The Religion Discussion

[maj. tom]

You really do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what a closed system is.

[meccalli]

The topic is the universe not the earth. You're claiming the universe is a closed system? :v

[Slartibartfast]

Quote me before I reworded and show my circular reasoning. Take win here if you want or else you will keep on using this to dance around the subject till kindom come.

Again, as far as I know, this is not accepted science as yet because it cannot be proven. However, it has not been disproved either so Habit will need to disprove it before he can carry on.

If it is not proven in science yet how can it be an alternative? We observe a regulated, fined-tuned world, we know that because of the second law of thermodynamics this cannot occur naturally. Regulated, fined-tuned systems only occurs when designed by intelligent minds.

You are the one who has to produce an empirical means otherwise, that is what you have faith in. Referencing the multiverse is no different than referencing Interstellar or the Matrix, it is fiction. Can you prove we are not in the matrix?

1st point, Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true (multiverse and matrix etc.)

2nd point Just because science cannot currently explain it fully and simply enough for you to understand doesn't make it God (I showed you alternatives that you are yet to disprove)

3rd point Funny how you completely ignored the brrakdown of the argument yet took time to focus or irrelevant details (see your win above)

4th Point I'm still waiting on that one example that God exists.

Habit7 this is getting embarrassing for you. More embarassing that not knowing what the word "immutable" means . Why don't you stop side stepping and dancing around the main issues and just tackle them head on for once.

[nareshseep]

The law of causality points to an uncaused being. That being would have to be immaterial, eternal and not spacial, because the effect was matter, time and space.

Gawd would have to abide by the law of causality as well, the law of causality would ask then what caused gawd to be created? And then if we found out what, we would have to ask what created the creator of gawd...

The law of causality states the every effect has a cause, therefore it doesn't point to an infinite regress as you alluded to. It points to an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, in fact it points to one who created to law of causality along with many other complex laws at the start of our universe.

Whether atheists want to admit or not our natural world could not have come about naturally, there has to be some supernatural cause. The proof for this is the natural world, nature doesn't create itself. Atheists would rush to claim this the 'God of the gaps' assumption, however it is even more bias to say that it isn't. To say we have no example of natural things creating itself, but atheists have faith that they do...

Your faith in a universe out of nothing is probably stronger than my faith in an "imaginary" God.

So the "gawd" does not obey the law of casualty... that interesting then the theory that the universe was always there will hold as well.


The truth of the matter is that no one knows what started this all.

Theist view, " this world to ordered for something to come from nothing ..therefore gawd... but why gawd needed to create the universe? Was it was bored ? "

Atheist view " the components for the universe existed in a singularity before it went kaboom... something came from something, but why did it happen? Space became Time? "

Therefore one party assumes that there was a universe before and the other party assumes that gawd was there before.

[nareshseep]

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.
The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.
Quoting the bible is circular logic.
If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

You statement about the universe violates the second law of thermodynamics, cuts the theory of the Big Bang in with you appeal to and goes against the heat death of the universe. Please quote a source for your view.
I didnt quote the Bible to you, nevertheless if quoting the Bible is circular logic, how do you expect me to answer how to know God?

I have already stated the proof for that statement as proved by Einstein. If it has since changed please do inform me. To clarify I meant Universe = (total energy + total matter + total anti-matter)

If you can state the premise that gawd was there from the beginning because of a book, then I would like for you to undergo any medical surgery based on documented knowledge from that era and only that era.

We have theories and no established facts about the beginning of the universe.
The honest answer is that we don't know.

[nareshseep]

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.

Not according to entropy and thermodynamics.

Which states what exactly?

The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.

Which space?
An atom of space

Quoting the bible is circular logic.

As is quoting science to disprove God.

Nope science can be repeated, gawd talks only once to "chosen" ones.
Religious folks believe in another persons belief.

If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Yeshua is the way provided to know God.

They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

You believe because your bible tells you so...Hmm very convincing ...Circular logic at work
"gawd" is the placeholder for ignorance.

Just pull out one (1) verifiable/repeatable attribute/action of God.

Will you prove love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control with scopes, accelerators and philosophy?

Seems likes very human qualities, and quite true man created "gawd" in his own image.

[Habit7]

If you are telling me to take win, did you either not know what is circular reasoning or were you lying?

I see no evidence that we are in stylised world of a late 90's sci-fi action film...why do I have to prove we not in The Matrix?

Please reread or reword your 1st point.

If science can’t fully explain it then how could it be proof? That is like offering chillibibi as a viable alternative, when asked to explain you say science will resolve it someday.

I started answering your response but then I thought why I am responding to fiction. The multiverse is nothing more that the creative writing of fertile mind. It still doesn't account for a regulated world without an intelligent mind.

Your personal incredulity doesn’t disprove God. You are making a category error; you are demanding material evidence for God. That is like saying Boron is not real because it can't dance. The nature of Boron doesn't lend itself to dancing, it is a chemical element and you should expect to investigate it as such. More so with God, God is the creator of matter, He of himself can't be material, so asking for material evidence for God is a category error and a nonsense.

The God of the Bible is transcendent, you can't go to God, He must come to you. He has given you a complex and ordered world for you to know that He as Creator far more complex and He has His laws for us. We have arguments that prove God, based on our God-given logic. Thus it all comes back to your innate knowledge of God, which you affirmed earlier. God wants you to humble yourself before His mighty power, if you come shaking your fist at Him, He will continue to cast you out like the rebel you are.

For though the Lord is exalted,
Yet He regards the lowly,
But the haughty He knows from afar.
Psalm 138:6

[nareshseep]

Regulated madness ...lol... thats what the religions are ... Willingly mentally conditioned which they pay for.

If the bible can’t fully explain it then how could it be proof? That is like offering a sacrifice as a viable alternative, when asked to explain you say einstein will return someday.

I started answering your response but then I thought why I am responding to theories. The multiverse is nothing more that the creative writing of fertile mind. It still doesn't account for a regulated world without an intelligent mind.

Your personal incredulity doesn’t disprove big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons You are making a category error; you are demanding material evidence for big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons. That is like saying Boron is not real because it can't dance. The nature of Boron doesn't lend itself to dancing, it is a chemical element and you should expect to investigate it as such. More so with d big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons, d big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons is the creator of matter, big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons of itself can't be material, so asking for material evidence for big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons is a category error and a nonsense.

The big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons of the Bible is transcendent, you can't go to big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons, He must come to you. He has given you a complex and ordered world for you to know that He as Creator far more complex and He has His laws for us. We have arguments that prove big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons, based on our big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons-given logic. Thus it all comes back to your innate knowledge of big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons, which you affirmed earlier. D big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons wants you to humble yourself before His mighty power, if you come shaking your fist at big imaginary hairy fire breathing dragons, He will continue to bun you out like the rebel you are.

For though the Dragon is exalted,
Yet it relits the outed candles,
But the water He knows from afar.
Psburn 138:6

[Habit7]

So the "gawd" does not obey the law of casualty... that interesting then the theory that the universe was always there will hold as well.


The truth of the matter is that no one knows what started this all.

Theist view, " this world to ordered for something to come from nothing ..therefore gawd... but why gawd needed to create the universe? Was it was bored ? "

Atheist view " the components for the universe existed in a singularity before it went kaboom... something came from something, but why did it happen? Space became Time? "

Therefore one party assumes that there was a universe before and the other party assumes that gawd was there before.

God, the supernatural being, created the law of causality, along with other laws of nature. Laws dont evolve out of nothing.

Theist don't believe "this world is ordered for something to come from nothing" Theist believe an ordered world by an intelligent mind because we dont see ordered systems from chaos.

If an honest atheist doesn't how the universe came into being then he can't be an atheist. He cannot claim absolute knowledge that there is no God and in the same breath claim incomplete knowledge of the genesis of the universe. At best you have to be agnostic.

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.
The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.
Quoting the bible is circular logic.
If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

You statement about the universe violates the second law of thermodynamics, cuts the theory of the Big Bang in with you appeal to and goes against the heat death of the universe. Please quote a source for your view.
I didnt quote the Bible to you, nevertheless if quoting the Bible is circular logic, how do you expect me to answer how to know God?

I have already stated the proof for that statement as proved by Einstein. If it has since changed please do inform me. To clarify I meant Universe = (total energy + total matter + total anti-matter)

If you can state the premise that gawd was there from the beginning because of a book, then I would like for you to undergo any medical surgery based on documented knowledge from that era and only that era.

We have theories and no established facts about the beginning of the universe.
The honest answer is that we don't know.

Please link to where you and Einstein proved that "the universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there"

That is a fine example of a genetic fallacy. In Einstein's era lobotomies were being performed in many surgical theatres in the industrialised Western World. Does that invalid every book from his era?

Again if you don't know, how can you absolutely deny God. Unless you honestly don't know with the exception of God for sure didn't do it.







P.S. I lack the faith in hairy fire breathing dragons as the causal agents of the universe. A beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being has to be the cause. Nice try though.

[meccalli]

I have already stated the proof for that statement as proved by Einstein. If it has since changed please do inform me. To clarify I meant Universe = (total energy + total matter + total anti-matter)

lol, energy is is a property. What you're saying is that einstein's equation of mass and energy equivalence violates the laws of thermodynamics if the physical universe was neither created nor destroyed.

Which states what exactly?

That you get nothing for free and everything dies.

An atom of space

I can't tell if you just make up these things. If you wish to explain that statement, you have to take specific stances on which dimensions you believe to encompass space and whether they are continuous or not.

Nope science can be repeated

That's funny, all these theories are therefore unscientific?

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." Albert Einstein, Subtle is The Lord.

You believe because your bible tells you so...Hmm very convincing ...Circular logic at work
"gawd" is the placeholder for ignorance.

Well my Bible confirms everything that I can observe and science can/can't prove. I mean its so easy to quote, it's like the answers are directly in place for eternal questions. it predicts events, times, even attitudes. It's proven to be accurate historically and archaeologically, remember hittites and iron? lol.
One thing I can say, It takes much less faith to believe in God than it takes to believe in these 'great' theories that pretty much has told us nothing except that natural man constantly fools himself to evade consequences. Science has dug itself in such a big hole since Big Bang, they're dreaming up nonsense and adding figures dubbed dimensions till the math adds up, no wonder the essential problem exists that the laws of the universe fall through and cease at the points of creation. blank frame ,blank frame, universe appears. Ditto for evolution, life explosions.
Might as well get demolition experts to explain theories.

[Habit7]

Science has dug itself in such a big hole since Big Bang, they're dreaming up nonsense and adding figures dubbed dimensions till the math adds up, no wonder the essential problem exists that the laws of the universe fall through and cease at the points of creation. blank frame ,blank frame, universe appears. Ditto for evolution, life explosions.
Might as well get demolition experts to explain theories.

LOL, for real.

[Slartibartfast]

If you are telling me to take win, did you either not know what is circular reasoning or were you lying? Ok

I see no evidence that we are in stylised world of a late 90's sci-fi action film...why do I have to prove we not in The Matrix?I see no evidence of God, why do I have to prove he does not exist?

Please reread or reword your 1st point. You reword it to what you believe is true and then we will continue. In my opinion it is good as it is [color]

If science can’t fully explain it then how could it be proof? That is like offering chillibibi as a viable alternative, when asked to explain you say science will resolve it someday. [color=#FF0000]My alternative just needs to show that there is an alternative possibility in order to disprove your axiom that a seemingly regulated system is always the product of an intelligent mind. You must now prove your God's existence or disprove my argument.

