Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleJack Albertson
bismillah rahmani rahim
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/14/06
Posts: 10,065
Loc: SOLARIS
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Nipples]
    #7514932 - 10/14/07 07:40 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

i waited to long to reply.


--------------------
Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose.Man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time
TRANSCEND


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7514973 - 10/14/07 08:06 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Less psychologically mature people equate the self with the body.




ANd some people just make shit up with no supporting evidence in order to feel superior.




The whole of the science of psychology.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7514974 - 10/14/07 08:07 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Entropy?


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7515041 - 10/14/07 08:46 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

This is just a notice that this forum is orientated towards discussing the ideas that users present, and not the identity or personal nature of the individuals presenting them... their past posting behavior, their alleged motivations in posting, etc. etc. etc. ad nausem. I've taken the time to remove these personalisms, so that the ideas for discussion may continue to be discussed; however, any subsequent engagement in discussing personalisms will not be tolerated.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNipples
Liberty Chap
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/07
Posts: 13
Loc: UK
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7515406 - 10/14/07 11:26 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

I didn't mean to offend OrgoneConclusion, and I didn't realise it would be taken that way ... Sorry

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Nipples]
    #7515599 - 10/14/07 12:22 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:



One Law of Thermodynamics states: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed."


All-too-often, ignorant fluffernauts toss this out as some sort of evidence for an afterlife even though it has been debunked endlessly by the most basic of physics.

Take an old CD and smash it into a zillion pieces or run a powerful magnet over your hard drive. What happens? INFORMATION (not matter or energy) is lost.

When any animal dies, its memories and personality are lost, but the energy and matter remains the same. There is no loss of energy that travels to another magical realm.

End of story.




You're right, but it must also be recognised that information is a fundamental entity. The fundamental quantity information is a nonmaterial (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that
purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as
sources of information. This has important implications when understanding how information comes about. I suggest you study up on imformation science, particularly werner gitts information theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

In any case I thought this would be a good opportunity to post an argumentment that does scientifically show a need for a creator with thermodynamics. Here is part of an arguement.

Quote:


One of the discoveries you will make about the outside world is that every action creates an equal reaction. This is newtons third law of motion. Another way of saying it is that events do not occur without a cause. Nothing moves without being first pushed or pulled or affected first. This is not opinion, but fact firmly supported by everything so far, and also every single empirical observation that's ever been made.

Another thing you might find in the outside world is something called the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the energy that atoms and molecules have as they interact with each other. There are three major rules that all things must obey regarding thermodynamics. These can be described in very complex terms or very simple terms .Here they are:

1st law says: energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
2nd law says: the entropy of the universe is always increasing.
3nd law says: the average temperature of all matter can never reach zero.

Entropy by the way, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work.

When any physical thing interacts with another, the 1st law of
thermodynamics says energy is never lost and never created. Even when a fire is put out or something explodes.The total energy of the universe remains the same. You can never get more than you start with.

Th second law says entropy is always growing. This can be stated other ways, like the energy available to do work, is always decreasing. Or, some of the energy put into process is lost to friction. This means no perpetual motion machines. All things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, and from complex organization to complete regularity.

It's as if all the energy in the universe were in an hour glass, so that as time passes the energy is used and falls into the bottom of the hourglass, where it becomes less useful, or useless. All of the energy in the universe is becoming unavailable to do work ever again. When it's used up, it's all over. This is the second law of thermodynamics, and it is the most rigorously tested law in all of science.

There are two "exceptions" to the second law though. The first one is life. If the forces behind the second law had their way, our bodies would deteriorate within a short time. But life has a way to overcome this problem. It's as if life is walking up an escalator, and the 2nd law drags you down just as it's stepping up. How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.

You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.

Some people think that life can increase it's complexity on it's own without intelligent direction.And although no one has ever seen it happen, and even though it would be a violation of the second law, alot of people claim it's a fact regardless.

