No God???

[Vatsinanaem]

The universe can be described mathematically. The fundamental laws of physics are described using the language of mathematics. The success of physics in describing the natural world is exceptional. It is no accident that the universe behaves according to physical laws based upon mathematics. There is no need to explain the existence of the universe in terms of a creator. The simple truth is that mathematical concepts such as 2+2=4 were not created by "God," nor was the universe. The universe is merely a wonderful consequence of the beautiful complexities of mathematics. Not even a "God" can change the fact that 2+2=4. And what about life, can mathematics create life? In other words how can such a wonderfully complex universe arise simply from mathematics/physics. With only three simple rules the game of life demonstrates that complexity can arise from simplicity:

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

There are so many wonderfully complex and beautiful things that arise in mathematics (fractals as just one example), that it does not take a lot of imagination to understand the complexity of the universe. However, it takes a lot of imagination to believe in a creator.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"the universe is defined by the initial postulates. Within this universe proof without assumption becomes quite possible."

Of course, once you define things, you can derive other things. But my point still remains, and you verify, that intial postualtes (in other words "things") must be assumed so that one may create a definition based on the assumptions.

Those "initial postulates" ARE what you assume. Of course once you remove "what you must assume" from the domain and range, you are only left with "that which you don't have to assume".

CHRISCUNNINGHAM:

Ignorant of your posts will keep me intelligent in the world.

 

[everprince]

Zero Mass = redundant

Originally posted by Zero Mass
There is a lot of really smart stuff at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
You should take a look at some of it.

ZERO MASS

i pointed that site out already "zero", trying to take the credit from the christians he hates, a perfect example of a non christian.

please don't get technical on me by saying that is a dif site.

evperince

http://webking.tv the best site on the net

 

[Zero Mass]

Re: Zero Mass = redundant

Originally posted by everprince
i pointed that site out already "zero", trying to take the credit from the christians he hates, a perfect example of a non christian.

please don't get technical on me by saying that is a dif site.

evperince

http://webking.tv the best site on the net

Oh NO! You got me, agghhh, whatever will I do.

But wait, you didn't read the entire page you crapface piece of distended rectum, you just pointed out one site.

I was trying to help you see all the sites, because that one theory of entropy that you posted was:
first off, misinterpreted
second, not the entire picture, like most ignorant people, you just focus on one subject in the hopes that somebody will not be able to disprove you, because if they cannot then you have won an argument for your pathetic opinion, and your pathetic existence.

In closing, you donkey-loving crap factory, your close-mindedness has earned you a special place in my mind, that place is the list of complete jagoffs, from A to EverPrince.
And please, don't knock my name if you don't even understand its meaning.

crapfully yours,

ZERO MASS

 

[everprince]

ooops

oooh buddy you got me, you apparently missed the part where I said don't bother getting technical! woah you, you love to miss the details! OH WOW! Amazing you don't think the people here are intelligent enough to find the homepage of a site I point out! Damn your wise! By tard! Next time come up with your own ideas, and pass on the credit to the people who gavem to you even after you bashem!

everprince

http://webking.tv

 

[Zero Mass]

Everprince, you're not the first person to link to that page, so get your head out of your ass.

The one page that you linked for the first time (webking) is a piece of crap, so don't get me started on original links.

I did see your stupid warning about getting technical, but did you read the entire site, or did you just skip to the sections that you thought would aid your weak arguments? The latter, no doubt.

I wasn't the first person to point out that site, but I at least linked it in way that people could see all the subpages for themselves.

Here is a link that I endorse
American Humanist Association

Originally posted by everprince
Damn your wise!

I love this, in a sentence where you try to insult my intelligence, you have such a puerile grammar error, it is a contraction of "you" and "are" you were looking to use there, but sadly your inept brain failed you, much like it failed you in trying to insult me in the first place.
YOUR'E a piece of crap.

ZERO MASS

 

[everprince]

kewl!

