All because of a debate with Eskimospy...

[tfcmasta97]

"there's been infinite time for every possibility to be actualized, so why aren't we all dead"

This is why you're an idiot

 

[SirStev0]

I am not religious but I think that with the creator argument they get to claim that they are all powerful.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The difference between the two though is with one (alternate dimensions) you still need to explain/justify their existence, as they didn't come from nothing. You're just passing the buck off to another dimension. With the creator, he is where it ends and there is no fuzzy multi-dimensional handwaving.

The creator could exist in this dimension outside of the influence of space and time. Whether these dimensions exist is not contingent on my ability to rationalize them - they either exist or not.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Not sure where agnostic came into play. It wasn't a premise in the op.

Does an atheist's viewpoint change things?

You started by saying we have an "inability comprehend" and that our understanding is limited. (Keep in mind, by the way, that the original discussion between Eskimo and I in the Big Bang thread was hinging on atheism versus theism.) An agnostic starts from this premise. An atheist starts by stating what he knows, the first of which is that God cannot exist.

An antheist does not necessarily say he "knows" any more than a Catholic says he "knows." My guess is that most of us, if pressed, would say at most that we "strongly believe" (as opposed to "know") that God does or does not exist.

Atheists are regular people, too.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Not sure where agnostic came into play. It wasn't a premise in the op.

Does an atheist's viewpoint change things?

You started by saying we have an "inability comprehend" and that our understanding is limited. (Keep in mind, by the way, that the original discussion between Eskimo and I in the Big Bang thread was hinging on atheism versus theism.) An agnostic starts from this premise. An atheist starts by stating what he knows, the first of which is that God cannot exist.

An antheist does not necessarily say he "knows" any more than a Catholic says he "knows." My guess is that most of us, if pressed, would say at most that we "strongly believe" (as opposed to "know") that God does or does not exist.

Atheists are regular people, too.

Exactly. It is impossible to state postively that something does not exist. My atheism is based upon the fact that God's existence is very very unlikely, not a certainty that he does not exist.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic
Time appears to be infinite in one direction, but has a beginning in the other.

The law of conservation of energy implies that matter has been here an infinite time but doesn't say that. If time has a beginning though, then it would still hold true.

Well, I'm pretty sure infinity has neither beginning nor end, else it would be measurable, and that means finite.

Not at all. It is possible for something infinite to have a beginning. Just as long as it doesn't have an end.

8 - 1 = 8

And a specific example: Consider the set of positive integers. That's an infinite set that has a beginning but no end.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern
2. It fails to account for the possibility that, given the existence of such a law and the creator abiding by it, that the matter we have today is made up of the creator's own original matter. I.e., nothing has been created, just rearranged if you will.( a "He is everywhere" concept)

6. There are said to be a number of dimensions. What if matter/energy can be moved from one dimension to another? In the grand total nothing has been created, but from one's perpective in that dimension receiving matter from another it would look that way. The only way to confirm or deny the law would require that all matter/energy in all dimensions be measured (and likely simultaneously were matter/energy able to move from one to the other). So, what if the creator created this dimension and filled it with matter/energy from another?

Point 2 assumes the creator has mass/energy. How can this explanation be considered acceptable when it doesn't address/explain where the creator came from?

Point 6 doesn't get around the issue of where ALL the matter came from, taking all dimensions into account. You've just moved the issue back a step.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Fern
2. It fails to account for the possibility that, given the existence of such a law and the creator abiding by it, that the matter we have today is made up of the creator's own original matter. I.e., nothing has been created, just rearranged if you will.( a "He is everywhere" concept)

6. There are said to be a number of dimensions. What if matter/energy can be moved from one dimension to another? In the grand total nothing has been created, but from one's perpective in that dimension receiving matter from another it would look that way. The only way to confirm or deny the law would require that all matter/energy in all dimensions be measured (and likely simultaneously were matter/energy able to move from one to the other). So, what if the creator created this dimension and filled it with matter/energy from another?

Point 2 assumes the creator has mass/energy. How can this explanation be considered acceptable when it doesn't address/explain where the creator came from?

Point 6 doesn't get around the issue of where ALL the matter came from, taking all dimensions into account. You've just moved the issue back a step.

Regarding point 2.

