Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Lightson,
So you can’t really lose can you..
You : “If you are sincere and seek God you shall find him”
Me : “I was sincere and tried”
You : “No you weren’t because you didn’t find him”
Doh….
I KNOW I was sincere.. but you can just SAY I wasn’t !
In this case I am willing to accept MY explanation ahead of yours.. after all I am fairly sure I know me better than you do !
So I could never really win.. I never belonged anyway.. you God abandoned me.. (for no good reason I could see)..
A choosy God is also one I would not want to be associated with !
So you can’t really lose can you..
You : “If you are sincere and seek God you shall find him”
Me : “I was sincere and tried”
You : “No you weren’t because you didn’t find him”
Doh….
I KNOW I was sincere.. but you can just SAY I wasn’t !
In this case I am willing to accept MY explanation ahead of yours.. after all I am fairly sure I know me better than you do !
So I could never really win.. I never belonged anyway.. you God abandoned me.. (for no good reason I could see)..
A choosy God is also one I would not want to be associated with !
Trouble is Bob.. it has been granted for you too !
You don't know him either..as he is a figment of your imagination !
You don't know him either..as he is a figment of your imagination !
Bob,
I hope I have read that wrong and you are not terminally ill.
If it is the case you have my warmest best wishes and I hope you and your family are not suffering unduly.
It brings home some of the reality of what I say here sometimes means little in the face of reality.
Regardless of my own personal opinions.. if your faith gives you and your family comfort then it is a damn good thing.
I hope I have read that wrong and you are not terminally ill.
If it is the case you have my warmest best wishes and I hope you and your family are not suffering unduly.
It brings home some of the reality of what I say here sometimes means little in the face of reality.
Regardless of my own personal opinions.. if your faith gives you and your family comfort then it is a damn good thing.
Hawkings' atheistic universe argument
Hawkings' atheistic universe argument
I found this forum today, and I don't really understand where to post things but here it goes:
The Theist guy said:
"I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong."
This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true. When things are at quantum and plank lengths you can't use standard forms of logic or reasoning. Existence and non-existence are not well defined concepts until the quantum system is disrupted by a classical system, ie. measured. As the universe can’t be measured outside itself, by definition, since it is all that there is. Hence, its existence on that scale becomes a difficult question to deal with in its own right. As Hawkings said, time itself is part of the universe. If the universe is point sized time does not process. If time does not process does the universe exist? How could we know it exists if it requires time to observe the universe to measure its existence? If something can't be measured to exist then the discrete distinction between existence and non-existence is meaningless.
( Bahh, rubbish, you say, but take 4 years of undergraduate physics and then come back and talk. One shouldn’t discount things because they superficially make no sense. )
So I guess one could say that the universe was in this very much non-classical, semi-existent (but most likely physically tractable) state until it got large enough for time and existence to have some meaning. Then it existed. When physical systems scale to different rules, ie. Plank weirdness -> quantum -> semi-classical- > classical they do so smoothly. So one can not even say at what point the universe did in fact exist, and what point where existence had no meaning.
A non-quantum argument that addresses this problem:
The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can’t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.
Hawkings' atheistic universe argument
I found this forum today, and I don't really understand where to post things but here it goes:
The Theist guy said:
"I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong."
This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true. When things are at quantum and plank lengths you can't use standard forms of logic or reasoning. Existence and non-existence are not well defined concepts until the quantum system is disrupted by a classical system, ie. measured. As the universe can’t be measured outside itself, by definition, since it is all that there is. Hence, its existence on that scale becomes a difficult question to deal with in its own right. As Hawkings said, time itself is part of the universe. If the universe is point sized time does not process. If time does not process does the universe exist? How could we know it exists if it requires time to observe the universe to measure its existence? If something can't be measured to exist then the discrete distinction between existence and non-existence is meaningless.
( Bahh, rubbish, you say, but take 4 years of undergraduate physics and then come back and talk. One shouldn’t discount things because they superficially make no sense. )
So I guess one could say that the universe was in this very much non-classical, semi-existent (but most likely physically tractable) state until it got large enough for time and existence to have some meaning. Then it existed. When physical systems scale to different rules, ie. Plank weirdness -> quantum -> semi-classical- > classical they do so smoothly. So one can not even say at what point the universe did in fact exist, and what point where existence had no meaning.
A non-quantum argument that addresses this problem:
The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can’t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.
- Status