Who Made God?

The ultimate question?

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Who Made God?

#781  Postby archibald » Sep 04, 2017 5:33 pm

Can we do, 'who made elves' next?
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9501
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#782  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 04, 2017 5:51 pm

How about who made that horrible worm that crawls into kids eyes in Africa. A very loving twat.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 38176
Age: 68
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#783  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 04, 2017 5:53 pm

archibald wrote:Can we do, 'who made elves' next?

What do you mean? Elvis' mom and dad made Elvis.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10764
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#784  Postby Greyman » Sep 04, 2017 5:54 pm

If it is possible to have been walking forever, and you have been doing so until now, then there can still be more steps to take than the countable infinitude taken until now.

Take one more step. How many steps have you taken?

Keep walking. How long have you been walking now?

Why are you walking in circles?
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 441
Age: 49

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#785  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 04, 2017 6:57 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Colour me surprise. Once again you just assert what you want to be the case, without actually presenting evidence that it is the case.Several people, including me have already refuted this dreck.
That you keep mindlessly regurgitating it without adressing those refutations further serves to demonstrate your trollish intent.


Let's try simple analogies:

Do stuff your patronising, passive-agressive remarks back into the same source your claims originate from.

Wortfish wrote:
In the first scenario, we never reach anywhere:

1. I take one step forward and then I take a step back. I keep doing this. Where do I end up? That is what it is like to have no beginning...you are always as far from your "destination" as you always were, no matter how long you keep repeating it.

In the second scenario, we have already reached everywhere:

2. I have been taking steps forward forever. How far have I gone? Answer: You have taken all possible steps there could be and there are no more steps you can take. If there were more, you wouldn't have always been taking steps forward.

More evidence of trolling. All you've done here is reassert something I and others have already refuted.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27298
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#786  Postby Wortfish » Sep 04, 2017 9:47 pm

Greyman wrote:If it is possible to have been walking forever, and you have been doing so until now, then there can still be more steps to take than the countable infinitude taken until now.

Take one more step. How many steps have you taken?

Keep walking. How long have you been walking now?

Why are you walking in circles?


Instintively, you might think that. But what Thomas Eshuis cannot get his mind around is that, if you have always been walking, you must have covered all possible ground. If you say that you can take one more step, this means you haven't had enough time to take that extra step which is ridiculous since you have had an infinite amount of time to do so. As paradoxical as it may sound, if you have been walking forever, you can't walk any further. That's infinity for you!
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 524

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#787  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 04, 2017 10:14 pm

I wont accept things asserted blindly Wortfish. Simply repeating your assertion over and over does not magically make it rational or true.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Sep 05, 2017 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27298
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#788  Postby Greyman » Sep 04, 2017 10:46 pm

Well, I for one am now convinced that there cannot be wortfinite many negative integers. Why, if we started counting up from the least negative integer towards the greatest for a wortfinite amount we would actually have counted all possible integers, and not finished at -1 as we ought. After all, if you reach a point where you can still count one more then you haven't been counting for a wortfinite amount. That's how wortfinity works.

Infinity, on the other hand, is not defined so naively.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 441
Age: 49

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#789  Postby Just A Theory » Sep 04, 2017 11:30 pm

Wortfish wrote:
archibald wrote:

Wordfish? Is this not the case? Why does the universe need a creator if god supposedly doesn't?

I mean, giving a reason other than, 'god just doesn't' because any fool can say the same about the universe.


Very simply, God does not need a creator because he has always existed and never began to exist. The universe needs a creator because (as I believe) it began to exist. Of course, if the universe is eternal, then a Creator-God cannot exist. And this is why many of the atheist posters here are determined to defend the possibility, or rather absurdity, of an infinite past. However, just because the universe had a beginning, and presumably a cause, does not mean that God was responsible...but it is consistent with the idea.


Ah, well then, debate settled!!!

It's so simple really. All that is required is to define the debate in terms of a logical contradiction and all opposition arguments are thereby nullified.

Pack it up boys & girls, science is OVER!

*mic drop*
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1271
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#790  Postby scott1328 » Sep 04, 2017 11:58 pm

I thought this discussion was over when the theist troll asserted that Sqrt(2) was rational.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7722
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#791  Postby Agrippina » Sep 05, 2017 7:23 am

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Colour me surprise. Once again you just assert what you want to be the case, without actually presenting evidence that it is the case.Several people, including me have already refuted this dreck.
That you keep mindlessly regurgitating it without adressing those refutations further serves to demonstrate your trollish intent.


Let's try simple analogies:

In the first scenario, we never reach anywhere:

1. I take one step forward and then I take a step back. I keep doing this. Where do I end up? That is what it is like to have no beginning...you are always as far from your "destination" as you always were, no matter how long you keep repeating it.


Rubbish. In taking the steps you're moving your feet and they don't fall on the same spot every time. Every move is an action in that precise moment in time. You've moved into the next moment, the only moment you have.

In the second scenario, we have already reached everywhere:

2. I have been taking steps forward forever. How far have I gone? Answer: You have taken all possible steps there could be and there are no more steps you can take. If there were more, you wouldn't have always been taking steps forward.

Wrong again. You haven't been alive forever. You haven't had the same abilities forever. You haven't been moving at the same pace forever. You've only arrived at that moment, the only moment you're alive.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36621
Age: 106
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#792  Postby Agrippina » Sep 05, 2017 7:24 am

Wortfish wrote:
Greyman wrote:If it is possible to have been walking forever, and you have been doing so until now, then there can still be more steps to take than the countable infinitude taken until now.

Take one more step. How many steps have you taken?

Keep walking. How long have you been walking now?

Why are you walking in circles?


Instintively, you might think that. But what Thomas Eshuis cannot get his mind around is that, if you have always been walking, you must have covered all possible ground. If you say that you can take one more step, this means you haven't had enough time to take that extra step which is ridiculous since you have had an infinite amount of time to do so. As paradoxical as it may sound, if you have been walking forever, you can't walk any further. That's infinity for you!


No. No. No. You haven't always been walking. You've been doing other stuff. Sometimes just sitting on a couch typing bullshit on a computer.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36621
Age: 106
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#793  Postby Arcanyn » Sep 05, 2017 11:15 am

Wortfish wrote:
archibald wrote:

Wordfish? Is this not the case? Why does the universe need a creator if god supposedly doesn't?

I mean, giving a reason other than, 'god just doesn't' because any fool can say the same about the universe.


Very simply, God does not need a creator because he has always existed and never began to exist. The universe needs a creator because (as I believe) it began to exist. Of course, if the universe is eternal, then a Creator-God cannot exist. And this is why many of the atheist posters here are determined to defend the possibility, or rather absurdity, of an infinite past. However, just because the universe had a beginning, and presumably a cause, does not mean that God was responsible...but it is consistent with the idea.


So, it's absurd for a universe to have in infinite past, but when it comes to a god having an infinite past that's just dandy.
Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. Only when someone is free from constraints and consequences do they show their true character.

Sign the petition for the William Lane Craig/David Icke debate here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/craigickedebate/signatures
User avatar
Arcanyn
 
Posts: 1368
Age: 33
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#794  Postby Newmark » Sep 05, 2017 11:40 am

Unfortunately, I only have a limited amount of time (heh) to write this, so since Thomas Eshuis and Greyman (among others) have already demolished quite a lot of your claims, I'll just pick a few of the funnier ones...

Wortfish wrote:
But I quite frankly fail to see your point here. You are simply admitting that there are (at least) as many rationals between 0 and 1 as there are positive integers, which (by a sane mathematical definition) there are an infinity of...

My point is that we are engaged in numerical trickery by pretending there is some infinite continuum between 0 and 1 when all we are doing is taking inverses of unbounded positive integers. Unfortunately, abstract maths does entail a lot of this woo!

