With regard to the fine-tuned universe, a) it is not established that it is fine tuned, although it may be b) there are multiple ways to explain fine tuning, mostly not involving a cosmic knob-fiddler. It doesn't matter though because the fact is science don't know exactly where the laws of nature come from. That doesn't mean that the BIBLE does. The Bible is 100% proven wrong. Read Genesis and Exodus, it's good for a laugh.
And Victor Stenger explains why the laws are not fine tuned. Arguments from authority are fallacious where ever they come from. Where is your god evidence, faith head, not you arguments from incredulity and referential arguments.
@MrNeodarwinian arguments from authority are not fallacious, it's arguments from unqualified authority that are fallacious. if arguments from authority where fallacious then why do many atheists read the books of Richard dawkins and Sam harris
Very wrong!! Arguments from authority, regardless of qualifications, are fallacies. Reading and arguing are two different things. If I were to say," Dawkins says this and it is true therefore, " I have committed a fallacy. I suggest you educate yourself before writing again, faith head. We are quite through here.
...been lucky to be in the one that supports life (observation bias). Therefore there is no need for a creator to finely tune the laws of physics. Also, how finely tuned is it when our star system is unimaginably small compared to the universe. The Earth isn't at the center of the universe, clearly we are not the center of attention for any creator of the universe.
I don't accept the theory as fact as I don't think it is meant for that. I think it is just meant as a response to the idea that there HAD to be a creator. It's just there to show that your hypothesis isn't the only one and btw there is just as much evidence for a multiverse as there is for a personal god; none. The difference is that you are claiming your hypothesis to be fact whereas the atheistic position is one of skepticism.
I get you. I say the fine tuning points to a concious intelligent initiator of the universe.
That's all. A personal God is a different matter altogether. Skepticism to me suggests agnosticism not atheism.
Multiverse - some say there is some indirect evidence. But even then - how did we get a multiverse with laws that eventually led to sentient life. It just broadens the question which still remains.
I don't know much about the multiverse theory but it seems like it doesn't need any evidence. Here's where the theist will stop reading and say "aha" you have faith derpderpderp. The multiverse theory is a response to the "fine tuning argument" which states that since the laws of physics are so finely tuned it must have had a designer ... yada yada yada... The multiverse theory says that it's possible that there are infinitely many universes or some vastly large number and we could have just...
This senseless argument about "the fine tuned universe". That's just obsolete and primitive. I cannot believe, theists bring still up this point. Even just listening to them, is embarrassing. Grow up.
@vicachcoup Firstly, the multi universe is a serious theory of explaining our world and by the way the other billions of billions worlds caused by the M-theory. Furthermore, a universe with an extension of 78 billion lightyears and an age of 13,7 billion years. The fine tuned universe took about 13 billions of years to get ready sustaining life. And in this rarely imaginable range, there is just one tiny planet, which is able of sustaining life. That's fine tuned for you? I call this suboptimal.
The point about redundancy in the universe is a different point - commonly made but it misses the point entirely.
Fine tuned means that the laws instead of bringing about a sterile universe which is many orders of magnitude more likely, has thrown up elements, chemistry and life.
Your point is a common misconception about what fine-tuning means - and it is a common rebuttal by atheists - it needs a much longer response - perhaps at some other point.
the universe is infinitely small and infintely large. There is no such thing as "nothing". Everything, including the blackness of space, can be examined to find that it is made up of molecules that qualify it to exist. Therefore infinity is infinite in space as well as time. It is forever expanding and forever shrinking. In order for God to exist, there would've had to be nothing at one point, and nothing never existed. Everything always exists. On this basis, atheists are correct.
In other words: You atheists can't explain why things are the way they are, therefor a magical invisible being created everything. Argument from ignorance, this is stupid.
In other words - you have no answer to the surprising fine tuned nature of the natural constants - and have FAITH that there was no intelligent cause behind it
@vicachcoup Not accepting a claim that has no evidence for it, is not faith. It's called being skeptical and rational. Again, arguing that I have no answer is not a justification to insert your god.
@vicachcoup "Atheism" is just a label for me not buying into any religious claims, particularly about god because of a lack of any substantial evidence. So it really doesn't make too much sense to tell me to be skeptical of atheism. That's like saying, "be skeptical of your skepticism." Wrong, atheism does not require faith.
@vicachcoup how? how does atheism require faith? you simply just don't understand the terms you are using. agnosticism is not neutral, its without knowledge, like a baby... babies are ignorant. atheism is a lack of belief in gods... you don't need faith to lack a belief, i lack the belief that i am a zebra, but i don't need faith to make that assessment... i have evidence, i look in the mirror and say "hey! im not a zebra!!" and then i get on with my spin class... what the hell do you mean?
@vicachcoup ok i guess you don't know this but atheism does not mean "ABSOLTELY CERTAIN there is no God"... its a position of belief... atheism means the lack of BELIEF in a god... if you are a "Gnostic atheist" then you hold that position, in contrast an agnostic atheist does not. Gnosticism is about knowledge, theism is about belief...
@sidesho666 Okay, I'm just breezing through the comments section and I see this: "agnosticism is not neutral, its without knowledge, like a baby... babies are ignorant". I mean no offence, but that's fucking stupid. I'm agnostic and I've read both the Bible and the God Delusion. I've dedicated half my life (okay, that's an exaggeration) to research on this specific topic. Don't tell me that agnostics are NOT neutral and they are ignorant. That is completely wrong. You need to check your facts.
@sidesho666 I decided I wasn't finished. I BELIEVE that there is no currently possible way to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. I say deity because in Christian terms, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no reason to believe in a white-bearded man sitting on a cloud watching each and every human being at once. However, I do believe that some sort of supernatural mind could be a reality. Because I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. Stop thinking you do. Okay, I'm finished.
@vicachcoup I'm assuming you explain the fine-tuned universe through a godly being? You sound like the type (bashing the God Delusion, atheists loved that one...). Do you want me to say "by chance"? Because I do believe things happen in some sort of universal game of cards. That's why life is so sporadic, and therefore why we haven't been visited by any ETs yet!
"white bearded man sitting on a cloud" I can't believe in that. I just can't. I'll accept being a dogmatic atheist in that category:)
@vicachcoup Well, I might have exaggerated that picture of God. What I meant by that is the God that the church sets forth, not the Bible itself. The Bible doesn't even give a descriptive depiction of God beyond "created us in his image". I really hate what Christianity has done to God in modern times. Still though, when you reach the New Testament and Jesus, it gets a bit ridiculous. The Old Testament was realistic. The New is just like a bad sequel of a good movie. Damn, that's a good analogy.
@fenderguy0982 congratulations genius, your a true master of diction...
but really, you've spent half your life researching religions and you cant decide to trust occam's razor and reject spiritual hokus pokus or believe there is a magical all controlling head in the sky, and you expect me to believe your position is not one of ignorance...
the truth is that Gnostic and agnostic can be applied to theists and atheists, it has nothing to do with neutrality and all to do with KNOWLEDGE...
@sidesho666 I accept both theories as theories and nothing more. Just because I choose not to make a decision on which is more realistic or evidential because there is no realism or evidence for either case. How do you know you're right? Faith? I rely on logic, not faith to guide my decisions. I can't make a decision on this topic because neither atheism nor theism is logically sound. What I mean by reading the Bible and a Dawkins book is that I have actually looked at both sides.
@vicachcoup can i prove what?? hahahahahaha! oh fuck, can you disprove it? you know what Occam's razor means, so i don't understand why you would ask such a question... does it make sense that transdimensional blue monkeys wearing jet packs flew out of my ass Causing the big bang? no? well you cant prove that it didn't happen, so it must be just as true as the scientific research done by the professionals... right? the point is you were wrong about agnosticism... sorry bud, thems the breaks
@sidesho666 I believe you just proved my point. You can neither prove nor disprove a theory until you have realistic evidence to prove it. Religion is theory. Atheism is theory. Take it like two opposing arguments, that's all. Religion argues the existence of a deity, atheism argues against the existence of a deity. That's really all there is to it.
@fenderguy0982 "Religion argues the existence of a deity, atheism argues against the existence of a deity."
man this is getting tiresome, Theism argues for the BELIEF in a deity, Atheism is the lack of that belief. theism and atheism are about BELIEFS, Gnosticism is about knowing for certain. let me say this again, you can be an "agnostic theist" who doesn't know for sure about god, or a "Gnostic atheist" and claim you know god is not real. just look up the definition of Gnosticism, its easier.
@sidesho666 Well, Gnosticism was actually a religion of its own in the 2nd century. It has nothing to do with atheism. And I guess I could accept your theist and atheist terms... I'm sure you know what you're talking about:)
And I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you understand what I'm saying. Atheism is the REJECTION of belief in the existence of deities, and it is a theological position that there are no deities. It is the contrast of theism. It is the opposing argument.
'can i prove what?? hahahahahaha! oh [expletive], can you disprove it? you know what Occam's razor means, so i don't understand why you would ask such a question... does it make sense that transdimensional blue monkeys wearing jet packs flew out of my ass Causing the big bang? no?' . . rant . . rant . . etc'
OK you've proved my point - you have nothing substantial that Occam's roazor must hold true.