I started answering your response but then I thought why I am responding to fiction.This is precisely what your God and bible are, yet I am not afraid to respond like you are. The multiverse is nothing more that the creative writing of fertile mind. It still doesn't account for a regulated world without an intelligent mind.I showed where your premise for this argument is wrong. Please stop repeating yourself and respond to the argument raised. This is just an unsupported assertion. .. again

Your personal incredulity doesn’t disprove God. You are making a category error; you are demanding material evidence for God. That is like saying Boron is not real because it can't dance. The nature of Boron doesn't lend itself to dancing, it is a chemical element and you should expect to investigate it as such. More so with God, God is the creator of matter, He of himself can't be material, so asking for material evidence for God is a category error and a nonsense. Assuming G8d exists (which you have yet to prove. This argument is currently invalid

The God of the Bible is transcendent, you can't go to God, He must come to you. He has given you a complex and ordered world for you to know that He as Creator far more complex and He has His laws for us. We have arguments that prove God, based on our God-given logic. Thus it all comes back to your innate knowledge of God, which you affirmed earlier. God wants you to humble yourself before His mighty power, if you come shaking your fist at Him, He will continue to cast you out like the rebel you are.Assuming Gid exists (which you have yet to prove. This argument is invalid

For though the Lord is exalted,
Yet He regards the lowly,
But the haughty He knows from afar.
Psalm 138:6 lol...k

Anyway it's clear you clearly need faith as your beliefs are not based on fact or reality. I'll be here whenever you are ready to actually give a direct and logically sound response to my queries.

[nareshseep]

So the "gawd" does not obey the law of casualty... that interesting then the theory that the universe was always there will hold as well.


The truth of the matter is that no one knows what started this all.

Theist view, " this world to ordered for something to come from nothing ..therefore gawd... but why gawd needed to create the universe? Was it was bored ? "

Atheist view " the components for the universe existed in a singularity before it went kaboom... something came from something, but why did it happen? Space became Time? "

Therefore one party assumes that there was a universe before and the other party assumes that gawd was there before.

God, the supernatural being, created the law of causality, along with other laws of nature. Laws dont evolve out of nothing.

Theist don't believe "this world is ordered for something to come from nothing" Theist believe an ordered world by an intelligent mind because we dont see ordered systems from chaos.

If an honest atheist doesn't how the universe came into being then he can't be an atheist. He cannot claim absolute knowledge that there is no God and in the same breath claim incomplete knowledge of the genesis of the universe. At best you have to be agnostic.

I do know that the universe always existed either as the present state or as the compressed state the size of an atom. What caused the sudden expansion or the big bang ? That I am not sure about. I am 100% positive that it was not created by any "gawd" or "big hairy fire breathing dragons"

You could say I am agnostic wrt to the theory on the cause of the big bang
But I remain an atheist wrt the concept of "gawd" or "BHFBDs"

The universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there.
The entire universe contained within the space of one atom is still the universe.
Quoting the bible is circular logic.
If you cannot know gawd how would you know what is gawd?

You statement about the universe violates the second law of thermodynamics, cuts the theory of the Big Bang in with you appeal to and goes against the heat death of the universe. Please quote a source for your view.
I didnt quote the Bible to you, nevertheless if quoting the Bible is circular logic, how do you expect me to answer how to know God?

I have already stated the proof for that statement as proved by Einstein. If it has since changed please do inform me. To clarify I meant Universe = (total energy + total matter + total anti-matter)

If you can state the premise that gawd was there from the beginning because of a book, then I would like for you to undergo any medical surgery based on documented knowledge from that era and only that era.

We have theories and no established facts about the beginning of the universe.
The honest answer is that we don't know.

Please link to where you and Einstein proved that "the universe cannot be created nor destroyed it was always was there"

That is a fine example of a genetic fallacy. In Einstein's era lobotomies were being performed in many surgical theatres in the industrialised Western World. Does that invalid every book from his era?

Again if you don't know, how can you absolutely deny God. Unless you honestly don't know with the exception of God for sure didn't do it.

Einsteins time and the 100 years +- the era of christ is a big difference in technology and education.

There is no "gawd" and the universe has always existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

P.S. I lack the faith in hairy fire breathing dragons as the causal agents of the universe. A beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful being has to be the cause. Nice try though.

But doesn't the theist say that one cannot know "gawd" and no one has seen "gawd" ... For all yunno maybe he is really a " big hairy fire breathing dragon" ie if it existed.