Yes, "abstract math" can have such "woo" as claiming that 1 + 1 can equal 10, which would be clearly absurd, because only counting on our fingers can apply to reality. For your own safety, I'd recommend that you stay far away from anything whose basic operations relies on such trickery! (As for why your "inverse" construction of a continuum is flawed, see below.)

The so-called "fallacy" comes from the failure to recognize this difference between sets and their members (or between transfinite numbers and integers, for that matter), and we do actually have mathematical models that can explain how such things could work. Your entire counterargument still rests on an insufficient and out-dated model, and simply arguing from the (likewise out-dated) authority of Aristotle doesn't help you.

So you believe Achilles can never catches up with the tortoise and Zeno's arrow never reaches its target?

Now, I know that apologists often are quite immune to any knowledge that isn't at least a thousand years old, so this might be a bit of a stretch: have you heard of limits? It's only been around since Newton's time, and it provides a quite handy and useful way of dealing with such questions.

Aristotle was the one to bring the terms "actual" and "potential" into it, which was what I was talking about. But Democritus may well have been first to the particular conclusion you mention, but he had the same lack of modern mathematical tools, and thus his results are equally out-dated. Without set theory or analytical limits, there is only so much you can do... To put it simply, you need to show how these speculations apply to modern mathematics and/or physics, instead of just making an argument from authority.

Well, in the case of Democritus, his hypothesis became the basis for atomic theory. There is no evidence that we can divide particles indefinitely into infinitely indivisble components.

Well, his concept of "atomic" is also quite outdated. "Atom" literally means indivisible, and if you paid any attention to the Korean peninsula in the recent weeks, you should bloody well know that "atoms" are anything but. Now, space (and space is a far more interesting subject here than particles) may well be quantizable at Planck length intervals, and if you really want to base your argument on modern physics, be my guest, but what an ancient Greek said on the subject is hardly likely to provide any relevant information...

Your main problem in the quotes above is that you try to disprove a mathematical concept by appealing to reality. Mathematics doesn't work that way. It is an axiomatic system, so "evidence" isn't an issue, only proofs are. If you want show that infinities are logically incoherent, you actually need to prove it, which in turn would require you understand the underlying mathematics. If you want to continue to blindly dismiss areas of mathematics just because they don't agree with your preferred conclusions, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater; if you want to claim that only Wortfish-infinities are applicable to reality, please justify how you think concepts like calculus has no real world application...


And this was just too fucking hillarious not to comment on:
Wortfish wrote:Calm down. I have already stated that the inverse of all irrational numbers like 1/sqrt(2) lie within 0 and 1 and cannot be definitively expressed in terms of integers. This applies also to sqrt(2) -1 and to PI -3. However, we can always arrive at a rational approximation to any irrational number. Now, the inverse of 2414213565 multiplied by 10^9 is pretty good. I can get ever closer to sqrt(2) -1 by adding more digits. Indeed, the bigger the number, the more accurate the approximation.

First of all, you do realize that there are irrational numbers <1 (including negative ones)? This makes your claim that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1" blatantly false. Secondly, you have definitely NOT "always stated" that; here you said "I have shown that any real and rational number between 0 and 1 can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer multiplied by 10^n and, for >0.5, summed with the inverse of 2" (not to mention your claims about continuums earlier), which directly contradicts your statement above, since the square root of 2 isn't an integer.

But the funniest part is when you try to dismiss irrational numbers by comparing them to "rational approximations". A "rational approximation" is not an irrational number, and there are two subtle clues to this that you may have missed: the term "rational", which indicates that it is not irrational, and the term "approximation", which means "close to", not "equals". That we can construct a rational approximation to an irrational number doesn't really tell us anything; it certainly doesn't tell us that your claim that "any real [...] number between 0 and [0.5] can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer"* is credible in any way. The only way this could lead us to any interesting conclusions is if you can show that for each possible rational approximation, there is at most one irrational number that is best approximated with that particular approximation. Since there are 20 irrationals in the interval between any two rationals, I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof...