You know Occam's razor is a principle not a testable law
@vicachcoup WHOA WHOA bud, you missed the boat entirely!!! Occam's razor is an important tool for figuring out the value of truth claims... that monkey scenario was there to illustrate my point... you can believe any wild crap you want, but the razor is there to find the truth. though it may be a principle, when you apply it you are relying on physical evidence for your conclusions... my computer isn't displaying all the comments you left so if i miss anything i apologize...
@sidesho666 I don't understand you. You seem to understand the definition of ignorance, but you aren't using it properly. Say that you believe everything I say, and don't just disregard it as a lie (hell, I can say whatever I want, this is the internet, you have every right not to trust me)... how can you possibly think I am being ignorant? I haven't spent all that time for nothing. I'm sorry, I had a conclusion but I had a guitar lesson and I had to drop everything and play! Good times:)
@vicachcoup It really is sad when people attempt to argue their point without even knowing their point. Don't listen to that guy, you're right. At least about agnosticism. A/theism literally means "without belief". Or faith. Not sure about the latter though... definitely no belief though. GRANTED... belief requires either evidence or faith. Neither atheists nor theists show any evidence, so faith is a bit of a requirement. Although somebody like Richard Dawkins would dispute me. Read his books;)
@vicachcoup How does one subscribe to either antitheism or theism once they have concluded that the nature of the First Cause is beyond human comprehension? Atheism (the absence of belief in a "god", rather than the belief that there is no god) is a very valid reaction to religious dogma; and a reasonable atheist is nothing like the stereotype you have presented here.
In fact this whole video stinks of intellectual jousting.
@vicachcoup "Happy to hear a good explanation to the fine tuning"
The christian maggot would look around the garbage can and see it teeming with life and assume that garbage cans must have been fine tuned to support maggots.
If destruction of countless galaxies, failures of stars and solar systems to form, and life existing in only the tiniest specs of rock in this vast universe is "fine tuning", then whoever "fine-tuned" the universe did a pretty pitiful job.
Some look at teh universe and see lots of redundant galaxies and look at teh eart and see difficulties and challenges to life and say the universe is not fine tuned
This shows a woeful misunderstanding of what fine tuning is.
Fine tuning is the fact that elements arise at all - not that the universe is completely tuned for life in every way.
I might need to do a vid on this concept in detail
@vicachcoup Yet you want to claim there's only 'one Arabic Quran.' You're still full of crap. There's all kinds of Arabic versions. The Arabic Quran according to IMAM HAFS and the Arabic Qruan according to MAM WARSHIL.
Allow me to refine your bullshit for you. I'm sure now you want to say "lol! but the original Arabic version of the Quran hasn't changed!"...which would be no different than saying whatever is written down first, will never change from being first.
@vicachcoup But how would you even begin to comprehend what would happen if universal constants were somehow altered? It may form completely different types of matter. It may form no matter at all. It may form something beyond our imagination.
My point is that the fine-tuning argument is useless for debate because it can never be scientifically tested, because we're not God.
Also, I and many others wholeheartedly disagree with your claim that "the universe is completely tuned for life".
'I've explained twice now that I do not make guesses and call it 'belief', or pass it as truth or fact. You're asking me if our universe has finite or infinite time...again...
I can't prove that time is infinite.'
I've explained very clearly - perhaps you don't get it - if the past was infinite , we could not have reached NOW - do you have a reasonable, non-expletive laden answer to this?
"I've explained very clearly - perhaps you don't get it - if the past was infinite , we could not have reached NOW"
If that were true, then within 'infinity' nothing could happen. As whatever you could imagine would happen, would have infinity before it, and therefore...once again by your logic...would never happen.
Your word play hypothesis negates the concept of infinity. Good job.
In the end atheism is just another type of belief, they only reject the belief in one God. And God can be proven, atheists among all others are very unwilling to find the truth. As it would change their ways of life, completely. Do not love this world, as it's not more than a beautiful lie, whereas death is the undeniable truth. Peace.
@TheHigherVoltage ya its easy dude, if you are simple science dude, first tell me the definition of science and scientific method then analyze yourself and tell me by what means and what kind of proof you want for the existence of God.
@TheHigherVoltage sir God is not a physical law that can be proven , we need to prove the existence of God. " prove me " is logically flawed. prove that you exists is the Question ?
@flexpape First you claim God can be proven with math - now you're backpeddling by claiming he's not a physical law. Bull. Back up the claim you made that God can be proven with math. Or, how about you do something you appear to be unable to do : be honest. Admit you're just parroting made-up bullshit you don't have a clue about.
@TheHigherVoltage dude i am saying you can't prove God, its an illogical argument. What u mean by Prove God? What u want is the evidence for the EXISTENCE of God. and Yes the dimensional pattern proves the definition of God as per religious science and thus the existence of God.
@flexpape "Yes the dimensional pattern proves the definition of God as per religious science and thus the existence of God."
This statement is complete bullshit. What is the 'dimensional pattern'? What is the definition of God? What is the oxymoron 'religious science' suppose to be?
@flexpape I read your PM. And you're all over the place, not once providing evidence to back your claim that "EVEN MATHS PROVES THE BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD"
Nonsense is not mathematical evidence. Focus on attempting to back your claim.
@TheHigherVoltage Even by living this life you come to see the proofs, you can see these proofs in many places. Such as the behaviour of humankind, we tend to forget what's true and are easily misled. We're heedless in our nature, we like to live in a way which has no true benefit to us. Yet we tell that "but we like this way", this is only the blindness of humans. I've lived life too and I'm not judging anyone, nor telling that I would be somewhat better than anyone else. This is only the truth
@TheHigherVoltage which can be proven by studying, history of mankind and looking at the ways in which masses live nowadays. We live a life and work for a paper which is made by men, even the disbelievers should see that it leads to nothing but our own blind demise. But as we can witness, truth is always held up by the minorities. Masses have never been in such a truthful position, as they would like to come up with it. Truthfully people who live only for this life, destroy themselves and those
@TheHigherVoltage whom are around them. This can be witnessed by the weapon, drug and other intoxicant trades. People get money by killing and getting other people sick and some call that religion brings death? Atheism is only one religion, among all other religions. It like some other religions, consider "supernatural" things non-existent, that these things which we do are only in our genes and so on. This gene thing is greatly misunderstood, as the environment in which you and I do grow up
Atheism is not a religion. However, religions can be Atheistic. Buddhists, Confucians, many Hindus, Taoists, etc. There's over 2 billion Atheists who actually belong to a religion. But that doesn't make Atheism a religion in and of itself.
"This gene thing is greatly misunderstood,"
Explain how genes are misunderstood, and provide evidence that proves they are misunderstood.
@TheHigherVoltage makes the most of us. What we are, how we behave, how we handle things and so on. Proofs of God's existence are widespread, people are only concerned with the materialistic things and objects that are out there. When the indoctrination of schools, "pleasures of life" and such things are rooted into our minds we come to be as machines for the "elite". This can be proven by media and many other things, religion is the one thing that they try to wipe out. Why? Because religion and
@TheHigherVoltage brings peace and rationality to humans. Being a person with an idea that there's no afterlife nor taking a responsibility for our actions, after our death. Only brings about people who live, lives which really aren't even lived. Look at our elderly, they're not many and even when they're Christians or Atheists, (I know only these types of people and have talked with them) even they say that this world is going to pieces. People who're blindly guided, which know nothing about
@TheHigherVoltage the ones who "lead" them. Are open to everything that comes out from the television, some people try to live like some movie "heroes" and so on. And then there's people who only waste their lives for nothing, working for money which is completely man made and really has no true value. I do believe that you already know these things, as you seem to be an rational person. But if you don't then I suggest you to look into things, much more. As ignorance brings only more ignorance.
@ThePatientMuslim "some people try to live like some movie "heroes" and so on. "
LOL That's EXACTLY what you're doing - wanting to live how a story book character tells you how you're suppose to live. But of course, books don't talk. People talk. People talk for their God(s). People play their God(s). That's what you're doing. Playing with your imaginary hero from bronze age tales.
@TheHigherVoltage You should know better than to say, that there's an "story book character". This sentence only tells, how much you know about history of humankind. Sorry that I even replied to you, because you certainly seem to be one "who knows many things". You should too recognize the characteristics of this person, whom your talking about. But however you live this life, it doesn't matter to me. As it's your life, not mine and you do what you do, so do I. Your ways are not mine's, nor are
@TheHigherVoltage my ways your's. I hope that you would see the truth, the light which's emitted from it and how it guides you towards peace. Peace in this life and peace in the next.
@TheHigherVoltage You think that religion is only thing which brings death and misery? Well let's see the days in which we live in... Politics, nationalism and many other things are on the rise. People are killed due to the color on their skin, they're killed because they live differently, in different countries and you should remind yourself about communism. Not to forget the genocide which happened between Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Serbs hated the Kosovo people and Bosnian people alike due to
@TheHigherVoltage their religion. This same can be said happening in middle-east and in many other places, the so called "civilized" countries attacking the "less civilized" countries. Due to what? They try to present it as an religious thing, but mostly it's because of their own interests. There are great natural resources in these countries and this is why, those countries are in war with the foreign invaders. It's easy to "point" that it's all due religion, as it would be easy to point
@TheHigherVoltage politics and this man made "democracy". Of course there's no one to stop you, how you live this life and what you choose to believe and what not. But the truth is, that we're all going to die. And few are those who truly know anything about religion. If you don't see peace in religions, it must be because you don't know enough about them. As media likes to portrait Christianity and Islam in the main hand as something bad, evil and against peace. While the people who like to
@TheHigherVoltage break it are mostly non religious persons themselves. They live only to "achieve" high stature in this life, money and other things which in the end are nothing to us. We will take nothing with ourselves to the hereafter, save our deeds. You should take notice about the things that this "atheism" brings with it. Blindness to ourselves, it brings us to hurt the feelings of each other. It brings false things such as homosexuality being "ok", as well as adultery and fornication
@TheHigherVoltage being something normal. This brings much more evil, mischief into this world than it does bring any benefit. Look at the women and men, who live only for themselves. Thinking that what is between them, is all that there is in their lives. When they "break up", one of them might get him/herself killed due to that. People are heedless in their nature, there's no denying that. We like to do the things which are "fun", in the end these "funny" things only bring us bad things.