The third law of thermodynamics really doesn't matter at this point.

we need one more thing now before we can use the first two laws of thermodynamics. it's a consequence of time. It's the possibility for beginnings and endings. When you started this book, you knew that it would end, and your own life will end someday.

In fact, all complexity will "end" eventually. Even the universe will end at some point. If things continue on as they have the entropy in the universe will reach it's maximum level and no energy will be left to do work. The stars will burn out, all life will die, and the average temperature will be very close to absolute zero. The second law is our guarantee of utter and complete demise.

Also, because a thing is degrading toward and end not only implies there was a beginning, it necessitates one. Because the energy available to do work decreases with time, and since the total amount of energy to do work cannot exceed the amount available the furthest one can extrapolate back in time is the point where they were equal. This is the earliest possible date. That is, a beginning. We can also say that the universe needed an original source of motion. We can see that an original source of kinetic energy was required because

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Now to discuss the presence of order and complexity. A very similar argument can be used to show that because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with. Now remember that order can only come from intelligence able to direct force.

Some may say that life can do the job without the intelligence by evolution. But even if this were possible, who would have created the first life form or the low levels of chemical entropy throughout the universe? Our universe must have had an original designer. Something to reduce entropy and increase complexity.

That the entropy can decrease on it's own is quite impossible. As a result it will never happen, and it never has.Unless that is, you believe in miracles.

The fact that the universe exists and that life exists is nothing short of a miracle. A miracle is something that happens even though it's physically impossible. Is that a contradiction? No , here's why. If we know that low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.

Motion and complexity exist, and the universe cannot provide either one. But rather, it's losing complexity and randomizing all motion. Not only is the universe unable to sustain itself, it could never have even begun by itself. Our universe is unable to stand alone, and something else must exist. There is a word for this .

It's called the supernatural.

The very things that necessitate the existence of the supernatural can tell us something about it. If we look back we'll see that something outside of our universe was responsible for decreasing entropy. Something had to have worked in the opposite direction of the second law to establish higher degrees of complexity. Life and large amounts of energy available to do work, could not have spontaneously appeared in our universe without outside help. Something outside of the universe must have been responsible for their presence originally.

Complexity is a state of low entropy and high specific order. In contrast, nature forces all things toward regularity, like the the molecules of a crystal, or towards disorder as seen in molecules of gas. This kind of regularity btw is the opposite of complexity and contains little or no information.

The second thing we know of the supernatural is that something was necessary to get things moving in our universe. The "prime mover" must be there somehow.

With what's been discussed so far we can't really talk about other things like whether there's a realm beyond that one, or whether the place is big or small or whether size or time or dimension even matter.The only thing that can be discussed at this point is the part of the supernatural which gave our universe order and complexity. So what is the nature of that thing? Well for one it exists, and that it never needed to be started, because if not, then the thing which started it is the thing which didn't need to be started. Either way, there's something supernatural which has always existed. we can know that for sure because we know that we exist and that something started us. That thing would be in the same spot we're in that is, if it wasn't inherently eternal.

Something must ultimately be responsible for the condition and existence of everything else. If you don't agree, try imagining another scenario. In order to deviate from the logical path we're on, you would have to imagine that one or more of the laws of the physical universe was not always the way it is now. (contrary to what all modern scientific knowledge is based upon). Or you could imagine that an outside realm could spontaneously generate a decaying universe like ours without intention, being eternal itself. But this scenario is a kind of super universal pantheism which cannot fulfill the requirements of existence that the universe needs. It's needs not just force, but complexity donated as well. This requires an intelligence with the ability to direct force.

Something supernatural must have started our universe and designed systems of high complexity. We know that this is valid because the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in our universe energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the source for energy in moving things must be supernatural.

According to modern science, it turns out that matter and energy are interchangeable : E=mc2 . They're two sides of the same coin. This has implications when we talk about what a prime mover is. It means that energy in the form of motion (kinetic energy) was provided by an outside source. But what about the matter that was being moved? Because matter and energy are so similar we can see the issue has already been addressed. If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.

