Are you a creationist or and evolutionist

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]I'm what many people would consider a fundamentalist on this issue.  I believe the Universe was created as described in Genesis.  Blood-Scribe

Now that's not very nice. Now he's going to have to whip your ass with words of truth from his book.

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Or 'wrong', as I would put it.Funky_Llama

Now that's not very nice. Now he's going to have to whip your ass with words of truth from his book.

He's gonna stimulate your soul with salvation from the body of Christ. Things are going to get hot now.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]I'm what many people would consider a fundamentalist on this issue.  I believe the Universe was created as described in Genesis.  Blood-Scribe

Now that's not very nice. Now he's going to have to whip your ass with words of truth from his book.

There's no point arguing over it.  It's just what I believe.  I'm not going to tell him that he's wrong in his thinking.  

No, I proved that my Bob is so godly, that he can be a salmon if he wants to. You've done nothing but proven that you took the words of the infallible Book of Bob completely out of context.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere in the Book of Bob that you can squeeze lemon upon him, a dash of salt and pepper, and the proceed to put sauces and spices on him while preparing to eat him, and then proceeding with eating him. So that means it's not true.

How can you say any of that is true if my infallible Book of Bob is completely true (which is the opposite of false, I might add)?

Blood-Scribe

You believe only the words of the Book of Bob? The Tome of Stan states that one should not believe what he see's, but to believe in what he can touch, taste and hear. You cannot believe in what is not there, and that is of course, the Book of Bob. 

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

No, I proved that my Bob is so godly, that he can be a salmon if he wants to. You've done nothing but proven that you took the words of the infallible Book of Bob completely out of context.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere in the Book of Bob that you can squeeze lemon upon him, a dash of salt and pepper, and the proceed to put sauces and spices on him while preparing to eat him, and then proceeding with eating him. So that means it's not true.

How can you say any of that is true if my infallible Book of Bob is completely true (which is the opposite of false, I might add)?

I_pWnzz_YoU

You believe only the words of the Book of Bob? The Tome of Stan states that one should not believe what he see's, but to believe in what he can touch, taste and hear. You cannot believe in what is not there, and that is of course, the Book of Bob. 

If it's not in the Book of Bob, it's not true. Period.

I belive in a bit of both actually kemar7856

I don't get how that works. Is it like, God was created by a combination of compressed gases and then he zapped the universe where it sits?

[QUOTE="I_pWnzz_YoU"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

No, I proved that my Bob is so godly, that he can be a salmon if he wants to. You've done nothing but proven that you took the words of the infallible Book of Bob completely out of context.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere in the Book of Bob that you can squeeze lemon upon him, a dash of salt and pepper, and the proceed to put sauces and spices on him while preparing to eat him, and then proceeding with eating him. So that means it's not true.

How can you say any of that is true if my infallible Book of Bob is completely true (which is the opposite of false, I might add)?

Blood-Scribe

You believe only the words of the Book of Bob? The Tome of Stan states that one should not believe what he see's, but to believe in what he can touch, taste and hear. You cannot believe in what is not there, and that is of course, the Book of Bob. 

If it's not in the Book of Bob, it's not true. Period.

I see ignorance is a big part of your silly religion.

or in between, where ytou beleive God set evolution in motion

i am an evolutionist, i am taking human origins at my College, and it is just so much easier to understand, and there is more realism to it.

Evoltuion is testable, while creationism is not.

there are fossils, gene pools and what not to show that evoltion existed.

but there is nothing to show how creation happened.

As in the creator made all, but who created the creator and how did he come about.

And if God created us, then why is there so many technical flaws with the human antatomy.

theres way too many points to mention on both sides, so ill leave it to you guys.

jerkface96

There's nothing in evolution to show how life started either. I believe in both, but I don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms. I believe that God made us in his image from the Earth.

The Bible is particularly vague about creation, so evolution is completely possible within the context of the Bible. The one thing it says clearly though is that mankind didn't come from animals - we have free will and we have both a physical body and a spirtual body/soul. That much is clear.

I'm what many people would consider a fundamentalist on this issue.  I believe the Universe was created as described in Genesis.  mysterylobster

Are your beleifs based on the same sort of "logic" that led you to beleive that McCain was going to win?

[QUOTE="jerkface96"]

or in between, where ytou beleive God set evolution in motion

i am an evolutionist, i am taking human origins at my College, and it is just so much easier to understand, and there is more realism to it.

Evoltuion is testable, while creationism is not.

there are fossils, gene pools and what not to show that evoltion existed.

but there is nothing to show how creation happened.

