God

T3RCX wrote:Note that the Big Crunch Theory is currently not observationally supported.

In the field of theoretical physics, is anything supported by observation? Is creationism?

vantagesp wrote:This topic is now about the admin "God".

Halberdier wrote:God is a user on DN.

He has 123 rating and 179 rep.

39 wins/57 losses/2 draws

Not so all powerful.

Way ahead of you.

It seems to me that Quantum Mechanics already out-does Magic in terms of weirdness. I'd wager that any "supernatural" phenomena in existence would be explained by Physics, not the other way around.

Yes. I beleive in God.

Halberdier wrote:

T3RCX wrote:Note that the Big Crunch Theory is currently not observationally supported.

In the field of theoretical physics, is anything supported by observation? Is creationism?

This is not theoretical physics, it is astrophysics. The Big Crunch Theory is simply not widely accepted by mainstream science at this point in time.

Ultimate lol wrote:

Amy Cool wrote:
As it is hard to use life forming as a proof for both sides either by God or by coincidence since we have no 100% proofs of it, I want go into area which was tested by many scientists and could not be disproved.

Many here did not read Qur'an and many don't know anything about it. Its concept is different from any other Book. There are verses in it that make many scientists around the world question themselves: if that Book is not Gods work then whos is it, since humans work it wasn't obviously. To introduce you more into what I am telling I will link you a very good article to read, instead of reading whole Book (it needs time to read with giving thoughts statements).

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

It is not long, takes few mins to read, it focuses on Embryology and Qur'an telling about it more than 1400 years ago when no studies on embryology could be done (which was also proved by scientist specialized on that area)

It is written by muslims but it is argument based and as objective as possible, using many sources from science and Qur'an. It also gives various comments from scientists around the world, muslims and non-muslims, on topic. None of them could give arguments against verses in Qur'an about Embryology because they were all very accurate and true.

At the end these is a list of scientists commenting about areas they are specialized. If you cannot find it, then here is the link: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

So, I'm curious, what do you think about these things. How can you comment these verses from Qur'an about Embryology being so accurate more than 1400 years ago when no human could know them. Tell me your opinions people.

The concept is pretty interesting yes. But I’m not fully convinced here. First of all some lines can be interpreted different and a bit more generalized.
And how cruel this may sound. All these stages could have been found out with “research” in that time.
But I must admit it still makes a pretty good case.

Well, of course you are not totally convinced lol. The lines that can be interpreted more general are actually the only argument that people have against Qur'an. And, that makes sense, because it was written on purpose like that so that people have to believe in it and not be 100% convinced, at least not when reading 1st time.

Other than that, those stages could not be found in that time with "research". Scientists at that time believed that man was created from menstrual blood. In so far as the 17th century, they believed that the embryo was fully created from man’s sperm, and then it grew after entering the uterus. Thus they perceived man as a seed reduced wholly in that small drop of sperm. The idea remained as such until the 18th century when microscopes proved that sperm and ovum are both necessary for pregnancy. This was discovered so many centuries after it had been revealed by the Holy Quran. Now, for internal development of embryo, only modern technology is able to observe what is going on in the pregnancy period.

Halberdier wrote:The energy from the combustion of the singularity, which we call the big bang has been propelling the universe further apart. In general, it is still expanding with that energy.

On the other hand, eventually that energy will have been expended, and the universe will implode once more, into a series of amalgamating, increasingly denser black holes, until it once again achieves the singularity, and explodes again.

Thank you, I indeed heard it this way.

nsanjokr wrote:The idea of a deity(s) is also such a case. We may think it is possible that a deity or some other intelligent being created existence, but at the same time there isn't a legit way to establish such a being's existence. While theoretically there is the possibility that we may one day be able to verify such a being's existence we do not have the right to actually establish it.

Isn't that the foundation of science? To question everything and try to explain everything we don't know? If we don't question if a god exists then how could we ever prove it or at least find an answer for it?

Amy Cool wrote:Now, for internal development of embryo, only modern technology is able to observe what is going on in the pregnancy period.

Unless so very cruel people got "interested " in pregnancy in that time period.

Ultimate lol wrote:

Amy Cool wrote:Now, for internal development of embryo, only modern technology is able to observe what is going on in the pregnancy period.

Unless so very cruel people got "interested " in pregnancy in that time period.

Well, fact is, those cruel people were interested in everything and did many terrible things yea. Especially offering human victims to their "medical experiments". But, think of it, how would they be able to follow Embryo during pregnancy? Open the body and follow it for months as it is open? Or maybe use like 100 different pregnant women and take out embryo of each during different times of development? I don't see any other options there. Even if they did that, think about things you cannot say only by looking at Embryo with your eyes, instead its possible only with high tech. So, again, that would bring them nothing besides few statements that wouldn't be possible to tell accurately just by eye observation. Also, historical analysis tells that no books contained even similar information about embryology at this level.