[Slartibartfast]

Hear what, I'll throw you a next bone. I am willing to accept that God creating matter is material evidence of his existence. So you just show me him/her creating matter (make sure it is verifiable and it is done more than once) and I will accept that he/ she is real.

[nareshseep]

I have already stated the proof for that statement as proved by Einstein. If it has since changed please do inform me. To clarify I meant Universe = (total energy + total matter + total anti-matter)

lol, energy is is a property. What you're saying is that einstein's equation of mass and energy equivalence violates the laws of thermodynamics if the physical universe was neither created nor destroyed.

E=mc^2

Which states what exactly?

That you get nothing for free and everything dies.

As chaotic as everything is in the universe, the universe is constant.

An atom of space

I can't tell if you just make up these things. If you wish to explain that statement, you have to take specific stances on which dimensions you believe to encompass space and whether they are continuous or not.

Explained as singularity

Nope science can be repeated

That's funny, all these theories are therefore unscientific?

Maybe ... Maybe not... time will tell

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." Albert Einstein, Subtle is The Lord.

An example of cherry picking.

You believe because your bible tells you so...Hmm very convincing ...Circular logic at work
"gawd" is the placeholder for ignorance.

Well my Bible confirms everything that I can observe and science can/can't prove. I mean its so easy to quote, it's like the answers are directly in place for eternal questions. it predicts events, times, even attitudes. It's proven to be accurate historically and archaeologically, remember hittites and iron? lol.
One thing I can say, It takes much less faith to believe in God than it takes to believe in these 'great' theories that pretty much has told us nothing except that natural man constantly fools himself to evade consequences. Science has dug itself in such a big hole since Big Bang, they're dreaming up nonsense and adding figures dubbed dimensions till the math adds up, no wonder the essential problem exists that the laws of the universe fall through and cease at the points of creation. blank frame ,blank frame, universe appears. Ditto for evolution, life explosions.
Might as well get demolition experts to explain theories.

Correct my friend the truth of science is confusing to the mind when lies of "gawd" are comforting to the heart...

[nareshseep]

Definitely

[Habit7]

If you are telling me to take win, did you either not know what is circular reasoning or were you lying? Ok

I see no evidence that we are in stylised world of a late 90's sci-fi action film...why do I have to prove we not in The Matrix?I see no evidence of God, why do I have to prove he does not exist?

Please reread or reword your 1st point. You reword it to what you believe is true and then we will continue. In my opinion it is good as it is [color]

If science can’t fully explain it then how could it be proof? That is like offering chillibibi as a viable alternative, when asked to explain you say science will resolve it someday. [color=#FF0000]My alternative just needs to show that there is an alternative possibility in order to disprove your axiom that a seemingly regulated system is always the product of an intelligent mind. You must now prove your God's existence or disprove my argument.

I started answering your response but then I thought why I am responding to fiction.This is precisely what your God and bible are, yet I am not afraid to respond like you are. The multiverse is nothing more that the creative writing of fertile mind. It still doesn't account for a regulated world without an intelligent mind.I showed where your premise for this argument is wrong. Please stop repeating yourself and respond to the argument raised. This is just an unsupported assertion. .. again

Your personal incredulity doesn’t disprove God. You are making a category error; you are demanding material evidence for God. That is like saying Boron is not real because it can't dance. The nature of Boron doesn't lend itself to dancing, it is a chemical element and you should expect to investigate it as such. More so with God, God is the creator of matter, He of himself can't be material, so asking for material evidence for God is a category error and a nonsense. Assuming G8d exists (which you have yet to prove. This argument is currently invalid

The God of the Bible is transcendent, you can't go to God, He must come to you. He has given you a complex and ordered world for you to know that He as Creator far more complex and He has His laws for us. We have arguments that prove God, based on our God-given logic. Thus it all comes back to your innate knowledge of God, which you affirmed earlier. God wants you to humble yourself before His mighty power, if you come shaking your fist at Him, He will continue to cast you out like the rebel you are.Assuming Gid exists (which you have yet to prove. This argument is invalid

For though the Lord is exalted,
Yet He regards the lowly,
But the haughty He knows from afar.
Psalm 138:6 lol...k

Anyway it's clear you clearly need faith as your beliefs are not based on fact or reality. I'll be here whenever you are ready to actually give a direct and logically sound response to my queries.

