But if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe.
Quote from: quadzBut if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe. No?i have a hard time believing that's the reason i am here, it would seem much like winning the lottery.
But if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe. No?
Quote from: quadz on December 14, 2006, 11:07:19 PMIt's not possible to know whether there is a "hand of god" or not.
It's not possible to know whether there is a "hand of god" or not.
Quote from: quadzBut if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe.
this is where i would like to distinguish the possibility of god existing and the likelihood of god existing
Quote from: dahangthis is where i would like to distinguish the possibility of god existing and the likelihood of god existingmy take on what you said was really only one argument:god would have to be more complex than the universe, which would seem irrational, and you are just forumlating the idea of god from thought alone.
you have chosen the 'logic' path for belief in god, and your logic simply eats itself.
you are explaining complexity by bringing in an even more complex being to do so.
not that you were implying this, but lets not confuse what is possible with what is good reason to believe.
Yeahbut... I thought that was kind of axiomatic? For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago? How would we know?
I don't think most of the science-oriented discussion in this thread has been aiming toward denying the possibility of the supernatural.
And if the supernatural isn't needed to explain the Universe, why invent it? Sure, there's always the possibility pretty much anything we can imagine could exist somewhere.
faith does not require thinking, just believing
Quote from: DaHanG on December 07, 2006, 11:37:29 PM i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988. How do you know you didn't have a problem with it? The whole concept of a "pre-life" (which would be necessary to have died) opens up the necessity of an "after-life" of some sort.
i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988.
Quote from: quadz on December 15, 2006, 12:24:13 AMYeahbut... I thought that was kind of axiomatic? For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago? How would we know?Well, using the reasoning I've been trying to following in this thread, it's impossible for the entire Universe as we understand it to have been created just 30 seconds ago because of all the hard (fossils etc) evidence that points to the contrary To say all this evidence could be done "naturally" in the last 30 seconds and be shown to be millions/billions/trillions of years old doesn't meet (and I emphasis current) current scientific methods...
Quote from: DaHanG on December 15, 2006, 02:29:55 AMfaith does not require thinking, just believingI don't know about that. Even the dictionary defines faith as confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Before I put my "faith" in a doctor, I'm darn sure gonna think about it