Amy Cool wrote:

Ultimate lol wrote:

Amy Cool wrote:Now, for internal development of embryo, only modern technology is able to observe what is going on in the pregnancy period.

Unless so very cruel people got "interested " in pregnancy in that time period.

Well, fact is, those cruel people were interested in everything and did many terrible things yea. Especially offering human victims to their "medical experiments". But, think of it, how would they be able to follow Embryo during pregnancy? Open the body and follow it for months as it is open? Or maybe use like 100 different pregnant women and take out embryo of each during different times of development? I don't see any other options there. Even if they did that, think about things you cannot say only by looking at Embryo with your eyes, instead its possible only with high tech. So, again, that would bring them nothing besides few statements that wouldn't be possible to tell accurately just by eye observation. Also, historical analysis tells that no books contained even similar information about embryology at this level.

I was going for the second option
And yes, it would still be hard and you make a good point.

The Greeks believed that the Titan Prometheus was punished by birds pecking out his liver every morning, allowing it to grow back every night.

Are we to believe that the Greek's Hellenistic pantheon is entirely correct as well, because they predicted the regenerative properties of the liver? (which is something far less foreseeable than the process of birth, which we can in ways, observe).

And @T3RCX, what IS the concept in astrophysics that is generally accepted at the moment?

Halberdier wrote:The Greeks believed that the Titan Prometheus was punished by birds pecking out his liver every morning, allowing it to grow back every night.

Are we to believe that the Greek's Hellenistic pantheon is entirely correct as well, because they predicted the regenerative properties of the liver? (which is something far less foreseeable than the process of birth, which we can in ways, observe).

It is not clear that the ancient Greeks knew that the liver would regenerate. Most of the observations that the Greeks made were related to accidental wounds. It certainly is possible that a Greek doctor would have treated an abdominal wound involving the liver inflicted by a spear or sword. The treatment wold have involved sewing up the wound. The doctor could have followed progress of the liver by palpitating the organ. The probability of such a patient surviving is low, but every once in a while one would. And it is certainly the case that the doctor's efforts would be helpful in this case.

Still, myth of Prometheus may not include this knowledge. After all Prometheus was a god (by the myth) and gods have much better powers of regeneration than mortals. It may be that the liver in this case is more associated with augury than medical knowledge, though there may be a connection. Vitruvius seemed to think that the state of the liver of an animal was an indicator of the animals health. He related that soldiers would examine the liver of animals at a site to see if that site would be a safe encampment. These could be the reasons why exactly liver was mentioned.

Also, I need to point out again, process of birth could be observed 1400 years ago, but never so detailed as described in Qur'an. While, on the other side, liver damage in Greek time could be observed by healing so many injured soldiers. They could compare injuries and see, that liver injuries somehow heal or at least doesn't give so many deaths as injuries of other vital organs. This would be enough to mention liver in the myth. And, in Qur'an its not only one statement that tells about embryology, its many of them. This way it is harder to say it was just prediction as many of the facts were accurately described, including stages of development of an embryo, not only birth and after.

Until the 1800s, when disinfectant was widespread, the chances of a patient healing an organ rupture was nearly nonexistent.


Furthermore, when Zeus's ligaments were stolen by a monster abiding in the Volcano now generally accepted to be Vesuvius, he could not grow them back no matter how hard he tried. He was only kept alive by his godly vigor, not functional or regenerating.

Another point is that any knowledge detailed in the Qu'ran is not necessarily god given and could be a part of the conventional wisdom (or nonwisdom in any case of error) of the best physicians at the time.

In general, we embellish on what is proved correct, rather than things concerning science that were incorrect. If a book written roughly 1500 years ago happened to be wrong about something, we don't sweat it, so I personally would much rather pass any correct knowledge as either a coincidence, or a part of that time's regular contemporary knowledge.

I'll keep this simple as to avoid any sort of argument on the matter.

I believe in a higher power. I.E. A God.

I don't believe in THE God.

Halberdier wrote:And @T3RCX, what IS the concept in astrophysics that is generally accepted at the moment?

In simple terms: Big Bang + dark matter

Hawking also has some imaginary time loop theory to try to show that the universe didn't require a singularity from which to begin, but again it suffers from lack of observational evidence (imo it's mainly just math tricks).

Essentially, what we do know is that the universe right now is expanding and accelerating. What we deduce from this is that, since it is accelerating now, if we look back in time we logically should be able to find the "starting point" from which it began to accelerate and expand, which leads us to the concept of a singularity and the Big Bang which initiated the expansion. We also deduce that the current rate of expansion makes it unlikely that the universe will ever stop expanding and "crunch" back down on itself.

Of course the universe will reset. Matter decays back into energy, and energy condenses back into matter. An eternal cycle. Matter and time are repeating, so why not space?

Potus-Mat wrote:Of course the universe will reset. Matter decays back into energy, and energy condenses back into matter. An eternal cycle. Matter and time are repeating, so why not space?

Current data suggests the universe will expand indefinitely and all matter will decay into loose subatomic particles and radiation. The cosmos will therefore freeze to death. There is no evidence to suggest a cycle. A cycle would be impossible, as it requires time and time ends with the Big Crunch. Read up on Relativity and you'll see this is so.

Occultdude17 wrote:

Potus-Mat wrote:Of course the universe will reset. Matter decays back into energy, and energy condenses back into matter. An eternal cycle. Matter and time are repeating, so why not space?

Current data suggests the universe will expand indefinitely and all matter will decay into loose subatomic particles and radiation. The cosmos will therefore freeze to death. There is no evidence to suggest a cycle. A cycle would be impossible, as it requires time and time ends with the Big Crunch. Read up on Relativity and you'll see this is so.

Of course matter decays. I already said that. But I am also saying it will return back into matter. This is the Big Crunch, or at least how I see it.

Potus-Mat wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:

Potus-Mat wrote:Of course the universe will reset. Matter decays back into energy, and energy condenses back into matter. An eternal cycle. Matter and time are repeating, so why not space?

Current data suggests the universe will expand indefinitely and all matter will decay into loose subatomic particles and radiation. The cosmos will therefore freeze to death. There is no evidence to suggest a cycle. A cycle would be impossible, as it requires time and time ends with the Big Crunch. Read up on Relativity and you'll see this is so.

Of course matter decays. I already said that. But I am also saying it will return back into matter. This is the Big Crunch, or at least how I see it.

In order for atoms to be rebuilt from subatomic particles, you need them to be close enough that the Strong Nuclear Force can bind the nuclei together. The bigger the universe gets, the more room there is for the quarks from decayed protons to spread out. The chances of that occurring, and of them then catching electrons, and of that happening enough times to rebuild the universe, is slim.

The Big Crunch is where the expansion of the universe reverses, so that everything is pulled together instead of pushed apart. Current data shows the expansion being sped up by "dark energy" (astronomer speak for "We don't know why that's happening"), and a universe with accelerating expansion is very unlikely to re-collapse.

It does not decay into just matter. Matter is bound energy. Eventually, it will unbind, go back together, and pop into another world of matter.

Potus-Mat wrote:It does not decay into just matter. Matter is bound energy. Eventually, it will unbind, go back together, and pop into another world of matter.

Matter is not "bound energy". Energy is a property of matter, just like charge and spin. Just as you cannot have a charge existing in space without a particle, so you cannot have energy without particles to carry it. Once you're down to elementary particles you can't break matter down further, and once the energy is evenly distributed between them the second law of thermodynamics will prevent them from coming together without some ridiculously unlikely and complex quantum fluctuations. Although, given as an Open Universe has an infinite amount of time on its hands, that might still happen.

E=Mc2
M=c2/E? bending phisics. Fun stuff.

The defintion of god is fairly ambiguous... many different point of views... just saying

So miracles don't exist? Do you define them as more coincidences? How does a person die exactly and pronounced dead yet comes back to life when they shouldn't have?

DarkRiku wrote:So miracles don't exist? Do you define them as more coincidences? How does a person die exactly and pronounced dead yet comes back to life when they shouldn't have?

Life is a machine. It can be repaired. We just suck at that.

T3RCX wrote:

Halberdier wrote:And @T3RCX, what IS the concept in astrophysics that is generally accepted at the moment?

In simple terms: Big Bang + dark matter

Hawking also has some imaginary time loop theory to try to show that the universe didn't require a singularity from which to begin, but again it suffers from lack of observational evidence (imo it's mainly just math tricks).

Essentially, what we do know is that the universe right now is expanding and accelerating. What we deduce from this is that, since it is accelerating now, if we look back in time we logically should be able to find the "starting point" from which it began to accelerate and expand, which leads us to the concept of a singularity and the Big Bang which initiated the expansion. We also deduce that the current rate of expansion makes it unlikely that the universe will ever stop expanding and "crunch" back down on itself.

Gravity and blue shift say otherwise. The longer things exist, the more they will consolidate into denser forms.