If a thing provides the energy for the creation and motion of all other things, that thing is called all powerful because it must be the ultimate source for all energy regardless of what form that energy takes. If something provides the energy so that all other things can exist, then it is the foundation of all that exists. It is the foundation of all existence and it is self sustaining therefore it is eternal.

complex organization can only come from intelligent design. Left to themselves all things fall apart. Only an intellect can reverse the process through intentional construction. Not one incident of spontaneous generation of a complex organized system has never been seen. for good reason. It's impossible.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7515754 - 10/14/07 01:07 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

the girlies are free cause the crack costs money

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: TheCow]
    #7515924 - 10/14/07 02:01 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

I just did an exam on this very subject, so I'm going to flex my knowledge a little.

Quote:

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.





This is commonly refered to as the "Kalam Argument" and is the most well known cosmological argument for God's existence. The third part of the premise is usually stated as "the only thing that could have set things in motion is God". There are many opinions about this, from Hume to Kant to St. Thomas Aquinas. There are some good arguments for and against this.

David Hume argues that we can imagine something in our minds which appears to have no cause, it just pops into our minds from nowhere.
Counter: We can picture this but it's simply the title we give the image. In reality it is impossible for us to actually contemplate something coming into being without a cause.

An argument for the Universe having a beginning comes from the concept of Infinity...
If there is no beginning, there have been an infinite series of past events. But to say that events can be added to infinity (as in, the present) is self-contradictory. Can we then say there is a defined set of things (past events)? Every event has a possible predescesor but this doesn't entail that the Universe never began.

Did something supernatural, a personal being with a mind, really have to cause this beginning? There are many arguments for and against this.

God doesn't necessarily have to be a personal being, if personal beings are all material objects. Material beings are always made up of the Universe and so they can't be the cause. This is a weak argument and I personally think if there is a God he would be both immanent and transcendant.

We can explain the Universe by scientific explanation by appealing to how the laws of the material universe govern creation, but this wouldn't explain WHY those laws are the given laws. Or we can explain it by appealing to personal explanation (free will). Or maybe it's both, like I said - immanent and transcendent. As john said, E=MC2 which means energy and matter are interchangeable.

One problem we have to address however is whether the world actually exists in the first place for it to have a creator. Bertrand Russel would say we don't need to ask "why", it just is.

Classical philosophers on the other hand such as St. Thomas Aquinas of the Christian tradition or Maimonides of the Jewish tradition would argue that our situation forces us to ask "why something rather than nothing?"

What do we mean when we say that something exists? It could be argued that to say that "God (a supernatural being) exists" is a meaningless statement. Does "exist" really tell us anything about God? Immanuel Kant says that statements of existence are actually statements of number. Which is to say, to say that "EternalCowabunga Exists" is to say there is at least one EternalCowabunga and his attributes existing in actuality.

The problem as I see it, is that since this supernatural being is beyond us, we can't really know if we are seeing him and then defining him, or defining him and then seeing him as a result. It's important to make it clear what this supernatural being's attributes are. Is it like a machine, is it like a living organism, can it be anything at all like the creation it has become or being?

Descartes argues that the concept of God is something being the perfection of existence - the essence of existence. To say "God exists" is to say "existence exists" - or we could simplify it even more into just "existence". The philosopher Anselm says that which nothing greater can be conceived exists since it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. (Aquinas: god is infinite, incomprehensible, entirely simple)

Inwagen, another philosopher, continues this line of thought by saying that a perfect being must exist necessarily because a perfect being possesses all of its perfections essentially - it is essentially perfect - existence is perfect because it exists necessarily and it is more perfect to exist than to not exist.

To exist necessarily would mean it is impossible not to exist by it's very nature. We can say something exists either contingently or necessarily. "I am typing on this keyboard" - this is only contingently true because I don't HAVE to be typing on the keyboard. Does God (existence) HAVE to exist?