So you sidestepped my first question...

Because you are an atheist who absolutely believes in the negative assertion of there being no God.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

Your alternative needs to be logically possible, and even ppl in your camp think it isn't.

My Bible is the most verified book in antiquity. Plus you said you dont know much about the Bible, you are commenting on it out of your own self-admitted ignorance of the book.
You didnt show where my premise was wrong...other than saying it was.

I have to assume something is real if I am making and argument for its existence. Is that really your best response?
Don't you assume that the multiverse is real before making and argument for it even when you admit there is no scientific proof?

You are sucking the logic out of the discussion with a reply like that, honestly.

[Habit7]

Definitely

Religion is combing and scouring the internet for memes to reassure myself that the fictitious beliefs of others are still fictitious.

[nareshseep]

Everyone who uses the toilet in the morning has a religion

[Slartibartfast]

Your alternative needs to be logically possible, and even ppl in your camp think it isn't.

Explain how my alternatives are logically impossible (I.e. the concept of a multiverse or tethe concept that we are in the matrix)

[meccalli]

E=mc^2

Do you know what this even means? You just confused this with the 1st law of thermodynamics. It shows simple proportion between an objects energy and mass.

As chaotic as everything is in the universe, the universe is constant.

???, It's been in a constant state of decay since it came into being.

Explained as singularity

The singularity doesn't exist, this was the purpose of formulating m theory.

Maybe ... Maybe not... time will tell

Well there you have it.

[meccalli]

xplain how my alternatives are logically impossible (I.e. the concept of a multiverse or tethe concept that we are in the matrix)

Because the only thing that is remotely logical in them are the empiric formulas. You don't seem to realise that these theories are based on the anthropic principal and that things could not have come about as they are without precise attributes that allow us to exist to observe such. Outside of that, it's all assumptions, postulations and propositions. When you take God out of the picture, these wild and very unsatisfying theories pop up because it requires a larger conscious state greater than our own universe existing as a discrete object. This is why the probabilistic holographic and 'matrix'/simulated universe comes about and is much more viable. Of course, we still need a programmer to simulate it.

[Habit7]

The irrational disbelief in God will unavoidably have you believing in subjects which require substantially more faith.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... VMyXymCOK0

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/77980709


It is also quite telling how Slartibartfast refused to respond entirely to my last post even where he has to defend why he lied. But hey let us continue by any irrational means unnecessary, to account for a regulated world not proceeding from an intelligent mind.

[Slartibartfast]

If you do "upset a mug of milk" enough times (approaching infinity) you will eventually end up with a spill/splash that looks like the map England (probability approaching 1) or any other country you want to reference. How good was CS Lewis at statistics, because it sounds like he doesn't understand statistics to me.

It is also quite telling how Slartibartfast refused to respond entirely to my last post even where he has to defend why he lied. But hey let us continue by any irrational means unnecessary, to account for a regulated world not proceeding from an intelligent mind.

I realised that when I argue more than one point at a time you ignore most of them. I will therefore begin to argue one point at a time. I will therefore not respond to any counter argument about the CS Lewis quote above until the previous arguments are countered by you.

The point I am arguing right now is "Can you disprove the theory of multiverses (probably true) or prove that we are not trapped in the matrix (definitely not true)"? <----- You may ignore everything else if you wish. Just answer this one.

Your alternative needs to be logically possible

You previously stated that the alternatives were impossible without proof. All I am asking for now is your proof.

[meccalli]

The point I am arguing right now is "Can you disprove the theory of multiverses (probably true) or prove that we are not trapped in the matrix (definitely not true)"? <----- You may ignore everything else if you wish. Just answer this one.

Yes, you take a single dimension out of it and it is impossible. The matrix is a much more viable theory than multiverse.

