Why God Exists - A Critical Analysis
Created on: September 7th, 2006
the "oozing with illogical sh*t" is just for kicks and giggles. no harm done, yes?
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (3.71) | 681 | 28 | 301 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12,852 |
Inbound links:
ppl that downvote this are ignorant...or else they're just bitter with all the god-debate on ytmnd. Neither is a good reason to down-vote.
Minus one for being somewhat aggressive toward Whetstone ("oozing with illogical sh*t"). Otherwise, you shut him down nicely. If one could "prove" God exists, then life as we know it would be very different. Indeed, God is either non-existent, impersonal, or personal but *in favor of* his identity being un-provable. All three are a bum deal IMO...but Francis Schaeffer said the third one isn't so bad. We'll all find out someday; that is, if we have souls. ^_^
We can only try to figure things our as best we can as human beings. Whetman was trying to prove that God (creator of the universe) exists by using the best theories that we have. It's the best we can do. If someone says that the casuality theories cannot apply to outside space time and matter because we dont know anything outside space time and matter I say to them, "do you have a better theory?"
Although I am not religious at all I quot watching this pretty quickly. You
are trying to use logic to explain god/universe. Unfortunately, the laws of
logic are all based on the observations that men have found to be true
throughout history. However, human logic cannot be expanded to fields of
knowledge which we have no experience. Therefore all the work you spent
making this argument has just been countered by me in 30 seconds. kthxbai
everyonefails.ytmnd.com
ultimacanti
One flaw in just about every argument that I've seen in regards to the creation of the universe is that people seem to think that this is the first universe, no doubt. We don't really know this at all, we merely know that at one point the universe was much, much smaller, then expanded rapidly. What's to say that the Universe didn't collapse on itself just before then after trillions of years of existence? Time can be infinite backwards and forwards.
Nietzsche did in fact go insane. It was (most likely) caused from a syphilitic infection he had gotten earlier in his life while “visiting” a brothel. However, all of his nominal works had already been written prior to his mental collapse; to say he went insane blithely does not make that distinction.
Although I believe that Whetstone was mistaken, the basis of this guy's argument doesn't hold up. Of course whatever created the universe was not subject to causality. But in order to create something that DOES follow the laws of causality (the universe), it had to follow the laws of causality. Of course I agree with the rejections of Whetstone's suggestions for what the creator of the universe supposedly has to be like.
hey, I think this might be somewhat interesting to people trying to show the flaw in Whetstone's argument. He says the universe rose from a singularity (true, a point of infinite density) but he seems to forget that another name for that is a BLACK HOLE. Now, anyone who knows about basic sci-fi might know that black holes have this thing called an event horizon, beyond which light can not escape, near the event horizons edge time slows down until it stops. Beyond the event horizon is the singularity, but
the normal laws of space time do not work beyond the event horizon, there is no space or time "inside" a black hole. There is a "cosmic censor" theory that says a "naked" singularity can not exist because the event horizon hides it from the normal physics of our universe. My point is that a singularity exists outside the normal laws of space and time, and therefore is not bound by the principle of cause and effect. Tell your friends!
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link