mechanics is completely counter-intuitive but it's already been acknowledged as the only field of study that describes reality accurately.
Thanks for making the same point i was making.

Whether we can visualize additional dimensions are not, if the Math supports it, they are there, otherwise not. We will see where the Superstring theory takes us; till it succeeds in harmonizing general relativity and quantum mechanics, we will have to live the "gobbledygook" of both, in the macro world and the micro world.
 
Sure, superstrings and N number of untestable theories. I am holding my breath.


 
thanks for a good debate. Smile
 
 

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 90

Summer3 719 30387 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm
By Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

monika. 94 4481 20 September 2011 at 11:49am
By epiphany.
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Summer3 10 809 12 May 2011 at 4:20am
By Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SolidSnake 71 3924 17 September 2010 at 1:42am
By _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

shalini1323 11 758 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm
By Vinzy

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.