Quite Reasonable that : God Does Exist

[Further]

That isn't the part of the thread topic. As you see by the title "God existing is quite reasonable". There hasn't been a single response that would sway otherwise.

Throwing out a mermaid being possible has nothing to do with the genesis of the universe. AND it is not reasonable to think that a mermaid exists because "Why would this universe need to have mermaids?" They are not even close to the same point.

But it's not reasonable. It's possible, but there is no reasoning that makes it more likely than anything else.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm agnostic about universal origins/finiteness. I was just pointing out there are many possible alternatives to god - non of which go to greater lengths than conjecturing god. in fact God by definition is the most unnecessarily complex, complicated explanation possible.



as noted I was referring to Vilenkin talking about his own paper here.



scientists don't rule out god. but as the universe appears to operate entirely via natural cause and effect, and all claims of supernatural cause have been replaced with natural explanations whenever testing has become possible, you can't blame them for assuming naturalism as a default starting point for explaining anything (until there is reason to do otherwise).

I believe it was leprechauns and unicorns that made the universe. Just as much evidence for that as any.

Or maybe I just believe we don't know enough yet.

 

[magnifier661]

You are making assumptions that shouldn't be made. IF A then B, but that's not known. If A and that's it, we don't know B or C or Z. Heck, we don't even know A.

Assumptions? What assumptions? That the universe isn't infinite, that something infinite must make something finite? How can you explain this isn't the case? If the universe is finite, then there had to be something that put it there. AND if you try and use another theory of multiverses, or other theories, they too would be part of the finite equation.

 

[magnifier661]

I believe it was leprechauns and unicorns that made the universe. Just as much evidence for that as any.

Or maybe I just believe we don't know enough yet.

Glad you agree that something conscious created the universe.

 

[Further]

Oh I got that a long time ago. Hence my repeated quotes that your belief is faith driven.

That's your problem. You assume I have a belief. I don't. I don't believe without reason, and right now I have no reason to believe in anything, from god to space soup. There are no compelling answers. That's OK, the search is fun.

 

[magnifier661]

But it's not reasonable. It's possible, but there is no reasoning that makes it more likely than anything else.

Define "reasonable"? Because there hasn't been an observed empirical observation of something finite being infinite. If something finite exists, then something created it. We are talking about conscious infinite being here.

 

[Denny Crane]

There's not one shred of evidence that there is a "god" a "leprechaun" a "unicorn" or a swarm of mermaids. No fossil record, no nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.

Why not believe in all that other crap instead?

And I don't have any need to have some "conscious" being creating everything.

 

[magnifier661]

That's your problem. You assume I have a belief. I don't. I don't believe without reason, and right now I have no reason to believe in anything, from god to space soup. There are no compelling answers. That's OK, the search is fun.

I assume?!?! Dude fucking read your replies! You've giving enough on your "belief" just in this thread. I am only responding to your comments. Tough shit if it's making you out to someone that you don't want to picture yourself being.

 

[Further]

Assumptions? What assumptions? That the universe isn't infinite, that something infinite must make something finite? How can you explain this isn't the case? If the universe is finite, then there had to be something that put it there. AND if you try and use another theory of multiverses, or other theories, they too would be part of the finite equation.

Just because you refuse to listen to the answers given does not mean they haven't been provided.

 

[magnifier661]

There's not one shred of evidence that there is a "god" a "leprechaun" a "unicorn" or a swarm of mermaids. No fossil record, no nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.

Why not believe in all that other crap instead?

And I don't have any need to have some "conscious" being creating everything.

Denial is a good way to avoid topic at hand. Kudos

 

[magnifier661]

Just because you refuse to listen to the answers given does not mean they haven't been provided.

How does this reply have anything to do with my reply to you? I think you are starting to get confused here.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denial is a good way to avoid topic at hand. Kudos

I'm stating with authority that there's no evidence of any of those mythical beings. That's not denial.

 

[Further]

Define "reasonable"? Because there hasn't been an observed empirical observation of something finite being infinite. If something finite exists, then something created it. We are talking about conscious infinite being here.

There also has not been an observed empirical observation of god. There has not been an observed empirical observation of anything pre-bigbang. There has not been any empirical observation of Jesus as anything more than a human (and some doubt that). There has not been any empirical observation of lots of stuff, and where that stuff doesn't exist we can just make shit up and call it real.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm stating with authority that there's no evidence of any of those mythical beings. That's not denial.

The denial lies with your concept that a unicorn created the universe to be of the same "logic" as a eternal conscious being. You used another "hyperbole" response to allude the readers of the topic at hand.

The universe is finite and expanding. That would explain that it did have a beginning. Since there is no empirical evidence that something finite can exist from nothing, then one could believe it's reasonable for a conscious, infinite being to create it.

 

[magnifier661]

There also has not been an observed empirical observation of god. There has not been an observed empirical observation of anything pre-bigbang. There has not been any empirical observation of Jesus as anything more than a human (and some doubt that). There has not been any empirical observation of lots of stuff, and where that stuff doesn't exist we can just make shit up and call it real.

So you agree that it is just as reasonable as a conscious eternal God created this universe as maybe the singularity (pre-big bang) being eternal?

 

[crowTrobot]

I thought that using the microwave background we had basically calculated how far the reaches would be?

as far as I know the CMBR can only be used to calculate the size of the visible part of the universe, since that is what it corresponds to.

 

[Denny Crane]

The denial lies with your concept that a unicorn created the universe to be of the same "logic" as a eternal conscious being. You used another "hyperbole" response to allude the readers of the topic at hand.

The universe is finite and expanding. That would explain that it did have a beginning. Since there is no empirical evidence that something finite can exist from nothing, then one could believe it's reasonable for a conscious, infinite being to create it.

I guess i need another facepalm meme here.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Mags, this has nothing to do with this thread but when I saw it I thought of you.

 

[magnifier661]

I guess i need another facepalm meme here.

Unfortunately you are unaware you are face palming yourself.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, this has nothing to do with this thread but when I saw it I thought of you.

Lmao!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Further]

as far as I know the CMBR can only be used to calculate the size of the visible part of the universe, since that is what it corresponds to.

OK, I went back and read a little. My thoughts were that those images are of light that set forth 13.7billion years ago, and since we know the speed of light, don't we know the distance traveled. But I was missing a lot of variables to make the calculations. People are currently working on this issue but you are right, there is no current answer.

 

[TripTango]

Mags: "A and B are true. Therefore Z."

Mr. Logic: "But Mags, that doesn't follow logically! Furthermore, I'm not sure we can assume either A or B..."

Mags: "You're 'not sure', therefore I could be right. Thank you for proving my case for me."

Mr. Logic: "No, Mags, by 'not sure', I meant that we cannot assume them to be true. The very foundation of your argument proving Z is flawed."

Mags: "If not Z, then what? I suppose you support P, Q, R, or S? Can you prove any of those to be true?"

Mr. Logic: "No, I can't prove those, either, but they are certainly possible, making your assertion that Z MUST be true fallacious."

Mags: "Aha!!! You just said, and I quote: 'Z MUST be true'. I win!"

Mr. Logic: "..."

Mags: "I WIN!!!!!!1111"



the end.

 

[Further]

Mags: "A and B are true. Therefore Z."

Mr. Logic: "But Mags, that doesn't follow logically! Furthermore, I'm not sure we can assume either A or B..."

Mags: "You're 'not sure', therefore I could be right. Thank you for proving my case for me."

Mr. Logic: "No, Mags, by 'not sure', I meant that we cannot assume them to be true. The very foundation of your argument proving Z is flawed."

Mags: "If not Z, then what? I suppose you support P, Q, R, or S? Can you prove any of those to be true?"

Mr. Logic: "No, I can't prove those, either, but they are certainly possible, making your assertion that Z MUST be true fallacious."

Mags: "Aha!!! You just said, and I quote: 'Z MUST be true'. I win!"

Mr. Logic: "..."

Mags: "I WIN!!!!!!1111"



the end.

Damn, I just changed my name yesterday to Further (from GOD), had you PM'd me ahead of time I could have used "Mr. Logic"


Repped by the way.

 

[TripTango]

Damn, I just changed my name yesterday to Further (from GOD), had you PM'd me ahead of time I could have used "Mr. Logic"


Repped by the way.

I modified some names to protect the innocent.

 

[crowTrobot]

OK, I went back and read a little. My thoughts were that those images are of light that set forth 13.7billion years ago, and since we know the speed of light, don't we know the distance traveled.

unlike things moving within the universe, the rate of its expansion is not bounded by the speed of light. in fact in inflationary scenarios it would have expanded exponentially faster than the speed of light for a short time and could be incomprehensibly larger than we can see.

 

[Further]

unlike things moving within the universe, the rate of its expansion is not bounded by the speed of light. in fact in inflationary scenarios it would have expanded exponentially faster than the speed of light for a short time and could be incomprehensibly larger than we can see.

Thanks. It's like I'm used to putting together childrens puzzles, but in the past year I've been handed a million piece puzzle of the universe but I'm still trying to put it together with the same strategy of my Shrek at the Beach puzzle. It seems I need to learn things a dozen times before I actually start to understand them. At least with regards to cosmology and physics.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags: "A and B are true. Therefore Z."

Mr. Logic: "But Mags, that doesn't follow logically! Furthermore, I'm not sure we can assume either A or B..."

Mags: "You're 'not sure', therefore I could be right. Thank you for proving my case for me."

Mr. Logic: "No, Mags, by 'not sure', I meant that we cannot assume them to be true. The very foundation of your argument proving Z is flawed."

Mags: "If not Z, then what? I suppose you support P, Q, R, or S? Can you prove any of those to be true?"

Mr. Logic: "No, I can't prove those, either, but they are certainly possible, making your assertion that Z MUST be true fallacious."

Mags: "Aha!!! You just said, and I quote: 'Z MUST be true'. I win!"

Mr. Logic: "..."

Mags: "I WIN!!!!!!1111"



the end.

That would be relevant if it were the case. I know you dig, but our text messages say otherwise!

I know, I know, you need a reputation to uphold here.

 

[Nate4Prez]

Mags: "A and B are true. Therefore Z."

Mr. Logic: "But Mags, that doesn't follow logically! Furthermore, I'm not sure we can assume either A or B..."

Mags: "You're 'not sure', therefore I could be right. Thank you for proving my case for me."

Mr. Logic: "No, Mags, by 'not sure', I meant that we cannot assume them to be true. The very foundation of your argument proving Z is flawed."

Mags: "If not Z, then what? I suppose you support P, Q, R, or S? Can you prove any of those to be true?"

Mr. Logic: "No, I can't prove those, either, but they are certainly possible, making your assertion that Z MUST be true fallacious."

Mags: "Aha!!! You just said, and I quote: 'Z MUST be true'. I win!"

Mr. Logic: "..."

Mags: "I WIN!!!!!!1111"



the end.

I really wish I would have skipped to this post instead of wasting my time reading the first 5 pages of this thread. Thank you for very accurately summing it up.

 

[Further]

Mags, are you doing OK? You seem a little broken today.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, are you doing OK? You seem a little broken today.

What would give you that impression? Don't take what trip tango has to say to heart. In text messaging, he said that my argument is valid.