Let me correct the error: From a non-scientific standpoint, the christian god could exist in two dimensions just as lenny the leprechaun could exist in fifty thousand rain clouds. From a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of either, and any claims concerning said beings are pointless without something testable and something of substance.
The omniscient argument
- Thread starter ggazoo
- Start date
Let me correct the error: From a non-scientific standpoint, the christian god could exist in two dimensions just as lenny the leprechaun could exist in fifty thousand rain clouds. From a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of either, and any claims concerning said beings are pointless without something testable and something of substance.
mythbuster:
our imaginations are a product of our meat-brains, right? so they are limited by physicality, right?
as for "my" G-d....i do not own one.
infinity is too large for me to even try to comprehend.
our imaginations are a product of our meat-brains, right? so they are limited by physicality, right?
as for "my" G-d....i do not own one.
infinity is too large for me to even try to comprehend.
Attempting to disprove it just shows your youthful rebellion against the Divine Truth of Her Invisible Pink Existence! Don't be ridiculous, you dirty awful heathen.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of infinite power and knowledge. We know this because She is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, Faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. Obviously!
Her existence is further proven by Her dislike of socks; She raptures them away. Have your socks ever gone missing? That is clearly the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for She has expressed Her dislike of socks many times in Her divine revelations.
Some heathens - no doubt twisted with hatred - claim that these socks are in fact caught in washing machines. This is, of course, ridiculous. Let them worship their false god of washing machines all they want - they will be damned.
Duh. HAHA ! Razz
Now, how can you prove that The Invisible Pink Unicorn exist or not hun ? Easy logic ! Laughing
Notice the physically impossible inverse-parallax scrolling! She is truly amazing in her ability to deny the laws of physics - optics bow to Her. Wink
Isn't that amazing ?
''And lo! the shaggy pony disappeared, and I felt myself to be in the Presence. And indeed was the Presence pink, and shaped like unto a unicorn. Yet such was the overwhelming nature of the Presence that I could not, in truth, look upon it. For indeed, my friends, it is for this reason that the great Pink Unicorn is called Invisible, and that is, that the Presence is too great for our small eyes to truly see, and too awesome for our small minds to comprehend. It is by our faith alone that we know her to be Pink, and a Unicorn." [The Book of the Prophet April:6-7]''
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of infinite power and knowledge. We know this because She is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, Faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. Obviously!
Her existence is further proven by Her dislike of socks; She raptures them away. Have your socks ever gone missing? That is clearly the Invisible Pink Unicorn, for She has expressed Her dislike of socks many times in Her divine revelations.
Some heathens - no doubt twisted with hatred - claim that these socks are in fact caught in washing machines. This is, of course, ridiculous. Let them worship their false god of washing machines all they want - they will be damned.
Duh. HAHA ! Razz
Now, how can you prove that The Invisible Pink Unicorn exist or not hun ? Easy logic ! Laughing
Notice the physically impossible inverse-parallax scrolling! She is truly amazing in her ability to deny the laws of physics - optics bow to Her. Wink
Isn't that amazing ?
''And lo! the shaggy pony disappeared, and I felt myself to be in the Presence. And indeed was the Presence pink, and shaped like unto a unicorn. Yet such was the overwhelming nature of the Presence that I could not, in truth, look upon it. For indeed, my friends, it is for this reason that the great Pink Unicorn is called Invisible, and that is, that the Presence is too great for our small eyes to truly see, and too awesome for our small minds to comprehend. It is by our faith alone that we know her to be Pink, and a Unicorn." [The Book of the Prophet April:6-7]''
haha awesome!!
Cris said:
Really? How so?
ggazoo,
You wrote:
"From a scientific standpoint, the Christian God exists in ..."
Ok. Please provide the scientific evidence along with the experimental procedures used to gather and evaluate said evidence. Also, please provide the peer-reviewed descriptions and analyses of said evidence. Thank you.
You wrote:
"From a scientific standpoint, the Christian God exists in ..."
Ok. Please provide the scientific evidence along with the experimental procedures used to gather and evaluate said evidence. Also, please provide the peer-reviewed descriptions and analyses of said evidence. Thank you.
super...,
Expansion has not been verified. Red shift due to Doppler is the only clue that it is expanding but objects and quasers have been observed that give deep red but are close - that says that at least some red shift has other causes.
BB says the universe is 15B years old, but the recent discovery of large super clusters indicates they are some 100B years old - some 7 times older than the alleged age of the universe.
The expansion rate cannot be justified by the current observed matter. To satisfy the perceived expansion, 98% of the universe must consist of "dark" matter. Nothing of the sort has been detected and that such large quantities are required and that nothing has been found indicates one very huge fudge factor trying to hold a fragle BB theory together.
A similar story for "dark" energy. Another huge unobserved fudge factor.
BB predicts CMB (Cosmic Background Radiation) would have a temperature of around 30K to 50K. The observed temperature is 3K. Many steady state theories going back several hundred years have all predicted around 2K-3K.
etc,. etc.
Expansion has not been verified. Red shift due to Doppler is the only clue that it is expanding but objects and quasers have been observed that give deep red but are close - that says that at least some red shift has other causes.
BB says the universe is 15B years old, but the recent discovery of large super clusters indicates they are some 100B years old - some 7 times older than the alleged age of the universe.
The expansion rate cannot be justified by the current observed matter. To satisfy the perceived expansion, 98% of the universe must consist of "dark" matter. Nothing of the sort has been detected and that such large quantities are required and that nothing has been found indicates one very huge fudge factor trying to hold a fragle BB theory together.
A similar story for "dark" energy. Another huge unobserved fudge factor.
