the japanese are great burger eaters.
kobayahsi has the world record for burger eating.
Hamburgers: 93 hamburgers in 8 minutes at the Krystal Square Off World Hamburger Eating Championship in Chattanooga(No Dunking World Record)[12]
On the Existence of "God"
-
dont mean to butt in but, it seems quite logical to express your veiws on a God/Religon but trying to convert others and trying to prove others wrong has no point to it.
This topic is one based on Faith, and Faith for most does not need proof or logic to it its just there.
the only way your gonna conver people who have solid beleifs is to either/kill them or force them to shut up or just brainwash their children, otherwise this topic is pointless
my 2 cents :)
Butt in any time (and welcome to the forums).
It’s interesting. The two “extreme” sides - D:S/Me and Janus are working off of faith. We have faith that God has given us that God exists (not only that, but wants to have a relationship with us). Janus has a considerable amount of Faith that God does not exist. I think we’ve done an adequate job of explaining the source of that faith - if not using science to “prove” that which can’t be proven.
At the same time, Janus, does your faith come from a vacuum? If not, then which influence in your ideology generated it? Or is it something that you feel? And how do you feel it - like gravity? Like love (or the opposite . . . apathy)? Like the rest of us feel God? -
@cystic:
… We have faith that God has given us that God exists (not only that, but wants to have a relationship with us). Janus has a considerable amount of Faith that God does not exist. …
At the same time, Janus, does your faith come from a vacuum? If not, then which influence in your ideology generated it? Or is it something that you feel? And how do you feel it - like gravity? Like love (or the opposite . . . apathy)? Like the rest of us feel God?looks, sees the rethoric tripwire, decides not to step on it :)
I’m sorry if I implied that Hinduism doesn’t qualify, but frankly I don’t see how you inferred that from my statement. It is a religion.
Oh just because you said
@an:It’s not the same God. Jesus Christ is God, and reincarnation is a wrong philosophy.
-
@F_alk:
@cystic:
… We have faith that God has given us that God exists (not only that, but wants to have a relationship with us). Janus has a considerable amount of Faith that God does not exist. …
At the same time, Janus, does your faith come from a vacuum? If not, then which influence in your ideology generated it? Or is it something that you feel? And how do you feel it - like gravity? Like love (or the opposite . . . apathy)? Like the rest of us feel God?looks, sees the rethoric tripwire, decides not to step on it :)
awwwww?!?!?!
et tu F_alk?
that was too much fun. -
you are asking CC where i get the idea that god does not exist? like someone else on here posted (im too lazy to look for who) i used to in fact go to church, but one day i woke up (not literally one individual day) and realized the fallacy in believing in god. i rationalized (for myself at least) that there could not logically exist a god. and let me just say, i apologize if i have come off as hostile towards those who believe in god. partially its me having a good time mocking you, and partially its because i sometimes get a little worked up over these things (especially when i know when you idiots are wrong :) ) on that note, has anyone here seen Devil’s Advocate? i think satan (al pacino) gives an interesting description of god (a sadist, among other things). (Janus takes a step back, looks at the world for a moment) given the circumstances, i would say the description, if god is real, would be an accurate portrayal.
-
you are asking CC where i get the idea that god does not exist? like someone else on here posted (im too lazy to look for who) i used to in fact go to church, but one day i woke up (not literally one individual day) and realized the fallacy in believing in god. i rationalized (for myself at least) that there could not logically exist a god. and let me just say, i apologize if i have come off as hostile towards those who believe in god. partially its me having a good time mocking you, and partially its because i sometimes get a little worked up over these things (especially when i know when you idiots are wrong :) ) on that note, has anyone here seen Devil’s Advocate? i think satan (al pacino) gives an interesting description of god (a sadist, among other things). (Janus takes a step back, looks at the world for a moment) given the circumstances, i would say the description, if god is real, would be an accurate portrayal.
That was me 8) ! (the poster you’re referring to)
I haven’t seen the Devil’s Advocate in awhile, but I did find the quote you mentioned. “Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He’s a prankster. Think about it. He gives man INSTINCTS! He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste! Taste, don’t swallow. Ahaha! And when you’re jumpin’ from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He’s laughin’ His sick, f*&%'n ass off. He’s a tight-ass! He’s a sadist! He’s an absentee landlord. Worship THAT? NEVER!”