@TheHigherVoltage Some consider fighting as something funny, some consider taking drugs as something funny and worth doing, some do other things and it's only foolish to claim them non harmful. It's only ignorance about religion which prevents people from knowing religion's true colors. Even if you would know the truth in Islam, you would think deeply about this life and the things which are happening. But you live your life, do so as you wish. It brings no misery to me, but if your spreading
@TheHigherVoltage mischief on the lands, prepare for justice. As people deserve much more than mischief or things that are only harmful to us. These drugs, "freedom to have sex" and other things are only keeping us asleep when the people behind the curtains do their evil works. Sex and drugs only numb your brain from fully functioning, questioning what's true and what's not. But if you like to live like that, I'm not stopping you from doing so. But mischief is a bad thing, for you and for me.
#1 A theist saying 'infinity is a concept and not a reality' ... works against the God(s) argument.
#2 You ask "What alternatives would atheists put forward?"
This is not a logic or honest question. It's not up to people refuting a claim to come up with alternatives, it's up to the people presenting a claim to provide valid, testable evidence to support their claim.
Non-Zeusians do not have to prove where lightning comes from - it's up to Zeusians to prove Zeus throws the lightning.
@vicachcoup "Infinity is not a feature of the universe we exist in."
#1 According to what we know about energy, it can neither be created or destroyed. If that doesn't define infinity, please give your definition for infinity.
#2 The universe's expansion is still accelerating, with no evidence it will ever slow down. There's no reason to assume it will ever "hit a wall".
" By necessity a creator will be infinite"
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
@vicachcoup You claim 'infinity is not a feature of the universe we exist in'. I point out energy appears to be neither able to be created or destroyed...ie. infinite...and you call this a circular argument? wtf? I refuted your claim with evidence.
If you want to claim energy is not infinite, provide evidence and win a Nobel prize, otherwise, man-up and admit you're wrong.
I notice you dodged the key part of the argument - here it is again - can you provide a satisfactory answer to the fine tuning of the underlying constants of the universe?
Notice from your channel you are an atheist - I agree if it takes fatih then it is weak. So time for you to give some rational answers - we can't have you having only faith in atheism now, can we :-)
@vicachcoup "can you provide a satisfactory answer to the fine tuning of the underlying constants of the universe?"
It's not up to me to provide alternatives, it's up to you to prove your claim.
Religious people use to claim the earth was flat and the center of the universe. It was never up to 'non-believers' to prove them wrong, it was up to believers to prove they're right. And they weren't.
"Notice from your channel you are an atheist" You're wrong in your assumption.
@vicachcoup "The scientific method - heard of it - someone puts out a hypothesis and others try to falsify it."
uh...that's not the scientific method....
"Flat earthers make great strawmen don't they. You must be so glad they exist/ed." oh they still exist...and still point to god mythologies and ignorance as evidence. And how is this a strawman? The illogical, backwards mentality they use to draw their conclusions is the same tactics you're using here.
(1) You go from a 'best guess' that "our universe had a beginning" to 'therefore there must be another universe that is timeless' which is a leap of faith. (and defeats the purpose of 'fine tuning' as, your DoubleThink suddenly allows for variation)
(2) You then assert, once again on faith, that an intelligent creator exists in this timeless universe and is responsible for ours.
(3) You then assert, that movement is possible without time.
@vicachcoup There's no valid reason to assume time is finite. And there's also no valid reason to assume anything can happen without a unit of time to do it in.
@vicachcoup "1 - do you believe time is finite or infintie?" I don't 'believe' either. Convincing yourself "I believe" what you guess based on assumptions, is delusional.
"2 - is the past finite or infinite?" I don't know, and unless you can provide testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence, neither do you. The best you can do is guess, then demand you're right. I don't play those games.
@vicachcoup Try to grasp this : intellectual honesty is only 'believing' what can proven with valid evidence. I've seen is no valid evidence that proves time is finite or infinite. Of course it has to be one or the other, but the fact is : there's no evidence to prove either way. Any belief yo, or anyone else holds on this, is a guess.
'I've seen is no valid evidence that proves time is finite or infinite. Of course it has to be one or the other, but the fact is'
According to science - time is moving forward - it has direction - we could not have got to now if time was infinite as the past would be infinite and we wouldn't have got to now.
I see a theme with you - when not having an adequate answer you turn to discussing the creator. Side step.
@vicachcoup "we could not have got to now if time was infinite as the past would be infinite and we wouldn't have got to now."
You keep defeating your own argument. You want to claim an infinite past could never arrive at now, then propose this proves a god exists now with an infinite past.
Tell me, what came first...God making his home? (an oxymoron) God making his universe? God making our universe? Either all these myths occurred in the same instant, or TIME PASSED BETWEEN THEM.
'You keep defeating your own argument. You want to claim an infinite past could never arrive at now, then propose this proves a god exists now with an infinite past.'
- translated this says - sorry I couldn't answer your point so will attack something you said earlier.
I am not sure why you can't deal with each point separately - your objections can be dealt with at the appropriate time.
So, again- more specifically - can our 4D spacetime past be infinite?
@vicachcoup "Also prove that time as we experience it is a feature of all dimensions beyond ours"
Out of one side of your brain comes "I can prove features of other dimensions", and out of the other side of your brain comes "You can't prove features of other dimensions"
Look up DoubleThink.
Then realize : For anything to happen, there has to be a relative time span for it to happen in.
Imagine our universe with no time. How long does it take you to say your name there.
@vicachcoup I never said 'time as we experience'. I said A TIME SPAN MUST EXIST FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN. It could be faster, slower, backwards, segmented, or and unimaginable variation - but the fact stands : nothing can happen without a time span for it to happen in.
If you can't grasp that, I gotta ask if you know what 1+1 is.
'. I said A TIME SPAN MUST EXIST FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN'
Sounds intuitive , but that doesn't ensure it is correct.
Or can you prove it is - beyond simply saying it is like that here so it must be like that there - whatever 'there' is like and whatever the 'physical' features of 'there' are.
So . . .
Prove that is necessarily true for dimensions beyond the 4D timespace . . . this time without ANY reference to me
@vicachcoup "Sounds intuitive , but that doesn't ensure it is correct."
Apply this to your hypothetical creator universe. If there is no time passing by in that universe, how can anything possibly happen in that universe? It can't.
Unless there is a time span for an event to happen in, it can't happen.
@vicachcoup I can't prove it anymore than I can prove a circle is not a square. If you don't grasp the concept that a time frame has to exist for an event to happen in, otherwise the event can't happen, then you're being irrational and delusional.
@vicachcoup It's not a matter of '4D experience and thinking', it's a matter of intellectual honesty.
How long would it take me to tell you you're delusional in a timeless universe? Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you because the time frame would not exist for me to say it in.
This isn't faith. It's being intellectually honest.
But by all means, back your claim the impossible is possible. Explain how an event could take place without a time frame for it to happen in.
@vicachcoup To put this bluntly, you're either an idiot or an asshole. You might as well be saying "objects can exist without taking up space in other dimensions too - prove they can't!'
The concept of 'object' requires that it must, by definition of the word 'object', take up some space for it to exist. Much as the concept of 'event' requires that it must, by definition, have a time span for it to occur in.
Is this truly beyond your grasp? Or are you purposefully being ignorantly obtuse?
@vicachcoup #1 The concept of 'for anything to happen, there has to be a time span for it to happen in' is just beyond your grasp...and I don't get why. Do you also not understand that by default, a square has corners? Or are you so lost in delusion that you'd argue 'squares can be round in other dimensions' too?
#2 Islamic tradition holds that the black stone fell from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar. Mohammad's is credited with fitting it into a shrine.
@TheHigherVoltage eh !!! fell from what? Dude their are two stones if u wanna know.... TWO , one is fitted in kaaba , second is just a few yards away from kaaba , in a box . On that stone the foot prints of Prophet Abraham are being imprinted. ahahah
'Or are you so lost in delusion that you'd argue 'squares can be round in other dimensions' too?'
My point is simple - we cannot with certainty say what the characteristics of higher dimension are. Prove me wrong if you can. Not just with it-must-be-so's.
'2 Islamic tradition holds that the black stone fell from Heaven'
I am not acquainted with that 'tradition'. As in another post - you are quoting stuff from hadiths - some of which are weak and unreliable. Peripheral issue.
@vicachcoup "My point is simple-we cannot with certainty say what the characteristics of higher dimension are."
I never stated any characteristics of hypothetical realms. What I can say with certainty is that for an event to happen, anywhere, there has to be a relative time frame for it to occur in. If there's no time for something to happen in, it can't happen.
Relative time is a fundamental requirement for any event to occur.
@vicachcoup (CONT) "If time was infinite in the past , could we have possibly got to NOW?"
Hold tight...My turn to ask a question : You propose our hypothetical Creator(s) have 'always existed' (ie. infinite past), so how could they have ever reached a point where they started our universe?
And don't bother answering 'they live in a timeless place', as it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
'And don't bother answering 'they live in a timeless place', as it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
Yes you wil live by this mantra. The fact is if something exists outside of our 4d timespace, we cannot have any clue as to what role time plays in that 'dimension'.
'it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
Your turn to PROVE categorically that this is always true and for any dimension
@vicachcoup "The fact is if something exists outside of our 4d timespace, we cannot have any clue as to what role time plays in that 'dimension'."
Yes we do, we know that it has to play some role. It would have to exist. There would have to be a timeline within it. Maybe faster, maybe slower, maybe it plays like a tape you can jump all over and alter it, but the fact is, for anything to happen, it has to have a time span to do it in.
@vicachcoup They know that 11 dimensions exist and we can never prove it using physics but Math claims that And God is above 11 dimensions.... So what are they trying to prove with saying " we can't see him" LOL they can't even imagine what other dimensions are using science but its reality they do exist.
@flexpape "They know that 11 dimensions exist and we can never prove it using physics but Math claims that And God is above 11 dimensions."
LOL Ya buddy...you're definitely a theist...keep moving your imaginary friend just outside of whatever we hypothesize that doesn't include imaginary bullshit.
@TheHigherVoltage i am proud of being a theist, at least i am not ignorant like u lol. imaginary? Dude you are pathetically illogical man. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what imaginary is or what reality is . AS I SAID Math says dimensions exist BUT EVEN PHYSICS SAYS you can't even IMAGINE it. We know God is there but we can't IMAGINE What is He. But He created Us that is why He sent us prophets and books etc. So stop giving ur illogical answer, be a science dude and talk logically
I agree with you. That is my point too. We exist in the 4D time space and see things in terms of its qualities.
So we cannot hope to 'visualise' higher dimensions.
Hence we use analgoeis.
But these are not truth.
HiVolt is content with his superficial view that we can comment on higher dimensions and what they should be like i.e. things should more through time to have an effect etc.
To be so definitive about it means he has FAITH, FAITH, FAITH, FAITH, FAITH in that
@vicachcoup "HiVolt is content with his superficial view that we can comment on higher dimensions and what they should be like "
You sure love to strawman my position. Go ahead, dream away...comment on what you want/wish was true. The difference between you and I is simple : you convince yourself what you want/wish to be true is true, with no valid supporting evidence.
@flexpape I am being logical...and talking with a wingnut.
Let's see if I got this straight...you believe the bible mythology is true, and that a God use to walk and talk with people, but now, he exists only in a magical dimension we can't prove, but you KNOW is real...and you call this logic?
You claimed first that math can prove the qualities of a God. You've not once provided any evidence to back this claim, only ramblings of how math proves other dimensions.
@flexpape "The book is not man made" So you don't have a clue what the history of the bible is. Got ya.
"u better give a shot to read it, " I read every self-professed 'words of Gods' I've come across. And many other books as well. I've yet to find any that aren't man made.
Maybe you should actually read the book once - cover to cover. It would do you some good.
@TheHigherVoltage dude when i say books means Gospel , Torah and Qur'an. A guy like me Perfectly know what is wrong with Bible. And everything is in detail EXPLAINED in Quran about the destruction of Gospel and Torah. Mate have u watched Zeitgeist.? The Federal Reserves? and Religion Part? Dude. .Quran told all that stuff 1400 years ago.... and have already Mentioned all of these things. So please open your eyes :p
With regard to the fine-tuned universe, a) it is not established that it is fine tuned, although it may be b) there are multiple ways to explain fine tuning, mostly not involving a cosmic knob-fiddler. It doesn't matter though because the fact is science don't know exactly where the laws of nature come from. That doesn't mean that the BIBLE does. The Bible is 100% proven wrong. Read Genesis and Exodus, it's good for a laugh.
huwrj 1 day ago
And Victor Stenger explains why the laws are not fine tuned. Arguments from authority are fallacious where ever they come from. Where is your god evidence, faith head, not you arguments from incredulity and referential arguments.
MrNeodarwinian 5 days ago
@MrNeodarwinian arguments from authority are not fallacious, it's arguments from unqualified authority that are fallacious. if arguments from authority where fallacious then why do many atheists read the books of Richard dawkins and Sam harris
christianthinker2012 1 day ago
@christianthinker2012
Very wrong!! Arguments from authority, regardless of qualifications, are fallacies. Reading and arguing are two different things. If I were to say," Dawkins says this and it is true therefore, " I have committed a fallacy. I suggest you educate yourself before writing again, faith head. We are quite through here.
MrNeodarwinian 1 day ago
...been lucky to be in the one that supports life (observation bias). Therefore there is no need for a creator to finely tune the laws of physics. Also, how finely tuned is it when our star system is unimaginably small compared to the universe. The Earth isn't at the center of the universe, clearly we are not the center of attention for any creator of the universe.
kschieck 2 weeks ago
@kschieck Sorry I've dealt with this in previous replies.
Not a strong argument at all
vicachcoup 2 weeks ago
@vicachcoup
I don't accept the theory as fact as I don't think it is meant for that. I think it is just meant as a response to the idea that there HAD to be a creator. It's just there to show that your hypothesis isn't the only one and btw there is just as much evidence for a multiverse as there is for a personal god; none. The difference is that you are claiming your hypothesis to be fact whereas the atheistic position is one of skepticism.
kschieck 1 week ago
@kschieck
I get you. I say the fine tuning points to a concious intelligent initiator of the universe.
That's all. A personal God is a different matter altogether. Skepticism to me suggests agnosticism not atheism.
Multiverse - some say there is some indirect evidence. But even then - how did we get a multiverse with laws that eventually led to sentient life. It just broadens the question which still remains.
How did the multiverse begin?
vicachcoup 1 week ago
@kschieck
My last line should read -
Another question is How did the multiverse begin?
vicachcoup 1 week ago
I don't know much about the multiverse theory but it seems like it doesn't need any evidence. Here's where the theist will stop reading and say "aha" you have faith derpderpderp. The multiverse theory is a response to the "fine tuning argument" which states that since the laws of physics are so finely tuned it must have had a designer ... yada yada yada... The multiverse theory says that it's possible that there are infinitely many universes or some vastly large number and we could have just...
kschieck 2 weeks ago
@kschieck
Multiverse - like the video says - FAITH, FAITH , FAITH , FAITH
Folks gotta believe in somethin I spose
vicachcoup 2 weeks ago
The content is questionable. But the fashion of making the clip seems fancy. :)
totipotent91 1 month ago
This senseless argument about "the fine tuned universe". That's just obsolete and primitive. I cannot believe, theists bring still up this point. Even just listening to them, is embarrassing. Grow up.
totipotent91 1 month ago
@totipotent91
Love the rhetoric
Now lets hear a sensible atheistic explanation
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup Firstly, the multi universe is a serious theory of explaining our world and by the way the other billions of billions worlds caused by the M-theory. Furthermore, a universe with an extension of 78 billion lightyears and an age of 13,7 billion years. The fine tuned universe took about 13 billions of years to get ready sustaining life. And in this rarely imaginable range, there is just one tiny planet, which is able of sustaining life. That's fine tuned for you? I call this suboptimal.
totipotent91 1 month ago
@vicachcoup Your claims of "fine tuned" are not very comprehensible.
totipotent91 1 month ago
@totipotent91
The point about redundancy in the universe is a different point - commonly made but it misses the point entirely.
Fine tuned means that the laws instead of bringing about a sterile universe which is many orders of magnitude more likely, has thrown up elements, chemistry and life.
Your point is a common misconception about what fine-tuning means - and it is a common rebuttal by atheists - it needs a much longer response - perhaps at some other point.
vicachcoup 1 month ago
What else are you gonna do on a deserted island but debate the existance of God right?
GermanConquistador08 1 month ago
the universe is infinitely small and infintely large. There is no such thing as "nothing". Everything, including the blackness of space, can be examined to find that it is made up of molecules that qualify it to exist. Therefore infinity is infinite in space as well as time. It is forever expanding and forever shrinking. In order for God to exist, there would've had to be nothing at one point, and nothing never existed. Everything always exists. On this basis, atheists are correct.
SlapstickCoyote 2 months ago
@SlapstickCoyote
This is a rational discussion - not a romantic poetic one
vicachcoup 2 months ago
In other words: You atheists can't explain why things are the way they are, therefor a magical invisible being created everything. Argument from ignorance, this is stupid.
kubush 2 months ago
@kubush
In other words - you have no answer to the surprising fine tuned nature of the natural constants - and have FAITH that there was no intelligent cause behind it
vicachcoup 2 months ago
@vicachcoup Not accepting a claim that has no evidence for it, is not faith. It's called being skeptical and rational. Again, arguing that I have no answer is not a justification to insert your god.
kubush 2 months ago
@kubush
If you were a true sceptic, you would be sceptical about atheism
If you err towards atheism, then you have a healthy dose of faith
vicachcoup 2 months ago
@vicachcoup "Atheism" is just a label for me not buying into any religious claims, particularly about god because of a lack of any substantial evidence. So it really doesn't make too much sense to tell me to be skeptical of atheism. That's like saying, "be skeptical of your skepticism." Wrong, atheism does not require faith.
kubush 2 months ago
@kubush
The neutral position is agnosticism.
Atheism needs a modicum of faith.
But if it makes you feel better you can ignore that.
vicachcoup 2 months ago
@vicachcoup how? how does atheism require faith? you simply just don't understand the terms you are using. agnosticism is not neutral, its without knowledge, like a baby... babies are ignorant. atheism is a lack of belief in gods... you don't need faith to lack a belief, i lack the belief that i am a zebra, but i don't need faith to make that assessment... i have evidence, i look in the mirror and say "hey! im not a zebra!!" and then i get on with my spin class... what the hell do you mean?
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666
I'm not interested in semantics tbh
My point is that to be ABSOLTELY CERTAIN there is no God - which cannot logical be proven - necesarily needs faith.
I can't say it any clearer than that
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup ok i guess you don't know this but atheism does not mean "ABSOLTELY CERTAIN there is no God"... its a position of belief... atheism means the lack of BELIEF in a god... if you are a "Gnostic atheist" then you hold that position, in contrast an agnostic atheist does not. Gnosticism is about knowledge, theism is about belief...
I can't say it any clearer than that
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666
'"Gnostic atheist" then you hold that position, in contrast an agnostic atheist does not.'
I have little aptitude for accurate classification of things.
And little interest in the same.
But . . .
My point is simple -
If you have a lack of belief in God then I have little issue with that.
If you have absolute certainty there is no God - then I have an issue with that.
Just remind me - what is your position - in simple terms. Thanks
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@sidesho666 Okay, I'm just breezing through the comments section and I see this: "agnosticism is not neutral, its without knowledge, like a baby... babies are ignorant". I mean no offence, but that's fucking stupid. I'm agnostic and I've read both the Bible and the God Delusion. I've dedicated half my life (okay, that's an exaggeration) to research on this specific topic. Don't tell me that agnostics are NOT neutral and they are ignorant. That is completely wrong. You need to check your facts.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@sidesho666 I decided I wasn't finished. I BELIEVE that there is no currently possible way to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. I say deity because in Christian terms, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no reason to believe in a white-bearded man sitting on a cloud watching each and every human being at once. However, I do believe that some sort of supernatural mind could be a reality. Because I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. Stop thinking you do. Okay, I'm finished.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982
'I BELIEVE that there is no currently possible way to prove the existence or non-existence of a deity'
How would you explain the fine tuned universe then?
'Christian terms, I'm an atheist'
You can be a deist without having to be a religious theist.
'However, I do believe that some sort of supernatural mind could be a reality'
I respect that idea.
In contrast, I do not have respect for dogmatic atheists.
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup I'm assuming you explain the fine-tuned universe through a godly being? You sound like the type (bashing the God Delusion, atheists loved that one...). Do you want me to say "by chance"? Because I do believe things happen in some sort of universal game of cards. That's why life is so sporadic, and therefore why we haven't been visited by any ETs yet!
"white bearded man sitting on a cloud" I can't believe in that. I just can't. I'll accept being a dogmatic atheist in that category:)
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982
'Do you want me to say "by chance"? Because I do believe things happen in some sort of universal game of cards'
I'm glad you put the word 'believed' in their. We all need faith in something ;-)
"white bearded man sitting on a cloud"
Straw man argument - no religion puts forward that caricature
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup Well, I might have exaggerated that picture of God. What I meant by that is the God that the church sets forth, not the Bible itself. The Bible doesn't even give a descriptive depiction of God beyond "created us in his image". I really hate what Christianity has done to God in modern times. Still though, when you reach the New Testament and Jesus, it gets a bit ridiculous. The Old Testament was realistic. The New is just like a bad sequel of a good movie. Damn, that's a good analogy.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982
I agree - religions and the caricatures that people make of religious beliefs can be downright whacky.
A lot of the New Testament is the convoluted machinations of Paul's mind.
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup Bahaha I like that description of the New Testament.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982 congratulations genius, your a true master of diction...
but really, you've spent half your life researching religions and you cant decide to trust occam's razor and reject spiritual hokus pokus or believe there is a magical all controlling head in the sky, and you expect me to believe your position is not one of ignorance...
the truth is that Gnostic and agnostic can be applied to theists and atheists, it has nothing to do with neutrality and all to do with KNOWLEDGE...
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666 I accept both theories as theories and nothing more. Just because I choose not to make a decision on which is more realistic or evidential because there is no realism or evidence for either case. How do you know you're right? Faith? I rely on logic, not faith to guide my decisions. I can't make a decision on this topic because neither atheism nor theism is logically sound. What I mean by reading the Bible and a Dawkins book is that I have actually looked at both sides.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@sidesho666
'trust occam's razor'
Out of interest - by what rule do we decide occams razor is necessarily true for everything?
Can you prove that everything has to conform to Occam's razor?
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup can i prove what?? hahahahahaha! oh fuck, can you disprove it? you know what Occam's razor means, so i don't understand why you would ask such a question... does it make sense that transdimensional blue monkeys wearing jet packs flew out of my ass Causing the big bang? no? well you cant prove that it didn't happen, so it must be just as true as the scientific research done by the professionals... right? the point is you were wrong about agnosticism... sorry bud, thems the breaks
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666 I believe you just proved my point. You can neither prove nor disprove a theory until you have realistic evidence to prove it. Religion is theory. Atheism is theory. Take it like two opposing arguments, that's all. Religion argues the existence of a deity, atheism argues against the existence of a deity. That's really all there is to it.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982 "Religion argues the existence of a deity, atheism argues against the existence of a deity."
man this is getting tiresome, Theism argues for the BELIEF in a deity, Atheism is the lack of that belief. theism and atheism are about BELIEFS, Gnosticism is about knowing for certain. let me say this again, you can be an "agnostic theist" who doesn't know for sure about god, or a "Gnostic atheist" and claim you know god is not real. just look up the definition of Gnosticism, its easier.
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666 Well, Gnosticism was actually a religion of its own in the 2nd century. It has nothing to do with atheism. And I guess I could accept your theist and atheist terms... I'm sure you know what you're talking about:)
And I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you understand what I'm saying. Atheism is the REJECTION of belief in the existence of deities, and it is a theological position that there are no deities. It is the contrast of theism. It is the opposing argument.
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@sidesho666 said
'can i prove what?? hahahahahaha! oh [expletive], can you disprove it? you know what Occam's razor means, so i don't understand why you would ask such a question... does it make sense that transdimensional blue monkeys wearing jet packs flew out of my ass Causing the big bang? no?' . . rant . . rant . . etc'
OK you've proved my point - you have nothing substantial that Occam's roazor must hold true.
You know Occam's razor is a principle not a testable law
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup WHOA WHOA bud, you missed the boat entirely!!! Occam's razor is an important tool for figuring out the value of truth claims... that monkey scenario was there to illustrate my point... you can believe any wild crap you want, but the razor is there to find the truth. though it may be a principle, when you apply it you are relying on physical evidence for your conclusions... my computer isn't displaying all the comments you left so if i miss anything i apologize...
sidesho666 1 month ago
@sidesho666 I don't understand you. You seem to understand the definition of ignorance, but you aren't using it properly. Say that you believe everything I say, and don't just disregard it as a lie (hell, I can say whatever I want, this is the internet, you have every right not to trust me)... how can you possibly think I am being ignorant? I haven't spent all that time for nothing. I'm sorry, I had a conclusion but I had a guitar lesson and I had to drop everything and play! Good times:)
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@vicachcoup It really is sad when people attempt to argue their point without even knowing their point. Don't listen to that guy, you're right. At least about agnosticism. A/theism literally means "without belief". Or faith. Not sure about the latter though... definitely no belief though. GRANTED... belief requires either evidence or faith. Neither atheists nor theists show any evidence, so faith is a bit of a requirement. Although somebody like Richard Dawkins would dispute me. Read his books;)
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
@fenderguy0982
'Although somebody like Richard Dawkins would dispute me. Read his books;)'
The God delusion? - that is a poor book based on stilted opinions and sophistry.
I respected and enjoyed some of his earlier works but that was in no small part trash.
vicachcoup 1 month ago
@vicachcoup Which is why he would dispute me;)
fenderguy0982 1 month ago
Ok.... so who created god?
Sappharos 3 months ago
@Sappharos
Good question.
Short answer - our 4D timespace has certain laws - causation is one of them.
God cannot have a cause as we understand it otherwise we would ask who created that cause.
So there has to be a First Cause.
The nature or 'science' behind that cause [call it God if you like'] is beyond out 4D comprehension.
It's a bit like shrek trying to work out what a human is and what the real world is like compared to his pixelated existence.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup How does one subscribe to either antitheism or theism once they have concluded that the nature of the First Cause is beyond human comprehension? Atheism (the absence of belief in a "god", rather than the belief that there is no god) is a very valid reaction to religious dogma; and a reasonable atheist is nothing like the stereotype you have presented here.
In fact this whole video stinks of intellectual jousting.