As in the creator made all, but who created the creator and how did he come about.

And if God created us, then why is there so many technical flaws with the human antatomy.

theres way too many points to mention on both sides, so ill leave it to you guys.

abdelmessih101

There's nothing in evolution to show how life started either. I believe in both, but I don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms. I believe that God made us in his image from the Earth.

The Bible is particularly vague about creation, so evolution is completely possible within the context of the Bible. The one thing it says clearly though is that mankind didn't come from animals - we have free will and we have both a physical body and a spirtual body/soul. That much is clear.

The Theory of Evolution is not about the origins of life. Abiogenesis has to do with the origin of life. 

i believe that God created all of us. i also believe in evolution mainly as a way to adapt to the differing environments. i believe God has a hand in that evolution though. metaldude05

Hey metaldude hows it going?

I've been juggling this issue arounfd in my head and I've pretty much concluded the same as you. I'm a creationist and an evolutionist.

[QUOTE="metaldude05"]i believe that God created all of us. i also believe in evolution mainly as a way to adapt to the differing environments. i believe God has a hand in that evolution though. Godly_Warrior

Hey metaldude hows it going?

I've been juggling this issue arounfd in my head and I've pretty much concluded the same as you. I'm a creationist and an evolutionist.

ive always kinda been told that evolution goes against creationism and i believed it for a while. I realized that things do evolve to some extent and struggled a lot for a while with how it could be that evolution could exist. i looked into it and realized that it a lot of evolution doesnt go against creation it is just a fact that we have to adapt somewhat to a changing environment. 

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]Neither. I believe in Bob.Blood-Scribe

My Bob exists more than your Bob does, so my Bob is better. Also, my book says my Bob is better than your Bob too. So there.

In a nutshell, this pretty much sums up for me how ridiculous religion is. Debates between people of differing religions illustrates this point far better than debates between religious and non-religious people.

[QUOTE="SupraGT"]Creationist. Examining the structure of the universe, solar system, the earth, our bodies; it's hard to believe we came from random events that just somehow magically came together perfectly. The law of Entropy, things go to disorder, not order.Robertoey

What order? Stars are going supernova, galaxies are colliding, solar systems are failing, worlds that could contain or develop life are being destoyed. Even earth is far from perfect. Most of the water on it can't be consumed. Huge parts of the world are desert. We can't live near the poles without human technology. Volcanoes erupt, earthquakes destroy cities, tsunamis and tornadoes tear down buildings and destroy lives...

Ooo, low blow right there. :lol:

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="jerkface96"]

or in between, where ytou beleive God set evolution in motion

i am an evolutionist, i am taking human origins at my College, and it is just so much easier to understand, and there is more realism to it.

Evoltuion is testable, while creationism is not.

there are fossils, gene pools and what not to show that evoltion existed.

but there is nothing to show how creation happened.

As in the creator made all, but who created the creator and how did he come about.

And if God created us, then why is there so many technical flaws with the human antatomy.

theres way too many points to mention on both sides, so ill leave it to you guys.

Shad0ki11

There's nothing in evolution to show how life started either. I believe in both, but I don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms. I believe that God made us in his image from the Earth.

The Bible is particularly vague about creation, so evolution is completely possible within the context of the Bible. The one thing it says clearly though is that mankind didn't come from animals - we have free will and we have both a physical body and a spirtual body/soul. That much is clear.

The Theory of Evolution is not about the origins of life. Abiogenesis has to do with the origin of life.

Your argument fell apart at the first sentence.

Right - When did I say that evolution was about the origins of life? :| Creationism is concerned with the origin of life, however, and I'm not arguing anything, just explaining my beliefs yet you still seem to have a problem with it ... WTF? :?

[QUOTE="Godly_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="metaldude05"]i believe that God created all of us. i also believe in evolution mainly as a way to adapt to the differing environments. i believe God has a hand in that evolution though. metaldude05

Hey metaldude hows it going?

I've been juggling this issue arounfd in my head and I've pretty much concluded the same as you. I'm a creationist and an evolutionist.

ive always kinda been told that evolution goes against creationism and i believed it for a while. I realized that things do evolve to some extent and struggled a lot for a while with how it could be that evolution could exist. i looked into it and realized that it a lot of evolution doesnt go against creation it is just a fact that we have to adapt somewhat to a changing environment.