So, the argument is that, since God contains all perfections in itself by definition, it would be illogical to say that God doesn't exist because the concept of God implies that his nature is existence itself, and existence is a kind of perfection because it is so complete. This leads us into the design arguments wherein philosophers try and prove why the Universe is perfect, for reasons such as the fact that everything is perfectly dependent on everything else or the temporal order of everything.

All this still doesn't prove whether the definition of God applies to reality. Kant said we can't define something into existence and this is what these philosophers are doing when they say that the concept of God necessarily implies that he exists.

Kant argues that we don't need this concept of God because it doesn't add anything. And this is partly true I think, it doesn't add anything. This is because God, or the supernatural being, could be seen as being the negative of everything this reality is - (non-corporeal, timeless, spaceless, etc). On the other hand, a creator is seen as something creating positive attributes, and order is something that is positively present when we look for it. How can we intuit the supernatural if it is the opposite of everything material?

There are a few ways.

1) We can't see the minds, egos, selves of other people because they are immaterial
- we perceive these immaterial things through the body, which implies there is something both immanent and transcendent about our reality

2) Everything apart from God is instrinsically dependent - apprehending this is like apprehending God

3) hard to characterize the supernatural does not mean lack of proof. The experience is ineffable

4) experience of the mystics

Some counters to these arguments:
1) people can still be seen by bodies, we can't see God's body
2) we can't be sure if dependence is an intrinsic property of things

Hume even goes to say that God, even if there is a supernatural creator, is not necessarily omnipotent or infinite. We should not postulate more than is necessary to reach a given effect (Occam's Razor). He argues that if we accept one God, why not several deities? How do we know the Universe isn't so much like a clock or a machine but a living organism? We can see many signs of disorder in the Universe.

Even if the creator were like a machine, this really could just mean that the creator is orderly - but what is responsible for that order? It would be an infinite regress - unless you accept Aquinas mode of logic which says God is the most simple thing there is and order is just one of these perfect simplicities inherent in the nature of God.

That's all I'm going to write about now, but I'd be happy to debate this further.


--------------------

Edited by EternalCowabunga (10/14/07 02:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7516033 - 10/14/07 02:34 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
One Law of Thermodynamics states: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed."

All-too-often, ignorant fluffernauts toss this out as some sort of evidence for an afterlife even though it has been debunked endlessly by the most basic of physics.

Take an old CD and smash it into a zillion pieces or run a powerful magnet over your hard drive. What happens? INFORMATION (not matter or energy) is lost.

When any animal dies, its memories and personality are lost, but the energy and matter remains the same. There is no loss of energy that travels to another magical realm.

End of story.




It's a story that seems to work just fine. Nothing else needed. So maybe that's all there is.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Edited by Icelander (10/14/07 02:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7516389 - 10/14/07 04:05 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

I suggest you study up on imformation science,




As an engineer who created an AI milestone in game theory and application, I will be sure to 'study up'.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7516419 - 10/14/07 04:13 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

EternalCowabunga said:
I just did an exam on this very subject, so I'm going to flex my knowledge a little.

Quote:

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.





This is commonly refered to as the "Kalam Argument" and is the most well known cosmological argument for God's existence. The third part of the premise is usually stated as "the only thing that could have set things in motion is God". There are many opinions about this, from Hume to Kant to St. Thomas Aquinas. There are some good arguments for and against this.

David Hume argues that we can imagine something in our minds which appears to have no cause, it just pops into our minds from nowhere.
Counter: We can picture this but it's simply the title we give the image. In reality it is impossible for us to actually contemplate something coming into being without a cause.

An argument for the Universe having a beginning comes from the concept of Infinity...
If there is no beginning, there have been an infinite series of past events. But to say that events can be added to infinity (as in, the present) is self-contradictory. Can we then say there is a defined set of things (past events)? Every event has a possible predescesor but this doesn't entail that the Universe never began.

Did something supernatural, a personal being with a mind, really have to cause this beginning? There are many arguments for and against this.