DarkRiku wrote:So miracles don't exist? Do you define them as more coincidences? How does a person die exactly and pronounced dead yet comes back to life when they shouldn't have?

In modern times, miracles have either been coincidences, showmanship or lies. Sometimes all three.

Halberdier wrote:Until the 1800s, when disinfectant was widespread, the chances of a patient healing an organ rupture was nearly nonexistent.

Not true. They did not have disinfectants that we have today but people survived many times just because of what nature gives them. In ancient Greek times medicine was reborn, they did many researches on stuff that can be found in nature to make medicine from it (they dropped beliefs in some spells and such and instead concentrated on what can actually heal) and for disinfectants they used many herbal products of nature. Today's alternative medicine is also based almost all on natural products and it does wonders.

Halberdier wrote:Furthermore, when Zeus's ligaments were stolen by a monster abiding in the Volcano now generally accepted to be Vesuvius, he could not grow them back no matter how hard he tried. He was only kept alive by his godly vigor, not functional or regenerating.

I don't see anything extraordinary in this story. A simple Myth. I mean these stories do not tell anything accurately. Can be seen in many different ways. Not even similar to statements in Qur'an which are far more accurate and serious than this.

Halberdier wrote:Another point is that any knowledge detailed in the Qu'ran is not necessarily god given and could be a part of the conventional wisdom (or nonwisdom in any case of error) of the best physicians at the time.

From what you wrote here I see you did not read my link (which initiated discussion on this). If you did, then you did not read it carefully. I mean many things told there are very accurate. Some can be generalized and some directly tell. All of those were proven by science to be correct in modern embryology. Also we already discussed how impossible was in that time to observe in details so many stages of embryo, if you just read up the topic. So, statement like 'best physicians could do it' doesnt make any sense. They could gather, think, but that is all. Their lack of modern technology did not allow them to be able to observe those things. You don't have to say it is Gods work, its your choice what will you believe, you can even blame aliens for it, but one thing is sure, humans could not know it.

Halberdier wrote:In general, we embellish on what is proved correct, rather than things concerning science that were incorrect. If a book written roughly 1500 years ago happened to be wrong about something, we don't sweat it, so I personally would much rather pass any correct knowledge as either a coincidence, or a part of that time's regular contemporary knowledge.

Well, if you can believe that many facts told about embryology, all proven correct by modern technology, are all a simple coincidence, then I won't hold you back. For me its God's work, for you coincidence. Its our free will to believe. But, contemporary knowledge its not, that was researched and proven.

Halberdier wrote:Gravity and blue shift say otherwise. The longer things exist, the more they will consolidate into denser forms.

Except the galaxies are all being red-shifted, which means they're moving away from us. And the rate at which they're moving is currently increasing (see "dark energy", and no I'm not talking about the card). The longer things exist, the further apart they'll be, and the less likely gravity will overcome the expansion of the universe. Hence, the probability of a Big Crunch is extremely unlikely.

And to add, universe accelerating in expansion was found like a month ago or so lol. So, many of those former theories about universe are still in the process of update with the acceleration

Amy Cool wrote:

Halberdier wrote:Until the 1800s, when disinfectant was widespread, the chances of a patient healing an organ rupture was nearly nonexistent.

Not true. They did not have disinfectants that we have today but people survived many times just because of what nature gives them. In ancient Greek times medicine was reborn, they did many researches on stuff that can be found in nature to make medicine from it (they dropped beliefs in some spells and such and instead concentrated on what can actually heal) and for disinfectants they used many herbal products of nature. Today's alternative medicine is also based almost all on natural products and it does wonders.

Halberdier wrote:Furthermore, when Zeus's ligaments were stolen by a monster abiding in the Volcano now generally accepted to be Vesuvius, he could not grow them back no matter how hard he tried. He was only kept alive by his godly vigor, not functional or regenerating.

I don't see anything extraordinary in this story. A simple Myth. I mean these stories do not tell anything accurately. Can be seen in many different ways. Not even similar to statements in Qur'an which are far more accurate and serious than this.

Halberdier wrote:Another point is that any knowledge detailed in the Qu'ran is not necessarily god given and could be a part of the conventional wisdom (or nonwisdom in any case of error) of the best physicians at the time.

From what you wrote here I see you did not read my link (which initiated discussion on this). If you did, then you did not read it carefully. I mean many things told there are very accurate. Some can be generalized and some directly tell. All of those were proven by science to be correct in modern embryology. Also we already discussed how impossible was in that time to observe in details so many stages of embryo, if you just read up the topic. So, statement like 'best physicians could do it' doesnt make any sense. They could gather, think, but that is all. Their lack of modern technology did not allow them to be able to observe those things. You don't have to say it is Gods work, its your choice what will you believe, you can even blame aliens for it, but one thing is sure, humans could not know it.