Yeah, the two theories have been so polarized by the media and by many Christians when really the only contradiction between the two is regarding the origin of humanity. The theory of evolution says humanity evolved from animals, which is wrong according to the Bible and I believe the Bible. Other than that, there is no strict explanation of how God went about creating the different animals in the Bible - it just says that He did. Therefore, the theory of evolution serves as a possible explanation of how God went about preparing the earth for the introduction of mankind.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]How many times do we need to go through these threads before it ends?Severed_Hand

Ends? Are you mad? THERE IS NO END!

until they stop getting 10+ pages of replys

[QUOTE="Robertoey"]

[QUOTE="SupraGT"]Creationist. Examining the structure of the universe, solar system, the earth, our bodies; it's hard to believe we came from random events that just somehow magically came together perfectly. The law of Entropy, things go to disorder, not order.luke1889

What order? Stars are going supernova, galaxies are colliding, solar systems are failing, worlds that could contain or develop life are being destoyed. Even earth is far from perfect. Most of the water on it can't be consumed. Huge parts of the world are desert. We can't live near the poles without human technology. Volcanoes erupt, earthquakes destroy cities, tsunamis and tornadoes tear down buildings and destroy lives...

Ooo, low blow right there. :lol:

 Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

 

There's nothing in evolution to show how life started either. I believe in both, but I don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms. I believe that God made us in his image from the Earth.

The Bible is particularly vague about creation, so evolution is completely possible within the context of the Bible. The one thing it says clearly though is that mankind didn't come from animals - we have free will and we have both a physical body and a spirtual body/soul. That much is clear.

abdelmessih101

The Theory of Evolution is not about the origins of life. Abiogenesis has to do with the origin of life.

Your argument fell apart at the first sentence.

Right - When did I say that evolution was about the origins of life? :| Creationism is concerned with the origin of life, however, and I'm not arguing anything, just explaining my beliefs yet you still seem to have a problem with it ... WTF? :?

I must have over-analyzed your words. My mistake. 

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="Robertoey"]

 

What order? Stars are going supernova, galaxies are colliding, solar systems are failing, worlds that could contain or develop life are being destoyed. Even earth is far from perfect. Most of the water on it can't be consumed. Huge parts of the world are desert. We can't live near the poles without human technology. Volcanoes erupt, earthquakes destroy cities, tsunamis and tornadoes tear down buildings and destroy lives...

superheromonkey

Ooo, low blow right there. :lol:

 Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

as big as the universe is, the improbable is bound to happen eventually.

Yeah, the two theories have been so polarized by the media and by many Christians when really the only contradiction between the two is regarding the origin of humanity. The theory of evolution says humanity evolved from animals, which is wrong according to the Bible and I believe the Bible. Other than that, there is no strict explanation of how God went about creating the different animals in the Bible - it just says that He did. Therefore, the theory of evolution serves as a possible explanation of how God went about preparing the earth for the introduction of mankind.

abdelmessih101

i agree 100%. evolution is often correlated with the origin of life which is not really what it is. it frustrates me when both parties present it that way and it confused me for the longest time. Christians sometimes look like fools trying to explain away evolution instead of just taking it for what it is and that God can be and IMO is very active in evolution. 

 Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

superheromonkey

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

Mr_sprinkles

I think (to an educated guess, based on unrealyable knowledge) that there is 20-60 planets that have, or had, or going to have within the next billion years, "intelligent life" on them. Thats like ~0.00012% of the planets in our galaxy. Nice to know that statisticaly speaking we are not alone.

Though 300 to 1 would be wonderful odds.

A side note to the subject; the Universe is still quite young (~13 billion) compared to its "life expectancy" (A gogoplex, 1x10 to the power of 99'ish) and the earth is around eight billion years old. So life on earth could very well be the first of many to follow.

As for the original topic, I think that denying that Evolution (and its varients) exists as a theory (by that I mean the accepted view on life), and replacing it with literal creationisim is backword thinking. Theories change as the evidence changes, but the thousand year old veiws have barely changed at all. Sure mix them together, say god(s) control evolution or was the catalyste for life, no one can contest them as reasonable explanations. Topic should have finished there :P.

 Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

superheromonkey

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]Neither. I believe in Bob.luke1889

My Bob exists more than your Bob does, so my Bob is better. Also, my book says my Bob is better than your Bob too. So there.

In a nutshell, this pretty much sums up for me how ridiculous religion is. Debates between people of differing religions illustrates this point far better than debates between religious and non-religious people.

Wait wuh? You know we were joking right? At least I was :?