BB predicts CMB (Cosmic Background Radiation) would have a temperature of around 30K to 50K. The observed temperature is 3K. Many steady state theories going back several hundred years have all predicted around 2K-3K.
etc,. etc.
Ggazoo,
The issue is actually a modal fallacy that can be demonstrated using formal logic but it is very subtle such that all major philosophers throughout time have not seen it.
Of course the idea that god exists outside of time in no way affects the original proposition. He would still know what you are going to do before you do it. Time here is relative to you not the owner of the omniscience.
What is of more interest is that if your God has an ultimate plan then to achieve it you cannot have any free will.
The rest of your opening post appears to be religious gibberish and the worst of pseudoscience.
No that isn’t correct. The classic paradox that many leading philosophers have debated for millennia is the contradiction between omniscience and human free-will. The issue is known as epistemic determinism. Essentially it says that if your actions are known perfectly before you do them then you have no choice but to do those actions.
The issue is actually a modal fallacy that can be demonstrated using formal logic but it is very subtle such that all major philosophers throughout time have not seen it.
Of course the idea that god exists outside of time in no way affects the original proposition. He would still know what you are going to do before you do it. Time here is relative to you not the owner of the omniscience.
There is no scientific standpoint concerning the existence of gods. No evidence is available.
What is of more interest is that if your God has an ultimate plan then to achieve it you cannot have any free will.
The rest of your opening post appears to be religious gibberish and the worst of pseudoscience.
ggazoo,
Unconfirmed, and the theory is currently broken. Other theories indicate a bubble universe of an infinite number of big bangs. Yet others show an infinite cyclic universe of bang, collapse, bang, collapse, ad infinitum. Plasma theory indicates a steady state universe. With any choice there is insufficient reason to conclude that the universe is finite and according to physics and the laws of preservation nothing can be created or destroyed and that indicates an infinite universe.
Oh dear this is such a tired old fallacy. Life exists because of the way the universe is. If the universe had different parameters then either life would not have evolved or it would have an entirely different form. Life is because of the universe not your perverse reasoning that the universe is because of life.
Low I’d expect. The simpler explanation and in perfect accord with Occam’s razor is that it is infinite. And in that simple statement we rid ourselves of any need for gods and the incredulous and unimaginable improbability that a single being could create a universe.
Cris said:
Not really. First, the red shift observed is not mainly due to Doppler, but due to the wavelength of light being "streched" or losing energy as it travels through expqanding spacetime. Correlation is extremely high between observed redshifts and other distance markers such as new mesurements of distant Cepheids and type II supernova luminosities.
Can you provide a link to a paper or article please?
Or that "dark matter" hasn't been properly characterized yet.
Ditto.
Again, all scientific reports that I have read indicate that BB predictions are in close accord with the observed characteristics of the CMB. If you have links to valid science regarding this stuff, please share.
Thanks.
The simplest argument against "omniscience" is that "knowledge must have a vessel."
There are numerous tangents one could spawn from there; omniscience implies knowledge implies deference; omniscience excludes experiential knowledge; and so on, BUT- those all suffer from being grounded in hypothesis; nothing objective or material.
...
All "omni-xyz" claims are teleological arguments; they're all dismissable on the fallacious premise that perfection, or completeness, are objective... however, both are subjective relative assessments.
...
I've had it out with more than one fundie about the definition of "teleo" versus the MEANING of teleo; one was so blinded by his pride and his faith he characterized "teleos meaning perfect" as a STRAWMAN _and_ UNPROVABLE.
Yes, in the same sentence...
Every single debater who's taken the side that teleos does NOT mean perfection must retreat into semantics apologetics and equivocation.
...
Consider this- if you have a "complete set" and add to it, was it a complete set?
If yes, then time has relevance; the completeness is relative to points in time.
If no, then it wasn't complete.
Greetings
There are numerous tangents one could spawn from there; omniscience implies knowledge implies deference; omniscience excludes experiential knowledge; and so on, BUT- those all suffer from being grounded in hypothesis; nothing objective or material.
...
All "omni-xyz" claims are teleological arguments; they're all dismissable on the fallacious premise that perfection, or completeness, are objective... however, both are subjective relative assessments.
...
I've had it out with more than one fundie about the definition of "teleo" versus the MEANING of teleo; one was so blinded by his pride and his faith he characterized "teleos meaning perfect" as a STRAWMAN _and_ UNPROVABLE.
Yes, in the same sentence...
Every single debater who's taken the side that teleos does NOT mean perfection must retreat into semantics apologetics and equivocation.
...
Consider this- if you have a "complete set" and add to it, was it a complete set?
If yes, then time has relevance; the completeness is relative to points in time.
If no, then it wasn't complete.
Greetings
Last edited:
Cris said:
*************
M*W: I admit up front that this is not my area of expertise, but what if the BB wasn't a one-time occurrence, what if it is a process and the universe is still big banging? What if the expanding universe caused our evolution, spontaneous or otherwise? We cannot experience this expansion from within our own immediate perspective, but if we look back to the evidence from thousands, millions and billions of years, we can see the changes (evolution).
I know I need to read up on this, but as the universe continues to expand, and Earth (our environment) along with it, I perceive this to be the BB. Am I way off track?
super,
But the concept of expanding spacetime came from the assumption that the universe is expanding. Neither has been directly observed. This is another BB fudge.
And which is countered by the quasers discovered by Arp that should be at a great distance according to BB but are next to close objects with low red shift. This raises significant doubt that red shift is indicative of an exapanding universe.
Cris,
I love a good scientific upset. But I'll just have to wait and see what the astronomy/cosmology community has to say about all this.
Thanks.
I love a good scientific upset. But I'll just have to wait and see what the astronomy/cosmology community has to say about all this.
Thanks.