* That you don't even realize that the "multiplied by 10^n" is a thoroughly unnecessary addition should tell us something...
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 335
Age: 38
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#795  Postby Wortfish » Sep 05, 2017 12:05 pm

Newmark wrote:
First of all, you do realize that there are irrational numbers <1 (including negative ones)? This makes your claim that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1" blatantly false. Secondly, you have definitely NOT "always stated" that; here you said "I have shown that any real and rational number between 0 and 1 can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer multiplied by 10^n and, for >0.5, summed with the inverse of 2" (not to mention your claims about continuums earlier), which directly contradicts your statement above, since the square root of 2 isn't an integer.

The square root of 2 does not lie between 0 and 1. Rather, the sqrt(2) -1 lies between 0 and 1.

But the funniest part is when you try to dismiss irrational numbers by comparing them to "rational approximations". A "rational approximation" is not an irrational number, and there are two subtle clues to this that you may have missed: the term "rational", which indicates that it is not irrational, and the term "approximation", which means "close to", not "equals". That we can construct a rational approximation to an irrational number doesn't really tell us anything; it certainly doesn't tell us that your claim that "any real [...] number between 0 and [0.5] can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer"* is credible in any way. The only way this could lead us to any interesting conclusions is if you can show that for each possible rational approximation, there is at most one irrational number that is best approximated with that particular approximation. Since there are 20 irrationals in the interval between any two rationals, I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof...

You're missing the point entirely. If I have a big enough integer I can use its inverse, multiplied by a factor of 10, to get to the approximation of any irrational number that is only infinitesimally inaccurate. Your claim was that there is an infinite continuum of real, including irrational numbers, between 0 and 1. My response was that this is just a charade and that we are just juggling with ever greater integers: 0.1 = 1/10; 0.01 = 1/100; 0.0000000001 = 1/10000000000....and so on. The problem with supposing there can be an infinity within actual bound is that all we end up is just adding more and more zeroes after the decimal place and keep doing so forever. But, all we are really doing is taking the inverse of an integer with one more digit at the end. This gives the illusion that we there is a real infinity within finite space.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 524

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Who Made God?

#796  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 05, 2017 12:21 pm

You still haven't presented evidence nor sound arguments to demonstrate that infinity is impossible.
You still haven't presented evidence nor sound arguments that the universe as a whole had a beginning.
You still haven't presented evidence that your god exists.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27298
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#797  Postby archibald » Sep 05, 2017 12:30 pm

Arcanyn wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
archibald wrote:

Wordfish? Is this not the case? Why does the universe need a creator if god supposedly doesn't?

I mean, giving a reason other than, 'god just doesn't' because any fool can say the same about the universe.


Very simply, God does not need a creator because he has always existed and never began to exist. The universe needs a creator because (as I believe) it began to exist. Of course, if the universe is eternal, then a Creator-God cannot exist. And this is why many of the atheist posters here are determined to defend the possibility, or rather absurdity, of an infinite past. However, just because the universe had a beginning, and presumably a cause, does not mean that God was responsible...but it is consistent with the idea.


So, it's absurd for a universe to have an infinite past, but when it comes to a god having an infinite past that's just dandy.


Exactly.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9501
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#798  Postby Newmark » Sep 05, 2017 2:08 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Newmark wrote:
First of all, you do realize that there are irrational numbers <1 (including negative ones)? This makes your claim that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1" blatantly false. Secondly, you have definitely NOT "always stated" that; here you said "I have shown that any real and rational number between 0 and 1 can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer multiplied by 10^n and, for >0.5, summed with the inverse of 2" (not to mention your claims about continuums earlier), which directly contradicts your statement above, since the square root of 2 isn't an integer.

The square root of 2 does not lie between 0 and 1. Rather, the sqrt(2) -1 lies between 0 and 1.

...and the inverse of a number that is between 0 and 1 lies in what range? Compare this with your statement that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1". And thank you for proving yourself wrong again!

