Religulous

[Churchill]

Saw the movie this evening, he spent most of the movie making jokes and the last 15m making his point.

He didn't go after Muslims enough, nor Scientology and Mormons. He could have used the /b/ protests to further his point and it would have gained him a lot of publicity from 4chan.

He should have spent more time discussing the origins of the Christ "mythology" and the other religions involved that preceded it with the same myths. He only briefly (2s) talked about the dates associated with Christ from the church, he could have talked about how they came hundreds of years later and all align with pagan dates but whatever.

Overall it was good.

[Kaylia]

If the first laws of thermodynamics is a law of the nature, what you're calling Zeus can't exist. Of course, we can't speak in absolute about this if you want to dismiss science as a whole, but I was under the impression we all agree that science is correct here.


You could say what you want about Zeus, space, times, energy, but unless everything is perfectly defined, it's not possible to prove and disprove anything.

[Neosutra]

Kaylia, you made 2 very over-reaching statements that you have NO evidence to back up:

1. We will never be able to explain what happened before the big bang.

2. The universe is infinite.

You place these 2 statements as fact when there is no evidence to support either. Your entire premis is false. What kind of mathematician are you? Sophomore lvl math major?


And yes, you placing "magic" as the cause for this "infinite" universe we will "never" understand is -very- silly and doesnt reflect any of your self desired math formulas. You dont use any logic/math/science here. You just make broad reaching statements about the universe. And regardless of what you define yourself in these arguments (atheist/agnostic/theist), you are arguing the theist case, from a theist perspectic, with the standard theist strategy of ignoring evidence against your claims and completly misinterpreting what we know or can know about science.

And lol at god existing outside of space time.

The progression of god:

Lived on a mountain for some, lived behind a curtain for others, talked through a bush to one, then had a kid through a virgin mother. Hasnt been seen since. We need to put up some posters. These people used to walk and talk and see god every day. He is MISSING. Sound the alert! Ill be putting up flyers this weekend.

[Kuya]

Speaking of broad reaching statements.

[Kaylia]

1. We will never be able to explain what happened before the big bang.

2. The universe is infinite.

Finding something that has no cause is paradoxal, because science study the causes. You will never be able to understand something truly unless you understand its cause, because the only thing you can do is postulate it.

And stop it with the "universe is finite". I already mentioned multiples time that I'm talking about what lies beyond the time/space bubble created with the big bang. If there is really a causeless cause, then I don't see why we couldn't just call it God, because that's how I defined the concept earlier.

Lived on a mountain for some, lived behind a curtain for others, talked through a bush to one, then had a kid through a virgin mother. Hasnt been seen since. We need to put up some posters. These people used to walk and talk and see god every day. He is MISSING. Sound the alert! Ill be putting up flyers this weekend.

My point went completly over your head, because this is exactly the reasoning that made me define the concept of God at the infinity. Not to mention this point doesn't prove anything, it just discredit the idea of the rainmaker God.


[edit]
The causeless cause you're talking about can't be defined. If you understand this, you should understand why I say it's not possible to disprove God or say anything about it.

[Neosutra]

Where do you get off saying we will never understand what was before the big bang or caused it?

You really are just placing god as a cover for your own ignorance.

"god is everything we cant know".

Just wow.

[Eratosthenes]

If there is really a causeless cause, then I don't see why we couldn't just call it God, because that's how I defined the concept earlier.

You sound like a pantheist. My definition of God requires sentience. If it turns out that whatever is ultimately responsible for the existence of reality is a sentient being, I will call it God.

[Kaylia]

Where do you get off saying we will never understand what was before the big bang or caused it?

Arguing with you is like trying to argue with someone who place both hands on his ears and scream "LALALALA".

I'm talking about the causality chain, not a particular case of it (how can you not understand this by now?). I don't care if we find a cause to the big bang, this new cause will need an even greater cause, and this even greater cause will need one as well. There is no possible way for sciences to define everything, because there will always be a greater cause that need to be defined.

If we ever reach a "first cause", the only thing we will be able to do is postulate it, and because of this, it won't be defined.

You really are just placing god as a cover for your own ignorance.

Einstein made 2 postulate to cover his own ignorance? Right?

The way you word this has a pejorative tone to it, and is by no mean an argument. Yes, you could say I'm postulating the concept of God to cover my ignorance, but I do it because science will never be able to fullfill this particular ignorance. At this point in the reasoning, the concept of God isn't even religious or anything.

You sound like a pantheist. My definition of God requires sentience. If it turns out that whatever is ultimately responsible for the existence of reality is a sentient being, I will call it God.

I'm defining the concept of God using the "causeless cause", but if you want to slap additional definition to it, feel free to do so. It still doesn't change the fact we can't disprove it because the initial cause isn't defined, as long God is a causeless cause.

[Kuya]

I don't see how one could trust reason without empiricism. Comparing ideas with observable facts for consistency has definitely proved its reliability, especially in comparison to intuition, which is interpreting perceptions and drawing conclusions based simply on what feels right.

But empiricism and rationalism aren't the same thing, for example, mathematics is not empiricist, it is actually rationalist; it often uses a priori reasoning, and that often, and i'm sure the physicists here can agree with me, the mathematic method is never wrong or practically never wrong, you are, same is true in deductive reasoning where your method of reasoning can be perfect and therefore your conclusion is correct, but only in so far as the principle you propose is true, which is where empiricism comes in to make sure the principle is true, even though the method itself can be flawed via bias. Same goes for the mind, social structures, and even time itself is a priori. In reality though, you would need rationalism and empiricism to really have reliable information, so while you are correct there, they aren't necessarily joined at the hip, and at times they can't be because there is simply no way to prove it via physical means.

Which is why i'm shocked that, Neosutra, being a physicist would reject arguments that aren't empirical. Since many parts of physics are theoretical. A physicist should know better than to say something can't exist because it can't be observed.

[Neosutra]

So kaylia, what was the first cause of god? Since the universe cant be infinite, how can god be infinite?

"I cant imagine a way the physical universe could be infinite, so im going to put this even more powerful presense in place of the universe and call it infinite!"

Ya, thats sound logic there.

[Kaylia]

So kaylia, what was the first cause of god? Since the universe cant be infinite, how can god be infinite?

There is a difference between defining "God" and defining the "concept of God". I can't define infinity for you.

"I cant imagine a way the physical universe could be infinite, so im going to put this even more powerful presense in place of the universe and call it infinite!"

Do you consider something like this a valid argument? How does it contradict the existence of God? You're not arguing against me, you're simply trying to post one liner that people would agree with reading your post, even if they don't answer my point

Do you understand infinity? Can you define it? Do you sincerely think science can define infinity and the "first cause" (if yes, how)?

Why can't we call the first cause God, even if it's a non sentient one? If you agree the first cause can't be defined, agreeing we can't define a sentient God shouldnt be a problem.

[Neosutra]

You cant seem to define your god either.

[Kuya]

Isn't there a difference between the universe being infinite and the causes being infinite?

[Neosutra]

No, it's circular logic. It makes theists feel better to place an infinite god at the cause of an infinite universe, because they can attribute an unquestionable nature to the god, while the universe just brings out the fear of the unknown in them. It really is very silly.

[Kuya]

How is it circular logic? I also can't understand what you're saying nor why you're mentioning theists; you should probably stop spitting vitriol when you're arguing with people who don't agree with you, such as Kaylia and I, because you're arguing with us, not theists, so saying at every chance you get that theists are stupid just makes you seem petty, and as for the rest, i don't understand; i thought you said the universe is not infinite nor do i understand why you postulate that there is only one cause.

[Kaylia]

You cant seem to define your god either.

Answered your edit in my previous post. Go back and asnwer those questions please.

I -can't- define God, I can only define the concept. I already said I can't describe an infinity

No, it's circular logic. It makes theists feel better to place an infinite god at the cause of an infinite universe, because they can attribute an unquestionable nature to the god, while the universe just brings out the fear of the unknown in them. It really is very silly.

What is so comforting about "God"? We didnt even talk about a God that care about people or anything close to it yet.

And it's not an "unquestionable" nature, it's an "undefinite" nature.

[Neosutra]

First, dont take offense to being called a theist if you are arguing the theist case, and dont be so naive to think for one moment that kaylia is in any way non theist. He/she is at best an agnostic theist, but from his statements can be assumed to be a very devote theist who simply isnt very religious (or so he/she says).

As for your question. I stated the physical universe we live in is finite (i.e. contains finite matter/energy). Kaylia then stated that he/she meant everything before this universe and the infinite set of causes that pre-date the big bang.

He then stated that he cant fathom a physical system that could go on infinitely in causel space, and placed his definition of god as the cause of that infinite series.

A theist cant fathom a truly infinite universe, so they put an infinite god as the answer, even though they dont elaborate what came before god. "Oh, well god just is". Its funny how the universe and everything before it cant exist beyond the simple metric of causal time, yet a more complex and more powerful being can. I find it very unimaginative to believe that there is no mathematical/physical model for space/time that would provide explainations for such phenomina. Perhaps you should do some research into some of the many theories that offer some explainations Kaylia. Or perhaps you should look at how silly it is to place god as the answer to any given problem you dont understand.

Also, Kaylia, you say your god is undefinable. So you say you dont know what you worship?

[Kaylia]

First, dont take offense to being called a theist if you are arguing the theist case, and dont be so naive to think for one moment that kaylia is in any way non theist. He/she is at best an agnostic theist, but from his statements can be assumed to be a very devote theist who simply isnt very religious (or so he/she says).

You're retarded if you think I'm arguing anything but "agnosticism" case. I'm saying God can't be defined, and you can't argue about something that can't be defined.

If I was arguing theism case, you would hear me say that God can be proven.

[Kuya]

dont take offense to being called a theist if you are arguing the theist case

???

He/she is at best an agnostic theist

??????

Its funny how the universe and everything before it cant exist beyond the simple metric of causal time, yet a more complex and more powerful being can.

If a god is placed at the root of an infinite series of causes, how can then there be an initial cause to this god when it is the root of every infinite series of causes?

[Neosutra]

One would have to postulate that an infinite series thus had a begining, which is what theists say cant be, thus god is inserted into the equation.

And Kaylia is a theist agnostic. Kuya just likes to argue, so no clue what he actually believes, nor does it matter.

Oh and kaylia, does your defined god interact with this universe?