Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Mare Tranquillity]

And where exactly is my understanding of kantian ethics incomplete, hmm?
And kantian ethics is vague, hmm?
I wonder where you posted the explanation for that one?

You're really "hmmm"ing now, Numi, but I'm not going to continue this, it's pointless. Kant was very complex, not vague, I said that before. Your understanding of Kant is what it is, you have not presented your arguments in a cogent form so that they can be discussed--please note that I am the only person still hanging in there with you. Give it up, find a new subject that interests you and we'll discuss that, we can't do Kant.

 

[numinus]

You're really "hmmm"ing now, Numi, but I'm not going to continue this, it's pointless. Kant was very complex, not vague, I said that before. Your understanding of Kant is what it is, you have not presented your arguments in a cogent form so that they can be discussed--please note that I am the only person still hanging in there with you. Give it up, find a new subject that interests you and we'll discuss that, we can't do Kant.

If you have actually read kant's general principles of the metaphysics of morals, you'd find that its not complex at all.

Name your subject. Pick your position. I'll argue whatever else is the opposite of it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you have actually read kant's general principles of the metaphysics of morals, you'd find that its not complex at all.

Name your subject. Pick your position. I'll argue whatever else is the opposite of it.

Okay, if you want it that way...

My position is that Numinus is a an extremely intelligent and well-educated person, an outstanding human being, compassionate, thoughtful, humble, and unassuming. With outstanding lifetime accomplishments in many of the fields of humanitarian work, but also extraordinarilly capable in diverse fields of scientific endeavor: astronomy, astrophysics, biology, aeronautics, field theory, computer structure (especially the new biological computers), mathematics, medicine, and last but certainly not least has been his ability to bring philosophy to the masses with his crystal clear writing and vast personal experience with the philosophers, coupled with an intuitve kind of insight into the workings of other people's minds he has become the foremost teacher and lecturer in the field today. I'm sure that a Nobel prize cannot be far in his future.

 

[numinus]

Okay, if you want it that way...

My position is that Numinus is a an extremely intelligent and well-educated person, an outstanding human being, compassionate, thoughtful, humble, and unassuming. With outstanding lifetime accomplishments in many of the fields of humanitarian work, but also extraordinarilly capable in diverse fields of scientific endeavor: astronomy, astrophysics, biology, aeronautics, field theory, computer structure (especially the new biological computers), mathematics, medicine, and last but certainly not least has been his ability to bring philosophy to the masses with his crystal clear writing and vast personal experience with the philosophers, coupled with an intuitve kind of insight into the workings of other people's minds he has become the foremost teacher and lecturer in the field today. I'm sure that a Nobel prize cannot be far in his future.

That's simply not true.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's simply not true.

Okay, you win, you obviously know him better than I do.

 

[vyo476]

This is the first time that I've honestly just sat back and laughed while reading anything on a forum. Thank you, Mare.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is the first time that I've honestly just sat back and laughed while reading anything on a forum. Thank you, Mare.

Glad to be of service, vyo.

 

[numinus]

Okay, you win, you obviously know him better than I do.

That's settled then.

 

[numinus]

This is the first time that I've honestly just sat back and laughed while reading anything on a forum. Thank you, Mare.

You find honesty funny?

 

[vyo476]

You find honesty funny?

Only the manner in which Mare chose to go about it.

 

[numinus]

Only the manner in which Mare chose to go about it.

Don't stop giggling like a simian on my account.

 

[invest07]

Coyote
"Do we really? Maybe we live in a world of endless cycles that can loosely be grouped into: birth, death, regeneration....no beginning, no end"

You should know that the rebound theory has been discounted from several sources. The Big Bang was a one way event and has been demonstrated as impossible for the reverse (the rebound) to occur.

This effectively rules out reincarnation, prior universes and future universes.

As to evidence for God, the Big bang is one of the strongest. If the force of the Big Bang explosion had been only slightly greater, no solid matter formation would have been possible. The force would have scattered the atoms too far apart to coalesce. If the force had been only slightly less, gravity would have pulled everything back to the singularity and no universe would have been formed.

What most do not realize is how fine this line between too much force and too little actually is. The odds of the Big Bang force of explosion being exactly right is one chance out of 10 to the 120th power. This is 1 chance out of 10 followed by 120 zeroes.

To rule God out of any equation involving origins results in one being forced to believe in unrealistic and astronomical improbabilities.

 

[numinus]

Coyote
"Do we really? Maybe we live in a world of endless cycles that can loosely be grouped into: birth, death, regeneration....no beginning, no end"

You should know that the rebound theory has been discounted from several sources. The Big Bang was a one way event and has been demonstrated as impossible for the reverse (the rebound) to occur.

This effectively rules out reincarnation, prior universes and future universes.

As to evidence for God, the Big bang is one of the strongest. If the force of the Big Bang explosion had been only slightly greater, no solid matter formation would have been possible. The force would have scattered the atoms too far apart to coalesce. If the force had been only slightly less, gravity would have pulled everything back to the singularity and no universe would have been formed.

What most do not realize is how fine this line between too much force and too little actually is. The odds of the Big Bang force of explosion being exactly right is one chance out of 10 to the 120th power. This is 1 chance out of 10 followed by 120 zeroes.

To rule God out of any equation involving origins results in one being forced to believe in unrealistic and astronomical improbabilities.

Correct.

And this is merely the 'flatness' problem in current physical cosmological models.

There is the horizon problem, and related to this (although not exactly the same) is the homogeneity problem.

The mother of all problems (which the philosophical cosmological argument expounds) involves the creation and annihilation of matter and energy from nothing and into nothing.

God's existence, far from being the least reasonable explanation, is quite inescapable.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Does Creator = God?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote
"Do we really? Maybe we live in a world of endless cycles that can loosely be grouped into: birth, death, regeneration....no beginning, no end"

You should know that the rebound theory has been discounted from several sources. The Big Bang was a one way event and has been demonstrated as impossible for the reverse (the rebound) to occur.

This effectively rules out reincarnation, prior universes and future universes.

I don't know enough about the Big Bang to effectively argue those theories - perhaps someone else might.

However, from what I do know, I fail to see how it in any way effects reincarnation and prior/future universes nor how it changes the fact that many things seem to occur in cycles with no definitive beginning or end.