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] I'm an agnostic, I believe in God, I believe in common ancestry, but I'm not sure that God was so disconnected and relied on crude natural selection as the tool to create humans. zakkro

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

Well that is accurate examination of things as they are now on earth, but not necessarily of how they have always been. He never said there wasn't chaos by the way. Only that there is order as well. The chances that any planet be able to support life, especially conscious life, is infintessimally small.

Greatgone12

not it is not...it is growing, which means it is very finite. It also means that it is probable that it must be growing out from some point. Which many consider to be good evidence for god. To Red Wolf- unreliable info is right. If we were the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, it would be a miracle unto itself. 1 in 300 while humorous will increase indefinitely to 1 in x. With x equaling the amount of planets we have found. The point is that until more intelligent life is found it cannot be assumed and taken for granted that there are. There are also factors I am sure that you are not bringing into account with your own evaluation, such as the gravitational-time dilation. When we find some more then we can talk about it, until then i think the cosmological evidence indicates a good possibility of a creator.superheromonkey

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]not it is not...it is growing, which means it is very finite. It also means that it is probable that it must be growing out from some point. Which many consider to be good evidence for god. To Red Wolf- unreliable info is right. If we were the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, it would be a miracle unto itself. 1 in 300 while humorous will increase indefinitely to 1 in x. With x equaling the amount of planets we have found. The point is that until more intelligent life is found it cannot be assumed and taken for granted that there are. There are also factors I am sure that you are not bringing into account with your own evaluation, such as the gravitational-time dilation. When we find some more then we can talk about it, until then i think the cosmological evidence indicates a good possibility of a creator.foxhound_fox

Have you ever heard of Hilbert's Hotel?

actually foxhound fox, as far as scientists are concerned, the Universe is very much finite and has an origin. But regardless, there are strong philosophical arguments for the finititude of the past which give us much more certainty that the universe has a beginning because they use deductive reasoning whereas Science uses inductive reasoning.

Have you ever heard of Hilbert's Hotel?

NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]I'm what many people would consider a fundamentalist on this issue.  I believe the Universe was created as described in Genesis.  Guybrush_3

Are your beleifs based on the same sort of "logic" that led you to beleive that McCain was going to win?

You have to provide some peer-reviewed evidence to back up such a bold statement as "as far as scientists are concerned, the Universe is very much finite and has an origin."foxhound_fox

The Big Bang theory has near-unanimous support among cosmologists

and so does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. we know from the Cosmic redshift that the universe is expanding. if it is expanding then it is not infinite. if it is not infinite then it had a beginning because if the universe existed eternally into the past, then the universe would have reached a state of pure thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy, absolute zero.

I've never seen anything to support such a hypothesis. What the current understanding is, is that the universe is infinite and has no origin, which is the grounding of the Big Bang theory along with the science behind the expansion and red-shift of the current universe.foxhound_fox

I seriously doubt that you would be able to provide even a single peer-reviewed publication from the last 50 years that would support such a statement that the idea of an origin-less universe is the basis for the big bang theory and the cosmic expansion. Not only that, but this statement that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause (which is exactly what is required should you posit the theory that the universe was both uncaused and began to exist) violates the first principle of metaphysics, that being does not come from nonbeing. if you seriously wish to violate this principle, then you will have stepped into the realm of magic.

Philosophy isn't science.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

The Big Bang theory has near-unanimous support among cosmologists

and so does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. we know from the Cosmic redshift that the universe is expanding. if it is expanding then it is not infinite. if it is not infinite then it had a beginning because if the universe existed eternally into the past, then the universe would have reached a state of pure thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy, absolute zero.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I've never seen anything to support such a hypothesis. What the current understanding is, is that the universe is infinite and has no origin, which is the grounding of the Big Bang theory along with the science behind the expansion and red-shift of the current universe.NTWrightfan

I seriously doubt that you would be able to provide even a single peer-reviewed publication from the last 50 years that would support such a statement that the idea of an origin-less universe is the basis for the big bang theory and the cosmic expansion. Not only that, but this statement that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause (which is exactly what is required should you posit the theory that the universe was both uncaused and began to exist) violates the first principle of metaphysics, that being does not come from nonbeing. if you seriously wish to violate this principle, then you will have stepped into the realm of magic.

