1. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102809
    29 Jun '09 02:20
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    Go on then. teach me some 🙂
    ( i seriously dont know which side tot ake here. c'mon daniel ..prove something!)🙂
  2. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    29 Jun '09 14:07
    Originally posted by josephw
    To exist. 🙂
    I want to add something.

    Because He can.
  3. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    29 Jun '09 14:31
    Originally posted by josephw
    I want to add something.

    Because He can.
    That's not true if god is a necessary being of course.
  4. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 15:19
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    So you are basically admitting that despite having nothing new yourself, you nonetheless implied that I was in some way deficient for not offering something new?
    Quite the contrary. I was pointing out that since it was my question to start with (Why does god exist) I didn't want to act like Moses having gathered you all here just to listen to my diatribe. If anything, I'm the anti-moses.

    Just because I haven't answered my own question, it doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

    I would like to see if anyone else has an answer beyond what the historical figures of our past have come up with.
  5. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 15:23
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    That's not true if god is a necessary being of course.
    What if God is NOT necessary?
  6. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 15:23
    Originally posted by josephw
    I want to add something.

    Because He can.
    Expand and explain
  7. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    29 Jun '09 15:31
    Originally posted by uzless
    Quite the contrary. I was pointing out that since it was my question to start with (Why does god exist) I didn't want to act like Moses having gathered you all here just to listen to my diatribe. If anything, I'm the anti-moses.

    Just because I haven't answered my own question, it doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

    I would like to see if anyone else has an answer beyond what the historical figures of our past have come up with.
    You might have an answer, but I doubt that it is new. If it is new, I doubt it is any good. But to help you settle the question I hereby make a direct request for your answer. Nobody could accuse you of acting like Moses if you reply, since you would be responding to a request.
    I look forward to being pleasantly surprised by being proved wrong by your answer.
  8. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    29 Jun '09 15:40
    Originally posted by uzless
    What if God is NOT necessary?
    If god is not necessary, then god is contingent. This kind of god might be favoured by some, but obviously it wouldn't work in the classical cosmological arguments. It is an interesting idea though, it poses such questions like: could god be eternal yet contingent? I think it starts to unravel if god is the only thing that can act as a creator of the universe, since what possible worlds could exist without god in that case? None, which leads to the conclusion that either god is necessary which is a contradiction, or god is not required to create a world, in which case god is redundant.
  9. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 17:432 edits
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    None, which leads to the conclusion that either god is necessary which is a contradiction, or god is not required to create a world, in which case god is redundant.
    Let's explore this thought a little further shall we?

    Let's see if Josephw can help our cause with an explanation of his one line input.
  10. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 17:461 edit
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    You might have an answer, but I doubt that it is new. If it is new, I doubt it is any good.
    lol....rec'd
  11. Joined
    17 Jun '09
    Moves
    1538
    29 Jun '09 20:01
    God is the only thing that can make something out of nothing.

    God is necessary, is NOT a contradiction to anything unless it is false.
  12. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    29 Jun '09 20:41
    Originally posted by daniel58
    God is the only thing that can make something out of nothing.

    God is necessary, is NOT a contradiction to anything unless it is false.
    Look, your statements are just opinions until you can provide evidence to make them true. Only then do they become facts.
  13. Joined
    17 Jun '09
    Moves
    1538
    29 Jun '09 20:45
    I cannot "prove" anything because neither of us can "see" God (unless you do by Faith), but then again you can't prove to me you really exist because I can't see you but I do believe you exist anyways.
  14. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    29 Jun '09 22:25
    Originally posted by uzless
    Let's explore this thought a little further shall we?
    I look forward to that.

    Let's see if Josephw can help our cause with an explanation of his one line input.
    I don't know about you, but I'm not hopeful.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    12 Feb '10 20:46
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [b]==============================
    No, sentences like this that are asserting a logical contradiction and which people accept as valid despite this show the limitation of human RATIONALITY. This isn’t therefore just about mere syntax.
    ===============================
    [/b]

    You know, cosmologist Stephen Hawking came up with an expression "Imag ...[text shortened]... the capabilities of human language though, per case of Dr. Hawking's "Imaginary Time".
    And "Imaginary Time" what is that ?

    Its quite straight forward!
    Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation by in the complex plane: . It can be shown that at finite temperature T, the Green's functions are periodic in imaginary time with a period of . Therefore their Fourier transforms contain only a discrete set of frequencies called Matsubara frequencies. Another way to see the connection between statistical mechanics and quantum field is to consider the transition amplitude between an initial state I and a final state F. H is the Hamiltonian of the system. If we compare this with the partition function we see that to get the partition function from the transition amplitudes we can replace , set F = I = n and sum over n. This way we don't have to do twice the work by evaluating both the statistical properties and the transition amplitudes. Finally by using a Wick rotation one can show that the Euclidean quantum field theory in (D + 1)-dimensional spacetime is nothing but quantum statistical mechanics in D-dimensional space.

    courtesy of wiki
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

    No I dont understand it, but I do acknowledge people brighter than me do.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree