StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-27 01:59am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Zero132132 wrote:You can't ascribe attributes to the unknown.
Chemists make you their bitch. They have correctly predicted many of the attributes of elements that used to be unknown- and they still do.

Nice to see you ignore my post.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-05-27 02:09am

Sorry to ignore your post, DP. There are many people against me on this, and it's hard to keep up. Lol.

I'm just going to say this right now. There is no God. I know that. I'm not arguing that there is. I'm not even actually arguing that it's possible. If there is a god that exists outside of space and time, then he'd really just be a mechanism of the universe, and not a god, because things without time have no sentience. Just clearing things up. I'm just arguing about whether there's a contradiction in the statement that god exists outside of time. I agree with all of you that either way, it's a stupid claim to make. Making sure we got things straight.

Now, DP, they still actually are predicting the existance and behavior of particles and such that are currently unproven, but all of these things still exist inside of space and time. Outside of it is a complete unknown. It's beyond all possible observations. A very convenient place to try and hide something, actually.

Will you people figure out what I've been saying the entire time? There is almost certainly no god, but there isn't a contradiction in the statement that god exists external to time and space.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-05-27 02:21am

Zero132132 wrote:Second, the position I'm supporting requires no abandonment of parsimony, as it isn't being offered as a theory, or a potential reality, or any such thing. I'm just saying that the existance of god outside of space and time isn't a contradiction, as we have no knowledge of what's outside of space and time.

Get this: there's nothing outside of space and time. Space and time are everything. Outside of everything is nothing. Is this so fucking hard to understand?

I'm not saying it's likely, or any such thing, just that it's possible. Parsimony simply isn't relevant. It would be if I were trying to propose such a statement as a reality, but instead, I'm just trying to explain that it's actually possible that there exist things outside of space and time, and one of these could include god. I'm not trying to say that this is true at all. Just possible.

You obviously don't understand what parsimony is. It doesn't distinguish between types of propositions on the same subject. What you're saying is, "Oh, I don't really believe this, so it's not subject to parsimony."

Riight. What's that I smell? Bullshit?

I just also am acknowledging that there's no contradiction in the claim that god is outside of space and time. The only contradictions you've presented are assumptions.

Pot, meet kettle. You say I'm creating contradictions out of assumptions, and yet you go and pull the unjustifiable, rediculous assumption that "there is such thing as outside of spacetime" straight out of your ass.

Will you people figure out what I've been saying the entire time? There is almost certainly no god, but there isn't a contradiction in the statement that god exists external to time and space.

And you've been completely unable to figure out that there is, in fact, a contradiction. Let me, for the second time, illustrate it.

We have two propositions: A) God exists out of space and time (by assumption); and B) Nothing can exist out of space and time (by definition). A contradicts B. There is a contradiction. Is that sentence simple enough for you to understand?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-05-27 02:31am

If space and time, by definition, include everything, then you're right. However, the argument that no sentient being can exist without time is still more convincing, as it evades the analogy of a man looking down on a 2-d world in which the inhabitants doubt the existance of the man, and instead explains that god can't think, if he doesn't exist within time. If you try and go with the thing about how god can't exist outside of space and time, a fundy that's trying to sound intelligent may go into stuff about how some theories claim the existance of 12 dimensions. The sentience argument is still better. I've conceded that as long as the definition of time and space is that which includes everything in existance, there can be nothing outside of it. However, I must question you, then, about speculation about universes aside from our own. Would claiming there's another universe outside of our own be claiming that something exists where nothing exists? This is an inquiry, not an argument.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-05-27 02:44am

Zero132132 wrote:If space and time, by definition, include everything, then you're right. However, the argument that no sentient being can exist without time is still more convincing, as it evades the analogy of a man looking down on a 2-d world in which the inhabitants doubt the existance of the man, and instead explains that god can't think, if he doesn't exist within time.

The analogy is easily falsifiable. Merely point out that the man looking down must exist in 3 dimensions and a time dimension -- i.e., inside the universe. Then, when they say the universe is only 2-d, you note that a man requires 3 dimensions, and so the man really isn't standing there looking down.

If you try and go with the thing about how god can't exist outside of space and time, a fundy that's trying to sound intelligent may go into stuff about how some theories claim the existance of 12 dimensions.

At which point you ask him for evidence of the other 8, and then claim victory.

I've conceded that as long as the definition of time and space is that which includes everything in existance, there can be nothing outside of it.

Concession accepted.