[meccalli]

Multiverse explains the existence of 11 dimensions. The 4th dimension of einstein being the hinge, the rest being concepts of the joining, warping and empty realities of different universes. Science has been chasing the ghost of time as a dimension for so long, it refuses to revert, thankfully some people have spoken out. It hinges on the strings being multidimensional forming a fabric. This is the basis of M theory, it cannot stand without these dimensions.

Why is the matrix concept erroneous? It essentially tells us we are living in a controlled environment under higher intelligence.

edit: where'd your post go? lol

[Slartibartfast]

Ok hear what. Let's get this argument back on track. I'll break it down once again to it's basics. I have presented 4 arguments. You can reply to each point separately and I will respond to each of your replies separately. One section for each response so there is no need for us to quote eachother and make it hard for others to read. Also, any extra that someone wants to say can be added in a 5th section (so you can call me blasphemous and I can say you are right). However there will be no response to the 5th paragraph shall be required.


1st point,
Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage) (i.e. Just because science cannot disprove the existence of (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage), does not mean that (multiverse, the matrix, God, Dragon is Car Sagan's Garage) exist.


2nd point
Just because science cannot currently explain it fully and simply enough for you to understand doesn't mean God did it. (I showed you alternatives that you are yet to disprove).


3rd point
Now that I have shown that absence of evidence is not evidence of existence (or absence), the only way to settle this argument is for you to prove that your God exists. For which I ask for one example of a verifiable/repeatable event/occurrence/action/attribute of God (just one)



4th Point -
Although this is not needed unless you prove that your God exists, I present it as an alternative to show you that the "regulated world" does not point in only one direction.
Your Premise (Correct me if I am wrong)
an intelligent mind is needed to create a regulated system, ergo, every regulated system points to an intelligent creator. The universe being a seemingly regulated system therefore points to an intelligent creator. (This argument assumes the "regulated world points in one direction)
My Premise
A seemingly ordered or regulated system is a natural permutation of any system.
My Premise used to disprove your premise
Any system that is allowed enough time/chance to pass through an infinite amount of permutations (i.e. infinite occurrences) will eventually wind up in a permutation that looks like it was purposefully regulated/ordered (i.e. probability becomes one). Note that the frequency of the occurrence is not affected.
In the case of the universe I am not saying that all of the systems are occurring at the same time or one after the other or that they are all affected by our concept of time anyway.
Also note that it is possible that the origin of the universe may be something that we have not even considered as yet (hence the reason why I will say evolution and the big bang are the best explanations we have to date but are open to future review)

EDIT: Just made some areas bold to make it easier to see the main point that I am putting forth.
EDIT 2: Added colour to make it even asier

[Slartibartfast]

Multiverse explains the existence of 11 dimensions. The 4th dimension of einstein being the hinge, the rest being concepts of the joining, warping and empty realities of different universes. Science has been chasing the ghost of time as a dimension for so long, it refuses to revert, thankfully some people have spoken out. It hinges on the strings being multidimensional forming a fabric. This is the basis of M theory, it cannot stand without these dimensions.Understood. Assuming everything you said is true, you just need to explain why it is impossible for those other dimensions to exist and you will disprove the theory.

Why is the [GOD] concept erroneous? It essentially tells us we are living in a [REGULATED] environment under higher intelligence. <---- Not a disproof of the matrix or of the concept of God but a good comparison to see that he notion that there is a God is as silly as the notion that we are living in the matrix

edit: where'd your post go? lol

Lol, sorry. Decided to refine my argument so it would be easier for everyone to follow. I'm having difficulty keeping track of what everyone (including me is responding to)

[Habit7]

I dont know if I can be continually wearied with you lying about me presenting a circular argument you can't reproduce, offering the multiverse or a movie-The Matrix as a viable explanation for the order of the universe, and you invalidating an argument for God because the argument assumes God is real.

We are discussing on different planes of logic, reason and honesty and sadly you don't see the constant need for you to reformat your argument as proof for that.

[Slartibartfast]

I dont know if I can be continually wearied with you lying about me presenting a circular argument

invalidating an argument for God because the argument assumes God is real.

Here is your circular argument.

Conclusion - God Exists (Argument for God)
Assumption/ Premise - God is real.

There, now that we have those two out of the way, let's move on.