Halberdier wrote:In general, we embellish on what is proved correct, rather than things concerning science that were incorrect. If a book written roughly 1500 years ago happened to be wrong about something, we don't sweat it, so I personally would much rather pass any correct knowledge as either a coincidence, or a part of that time's regular contemporary knowledge.

Well, if you can believe that many facts told about embryology, all proven correct by modern technology, are all a simple coincidence, then I won't hold you back. For me its God's work, for you coincidence. Its our free will to believe. But, contemporary knowledge its not, that was researched and proven.

To start, the idea of disinfecting wounds was not commonplace then, and while recover was possible, a full blown liver rupture was unreasonable, and would constitute death.


All the Greek myths are to be taken as accurately as the Qu'rannic myths. As are the widely denied Satanic Verses.


I do believe I mentioned that people selectively cut out where they find knowledge in a holy scripture to be outdated, and focus in on the ones that are coincidentally the same as modern knowledge. I don't find this to be an accurate way of proving a text to be factual.

I never said that the correct information was just a coincidence, only that they were coincidentally right, without having the ability to test their hypothesis as modern scientists can. Being able to hypothesize the correct answer so long ago is not always insignificant, but to say that it is a miracle rather than a coincidence would be vanity.

Acceleration can be explained by a variety of things, including momentum. Without being an expert on that though, my gut instinct tells me that Occam's razor cuts off the side of inquiry that would lead me to believe that the universe needed an un-caused deific cause, rather than the possibility that our universe is bound to accelerate and then decelerate.

An infinite cycle of expansion and contraction in the universe does not preclude the question of whether or not the universe need have a cause. Here is a simple cosmological argument that does not depend on the universe having a specific beginning:

A. The universe must have a cause:
1. Everything that exists in the physical universe has a cause (observationally and deductively true).
2. The universe is nothing more than the sum of all things that exist (definition).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

B. The cause of the universe cannot be a member of its own set:
1. Nothing that exists in the physical universe and has a cause is caused by itself (observationally and deductively true).
2. The universe is nothing more than the sum of all things that exist (definition).
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be itself, i.e. any member of the set of all things that exist.

C. The nature of the cause can be deduced:
1. The cause of the universe cannot be a member of the set of all things that physically exist, or else it would be a member of the universe and could not have caused itself (proven above).
2. Something outside the set of the universe must necessarily have different property(ies) than things within the set of the universe such that it could not be defined as a member of the set of the universe (definition).
3. All members of the set of the universe have measurable or definable physical characteristics (that is to say, quantifiable in terms of time and space) and have a cause. [Note: Abstract concepts can be considered as thoughts which are physically generated via electrochemistry].
4. Thus, something outside the set of the universe need not have measurable or definable physical characteristics and need not have a cause.

∴ The cause of the universe must necessarily exist as outside the set of the universe and need not have a cause or any measurable or definable characteristics. That is to say, the cause is not bound by time or space and is itself uncaused.
-Define this as "God."

There you have logical proof of "God." The problem, naturally, is that this isn't the "God" that everyone usually thinks about.

That line of thought superimposes a point outside of the universe that is made specifically to interact and justify laws that are generally accepted in our universe.

However, that is picking and choosing. If something is to interact with our universe, following that line of thought, once it has, it is part of the sum of our universe. The idea that something needed to cause our universe, but that somehow, that thing itself didn't need to be caused, an un-caused cause, if you will, which I mentioned above, is logically inconsistent with the other statements you made.

T3RCX wrote:An infinite cycle of expansion and contraction in the universe does not preclude the question of whether or not the universe need have a cause. Here is a simple cosmological argument that does not depend on the universe having a specific beginning:
A. The universe must have a cause:
1. Everything that exists in the physical universe has a cause (observationally and deductively true).
2. The universe is nothing more than the sum of all things that exist (definition).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
B. The cause of the universe cannot be a member of its own set:
1. Nothing that exists in the physical universe and has a cause is caused by itself (observationally and deductively true).
2. The universe is nothing more than the sum of all things that exist (definition).
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be itself, i.e. any member of the set of all things that exist.
C. The nature of the cause can be deduced:
1. The cause of the universe cannot be a member of the set of all things that physically exist, or else it would be a member of the universe and could not have caused itself (proven above).
2. Something outside the set of the universe must necessarily have different property(ies) than things within the set of the universe such that it could not be defined as a member of the set of the universe (definition).
3. All members of the set of the universe have measurable or definable physical characteristics (that is to say, quantifiable in terms of time and space) and have a cause. [Note: Abstract concepts can be considered as thoughts which are physically generated via electrochemistry].
4. Thus, something outside the set of the universe need not have measurable or definable physical characteristics and need not have a cause.
∴ The cause of the universe must necessarily exist as outside the set of the universe and need not have a cause or any measurable or definable characteristics. That is to say, the cause is not bound by time or space and is itself uncaused.
-Define this as "God."
There you have logical proof of "God." The problem, naturally, is that this isn't the "God" that everyone usually thinks about.

Slow down, Aquinas. Everything in the Universe does not have a cause. Merely the constructs used to do something have a cause. The leg has a cause, lifeforms have parts that have causes; but planets, stars, and even life are here for absolutely no reason. To say otherwise would be to say that they were created for a cause, which is to assume what you set out to prove.

Planets and stars were caused by the various interactions of forces causing the particles to accumulate in those ways. Life was caused by atmospheric conditions enabling the combination of organic molecules into proteins (theoretically). Each of these events have causes as well. Ultimately, we can reduce everything down to the smallest level of subatomic particle to give cause to all of the fundamental forces (the fundamental cause of everything else is an interaction of forces), and then says that these particles were caused by the singularity which predicated the Big Bang.

T3RCX wrote:Planets and stars were caused by the various interactions of forces causing the particles to accumulate in those ways. Life was caused by atmospheric conditions enabling the combination of organic molecules into proteins (theoretically). Each of these events have causes as well. Ultimately, we can reduce everything down to the smallest level of subatomic particle to give cause to all of the fundamental forces (the fundamental cause of everything else is an interaction of forces), and then says that these particles were caused by the singularity which predicated the Big Bang.

Your entire argument still forgets that time and space are not separate at a singularity, allowing cause and effect to arrange themselves in whatever order they like. Thus asking "What caused the Big Bang?" is like saying "I'm in the middle of outer space, which way's up?" It's meaningless.

And for some reason nobody seems to be acknowledging this point despite my having repeated it more than a dozen times on this thread. I can only conclude that my contributions to the conversation are not welcome.

-POST DELETED-

I pointed that out in my post. On this very page.

It seemed to take the both of you another couple posts to get there, though.

Asking the cause of God is not a valid line of questioning because in existing outside the universe, "God" does not need a cause to begin with. That was already established in the argument I outlined.

@occultdude17
You need not even ask "what caused the Big Bang?" Simply ask "why did the Big Bang occur instead of not occur?"

T3RCX wrote:Asking the cause of God is not a valid line of questioning because in existing outside the universe, "God" does not need a cause to begin with. That was already established in the argument I outlined.

But logic only applies in universe. When you try to use yer fancy mathematics on an extrauniversal (trademark Potus Mat, 2011), your argument falls apart.

Yes, which is why we deduce the qualities of "God" simply by determining what characteristics are inherent to the universe and realized that "God" need not possess them. Deduction rather than observation.

Also, I keep writing "God" in quotes because I'm only using it as a definition for the thing that caused the universe. It is the business of religion and not science to try to tell you things about God's nature, for the reason Potus-Mat just stated.

T3RCX wrote:Yes, which is why1 we deduce2 the qualities of "God" simply by determining3 what characteristics are inherent to the universe and realized4 that "God" need5 not possess them.

So much logic. Too much logic. Extrauniversal entities cannot be understood by the logic of this universe. If they can be, then they follow the rules of this universe, which, again, makes the argument fall apart.

I see your point, but the previous argument never stated nor assumed that the extrauniversal entity need have no similar characteristics to the universe, just that it need not have the defining ones. For example, -1 is distinctly different from the set of all positive integers, but it retains many similar properties such as being a number and being subject to mathematical operands.

Your point seems to come down to the notion that we cannot possibly define an extrauniversal entity to begin with, because defining it necessitates that we distinguish it from the universe, which cannot be done without applying logic in order to recognize the distinction. This may be valid, but I reject it on the grounds that we can still conceptualize undefinable concepts. A square triangle, for example, cannot be understood geometrically, or precisely fathomed intellectually, but we can still conceive of such a thing existing in a world where the boundaries of geometry that we understand don't exist, and we could say that it has the properties of both a square and a triangle despite being able to define a rational figure that has those properties within our own system of logic.

This thread has become obnoxious.