God doesn't necessarily have to be a personal being, if personal beings are all material objects. Material beings are always made up of the Universe and so they can't be the cause. This is a weak argument and I personally think if there is a God he would be both immanent and transcendant.

We can explain the Universe by scientific explanation by appealing to how the laws of the material universe govern creation, but this wouldn't explain WHY those laws are the given laws. Or we can explain it by appealing to personal explanation (free will). Or maybe it's both, like I said - immanent and transcendent. As john said, E=MC2 which means energy and matter are interchangeable.

One problem we have to address however is whether the world actually exists in the first place for it to have a creator. Bertrand Russel would say we don't need to ask "why", it just is.

Classical philosophers on the other hand such as St. Thomas Aquinas of the Christian tradition or Maimonides of the Jewish tradition would argue that our situation forces us to ask "why something rather than nothing?"

What do we mean when we say that something exists? It could be argued that to say that "God (a supernatural being) exists" is a meaningless statement. Does "exist" really tell us anything about God? Immanuel Kant says that statements of existence are actually statements of number. Which is to say, to say that "EternalCowabunga Exists" is to say there is at least one EternalCowabunga and his attributes existing in actuality.

The problem as I see it, is that since this supernatural being is beyond us, we can't really know if we are seeing him and then defining him, or defining him and then seeing him as a result. It's important to make it clear what this supernatural being's attributes are. Is it like a machine, is it like a living organism, can it be anything at all like the creation it has become or being?

Descartes argues that the concept of God is something being the perfection of existence - the essence of existence. To say "God exists" is to say "existence exists" - or we could simplify it even more into just "existence". The philosopher Anselm says that which nothing greater can be conceived exists since it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. (Aquinas: god is infinite, incomprehensible, entirely simple)

Inwagen, another philosopher, continues this line of thought by saying that a perfect being must exist necessarily because a perfect being possesses all of its perfections essentially - it is essentially perfect - existence is perfect because it exists necessarily and it is more perfect to exist than to not exist.

To exist necessarily would mean it is impossible not to exist by it's very nature. We can say something exists either contingently or necessarily. "I am typing on this keyboard" - this is only contingently true because I don't HAVE to be typing on the keyboard. Does God (existence) HAVE to exist?

So, the argument is that, since God contains all perfections in itself by definition, it would be illogical to say that God doesn't exist because the concept of God implies that his nature is existence itself, and existence is a kind of perfection because it is so complete. This leads us into the design arguments wherein philosophers try and prove why the Universe is perfect, for reasons such as the fact that everything is perfectly dependent on everything else or the temporal order of everything.

All this still doesn't prove whether the definition of God applies to reality. Kant said we can't define something into existence and this is what these philosophers are doing when they say that the concept of God necessarily implies that he exists.

Kant argues that we don't need this concept of God because it doesn't add anything. And this is partly true I think, it doesn't add anything. This is because God, or the supernatural being, could be seen as being the negative of everything this reality is - (non-corporeal, timeless, spaceless, etc). On the other hand, a creator is seen as something creating positive attributes, and order is something that is positively present when we look for it. How can we intuit the supernatural if it is the opposite of everything material?

There are a few ways.

1) We can't see the minds, egos, selves of other people because they are immaterial
- we perceive these immaterial things through the body, which implies there is something both immanent and transcendent about our reality

2) Everything apart from God is instrinsically dependent - apprehending this is like apprehending God

3) hard to characterize the supernatural does not mean lack of proof. The experience is ineffable

4) experience of the mystics

Some counters to these arguments:
1) people can still be seen by bodies, we can't see God's body
2) we can't be sure if dependence is an intrinsic property of things

Hume even goes to say that God, even if there is a supernatural creator, is not necessarily omnipotent or infinite. We should not postulate more than is necessary to reach a given effect (Occam's Razor). He argues that if we accept one God, why not several deities? How do we know the Universe isn't so much like a clock or a machine but a living organism? We can see many signs of disorder in the Universe.