I didn't know I was typin a college essay retard! its informal you purtifying moron

http://webking.tv the best site on the net

p.s. thanks for increasing traffic to my site, I love these conversations

 

[Zero Mass]

I do suggest that everybody on this forum go to your site,
read one thing on it, just one thing will do
and then go laugh your ass-off, because it will be the funniest thing you have read in a long time.

Yes, this is a college paper, you get a 'F' for fuckface. Please don't try to match me, I''ll beat you down like a punk. You are wrong.

Back to original topic...um, what was the original topic?

ZERO MASS

 

[Frencheneesz]

I think I speak for everyone when I say "SHUT THE FUCK UP".
lame retortedness:
bitchyness: \/
zero mass| 15 12
everprince| 4 9

--Stop wasting space. Thank you.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Crap face....yeah.....

Zero Mass how old are you? I am not being sarcastic when I say, my 7 year old cousin says that......

Anyhow...

First cause is a separate question. I don't see any intrinsic relation between it and the necessity of pain argument. As far as the first cause argument goes; the property of uncaused cause is an arbitrary assignment equally applicable to the Universe itself (or any other first cause) as it is to God.

The reason that there is a relationship is due to the fact that in order for something to be chosen at random it must first be "in the bag" from which it is chosen from.

How is this possible?

When was this idea of pain placed in the bag and how was it defined?

Language began, or so it is theorized, as exclamatory utterances and/or simple object references. It did not spring, fully developed, from the mind of man complete with grammar and syntax

SYNTAX?

How is it possible to utter, and make sounds pertaining to certain feelings if one is not aware of why he is making these sounds, and when to make them?

Were the first "words" random too?

Do you think that the first men simple made sounds without any reasoning behind them whatsoever?

Moreover there is no way to make "simple object references" unless one has differentiated between, seperated and classified seperate objects.

If there is such classification then it implies logical reasoning.

If language and logic were synonymous then you could not pose an illogical statement.

These aren't illogical statements, these are simply illogical conclusions, being supported with two contradictory statements.

The only thing in contrast is the application of the statements, however the statements of which the reasoning is comprised of are not illogical.

Godel proved that all formal systems are incomplete; that is within any formal system a statement can be made that cannot be proven within the system. It's not quite what you were saying because the condition does not invalidate the system but its close. A linguistic example, for instance; "This statement is false" which defies resolution.

That is quite what I am saying, I have simply taken it a step further by stating this makes a system illogical.

For, if a system has a flaw at its origin, its base, the entire system flawed. Now of course making the absolute exempt from all other parameters, helps establish a "logical" system. But then the logic is self-contradictory. Impugned to the fact that in order to have an absolute, it must be corroborated by that which it corroborates.

As with...

This statement is true.

Hence in order to establish a logical system, that system must already exist for its establishment, hence the absolute defies resoultion and so does the conclusion the absolute is intended to prove.

If A, then B, then C

A is false, therefore C is false.

What we consider logical is, paradoxically, self contradictory, and illogical.

Just as with pain without pleasure, something without nothing, and this without out that.

All of these are absolutes, and all aboslutes are circular and truly cannot prove anything.

 

[Zero Mass]

Sorry Frenchyness,
I didded wrong

what is 15 12?

ZERO MASS

ChrisCunningham, I am 18 years old, I got warned by the mods and I really like it here, so i decided to lighted on the language b/c some people (dickhole christians) can't handle it.
And crap is just an all aroung hilarious word, i enjoy saying it a whole heck of a lot.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

CHRISCUNNINGHAM:

Ignorant of your posts will keep me intelligent in the world.

Intelligent?

Hardly.

Insular??

Presumably.

Coming off as moronic, hypocritcal, and infantile, because you have denounced and disclaimed that which you have not refuted??

MOST definitely....

 

[Frencheneesz]

ya zero mass,
I don't see how derogatory insults like you had are any worse than weak attempts to intelligently insult people (caoughg...ghhgunningham)

What a crap face

 

[Frencheneesz]

oh and don't worry about those numbers, it didn't format the thing right so it came out.. wrong..

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Vatsinanaem

There is no need to explain the existence of the universe in terms of a creator. The simple truth is that mathematical concepts such as 2+2=4 were not created by "God," nor was the universe. The universe is merely a wonderful consequence of the beautiful complexities of mathematics

Oh really....then what are the complexities of mathematics a consequence of?

Not even a "God" can change the fact that 2+2=4.

Fact? Can YOU prove that 2+2=4.

There are so many wonderfully complex and beautiful things that arise in mathematics (fractals as just one example), that it does not take a lot of imagination to understand the complexity of the universe.

It takes a lot more imagination, than one may think, for what proof is there that 0, 1, or 2 even exist?

It seems as if these "numbers" have been completely dreamed up... I have yet to see any proof that one exists....

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Frencheneesz

I never attempted to insult you, I was simply pointing out what you have shown so far as to your mannerisms. But if you find it intelligent then that is quite appreciated.

These, forums are so wonderful.

It always bring out the best and the worst in people, because everyone feels so intrepid when they never have to see who it is they are speaking with.

To see the men behind the mouths I am sure would be a suprise to everyone...

Zero Mass

Though crap may be funny to say facetiously, it is depicts you as immature when you do it in a serious attempt to belittle someone.

That's all I am saying.

There are many other, more adequate, ways to be disparaging than...crap face.....

 

[Zero Mass]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
I don't see how derogatory insults like you had are any worse than weak attempts to intelligently insult people

And I don't see your ability to form a proper English sentence.

Just kidding, I understand that saying crap isn't all that, um nice, but it is needed to remind people that thier opinions suck, and they shouldn't post stuff that is hateful.
What would you rather have done to you, be called a crapface or be told you are going to hell.

Chris, but are there more comical ways to disparage people? I mean, crap, it's comedic gold

ZERO MASS

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Of course, once you define things, you can derive other things. But my point still remains, and you verify, that intial postualtes (in other words "things") must be assumed so that one may create a definition based on the assumptions.

Yes, I concede. Taken from an absolute standpoint we are left with some basic assumptions. However, I would point out that the assumptions do not lie within the proof itself but as a part of the imagined universe. Within a debate terms can be agreed upon as a premise to the argument itself.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
How is this possible?

Mutation.

How is it possible to utter, and make sounds pertaining to certain feelings if one is not aware of why he is making these sounds, and when to make them?
...
Do you think that the first men simple made sounds without any reasoning behind them whatsoever?

Yes, actually. Just because there is a cause does not mean that thought was involved. When you stub your toe do you think, "Gee, I just stubbed my toe, I think I'll yell." and then do so or do you just yell?

Moreover there is no way to make "simple object references" unless one has differentiated between, seperated and classified seperate objects.

No classification is necessary, it's just point and click. Yes, a certain level of awareness between objects is necessary but there is no need for any formalized thought behind it. Studies of child development demonstrate that our capacity for such distinction is a learned behavior, it is not intrinsic.

For, if a system has a flaw at its origin, its base, the entire system flawed.

Who says it is illogical or that there is a flaw? It merely indicates that the Universe is greater than can be explained by a formal system, that no formal system is complete; not that it is erroneous. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just because a contradiction can be expressed does not mean that the system is invalid.

Just as with pain without pleasure, something without nothing, and this without out that.

But you rely upon a false duality. Is there not a state that is neither pain nor pleasure? Is not one thing more pleasurable than another? The line you have drawn between the two is imaginary.

~Raithere

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by riverline
I would not personally go for nature when I look to the details of the organs of our bodies and look to the intelligent distribution of their functionalities. ..... Our bodies are complex ....

If the question of Intelligent Design is what you find mystifying then I suggest The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins. This is an easy to read book that will explain in layman terms how natural processes resulted in the complexity that makes up you and I. A bit simplistic but I enjoyed it and Dr. Dawkins has a dry-sarcasm I’m partial to.
The Blind Watch Maker

If the actual reason you believe in god is not due to logical methodical scientific raison d'être and on the contrary is because you have faith in God, then I’d say don’t waste you time with this sort of debate. But the book’s still a good read!