T3RCX wrote:I see your point, but the previous argument never stated nor assumed that the extrauniversal entity need have no similar characteristics to the universe, just that it need not have the defining ones. For example, -1 is distinctly different from the set of all positive integers, but it retains many similar properties such as being a number and being subject to mathematical operands.
Your point seems to come down to the notion that we cannot possibly define an extrauniversal entity to begin with, because defining it necessitates that we distinguish it from the universe, which cannot be done without applying logic in order to recognize the distinction. This may be valid, but I reject it on the grounds that we can still conceptualize undefinable concepts. A square triangle, for example, cannot be understood geometrically, or precisely fathomed intellectually, but we can still conceive of such a thing existing in a world where the boundaries of geometry that we understand don't exist, and we could say that it has the properties of both a square and a triangle despite being able to define a rational figure that has those properties within our own system of logic.

Of course. You know the properties of a triangle and a square. But you do not know the properties of an extrauniverse. And to use deductive reasoning, you would need to know all of the possible qualities of universal and extrauniversal objects. And since extrauniversal thingies cannot be comprehended by universal logic, such is impossible.

You pass up the law of non-contradiction when the premise of your argument is that all things must have a start, but wish to superimpose an entity "god" that has no start at all. So I would argue that at that point, you have forgone logic, by breaking one of the foremost logical laws.

Occultdude17 wrote:This thread has become obnoxious.

Sorry, can you not comprehend the discussion?

If you don't like it, don't comment/complain.
Just don't take part in it.

You pass up the law of non-contradiction when the premise of your argument is that all things must have a start, but wish to superimpose an entity "god" that has no start at all. So I would argue that at that point, you have forgone logic, by breaking one of the foremost logical laws.

Ahh I love this point so much.

Halberdier wrote:To start, the idea of disinfecting wounds was not commonplace then, and while recover was possible, a full blown liver rupture was unreasonable, and would constitute death.

Ancient Greeks are the ones who brought medicine in that time to a completely new level. Healing wounds was one of main problems they had because of many injured soldiers. It not logical to say that disinfecting was not a commonplace then. They surely did think about it and how to solve it. They did not have today's methods but don't underestimate nature products. Honey, Black seed and white onion are one of the most powerful healing tools even today. All you have to do is to use them. If you take a little of honey and black seed about 15 mins before your meal, and repeat that for a while, you will be stunned how well shaped your inner picture of body will be. Cholesterol level drops down rapidly, immune system goes up to high level (so high that its not recommended to use for those who have transplanted organs because immune system would be so high that it would reject it), and body functions would be improved. But, people are so blinded with McDonalds that they don't know these things at all. Honey is proved to be great natural disinfectant because it kills bacteria. It is known that ancient egyptians, romans and greeks used this to prevent wound infections, they just rubbed it onto the wound and it did wonders. That same honey does wonders even today. Hydrogen Peroxide is great, but for sure not necessary to survive.

Also you don't have to overdo it. I mean with any disinfectant even today, if some of your vital organs would be high damaged like you said there for liver, you would not survive it with no transplantation. Smaller wounds, not some 3 inches holes in your liver lol.

Halberdier wrote:All the Greek myths are to be taken as accurately as the Qu'rannic myths. As are the widely denied Satanic Verses.

This is just your own opinion, with no arguments presented. Now let me present you argument from my side. Look at this statement from Qur'an: “O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Recreation (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.”
As you can see here, it is a clear statement how human is created: "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you;" And this is just one part of describing stages of development. Take a good look at this 'chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed'. The formed one is the embryo itself which starts forming into different organs with specific functions and the unformed one is the placenta which starts developing in the 5th week. Can you feel the level of accuracy here? And then it says: 'in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you;' This means that we should pay attention to order of things said here so when we prove it by science one day (nowadays) we will know how impossible it was to know it back then when it was mentioned. That way God manifests His power. Those who give thoughts about this see how accurate these statements were, all clear said. All scientifically accurate in details.

Now to your Greek myths. Lets see their accuracy. 1st from all, Qur'an never changed, not even a word from its first copy, which can't be said for Greek myths (not counting here translation to other languages). They are told by people and written in many different ways. You can find many different stories about same myth. Some tell it in more details so in less. Only this shows how serious they are compared to Qur'an. Now to original story found in Greek myth source book: "So Prometheus was nailed to it and held fast there for a good many years; and each day, an eagle swooped down to feed on the lobes of his liver, which grew again by night. Such was the punishment suffered by Prometheus for having stolen the fire, until Heracles later released him." Now how accurate is this? It does not tell anything precisely. One of interpretations is that we can understand from story that Greeks knew of liver regenerating. But on the other side he was immortal so growing back his liver would be more a property of immortality. Why? Well, immortals cannot die isnt it. Then if his liver was damaged by eagle the body would not function well. Yet, the body had to be well to keep his immortality. So it is logical to say that the liver had to grow back due to his immortality. Then it says that was the punishment for him. So it could also be seen as kind of punishment that was ordered for him to be so since it was given by request of a god who could do such things. Also story is in the first view, not the liver which raises chances for liver just to be there as a random pick of a vital organ. If look at story straight how it is told only thing that would be logical to say is that liver of a god would grow back because he is immortal. That would be the conclusion for the liver.

Halberdier wrote:I do believe I mentioned that people selectively cut out where they find knowledge in a holy scripture to be outdated, and focus in on the ones that are coincidentally the same as modern knowledge. I don't find this to be an accurate way of proving a text to be factual.

Stop right there. You want to avoid my argument about embryology facts in Qur'an just by saying there is other stuff which is wrong, so that all text can be denied because if its Gods work then, there would not be any mistakes? Well, if you decide yourself to speak about Qur'an being wrong, thats another topic and I'm open for it any time. But anyway, lets follow what you wanted to imply and assume there are some wrong statements in there. Still, they don't explain why are embryological statements so accurate and true. Still, they don't explain how could someone write that 1400 years ago. I'm not trying to prove whole Book to be factual. I just used few facts telling about embryology. I decided myself for those to avoid anti-arguments like "it was a coincidence, they just guessed and it happened to be true" because so many facts about embryological stages telling accurate details cannot all be a simple guess. Only argument science has for now is to say that some of those facts could be generalized and interpreted otherwise (and again, thats just another point of view, still it does not disprove the point of view stated in the link). And, some facts are not to be generalized and tell things straight, not in a metaphor way. Science has problems to explain it. I would like to know if you have any other argument here since you have no arguments how could it be done by a human. You just blamed other parts of Book being wrong, again with no arguments and if any, still does not explain embryology facts being correct.

Halberdier wrote:I never said that the correct information was just a coincidence, only that they were coincidentally right, without having the ability to test their hypothesis as modern scientists can.

You are in dead loop here. You say its not coincidence but coincidentally right? You contradict yourself here. I mean how else could statement 'coincidentally right, without having the ability to test their hypothesis as modern scientists can' be interpreted other as 'something being right by coincidence since no one could know it at that time' lol.

Halberdier wrote:Without Being able to hypothesize the correct answer so long ago is not always insignificant, but to say that it is a miracle rather than a coincidence would be vanity.

In Holy Qur'an there are more than 1000 scientifically correct facts, all told 1400 years ago, at time humans could not know them because of their lack of technology to observe those things. I just named few here. To say all of it was just a coincidence, people just made up things and they happened to be true somehow (still assuming there are things wrong in the Book), would also be vanity.

This topic has been abandoned for 17 days, but I had this idea that was so mind-blowingly epic (*cough*) that I just had to post it here:

Christianity has flaws, but most Christians are decent people. With that in mind, I think the Bible needs to be re-written.

It's time we replaced it with a different book that doesn't blackmail people with Hell, condemn gays, deny Evolution, or praise a God that murders innocent children. Let's combine all the Gospels together into one consistent plot, add just enough backstory to provide context, make it more focused on the characters and their interactions, and remove the Author Filibusters in favour of them showing us through example.

Not only will it make a far more satisfying read and generate enough controversy to sell billions of copies, but it will be truer to the beliefs most Christians hold. Coz let's face it, most Christians don't believe in the cruel God the Bible portrays.

Occultdude17 wrote:This topic has been abandoned for 17 days, but I had this idea that was so mind-blowingly epic (*cough*) that I just had to post it here:

Christianity has flaws, but most Christians are decent people. With that in mind, I think the Bible needs to be re-written.

It's time we replaced it with a different book that doesn't blackmail people with Hell, condemn gays, deny Evolution, or praise a God that murders innocent children. Let's combine all the Gospels together into one consistent plot, add just enough backstory to provide context, make it more focused on the characters and their interactions, and remove the Author Filibusters in favour of them showing us through example.

Not only will it make a far more satisfying read and generate enough controversy to sell billions of copies, but it will be truer to the beliefs most Christians hold. Coz let's face it, most Christians don't believe in the cruel God the Bible portrays.

So many things wrong with this
and when a topic is dead you are supposed to leave it dead

The Bible is not supposed to be like the Boy Scout hand book. It is supposed to be the word of God. To a Christian, that would be like saying "Hey, me, a mere mortal, knows so much better than YHWH!"

Potus-Mat wrote:The Bible is not supposed to be like the Boy Scout hand book. It is supposed to be the word of God. To a Christian, that would be like saying "Hey, me, a mere mortal, knows so much better than YHWH!"

hence why i was saying what he said is ridiculous. I grew up with the bible and as a Christian. asking us to change that is like asking us to change our faith.