Even if the creator were like a machine, this really could just mean that the creator is orderly - but what is responsible for that order? It would be an infinite regress - unless you accept Aquinas mode of logic which says God is the most simple thing there is and order is just one of these perfect simplicities inherent in the nature of God.

That's all I'm going to write about now, but I'd be happy to debate this further.




For me there's no debate. The answer is that nobody knows (unanswerable) and so it is not an important question IMO.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7516429 - 10/14/07 04:15 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.






So "something" automatically equals God?  :rolleyes:  This is a huge leap of illogic, IMO.

What about a unique event, such as the Big Bang? 

Just because this unique event has not reoccurred, and created more somethings from "nothing," does not mean that a higher power was responsible for all Life on this planet. 

Quote:

E=MC2 which means energy and matter are interchangeable.




Not quite.  It means that we can compare mass and energy using this formula.  Star Trek transporter evidence to the contrary, we are not accelerating mass times the speed of light to transform it into energy.  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7516438 - 10/14/07 04:16 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Your argument for a creator is a tired old one dressed up with Newtonian physics.

When we go back in time far enough there comes a point of ignorance. Replacing "We don't know," with "God" or "Creator" tells us nothing.

What is a "Creator"? That which started the universe. This is very circular and adds not the slightest bit of knowledge.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7516443 - 10/14/07 04:18 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Yes, then we must ask the question "what created the Creator"? If everything which exists MUST have an original cause, then the existence of an original Creator does not make sense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Veritas]
    #7516462 - 10/14/07 04:21 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

I agree Icelander, I don't think there is any way we can know. At the end of my post I originally said "so in conclusion we could go on forever but we dont know shit about the supernatural" but I thought jonathan may have wanted to ask me about some of the ideas I presented so I edited it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Veritas]
    #7516468 - 10/14/07 04:22 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Turtles all the way down?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #7516472 - 10/14/07 04:22 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

'zactly.  :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #7516482 - 10/14/07 04:24 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

EternalCowabunga said:
I agree Icelander, I don't think there is any way we can know. At the end of my post I originally said "so in conclusion we could go on forever but we dont know shit about the supernatural" but I thought jonathan may have wanted to ask me about some of the ideas I presented so I edited it.




A lot of this goes on around here.:lol: IMO we rarely ask important and answerable philosophical and spiritual questions in favor of this stuff.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNipples
Liberty Chap
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/07
Posts: 13
Loc: UK
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Icelander]
    #7516497 - 10/14/07 04:27 PM (16 years, 5 months ago)

The trouble with the story is it uses laws of thermodynamics to draw conclusions about life and the afterlife.

The theory of thermodynamics:  it's a theory that deals with thermodynamics.  You can't use thermodynamics to predict the motions of the planets, to explain tactics in chess, to describe the beauty of a piece of music or to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife.  :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
Re: Law of Conservation of Energy and The Afterlife [Re: Nipples]
    #7518462 - 10/15/07 06:07 AM (16 years, 5 months ago)

there's a reason why they're called the LAWS of thermodynamics. I'll get back to this later.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* There is a limited amount of energy.. get yours while supplies last
( 1 2 all )
Mixomatosis 2,097 23 01/12/05 01:43 AM
by Zekebomb
* Free Energy
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 4,478 58 12/08/04 08:31 PM
by Diploid
* You silly afterlife-believing fools...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Mixomatosis 6,849 99 11/30/03 08:04 PM
by trendal
* Patent granted on Free Energy Device!
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,134 20 04/17/02 08:24 PM
by Anonymous
* Breakin the Law! gettinjiggywithit 557 11 12/08/04 09:21 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* artifitial afterlife
( 1 2 all )
OldWoodSpecter 2,126 32 05/10/05 08:26 PM
by Huehuecoyotl
* energy mr crisper 742 11 01/30/03 08:01 PM
by minusrestraint
* Do you believe in Reincarnation / Born Again, or an Afterlife? Death is What?
( 1 2 all )
My Elysium Trips 1,824 33 03/17/18 07:56 PM
by BrendanFlock

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,327 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.