However, I must question you, then, about speculation about universes aside from our own. Would claiming there's another universe outside of our own be claiming that something exists where nothing exists?

In essence, yes. Until we can get evidence of those universes, they are subject to the same criticism as the hypothetical "God" who exists outside of spacetime.

This is an inquiry, not an argument.

And I take it as such.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-05-27 02:48am

There's one thing that's still bugging me a bit. The definitions I have of space just say that space includes all matter. Since matter is defined as something that takes up space and has mass, something outside of the universe, without dimension, can't take up space. As for mass, I'm uncertain. Since all things we know of are matter, it doesn't make any sense to claim that anything isn't, but I'm no longer entirely convinced that there's a contradiction...

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2005-05-27 09:10am

Ghost Rider wrote: So, we can all go "The CAt GOD Rulz youz all!!!"

And because I claim he is out of space time, None can say otherwise...except

If God exists out of time space.....how does violate and meedle with time/space since that would be a violation of causailty?

Oh wait, he can't

notice I said "God-like" being

I made no mention of his meddling of events within our spacetime continumn, I only aluded to the nature of his existance/non-existance. If I had defined the "God-like" being as being christian God existing, then yes it would be a violation...

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-27 01:53pm

How is the being God-like when he can't possibly interact with space-time? He doesn't DO anything. That's the same as not-existing, really.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-05-27 02:08pm

Zero132132 wrote: Now, DP, they still actually are predicting the existance and behavior of particles and such that are currently unproven, but all of these things still exist inside of space and time. Outside of it is a complete unknown. It's beyond all possible observations. A very convenient place to try and hide something, actually.

Will you people figure out what I've been saying the entire time? There is almost certainly no god, but there isn't a contradiction in the statement that god exists external to time and space.

If god exists outside of time and space, then he can't interact with time and space.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-28 03:23pm

Why not? I concede that you could easily tell if a God existed outside time and space and was interacting with it, but why couldn't God interact with time and space?

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-05-28 04:27pm

wolveraptor wrote:Why not? I concede that you could easily tell if a God existed outside time and space and was interacting with it, but why couldn't God interact with time and space?

Then he wouldn't be sufficiently "outside" time and space for the claim to accomplish its purpose: removing God from the realm of scientific inquiry.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-05-28 05:22pm

wolveraptor wrote:Why not? I concede that you could easily tell if a God existed outside time and space and was interacting with it, but why couldn't God interact with time and space?

I already said in my post, being atemporal gives you no sort of temporal presence, you would not be able to distinguish temporal points if you are not part of that system. An atemporal being has no means of viewing, let alone understanding and interacting with things on a temporal plane. It'd be like asking a blind man to discern colours on a chart.

An atemporal being has no means of changing itself, nor anything else on its plane of existence, it is static, since it has no means of concieving, let alone enacting some sort of change, since it has no before or after or causality to rely on.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-05-28 05:38pm

I do find it quite funny that if God were to exist outside of time, he'd be the mental equivalent of a pencil, and essentially just an aspect or process of the universe.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-29 03:25pm

Rye wrote:*snip*

Well, I understood enough of your post to know that being outside of time and space creates a shitload of complications.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-06-07 05:03pm

I thought you guys would like to tear this apart.. I just rolled my eyes.

[QUOTE=another board]The counter-argument then would be that he's so far above us in intellect and power that he can influence the universe in ways we just can't detect. Years ago we couldn't "detect" cells and some diseases but that didn't stop them from influencing us. The more we learn shows us that there is still so much more to know.[/quote]

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 05:31pm

Classic arguement from ignorance. "We don't know everything, so I win!!!111 lololomgwtfwankwankwankwank"

Also, his analogy to diseases is flawed. We didn't know HOW diseases influenced us, but we knew they did. Similarly, we wouldn't know HOW God would influence us, but we would know if he did, because the universe would no longer be a closed thermodynamic system, and entropy would be fucked up on so many levels.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-07 05:52pm

another board wrote:The counter-argument then would be that he's so far above us in intellect and power that he can influence the universe in ways we just can't detect.

This is where you pull Occam's Razor on him: if we can't detect God or his influences, then there's really no reason to believe he's there.

Years ago we couldn't "detect" cells and some diseases but that didn't stop them from influencing us. The more we learn shows us that there is still so much more to know.

This contradicts the first part of his argument: in the first part, he said God influences the universe undetectably. In the second part, he's saying God isn't detectable behind influences we can detect.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 06:00pm

wolveraptor wrote:Classic arguement from ignorance. "We don't know everything, so I win!!!111 lololomgwtfwankwankwankwank"

Also, his analogy to diseases is flawed. We didn't know HOW diseases influenced us, but we knew they did. Similarly, we wouldn't know HOW God would influence us, but we would know if he did, because the universe would no longer be a closed thermodynamic system, and entropy would be fucked up on so many levels.

The trouble with your argument about the closed systemness is that you ignore the possibility that God is a part of our universe, and that he simply exists in a way that we can't detect. But the claim that he exists outside of the universe hits the entropy shit. God existing outside of our universe and still influencing it really fucks things up. Lol.

As for argument's from ignorance.. they aren't really to claim that they've won, but rather to justify their faiths in a semi-logical manner. When in an argument, christians make room for their faith, they don't try and prove it. In other matters, it is, of course, very different. They defend the morals promoted by their brand of religion as absolutes, even if in a debate about the existance of their figure of worship they just make room. This is why I hate them.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 06:35pm

Suppose he does exist in our universe. He still fucks up our entropy, because he's an omnipotent all-powerful being (at least to a Christian), and so doesn't have to obey staple rules of physics. He can create solar systems instantaneously out of nothing. We'd definitely feel the effects of a whole star suddenly being born in an instant when it should've taken tens of millions of years.

Unless, of course, he does nothing, in which case, parsimony weeds his ass outta there.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 06:48pm

This christian BSing on such a matter would be that God created all matter in the universe at one time, and since then has interacted with the universe is less direct ways. However, we already have explanations for everything that is attributed to God. Occam's razor does it all again. But we must remember that christians in a debate don't try to make their position seem rational, only viable. Unless you're dealing with a true ass hole, that is.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-06-07 08:27pm

[quote=asshat]Talk about an absence of logic. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't, and just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it does. You know this as well as I do. But assuming God is as he is described in the Bible, the only time you'll feel his presence is if he wants you to, so just blatantly assuming that, because you do not personally feel his influence, he does not exist, is fairly illogical. This, you must understand or what I've just said is entirely pointless, is regardless of whether or not he truly exists, because it's solely a hypothetical, and nothing more. I think you're already aware of my personal beliefs concerning God.[/quote]

I think I made him mad, but I'm getting tired of trying to counter his argument. A little help from those better at this than I, would be great.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 10:36pm

An Idiot Who Amuses Me wrote:Talk about an absence of logic. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't

Tell him he needs to take his head out've his ass and look at that statement. If you can't prove something exists, then, you might as well assume it doesn't. Otherwise, you can't prove that tiny leprechauns, invisible and intangible aren't living in my asshole, watching my shit come out the shoot and eating invisible, intangible popcorn. To paraphrase mister genius there, "You can't prove they don't exist!!! lololomgwtf wank wank wank!!!!1111oneoneleven"

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-06-07 10:41pm

Hell, just tell him to prove the invisible dragon in your garage doesn't exist. I doubt he'd understand the reference.

BTW: The Invisible Dragon

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-07 11:41pm

Where the fuck did he slither out of? wrote:Talk about an absence of logic. Just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't, and just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it does. You know this as well as I do.

At this point, it seems the only further value to be gained from arguing with this asshatfucker is entertainment. First, throw Occam's Razor in his face, and notify him he's committing an Argument from Ignorance. Then, when he bullshits his way past those, tell him if he's not going to argue in a logical manner, you accept his concession.

A peeon bullfucker wrote:But assuming God is as he is described in the Bible, the only time you'll feel his presence is if he wants you to, so just blatantly assuming that, because you do not personally feel his influence, he does not exist, is fairly illogical.

Premise: God is as he is described in the Bible. Conclusion: He exists.

Circular? Yes. Moronic? Yes.

Tell him "feeling influence" individually does not a real entity make. If that were true, then the world would be a much scarier place (consider all the insane people out there). Also, call bullshit on his assumption of "God as he is described". God as he is described in the Bible had no compunction about killing babies of families who didn't believe in him. That's hardly "personally feeling his influence if you only believe in him."

This, you must understand or what I've just said is entirely pointless, is regardless of whether or not he truly exists, because it's solely a hypothetical, and nothing more. I think you're already aware of my personal beliefs concerning God.

In other words, "What I just said is bullshit. Thank you very much; I concede the argument."

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-08 09:27am

OMFG, I just felt the presence of the LORD Hippofucker!!!! You see?!?! He does exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 There really ARE Hippofucking deities of the elements out there!!! Victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1