Here's what I understood as the central/main question posed by the OP:

In a nutshell, Eskimo's counterpoint to mine was that a creator cannot have existed, because it would violate the law of conservation of matter, which states, as I understand it, that matter is never created nor destroyed, but only rearranged, assembled, manipulated, whatever you want to call it.

My interpretation of that is, in a nutshell, the law of conservation of matter means there was no "creation", thus no creator. (I do not find the issue of finite or infinite time necessarily germain to the issue unless one delves into the question of the validity of the law itself. I'll explain that thought further.)

Therefore point #2 answers what I believe the main question by positing a senario whereby a creator can exist, and create the universe, without violating the law of conservation of matter.

Point #6 is similar.
----------------------------------

If the question is where does all matter come from, any response citing the law of conservation of matter is nonsensical IMO. The only way not to violate the law of conservation of matter is to claim that matter was never created but rather has existed since infinity (hehe, can't say since the beginning of infinity). Otherwise, the law of conservation of matter has clearly been violated at least once; we have matter now don't we?

If you can claim that matter has existed since infinity, then you can also claim that a creator has existed since infinity and use one of my proposed solutions as to how that creator then later created the universe (without violating the law of conservation of matter).

If you follow me here ^, then you will better understand my solutions and why I proposed them (and why I believe that the infinite/finite time issue is basically irrelevant to the question of creation).

If one can accept that the law of matter has been violated at least once, then IMO that's damn good proof of a creator. Who/what else would not be bound by it? To this end, one could argue that the law of conservation of matter is better viewed as proof of a creator, not the other way around as has been argued by my friend Eskimospy.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Exactly. It is impossible to state postively that something does not exist. My atheism is based upon the fact that God's existence is very very unlikely, not a certainty that he does not exist.

The probabilities used to decide that God's existence is very, very unlikely relies on priors just like a deist's thought that God does exist. The only difference is the personal bias that leads to these prior beliefs. Both perceive some degree of certainty because they have experienced or reflected on things that indicate God or no God.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Exactly. It is impossible to state postively that something does not exist. My atheism is based upon the fact that God's existence is very very unlikely, not a certainty that he does not exist.

The probabilities used to decide that God's existence is very, very unlikely relies on priors just like a deist's thought that God does exist. The only difference is the personal bias that leads to these prior beliefs. Both perceive some degree of certainty because they have experienced or reflected on things that indicate God or no God.

You are saying that a person who believes that there is an invisible microscopic spaceship filled with Martians that orbits their head but that cannot be seen or otherwise detected is a belief equivalent to NOT thinking there is a microscopic spaceship circling their head.

One presumes the likelihood of existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. The other presumes the likelihood of non-existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. These are not equal positions.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Exactly. It is impossible to state postively that something does not exist. My atheism is based upon the fact that God's existence is very very unlikely, not a certainty that he does not exist.

The probabilities used to decide that God's existence is very, very unlikely relies on priors just like a deist's thought that God does exist. The only difference is the personal bias that leads to these prior beliefs. Both perceive some degree of certainty because they have experienced or reflected on things that indicate God or no God.

You are saying that a person who believes that there is an invisible microscopic spaceship filled with Martians that orbits their head but that cannot be seen or otherwise detected is a belief equivalent to NOT thinking there is a microscopic spaceship circling their head.

One presumes the likelihood of existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. The other presumes the likelihood of non-existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. These are not equal positions.

Bad analogy IMO.

The existance of *all things* cannot be denied. Some believe the existance of God explains how all those things came into existance.

Fern

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
You are saying that a person who believes that there is an invisible microscopic spaceship filled with Martians that orbits their head but that cannot be seen or otherwise detected is a belief equivalent to NOT thinking there is a microscopic spaceship circling their head.

One presumes the likelihood of existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. The other presumes the likelihood of non-existence of something for which there is no evidence of any sort. These are not equal positions.

It is ridiculous to you because you have a different set of beliefs and experiences than someone who does believe in tthe spaceship. They see your viewpoint as equally ridiculous because they feel that they have experienced the spaceship and been probed by the Martians, even if they cannot see them. Neither is necessarily more closed-minded than the other - both approach the problem with biases from what they already know, think they know, and/or feel. You feel that your position is intellectually superior because you know that the Martians don't exist. The Martian believers feel that they are superior because the Martians do exist. Unfortunately, neither side realizes that they are both equally ridiculous.

 

[dmcowen674]

I am