Philosophy isn't science.foxhound_fox

The Big Bang theory has near-unanimous support among cosmologists

and so does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. we know from the Cosmic redshift that the universe is expanding. if it is expanding then it is not infinite. if it is not infinite then it had a beginning because if the universe existed eternally into the past, then the universe would have reached a state of pure thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy, absolute zero. NTWrightfan

I seriously doubt that you would be able to provide even a single peer-reviewed publication from the last 50 years that would support such a statement that the idea of an origin-less universe is the basis for the big bang theory and the cosmic expansion. Not only that, but this statement that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause (which is exactly what is required should you posit the theory that the universe was both uncaused and began to exist) violates the first principle of metaphysics, that being does not come from nonbeing. if you seriously wish to violate this principle, then you will have stepped into the realm of magic. NTWrightfan

you're absolutely right, science is a SLAVE to philosophy. Science could not possibly exist without philosophy.NTWrightfan

The big bang theory does not cover the origin of the universe.. I don't know how that supports your statement. :? DeeJayInphinity

DeeJay, the Big Bang theory and the 2nd law support the fact that the universe has a finite past. But I tend to shy away from those arguments (because within science, there is always without exception room for doubt) and favor the philosophical arguments for the finititude of the past. The Philosophical arguments, rooted in mathematics, show that the past cannot be eternal and that it must have a beginning.

There is as of yet no evidence that the universe had an origin or that it did not have an origin. I don't know how you can apply any laws to something that we know nothing about.DeeJayInphinity

Deejay, the laws of mathematics support my statement that the past is not eternal. if it is not eternal then it began to exist sometime in the past. if it began to exist then it must have a cause. if it has a cause then this cause must be God or some disembodied mind for one very simple reason. The only objects which can exist timelessly and without material are disembodied minds and abstract objects. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it logically follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind. NTWrightfan

Yes, and infinite=/= expanding. how can an infinite universe possibly expand?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]That is why discussing the complexities of "infinity" are so... complex. If there was an origin, we would be able to trace the red-shift away from the origin and narrow down a fixed centre.foxhound_fox

why is that? if you are inside an expanding universe, EVERYTHING will appear to be moving away from you.

The Big Bang theory does not cover the cause of the Big Bang, only what it was and what happened after it began. We have no way of knowing what came before the Big Bang and never will. There is no way anyone can prove that it either came from "nothing" or "something."

ah, so are you willing to believe in magic?
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Metaphysics? Principles of metaphysics being applied to the physical universe? What the ****?foxhound_fox

metaphysics applies to EVERYTHING, including physics. foxhoud, the notion that the universe is both uncaused and finite is worse than magic, because when the magician pulls the bunny rabbit out of the hat, you still have the hat and you still ahve the magician.

It definitely isn't a slave to metaphysics... that's for sure. Logic is one form of philosophy, which science is based on. But that doesn't mean that existentialism can be used to refute a scientific theory.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]The big bang theory does not cover the origin of the universe.. I don't know how that supports your statement. :? NTWrightfan

DeeJay, the Big Bang theory and the 2nd law support the fact that the universe has a finite past. But I tend to shy away from those arguments (because within science, there is always without exception room for doubt) and favor the philosophical arguments for the finititude of the past. The Philosophical arguments, rooted in mathematics, show that the past cannot be eternal and that it must have a beginning.

There is as of yet no evidence that the universe had an origin or that it did not have an origin. I don't know how you can apply any laws to something that we know nothing about.DeeJayInphinity

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]I'm what many people would consider a fundamentalist on this issue.  I believe the Universe was created as described in Genesis.  mysterylobster

Are your beleifs based on the same sort of "logic" that led you to beleive that McCain was going to win?

I couldnt help but take a cheap shot after McCains defeat. 

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Deejay, the laws of mathematics support my statement that the past is not eternal. if it is not eternal then it began to exist sometime in the past. if it began to exist then it must have a cause. if it has a cause then this cause must be God or some disembodied mind for one very simple reason. The only objects which can exist timelessly and without material are disembodied minds and abstract objects. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it logically follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind. foxhound_fox

allow me to give two mathematical arguments for the finititude of the past

argument 1: Hilbert's Hotel. The aim of this analogy is to show that actual infinites are impossible. Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, now imagine that every one of those rooms are full. a guest arrives and wants to give the guest a room. How does he do this? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #3, and does this ad infinitum. You now have one vacant room, even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FILLED. I should stop here after showing the absurdity of actual infinites, but I will go on anyway. Now imagine for the moment that an infinite amount of guests arrive and want a room. How does the clerk give these arrivals a room? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #4, the guest in room #3 to room #6, and does this ad infinitum. You now have an infinite amount of rooms even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FULL. Now imagine for the moment that the guests staying in every other room leave, how does he do this? simple, he shifts the guests in room #2 to room #1, the guests in room #4 to room #2, and does this ad infinitum. You now have a hotel completely filled EVEN THOUGH MOMENTS BEFORE THE HOTEL WAS HALF EMPTY!

argument 2: How can a man count down from infinity? Imagine that someone has been counting down from infinity and has just finished. but he would have finished 5 minutes ago, and he would have finished 10 minutes ago. Simply put, you cannot traverse an infinite. if the past is eternal, then we should not be here right now

these 2 arguments really give us mathematical certainty that the past is not eternal and that the natural world began to exist.