But the funniest part is when you try to dismiss irrational numbers by comparing them to "rational approximations". A "rational approximation" is not an irrational number, and there are two subtle clues to this that you may have missed: the term "rational", which indicates that it is not irrational, and the term "approximation", which means "close to", not "equals". That we can construct a rational approximation to an irrational number doesn't really tell us anything; it certainly doesn't tell us that your claim that "any real [...] number between 0 and [0.5] can be expressed as the inverse of a positive integer"* is credible in any way. The only way this could lead us to any interesting conclusions is if you can show that for each possible rational approximation, there is at most one irrational number that is best approximated with that particular approximation. Since there are 20 irrationals in the interval between any two rationals, I won't hold my breath waiting for your proof...

You're missing the point entirely. If I have a big enough integer I can use its inverse, multiplied by a factor of 10, to get to the approximation of any irrational number that is only infinitesimally inaccurate. Your claim was that there is an infinite continuum of real, including irrational numbers, between 0 and 1. My response was that this is just a charade and that we are just juggling with ever greater integers: 0.1 = 1/10; 0.01 = 1/100; 0.0000000001 = 1/10000000000....and so on. The problem with supposing there can be an infinity within actual bound is that all we end up is just adding more and more zeroes after the decimal place and keep doing so forever. But, all we are really doing is taking the inverse of an integer with one more digit at the end. This gives the illusion that we there is a real infinity within finite space.

...

...

...

I'm terribly sorry, but I just can't find facepalm picture big enough. You don't really have any clue about what you are talking about, do you? That you are making things up about how you think mathematics work would be cute if I had any reason to assume that you where willing to learn from your errors. Instead, you blindly dismiss well-established mathematical facts as "illusions", which quite frankly is a downright pathetic argument in a mathematical discussion.

For the record, Cantor proved that the reals were uncountably infinite in the late 19th century. Your "objections" only represents an incredibly naive version of set theory, and such issues are address if you actually take the time to properly learn anything about the subject.


And I notice that you dodge a particular one of my questions: now that you've dismissed (among other things) set theory and calculus as "illusion" without "application to reality", what do you think of any technology that is in any way based on them?
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 335
Age: 38
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#799  Postby Wortfish » Sep 05, 2017 2:22 pm

Newmark wrote:
...and the inverse of a number that is between 0 and 1 lies in what range? Compare this with your statement that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1". And thank you for proving yourself wrong again!

The inverse of an irrational number....not the irrational number itself lies within 0 and 1. Stop twisting what I wrote.

I'm terribly sorry, but I just can't find facepalm picture big enough. You don't really have any clue about what you are talking about, do you? That you are making things up about how you think mathematics work would be cute if I had any reason to assume that you where willing to learn from your errors. Instead, you blindly dismiss well-established mathematical facts as "illusions", which quite frankly is a downright pathetic argument in a mathematical discussion.

I am not making up anything. Amazingly, you fail to realise that taking the inverse of an increasingly large range of unbounded integers (scaled by a factor of 10) generates a (near) infinite contiunum of real numbers between 0 and 0.5. That is why it is an illusion to suppose that there is an infinity of real numbers bounded between any two integers.

For the record, Cantor proved that the reals were uncountably infinite in the late 19th century. Your "objections" only represents an incredibly naive version of set theory, and such issues are address if you actually take the time to properly learn anything about the subject.

Not all real numbers lie between 0 and 1.

And I notice that you dodge a particular one of my questions: now that you've dismissed (among other things) set theory and calculus as "illusion" without "application to reality", what do you think of any technology that is in any way based on them?

I never said set theory has no applications. I said it has no application whatsoever to the problem of an infinite past. I note how you totally failed to address my objection to your forever-moving object. Care to address it?
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 524

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Who Made God?

#800  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 05, 2017 2:40 pm

You have failed to demonstrate infinity to be a problem or impossible.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27298
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest