Moderator: Community Team
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:most arguments for god have weaknesses. most arguments against those arguments have weaknesses too. it's an undecided question. there you go
Why do we care about god? Why does our experience calls for an omnipotent all-loving creator? Why people continue to seek him and find him? Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us? Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?
BigBallinStalin wrote:(or am I asking for too much from a faith-based system which insists that true knowledge can only be revealed, and that knowledge gained through reason--if contradictory--must be discarded cuz religion-God-Bible-and-stuff?)
nietzsche wrote:Why do we care about god? Why does our experience calls for an omnipotent all-loving creator? Why people continue to seek him and find him? Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us?
nietzsche wrote:Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?
nietzsche wrote:Believers, most likely, started with religious parents, and then the easiest road. However it started, there's no more validity to one belief or another, for they are the same, beliefs.
BigBallinStalin wrote:or am I asking for too much from a faith-based system which insists that true knowledge can only be revealed,
AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.
AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.
jonesthecurl wrote:AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.
Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.
nietzsche wrote: Why we (those who do not believe in a creator) take the time to refute the words typed by those defending god? Why are we bothered so much to do it? Why those who believe in him need so much to prove it to us? Are we (atheists) as wrong as them (believers) in getting in these discussions?
In 2010, the 'Millennium XXL' simulation (MXXL) was performed, this time using a much larger cube (over 10 billion light years on a side), and 6720^3 particles each representing 7 billion times the mass of the sun. The MXXL spans a cosmological volume 216 and 27,000 times the size of the Millennium and the MS-II simulation boxes, respectively. Cosmologists use the MXXL simulation to study the distribution of galaxies and dark matter halos on very large scales and how the rarest and most massive structures in the universe came about.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.
AAFitz wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:AAFitz wrote:The best and only real argument for God, is that he could be there.
Well, I left a bunch of voicemails and he never answered.
You called the wrong line. His phone number is pi.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:john9blue wrote:so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.
The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:john9blue wrote:so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.
The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?
if there is a bottom then there is probably a top
_sabotage_ wrote:In the first instance, we must recognize that if we were put here by god and for a purpose and that life doesn't end, then we must accept that everyone was put here for a purpose, god is within them and their life won't end in death as well. This would then require us to treat each other well.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:john9blue wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:john9blue wrote:so what you're saying is that it's programmers all the way down? that argument has never really appealed to me simply because particles cannot (from what we know) be infinitely small, and therefore it can't really be an infinite chain downwards unless we can simulate particles to be smaller than they actually are, or simulate space to be bigger than it actually is.
The infinite chain is problematic. But we don't need the infinite chain. Even if from our vantage point we can only go 20 simulations deep before the 20th simulation is too simplistic to give rise to intelligent life, well even that would put the chances that we're on top at about what? 2% ?
if there is a bottom then there is probably a top
Yeah, but the chance that we're the top is small.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, pmac666