Sappharos 2 months ago
@vicachcoup god of the gaps
SanguineBullet667 2 months ago
@SanguineBullet667 said 'god of the gaps'
I take it you listened to the video - well done for noticing that point
vicachcoup 2 months ago
I loved the video. Thank you very much. You and I should stick together. I've sent a friend request. Take Care and God bless you! :-)
333dvd2 3 months ago
@333dvd2
Many thanks :-)
vicachcoup 3 months ago
You certainly take a lot of liberties putting words in the mouth of Mr Left Pirate
stoltobot 3 months ago
@stoltobot
'You certainly take a lot of liberties putting words in the mouth of Mr Left Pirate'
You think differently.
Happy to hear a good explanation to the fine tuning.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "Happy to hear a good explanation to the fine tuning"
The christian maggot would look around the garbage can and see it teeming with life and assume that garbage cans must have been fine tuned to support maggots.
emfederin 3 months ago 2
@emfederin
Yes that was an extremely good explanation - thank you
vicachcoup 3 months ago
What is the definition of "fine tuning"?
If destruction of countless galaxies, failures of stars and solar systems to form, and life existing in only the tiniest specs of rock in this vast universe is "fine tuning", then whoever "fine-tuned" the universe did a pretty pitiful job.
Spielzeit85 3 months ago
@Spielzeit85
'What is the definition of "fine tuning"?'
Yes it seems to be causing a lot of confusion
Some look at teh universe and see lots of redundant galaxies and look at teh eart and see difficulties and challenges to life and say the universe is not fine tuned
This shows a woeful misunderstanding of what fine tuning is.
Fine tuning is the fact that elements arise at all - not that the universe is completely tuned for life in every way.
I might need to do a vid on this concept in detail
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Yet you want to claim there's only 'one Arabic Quran.' You're still full of crap. There's all kinds of Arabic versions. The Arabic Quran according to IMAM HAFS and the Arabic Qruan according to MAM WARSHIL.
Allow me to refine your bullshit for you. I'm sure now you want to say "lol! but the original Arabic version of the Quran hasn't changed!"...which would be no different than saying whatever is written down first, will never change from being first.
It means nothing.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'There's all kinds of Arabic versions. The Arabic Quran according to IMAM HAFS and the Arabic Qruan according to MAM WARSHIL.'
Errmm . . .it depends what you use as your source - answering.islam.com no doubt or something similar.
If you want to know more about this technical topic check out this page which debunks the usual orientalist and christian/anti-islam webpages
Can't post link here but search
islamic awareness quran hafs
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
PS I'm getting a bit weary/bored of your offensive approach. If you really must be offensive then you can continue with those who appreciate it
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup But how would you even begin to comprehend what would happen if universal constants were somehow altered? It may form completely different types of matter. It may form no matter at all. It may form something beyond our imagination.
My point is that the fine-tuning argument is useless for debate because it can never be scientifically tested, because we're not God.
Also, I and many others wholeheartedly disagree with your claim that "the universe is completely tuned for life".
Spielzeit85 3 months ago
@Spielzeit85
'Also, I and many others wholeheartedly disagree with your claim that "the universe is completely tuned for life"'
I disagreed too - that was my point. Where did you think I said that?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'I've explained twice now that I do not make guesses and call it 'belief', or pass it as truth or fact. You're asking me if our universe has finite or infinite time...again...
I can't prove that time is infinite.'
I've explained very clearly - perhaps you don't get it - if the past was infinite , we could not have reached NOW - do you have a reasonable, non-expletive laden answer to this?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vicachcoup
"I've explained very clearly - perhaps you don't get it - if the past was infinite , we could not have reached NOW"
If that were true, then within 'infinity' nothing could happen. As whatever you could imagine would happen, would have infinity before it, and therefore...once again by your logic...would never happen.
Your word play hypothesis negates the concept of infinity. Good job.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
In the end atheism is just another type of belief, they only reject the belief in one God. And God can be proven, atheists among all others are very unwilling to find the truth. As it would change their ways of life, completely. Do not love this world, as it's not more than a beautiful lie, whereas death is the undeniable truth. Peace.
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim "And God can be proven,"
And where is this proof? Why is the only 'proof' ever given unsubstantiated non-sense?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage ya its easy dude, if you are simple science dude, first tell me the definition of science and scientific method then analyze yourself and tell me by what means and what kind of proof you want for the existence of God.
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape You claim math proves a God. Let's hear it.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage sir God is not a physical law that can be proven , we need to prove the existence of God. " prove me " is logically flawed. prove that you exists is the Question ?
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape First you claim God can be proven with math - now you're backpeddling by claiming he's not a physical law. Bull. Back up the claim you made that God can be proven with math. Or, how about you do something you appear to be unable to do : be honest. Admit you're just parroting made-up bullshit you don't have a clue about.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage dude i am saying you can't prove God, its an illogical argument. What u mean by Prove God? What u want is the evidence for the EXISTENCE of God. and Yes the dimensional pattern proves the definition of God as per religious science and thus the existence of God.
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape "Yes the dimensional pattern proves the definition of God as per religious science and thus the existence of God."
This statement is complete bullshit. What is the 'dimensional pattern'? What is the definition of God? What is the oxymoron 'religious science' suppose to be?
You're talking completely imaginary non-sense.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage read the damn pm i sent u?
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape I read your PM. And you're all over the place, not once providing evidence to back your claim that "EVEN MATHS PROVES THE BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD"
Nonsense is not mathematical evidence. Focus on attempting to back your claim.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Even by living this life you come to see the proofs, you can see these proofs in many places. Such as the behaviour of humankind, we tend to forget what's true and are easily misled. We're heedless in our nature, we like to live in a way which has no true benefit to us. Yet we tell that "but we like this way", this is only the blindness of humans. I've lived life too and I'm not judging anyone, nor telling that I would be somewhat better than anyone else. This is only the truth
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim 'everything that exists is evidence for my God' - is a childish argument.
"we like to live in a way which has no true benefit to us." Speak for yourself.
"This is only the truth" - without actual, testable evidence, it's gullible to call anything 'truth'.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage which can be proven by studying, history of mankind and looking at the ways in which masses live nowadays. We live a life and work for a paper which is made by men, even the disbelievers should see that it leads to nothing but our own blind demise. But as we can witness, truth is always held up by the minorities. Masses have never been in such a truthful position, as they would like to come up with it. Truthfully people who live only for this life, destroy themselves and those
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage whom are around them. This can be witnessed by the weapon, drug and other intoxicant trades. People get money by killing and getting other people sick and some call that religion brings death? Atheism is only one religion, among all other religions. It like some other religions, consider "supernatural" things non-existent, that these things which we do are only in our genes and so on. This gene thing is greatly misunderstood, as the environment in which you and I do grow up
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim "Atheism is only one religion,"
Atheism is not a religion. However, religions can be Atheistic. Buddhists, Confucians, many Hindus, Taoists, etc. There's over 2 billion Atheists who actually belong to a religion. But that doesn't make Atheism a religion in and of itself.
"This gene thing is greatly misunderstood,"
Explain how genes are misunderstood, and provide evidence that proves they are misunderstood.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage makes the most of us. What we are, how we behave, how we handle things and so on. Proofs of God's existence are widespread, people are only concerned with the materialistic things and objects that are out there. When the indoctrination of schools, "pleasures of life" and such things are rooted into our minds we come to be as machines for the "elite". This can be proven by media and many other things, religion is the one thing that they try to wipe out. Why? Because religion and
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim Religions do not bring peace or rationality. They demand blind adherence and illogical justifications to uphold man-made bullshit.
Right now, virtually every war on the planet is between 2 godcult societies demanding they have 'God on their side!' while they kill each other.
Religion brings peace? Why don't you get the Sunnis and Shiites to stop wiping each other out for Allah the invisible first.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage brings peace and rationality to humans. Being a person with an idea that there's no afterlife nor taking a responsibility for our actions, after our death. Only brings about people who live, lives which really aren't even lived. Look at our elderly, they're not many and even when they're Christians or Atheists, (I know only these types of people and have talked with them) even they say that this world is going to pieces. People who're blindly guided, which know nothing about
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage the ones who "lead" them. Are open to everything that comes out from the television, some people try to live like some movie "heroes" and so on. And then there's people who only waste their lives for nothing, working for money which is completely man made and really has no true value. I do believe that you already know these things, as you seem to be an rational person. But if you don't then I suggest you to look into things, much more. As ignorance brings only more ignorance.
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim "some people try to live like some movie "heroes" and so on. "
LOL That's EXACTLY what you're doing - wanting to live how a story book character tells you how you're suppose to live. But of course, books don't talk. People talk. People talk for their God(s). People play their God(s). That's what you're doing. Playing with your imaginary hero from bronze age tales.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage You should know better than to say, that there's an "story book character". This sentence only tells, how much you know about history of humankind. Sorry that I even replied to you, because you certainly seem to be one "who knows many things". You should too recognize the characteristics of this person, whom your talking about. But however you live this life, it doesn't matter to me. As it's your life, not mine and you do what you do, so do I. Your ways are not mine's, nor are
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage my ways your's. I hope that you would see the truth, the light which's emitted from it and how it guides you towards peace. Peace in this life and peace in the next.
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@ThePatientMuslim "I hope that you would see the truth"
I'm following the truth where it leads me. And so far, it's lead me away from godcults such as yours.
"... and how it guides you towards peace."
I don't see much peace in theistic worlds. Christians, Muslims and Jews have been killing themselves and each other since they were invented.
Every day there's religious warfare headlines.
You let me know when you read "Atheists shell Agnostic stronghold, killing men, women and children."
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage You think that religion is only thing which brings death and misery? Well let's see the days in which we live in... Politics, nationalism and many other things are on the rise. People are killed due to the color on their skin, they're killed because they live differently, in different countries and you should remind yourself about communism. Not to forget the genocide which happened between Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Serbs hated the Kosovo people and Bosnian people alike due to
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage their religion. This same can be said happening in middle-east and in many other places, the so called "civilized" countries attacking the "less civilized" countries. Due to what? They try to present it as an religious thing, but mostly it's because of their own interests. There are great natural resources in these countries and this is why, those countries are in war with the foreign invaders. It's easy to "point" that it's all due religion, as it would be easy to point
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage politics and this man made "democracy". Of course there's no one to stop you, how you live this life and what you choose to believe and what not. But the truth is, that we're all going to die. And few are those who truly know anything about religion. If you don't see peace in religions, it must be because you don't know enough about them. As media likes to portrait Christianity and Islam in the main hand as something bad, evil and against peace. While the people who like to
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage break it are mostly non religious persons themselves. They live only to "achieve" high stature in this life, money and other things which in the end are nothing to us. We will take nothing with ourselves to the hereafter, save our deeds. You should take notice about the things that this "atheism" brings with it. Blindness to ourselves, it brings us to hurt the feelings of each other. It brings false things such as homosexuality being "ok", as well as adultery and fornication
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage being something normal. This brings much more evil, mischief into this world than it does bring any benefit. Look at the women and men, who live only for themselves. Thinking that what is between them, is all that there is in their lives. When they "break up", one of them might get him/herself killed due to that. People are heedless in their nature, there's no denying that. We like to do the things which are "fun", in the end these "funny" things only bring us bad things.
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage Some consider fighting as something funny, some consider taking drugs as something funny and worth doing, some do other things and it's only foolish to claim them non harmful. It's only ignorance about religion which prevents people from knowing religion's true colors. Even if you would know the truth in Islam, you would think deeply about this life and the things which are happening. But you live your life, do so as you wish. It brings no misery to me, but if your spreading
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage mischief on the lands, prepare for justice. As people deserve much more than mischief or things that are only harmful to us. These drugs, "freedom to have sex" and other things are only keeping us asleep when the people behind the curtains do their evil works. Sex and drugs only numb your brain from fully functioning, questioning what's true and what's not. But if you like to live like that, I'm not stopping you from doing so. But mischief is a bad thing, for you and for me.
ThePatientMuslim 3 months ago
This video just made me realize, I am god.
chivasillars 3 months ago
#1 A theist saying 'infinity is a concept and not a reality' ... works against the God(s) argument.
#2 You ask "What alternatives would atheists put forward?"
This is not a logic or honest question. It's not up to people refuting a claim to come up with alternatives, it's up to the people presenting a claim to provide valid, testable evidence to support their claim.
Non-Zeusians do not have to prove where lightning comes from - it's up to Zeusians to prove Zeus throws the lightning.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'infinity is a concept and not a reality' ... works against the God(s) argument.'
Infinity is not a feature of the universe we exist in. By necessity a creator will be infinite. That was not the point here.
'it's up to the people presenting a claim to provide valid, testable evidence to support their claim.
Non-Zeusians do not have to prove where lightning comes from - it's up to Zeusians to prove Zeus throws the lightning'
A good claim was made and you say poopoo mama mia . .
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "Infinity is not a feature of the universe we exist in."
#1 According to what we know about energy, it can neither be created or destroyed. If that doesn't define infinity, please give your definition for infinity.
#2 The universe's expansion is still accelerating, with no evidence it will ever slow down. There's no reason to assume it will ever "hit a wall".
" By necessity a creator will be infinite"
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
Here we go circular arguments coming up as you an't address any point without a counterattack. Sure sign of a no answer.
'what we know about energy, it can neither be created or destroyed'
Great.
Now if there is no inifinite - which there isn't then you have to have some laws beyond what is in the universe to initiate energy/matter.
Question - is time infinite - is it infinite into the past ?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup You claim 'infinity is not a feature of the universe we exist in'. I point out energy appears to be neither able to be created or destroyed...ie. infinite...and you call this a circular argument? wtf? I refuted your claim with evidence.
If you want to claim energy is not infinite, provide evidence and win a Nobel prize, otherwise, man-up and admit you're wrong.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
I notice you dodged the key part of the argument - here it is again - can you provide a satisfactory answer to the fine tuning of the underlying constants of the universe?
Notice from your channel you are an atheist - I agree if it takes fatih then it is weak. So time for you to give some rational answers - we can't have you having only faith in atheism now, can we :-)
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "can you provide a satisfactory answer to the fine tuning of the underlying constants of the universe?"
It's not up to me to provide alternatives, it's up to you to prove your claim.
Religious people use to claim the earth was flat and the center of the universe. It was never up to 'non-believers' to prove them wrong, it was up to believers to prove they're right. And they weren't.
"Notice from your channel you are an atheist" You're wrong in your assumption.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'It's not up to me to provide alternatives, it's up to you to prove your claim.'
The scientific method - heard of it - someone puts out a hypothesis and others try to falsify it.
Flat earthers make great strawmen don't they. You must be so glad they exist/ed.
'you are an atheist" You're wrong in your assumption'
Let me guess again - rabid agnostic. Your page is pretty rabid.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "The scientific method - heard of it - someone puts out a hypothesis and others try to falsify it."
uh...that's not the scientific method....
"Flat earthers make great strawmen don't they. You must be so glad they exist/ed." oh they still exist...and still point to god mythologies and ignorance as evidence. And how is this a strawman? The illogical, backwards mentality they use to draw their conclusions is the same tactics you're using here.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'The illogical, backwards mentality they use to draw their conclusions is the same tactics you're using here'
Really - can you give me some good examples of illogical, backwards mentality from our discussion - and I mean from my posts - not yours.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Your illogical, backwards mentality :
(1) You go from a 'best guess' that "our universe had a beginning" to 'therefore there must be another universe that is timeless' which is a leap of faith. (and defeats the purpose of 'fine tuning' as, your DoubleThink suddenly allows for variation)
(2) You then assert, once again on faith, that an intelligent creator exists in this timeless universe and is responsible for ours.
(3) You then assert, that movement is possible without time.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
Hi.
Still waiting for your answer as to whether the past is finite
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup man you made me laugh like shit... awesome end lol.
flexpape 3 months ago
@vicachcoup There's no valid reason to assume time is finite. And there's also no valid reason to assume anything can happen without a unit of time to do it in.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'There's no valid reason to assume time is finite.'
A bit of an equivocal answer.
Lets clarify this
1 - do you believe time is finite or infintie?
2 - is the past finite or infinite?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "1 - do you believe time is finite or infintie?" I don't 'believe' either. Convincing yourself "I believe" what you guess based on assumptions, is delusional.
"2 - is the past finite or infinite?" I don't know, and unless you can provide testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence, neither do you. The best you can do is guess, then demand you're right. I don't play those games.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'Convincing yourself "I believe" what you guess based on assumptions, is delusional.'
Not sure how this follows on logically from my question below - but perhaps you just enjoy being abrasive.
'I don't know, and unless you can provide testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence, neither do you'
Well another question for you
If time was infinite in the past , could we have possibly got to NOW?
If so how?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Try to grasp this : intellectual honesty is only 'believing' what can proven with valid evidence. I've seen is no valid evidence that proves time is finite or infinite. Of course it has to be one or the other, but the fact is : there's no evidence to prove either way. Any belief yo, or anyone else holds on this, is a guess.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'I've seen is no valid evidence that proves time is finite or infinite. Of course it has to be one or the other, but the fact is'
According to science - time is moving forward - it has direction - we could not have got to now if time was infinite as the past would be infinite and we wouldn't have got to now.
I see a theme with you - when not having an adequate answer you turn to discussing the creator. Side step.
Stick to the point only without diversion.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "we could not have got to now if time was infinite as the past would be infinite and we wouldn't have got to now."
You keep defeating your own argument. You want to claim an infinite past could never arrive at now, then propose this proves a god exists now with an infinite past.
Tell me, what came first...God making his home? (an oxymoron) God making his universe? God making our universe? Either all these myths occurred in the same instant, or TIME PASSED BETWEEN THEM.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'You keep defeating your own argument. You want to claim an infinite past could never arrive at now, then propose this proves a god exists now with an infinite past.'
- translated this says - sorry I couldn't answer your point so will attack something you said earlier.
I am not sure why you can't deal with each point separately - your objections can be dealt with at the appropriate time.
So, again- more specifically - can our 4D spacetime past be infinite?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup I AM GOing to send u wht i sent him. Try that and check out they got beaten by their own science.
flexpape 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
' You want to claim an infinite past could never arrive at now, then propose this proves a god exists now with an infinite past.'
You keep deflecting a direct answer by moving onto a topic we haven't evenreached yet.
Knocking down strawman arguments doesn't nothing to deflect from the fact you haven't answered the question - several times.
Is OUR 4D TIMESPACE finite in the past or infinite??
Also prove that time as we experience it is a feature of all dimensions beyond ours
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "Also prove that time as we experience it is a feature of all dimensions beyond ours"
Out of one side of your brain comes "I can prove features of other dimensions", and out of the other side of your brain comes "You can't prove features of other dimensions"
Look up DoubleThink.
Then realize : For anything to happen, there has to be a relative time span for it to happen in.
Imagine our universe with no time. How long does it take you to say your name there.
Learn this.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
Classic HigherVoltage answer - spend more time on invective and leave the question unanswered.
I'll ask again
Prove that time as we experience it is a feature of all dimensions beyond ours - this time [!} without reference to me or what I have said before.
You'll find it difficult but have a go.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup I never said 'time as we experience'. I said A TIME SPAN MUST EXIST FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN. It could be faster, slower, backwards, segmented, or and unimaginable variation - but the fact stands : nothing can happen without a time span for it to happen in.
If you can't grasp that, I gotta ask if you know what 1+1 is.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'. I said A TIME SPAN MUST EXIST FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN'
Sounds intuitive , but that doesn't ensure it is correct.
Or can you prove it is - beyond simply saying it is like that here so it must be like that there - whatever 'there' is like and whatever the 'physical' features of 'there' are.
So . . .
Prove that is necessarily true for dimensions beyond the 4D timespace . . . this time without ANY reference to me
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "Sounds intuitive , but that doesn't ensure it is correct."
Apply this to your hypothetical creator universe. If there is no time passing by in that universe, how can anything possibly happen in that universe? It can't.
Unless there is a time span for an event to happen in, it can't happen.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'Unless there is a time span for an event to happen in, it can't happen'
De ja vu
Yes, you have said that before.
My questions was specific
'Unless there is a time span for an event to happen in, it can't happen'
Prove that is necessarily true for dimensions beyond the 4D timespace.
Yes you can repeatedly say it - but CAN YOU PROVE IT?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup I can't prove it anymore than I can prove a circle is not a square. If you don't grasp the concept that a time frame has to exist for an event to happen in, otherwise the event can't happen, then you're being irrational and delusional.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
''I can't prove it . . . . a time frame HAS TO exist for an event to happen in''
You can't prove it but you stand by it LOL! By what virtue such certainty??
.
If you can't understand that you are using your 4D experience and thinking
to make assumptions about what must and must not happen in other dimensions - then you are the one deluded and obstinate
in sticking to your FAITH, FAITH, FAITH
in your idea.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup It's not a matter of '4D experience and thinking', it's a matter of intellectual honesty.
How long would it take me to tell you you're delusional in a timeless universe? Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you because the time frame would not exist for me to say it in.
This isn't faith. It's being intellectually honest.
But by all means, back your claim the impossible is possible. Explain how an event could take place without a time frame for it to happen in.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
de ja vu again
You have still not risen to the challenge.
Prove that is necessarily true [time] for dimensions beyond the 4D timespace.
Yes you can repeatedly say it - but CAN YOU PROVE IT?
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup Time, by definition, is a required element for any event to take place in. If this is a concept beyond your grasp, you're delusional.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
You still haven't answered the question asked - because you can't - I wil now give up asking it and conclude you have no answer
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup To put this bluntly, you're either an idiot or an asshole. You might as well be saying "objects can exist without taking up space in other dimensions too - prove they can't!'
The concept of 'object' requires that it must, by definition of the word 'object', take up some space for it to exist. Much as the concept of 'event' requires that it must, by definition, have a time span for it to occur in.
Is this truly beyond your grasp? Or are you purposefully being ignorantly obtuse?
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
to put it blunt you are either obnoxious or hyperarrogant
We are not able to visualise or have any accurate knowledge about dimensions beyond ours.
Yet you state with authority what you think is reasonable outside of our 4D spacetime.
My challenge to you is to prove that you are expressing opinions about that which you have no knowledge of.
Many believe time to be a property and it may not exist the same in other dimensions. It may be particular to ours. Prove otherwise.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup #1 The concept of 'for anything to happen, there has to be a time span for it to happen in' is just beyond your grasp...and I don't get why. Do you also not understand that by default, a square has corners? Or are you so lost in delusion that you'd argue 'squares can be round in other dimensions' too?
#2 Islamic tradition holds that the black stone fell from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar. Mohammad's is credited with fitting it into a shrine.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage eh !!! fell from what? Dude their are two stones if u wanna know.... TWO , one is fitted in kaaba , second is just a few yards away from kaaba , in a box . On that stone the foot prints of Prophet Abraham are being imprinted. ahahah
flexpape 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'Or are you so lost in delusion that you'd argue 'squares can be round in other dimensions' too?'
My point is simple - we cannot with certainty say what the characteristics of higher dimension are. Prove me wrong if you can. Not just with it-must-be-so's.
'2 Islamic tradition holds that the black stone fell from Heaven'
I am not acquainted with that 'tradition'. As in another post - you are quoting stuff from hadiths - some of which are weak and unreliable. Peripheral issue.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "My point is simple-we cannot with certainty say what the characteristics of higher dimension are."
I never stated any characteristics of hypothetical realms. What I can say with certainty is that for an event to happen, anywhere, there has to be a relative time frame for it to occur in. If there's no time for something to happen in, it can't happen.
Relative time is a fundamental requirement for any event to occur.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@vicachcoup (CONT) "If time was infinite in the past , could we have possibly got to NOW?"
Hold tight...My turn to ask a question : You propose our hypothetical Creator(s) have 'always existed' (ie. infinite past), so how could they have ever reached a point where they started our universe?
And don't bother answering 'they live in a timeless place', as it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'And don't bother answering 'they live in a timeless place', as it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
Yes you wil live by this mantra. The fact is if something exists outside of our 4d timespace, we cannot have any clue as to what role time plays in that 'dimension'.
'it is impossible for anything to happen without a unit of time for it to happen in.
Your turn to PROVE categorically that this is always true and for any dimension
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "The fact is if something exists outside of our 4d timespace, we cannot have any clue as to what role time plays in that 'dimension'."
Yes we do, we know that it has to play some role. It would have to exist. There would have to be a timeline within it. Maybe faster, maybe slower, maybe it plays like a tape you can jump all over and alter it, but the fact is, for anything to happen, it has to have a time span to do it in.
That's not a mantra - that's point blank logic.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage
'Yes we do, we know that it has to play some role. It would have to exist.'
And how do you demonstrate that - say of the '12th' dimension.
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup They know that 11 dimensions exist and we can never prove it using physics but Math claims that And God is above 11 dimensions.... So what are they trying to prove with saying " we can't see him" LOL they can't even imagine what other dimensions are using science but its reality they do exist.
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape "They know that 11 dimensions exist and we can never prove it using physics but Math claims that And God is above 11 dimensions."
LOL Ya buddy...you're definitely a theist...keep moving your imaginary friend just outside of whatever we hypothesize that doesn't include imaginary bullshit.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage i am proud of being a theist, at least i am not ignorant like u lol. imaginary? Dude you are pathetically illogical man. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what imaginary is or what reality is . AS I SAID Math says dimensions exist BUT EVEN PHYSICS SAYS you can't even IMAGINE it. We know God is there but we can't IMAGINE What is He. But He created Us that is why He sent us prophets and books etc. So stop giving ur illogical answer, be a science dude and talk logically
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape
I agree with you. That is my point too. We exist in the 4D time space and see things in terms of its qualities.
So we cannot hope to 'visualise' higher dimensions.
Hence we use analgoeis.
But these are not truth.
HiVolt is content with his superficial view that we can comment on higher dimensions and what they should be like i.e. things should more through time to have an effect etc.
To be so definitive about it means he has FAITH, FAITH, FAITH, FAITH, FAITH in that
vicachcoup 3 months ago
@vicachcoup exactly, Atheists give me a great amount of laugh sometimes.
flexpape 3 months ago
@vicachcoup "HiVolt is content with his superficial view that we can comment on higher dimensions and what they should be like "
You sure love to strawman my position. Go ahead, dream away...comment on what you want/wish was true. The difference between you and I is simple : you convince yourself what you want/wish to be true is true, with no valid supporting evidence.
You're delusional, I am not.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@flexpape I am being logical...and talking with a wingnut.
Let's see if I got this straight...you believe the bible mythology is true, and that a God use to walk and talk with people, but now, he exists only in a magical dimension we can't prove, but you KNOW is real...and you call this logic?
You claimed first that math can prove the qualities of a God. You've not once provided any evidence to back this claim, only ramblings of how math proves other dimensions.
Put up or shut up.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@flexpape (CONT) you said "i am proud of being a theist."
'Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.' - Proverbs 16:18.
Maybe you should stop pounding on that book long enough to actually read it.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage The book is not man made, u better give a shot to read it, Try it just for once, maybe u see things very differently xD
flexpape 3 months ago
@flexpape "The book is not man made" So you don't have a clue what the history of the bible is. Got ya.
"u better give a shot to read it, " I read every self-professed 'words of Gods' I've come across. And many other books as well. I've yet to find any that aren't man made.
Maybe you should actually read the book once - cover to cover. It would do you some good.
TheHigherVoltage 3 months ago
@TheHigherVoltage dude when i say books means Gospel , Torah and Qur'an. A guy like me Perfectly know what is wrong with Bible. And everything is in detail EXPLAINED in Quran about the destruction of Gospel and Torah. Mate have u watched Zeitgeist.? The Federal Reserves? and Religion Part? Dude. .Quran told all that stuff 1400 years ago.... and have already Mentioned all of these things. So please open your eyes :p
flexpape 3 months ago