Now the natural world could not have popped into existence out from nothing, to say otherwise would be an appeal to magic.

Yes, and infinite=/= expanding. how can an infinite universe possibly expand?NTWrightfan

why is that? if you are inside an expanding universe, EVERYTHING will appear to be moving away from you. NTWrightfan

ah, so are you willing to believe in magic? NTWrightfan

metaphysics applies to EVERYTHING, including physics. foxhoud, the notion that the universe is both uncaused and finite is worse than magic, because when the magician pulls the bunny rabbit out of the hat, you still have the hat and you still ahve the magician. NTWrightfan

not all philosophy is existential...just so you know. the philosophical arguments are rooted IN MATHEMATICS.NTWrightfan

allow me to give two mathematical arguments for the finititude of the past


argument 1: Hilbert's Hotel. The aim of this analogy is to show that actual infinites are impossible. Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, now imagine that every one of those rooms are full. a guest arrives and wants to give the guest a room. How does he do this? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #3, and does this ad infinitum. You now have one vacant room, even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FILLED. I should stop here after showing the absurdity of actual infinites, but I will go on anyway. Now imagine for the moment that an infinite amount of guests arrive and want a room. How does the clerk give these arrivals a room? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #4, the guest in room #3 to room #6, and does this ad infinitum. You now have an infinite amount of rooms even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FULL. Now imagine for the moment that the guests staying in every other room leave, how does he do this? simple, he shifts the guests in room #2 to room #1, the guests in room #4 to room #2, and does this ad infinitum. You now have a hotel completely filled EVEN THOUGH MOMENTS BEFORE THE HOTEL WAS HALF EMPTY!

argument 2: How can a man count down from infinity? Imagine that someone has been counting down from infinity and has just finished. but he would have finished 5 minutes ago, and he would have finished 10 minutes ago. Simply put, you cannot traverse an infinite. if the past is eternal, then we should not be here right now

these 2 arguments really give us mathematical certainty that the past is not eternal and that the natural world began to exist.

Now the natural world could not have popped into existence out from nothing, to say otherwise would be an appeal to magic.
NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Deejay, the laws of mathematics support my statement that the past is not eternal. if it is not eternal then it began to exist sometime in the past. if it began to exist then it must have a cause. if it has a cause then this cause must be God or some disembodied mind for one very simple reason. The only objects which can exist timelessly and without material are disembodied minds and abstract objects. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it logically follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind. NTWrightfan

allow me to give two mathematical arguments for the finititude of the past

argument 1: Hilbert's Hotel. The aim of this analogy is to show that actual infinites are impossible. Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, now imagine that every one of those rooms are full. a guest arrives and wants to give the guest a room. How does he do this? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #3, and does this ad infinitum. You now have one vacant room, even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FILLED. I should stop here after showing the absurdity of actual infinites, but I will go on anyway. Now imagine for the moment that an infinite amount of guests arrive and want a room. How does the clerk give these arrivals a room? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #4, the guest in room #3 to room #6, and does this ad infinitum. You now have an infinite amount of rooms even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FULL. Now imagine for the moment that the guests staying in every other room leave, how does he do this? simple, he shifts the guests in room #2 to room #1, the guests in room #4 to room #2, and does this ad infinitum. You now have a hotel completely filled EVEN THOUGH MOMENTS BEFORE THE HOTEL WAS HALF EMPTY!

argument 2: How can a man count down from infinity? Imagine that someone has been counting down from infinity and has just finished. but he would have finished 5 minutes ago, and he would have finished 10 minutes ago. Simply put, you cannot traverse an infinite. if the past is eternal, then we should not be here right now

these 2 arguments really give us mathematical certainty that the past is not eternal and that the natural world began to exist.

Now the natural world could not have popped into existence out from nothing, to say otherwise would be an appeal to magic.

1. infinity has no end therefore the hotel rooms could never be full.

2. Infinity has no end therefor you cannot count down from it.