-
First, I would like to apologize. If this thread offends anyone, I am truly sorry. While your belief in God makes you completely wrong, you have a right to wallow in your own ignorance. Second, I have so much to say on the subject, that I am most likely not going to have organized thoughts, and anything I do say will be immensely incomplete. Third, everything I am saying is coming straight from my head. I have no reference material, I am not quoting anything, and I am not being fed lines. Fourth and finally, I will try to pose questions about the very existence of God. I will make efforts not to ask the same, tired questions, (what is the meaning of life, why do bad things happen to good people, etc) I am not trying to win an argument simply by posing rudimentary questions that cannot be cogently answered, and therefore convey a sense of victory upon me, I am posing actual questions I have, which I am curious as to the religious opinion on the subject. If I think the question is not the kind you could realistically answer, I will say so.
How can anyone belief in so foolish a concept as a divine being? The very thought that there could be one omnipotent creature is absurd. Before I challenge the existence though, let me submit two possibilities for the existence of this “God”. First, the Big Bang (prevailing theory about the creation of the Universe) created all that is, and ever was. Our galaxy and everything in it, along with all other cosmic entities. Perhaps “God” is no more than some entity created by the Big Bang, which is greater in some way than we. Either it is much larger, or has superior traits, etc. Surely, to some insect or microorganism, Humans must appear as “gods”, we have the ability to rule their entire lives. Second, “God” is a being more advanced than ourselves in some way, but is then one of a race of “gods” who are the “humans” to an even higher group of “gods”, something like the theory that we are all just part of a much larger universe. These are only two possible theories, and there are many, many more.
The very nature of “god” as it is described seems fundamentally flawed. I doubt highly that anything could just “be”. that is to say, how could there be one omnipotent being that always was, always will be, and that created everything? What created it? or where did it originate from? How could it just exist? and if it created everything, what was there before it created everything? Was it just there? These are some pretty deep questions mind you, I dont expect any real answers, I am simply postulating questions. Mind you, the Big Bang theory postulates a singulartity being present before existence as well, but the idea of energy existing before existence is more agreeable to me than some tangible, omnipotent being.
Religion is where I find the greatest flaws in the belief in a divine being. The plethora of dogmas in existence leave me dumbfounded and sometimes speechless when I really think about them. For example, you have christianity. Within that, there is Catholocism, Orthodox, and Protestant. Under protestant, there are too many denominations to go into. All of these denominations of Christianity all believe in the divinity of Christ, but disagree on the finer points. Some are legitametly different denominations, but others, like Episcopalian to Catholic are basically identical. In cases like these, the difference is more political than over the dogma.
I think almost all of us have heard an argument over religion and the existence of God, where the different religions are brought up, and existence is challenged over differences. Many times, this is counterpointed by a statement something like “God is universal, we believe differently in the same being” or something like that. Now i have a problem with that. That is first of all, too easy. That seems to be oversimplfying things, and is way too conveniant. That would suggest automatically a monotheism. What about polytheistic believers? Does that include them? What about theories of the afterlife? Each religion has its own belief about life (or lackthereof) after death, be it a purgatory-esque existence, heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc. How could it be the same God, if christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and Hindus believe in reincarnation?Thats all for now, I will post more later
I’m a Jew, it’s from my religion that Xianity and Islam developed. The existence of G-d is rational and is based on mathematical probability. The more complex something becomes and the more original that thing is, the less likely it is to have formed from random chance. For example, if I told you that a perfect Shakespearian sonnet was re-written by rain drops that fell on a typewriter and by animals running over that typewriter, would you believe me? You’d have to be pretty dense to believe some story like that, because the sonnet is just too complex and too original for it to have come from something so random. So, what about the universe? It is even more complex than a sonnet and even more original. Can you honestly say to yourself that it came from a series of random events that if one of them would not have occurred, the whole thing would not have happened? The more likely situation is that these events that created the universe were forced to happen. The probability of all the events occurring just the way the scientists describe until the modern day are so low that mathematically it is considered impossible. I’ll post more on the subject later.
-
cute EG,
but i’d submit that Islam did not develop from Judaism anymore than Judaism developed from Islam (Ishmael was the older brother . . . ). W.R.T. Christianity - Jesus said “salvation comes from the Jews” . . . so you may have a point there :) -
@cystic:
cute EG,
but i’d submit that Islam did not develop from Judaism anymore than Judaism developed from Islam (Ishmael was the older brother . . . ). W.R.T. Christianity - Jesus said “salvation comes from the Jews” . . . so you may have a point there :)Actually, Jews had been living in Arabia since biblical times. Mohammed was a trader and learned about monotheism through his dealings with Jews in Palestine and Syria. He presented his new religion to the Jews of Medina and other villages because he thought Islam had enough in common with Judaism that they would accept it. Whe nthe Jews refused to accept Islam, he started a war and kicked all the Jews out of Arabia. At one point he invaded a Jewish village, killed all the men and took the women and children as slaves. Structurally Islam and Judaism have much more in common than Judaism and Xianity, and no one can deny that Xianity is somewhat based on Judaism.
-
excellent points emugod, but god is not the only explanation for what “forced” the creation of the universe. also, i will again pose this question. if the universe is so big and complex that god had to have created it, where exactly did god come from? i think that even on the offchance god does exist, it is fallcy to believe it created the universe. if god does exist, i would think that instead, it had been created by the universe, or with the universe.
-
sorry, that last post was me, forgot to log in
-
The existence of G-d is rational and is based on mathematical probability. The more complex something becomes and the more original that thing is, the less likely it is to have formed from random chance. For example, if I told you that a perfect Shakespearian sonnet was re-written by rain drops that fell on a typewriter and by animals running over that typewriter, would you believe me? … So, what about the universe? It is even more complex than a sonnet and even more original. Can you honestly say to yourself that it came from a series of random events that if one of them would not have occurred, the whole thing would not have happened? The more likely situation is that these events that created the universe were forced to happen. The probability of all the events occurring just the way the scientists describe until the modern day are so low that mathematically it is considered impossible. I’ll post more on the subject later.
I guess you miss one point here.
You assume all things have the same probability (like the typewriter example). But, they have not. If you put, say Hydrogen and Oxygen close to each other, then you have a finite chance that they will merge. If they merge, this rapidly increases the chance for other reactions of that type to happen. On the other hand, once merged the chance for them to split is much lower, and once one splits that doesnn’t have any influence at all on the others.
Some processes in nature happen more often than others, this is something you didn’t take into account for your mathematical/statistical argument…
Something very simple: There is a finite chance in every moment of your life that you die. Actually, this chance is highly dependant from your surroundings and also increasing with time. But, on the other hand, once your are dead, the chance for you to become alive again is extremely close to zero, such close that we can take it as zero.See what i mean when i say your argument is flawed?
-
@F_alk:
I guess you miss one point here.
You assume all things have the same probability (like the typewriter example). But, they have not. If you put, say Hydrogen and Oxygen close to each other, then you have a finite chance that they will merge. If they merge, this rapidly increases the chance for other reactions of that type to happen. On the other hand, once merged the chance for them to split is much lower, and once one splits that doesnn’t have any influence at all on the others.
Some processes in nature happen more often than others, this is something you didn’t take into account for your mathematical/statistical argument…
Something very simple: There is a finite chance in every moment of your life that you die. Actually, this chance is highly dependant from your surroundings and also increasing with time. But, on the other hand, once your are dead, the chance for you to become alive again is extremely close to zero, such close that we can take it as zero.See what i mean when i say your argument is flawed?
Actually, that was the exact point I was making. Because the chances of something rather simple such as a perfect Shapespearian sonnet to be made randomly are so low, then something even more complex and original such as the universe will have an even lower chance of being created by a random series of events.
-
@F_alk:
You assume all things have the same probability (like the typewriter example). But, they have not….
Some processes in nature happen more often than others, this is something you didn’t take into account for your mathematical/statistical argument…
See what i mean when i say your argument is flawed?Actually, that was the exact point I was making. Because the chances of something rather simple such as a perfect Shapespearian sonnet to be made randomly are so low, then something even more complex and original such as the universe will have an even lower chance of being created by a random series of events.
This was exactly not the point you were making.
blindly typing a typesetter is kind of random. I could now change the sizes of the keys according to their probability (of each letter to be found in this sonnet). This would massively increase the chance that “blind typing” creates the sonnet.
That is how nature works, some “keys” are bigger than others, some processes have a higher intrinsic probability to happen than others.
Look up the word “catalyzer” (in the chemical sense) and you will see an example and application of this. -
@F_alk:
This was exactly not the point you were making.
blindly typing a typesetter is kind of random. I could now change the sizes of the keys according to their probability (of each letter to be found in this sonnet). This would massively increase the chance that “blind typing” creates the sonnet.
That is how nature works, some “keys” are bigger than others, some processes have a higher intrinsic probability to happen than others.
Look up the word “catalyzer” (in the chemical sense) and you will see an example and application of this.You’re not looking at the whole picture, F_alk. You’re forgetting that in order for the sonnet to be typed properly, each key must be hit an the exact sequence. One mistake destroys the entire thing, and correcting is extremely difficult (just like the Hydrogen and Oxygen breaking down after they combine). The chances of getitng the exact sequence are so low that mathematically it is considered impossible.
-
You’re not looking at the whole picture, F_alk. You’re forgetting that in order for the sonnet to be typed properly, each key must be hit an the exact sequence. One mistake destroys the entire thing, and correcting is extremely difficult (just like the Hydrogen and Oxygen breaking down after they combine). The chances of getitng the exact sequence are so low that mathematically it is considered impossible.
Well, that’s if you allow one try, and do not allow evolution.
To get to the sonnet humankind needed some time, it wasn’t like the first thing we did or said was such a sonnet. No, we had some “worse” poetry first, and it evolved… We had lesser version, before we got to these sonnets.Just as we had some very simple molecules in the beginning. All we need is a molecule that is a catalyst to create more molecules of its kind! That’s not that difficult.
It’s not like putting lots of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, some calcium into a box, shake it, and hope that a mammal hops out… but that would be your example of the sonnet: you mix the letters and hope that a highly organized thing hops out.
-
@F_alk:
Well, that’s if you allow one try, and do not allow evolution.
To get to the sonnet humankind needed some time, it wasn’t like the first thing we did or said was such a sonnet. No, we had some “worse” poetry first, and it evolved… We had lesser version, before we got to these sonnets.Just as we had some very simple molecules in the beginning. All we need is a molecule that is a catalyst to create more molecules of its kind! That’s not that difficult.
It’s not like putting lots of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, some calcium into a box, shake it, and hope that a mammal hops out… but that would be your example of the sonnet: you mix the letters and hope that a highly organized thing hops out.
The more complex and original the item you are trying to get, the less of a chance you have of getting that item when it is being created at random. By saying that the universe was simply created out of nothing, you are saying that there had to be a perfect sequence to the molecules coming together and forming the world. For that to happen, these theories such as the big bang would most likely have had to happen millions and millions of times over in order for them to have reached the current stage they are in. I have trouble beleiving that things just happened out of nowhere and that random guesswork created everything. If that is true, then what is the whole point of having rules and regulations? Why bother with everythign we do? If there is not central body of rules or something above us to govern us, then everything as we know it does not matter and there is no meaning to anything. What makes something ethical or moral? Nothing, because there is nothing to guide us to do things.
You claim you believe in nature? Well, what is nature to you? Why is there this nature of things? If everything is from a random sequence of events, then anything is possible then nature is merely a tendency of certain things to happen over other possibilites. If this is your definition of nature, which you consider to be the strongest force around, then there is still nothing binding us to anything.
I dispute such a theory. To me, nature is nothing more than a framework set out by something larger than us that we must live in. Only G-d can break the framework and dothings beyond the framework. We can learn as much as we want about everything, but we will never fully understand this framework and why thigns are the way there are. Why are leaves green? We might say because of chlorophyll and because green light is reflected in chloroplasts, but why specifically green? I say it is because the framework of the universe forces it to behave in a certain way and we cannot understand why. The ancient Greeks beleived that if we learned how things work, we would eventually learn why they work, but modern science has grown somewhat smarter. It no longer answers why but only how. We can never udnerstand why thigns are the way they are completely, and that is because we are part of this framework. Only what controls the framework can truly know how it works and why everything occurs the way it does. I hope you understand how I’ve come to all this and how it is all related. If you do, great. If not, I guess I’ll have to think of a different way to explain things.
-
Just to add to my previous post, the only way for me to understand your explanation of how the universe was created due to a set of random probabilities is if you say that universes were created and destroyed until this one was created. This would work with the laws of probability, as I will illustrate through an example. If I roll a die over and voer until I roll a 6, then mathematically I must roll a 6 because I will keep on rolling until I roll a 6. You can apply this sort of theory to the universe as I mentioend above. If this universe was the goal and was created through random events such as Big Bangs, then universes would have been created until this one would have formed. However, this theory would mean that nature is merely the tendency to “roll” certain results over others. We could easily apply this to every day life. Because nature is merely a tendency, we could achieve anything we want. If we were to breed rabbits until we got one that could naturally fly, mathematically that rabbit would have to exist (I picked this example randomly) along with anything else we want. Nature would not be a binding force as any constant attempt to achieve something would have to occur. I simply do not understand how you could believe in such things. This belief leaves nothing as certain, not only with no explanation to why things work, but an infinite set of ways as to how everything works.
I would also like to remind you that science does not have all the answers. Even some of the fundamental scientific principles we use can be broken. For example, one of the fundamental mathematical principles is that if on a graph I have a point and a line at any distant from that point (the line does not touch the point), there can only be one line that can pass through the point without touching the other line. Gauss and another mathemitician tried to prove that it was not possible to have that rule be broken, however they were unsuccessful. They had two to try and ways to disprove this principle: 1) If there is a point and a line that does not touch the point, no other lines could go through the point without touching the other line or 2) If there is a point and a line that does not touch the point, many otehr lines could go through that point without touching the other line. #1 does not work on a circular plane of graphs. If a straight line on this sort of graph is any line that goes around the circle at a maximum length (like the equator on the Earth) then any other lines coming through the point will have to touch that line. Option #2 yields a hyperbolic graph in a cone shape, where a straight line is a line that goes around the cone in a circular path. Any line drawn that goes through the point will touch not touch the other line. Why have I brought this up? Just to show that science and math are not as simple and straight forward as they seem. Imagine having to change your entire pereception fo the world to accomodate a world based on the circular or one the hyperbolic coordinate axes. Science is no simpler than any rational religion. Both are limited in how much they can answer, but at least religion (I know at least my religion) does not claim it can address everything we as humans do not understand.
-
Do you have any more questions, Janus? I’d like to try to answer them for you if I can.
-
Emugod, thats all well and good, but the inability to prove things does not mean that they are not able to be proven, nor does it mean that there must be a god. (if i understand it correctly, the religions do claim to have all the answers, but not necessarily good ones (i.e. if something cant be understood or proven, it is god’s will, and not for us to know)) naturally, there are problems with scientific and mathematical theories. they are developed and tested to understand the world the way we know it. as our knowledge expands, we learn new things, and old theories may be disproven. also, as we learn new things, we are able to prove new things that we were previously unable to. science does not pretend to have all the answers, that would be ridiculous. rather, it says that there is a scientific explanation for everything, which we may or may not have yet obtained
-
Emugod, thats all well and good, but the inability to prove things does not mean that they are not able to be proven, nor does it mean that there must be a god. (if i understand it correctly, the religions do claim to have all the answers, but not necessarily good ones (i.e. if something cant be understood or proven, it is god’s will, and not for us to know)) naturally, there are problems with scientific and mathematical theories. they are developed and tested to understand the world the way we know it. as our knowledge expands, we learn new things, and old theories may be disproven. also, as we learn new things, we are able to prove new things that we were previously unable to. science does not pretend to have all the answers, that would be ridiculous. rather, it says that there is a scientific explanation for everything, which we may or may not have yet obtained
You didn’t understand me correctly. I was saying that science claims we can find the answers to all our questions, while religion (at least my religion) does not claim that. My religion recognizes that there are limits to human knowledge. Judaism tries to answer whatever it can, but if there is no answer, we feel free to admit it. I cannot speak for Xianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any major religion like that as I am not well versed enough in them, though if I recall correctly, Xianity focuses on belief over thought. In xianity you are not suppose to question anything, evreything is built on faith. Judaism is the opposite. First come the rational laws before the laws between people and G-d, and we are encouraged to ask any question we like. The point I was trying to make is that there is no one single right answer in science either. It has the same gray areas as religion. I also would like to stress that science only addresses the “how” and not the “why” which is important, but the “why” is what drives us as people to find answers to all of life’s mysteries. I hope I have been clearer.
Suggested Topics
