CT, I specifically said it's not about having the same motivations ("we can quibble over the cause of the action"). I said, for the purpose of this, that the motivations are not relevant. All I am saying is that Carrabuh has acted little differently, irrespective of the (seemingly) different motivation. The product is the same. Why is that specious? The argument is the same as saying: Two people each kill someone. One is motivated by X, another by Y. My point is that it's still murder, irrespective of the motivations and how you want to excuse or justify it. Obviously that's an extreme example, I'm not likening Carrabuh's behaviour to murder! No tetchiness at all! In fact, I was thinking exactly the same with Carrabuh's post, which is filled with little digs against me... But what is irritating is that you keep thinking this is some sort of attack on atheism. It's not. Your entire post here is justifying atheism. Fine. That's your point of view. I don't think I'm really arguing with you on this thread. I see atheism, theism, etc, as little different because they are all dogmas based on asserted certainties. Obviously, those who fit into those categories will disagree. But that's not at all my point with the Ahmed/Carrabuh. My point is simply that they are behaving in the same way, which is what I have said at the beginning. I call it Carrabuh acting religiously, he can call it what he likes if he doesn't like it, but it's all the same. That's the reality and it's not possible to deny. If you wish to justify his actions based on atheism, fine, that's not my concern.
Have you ever thought about the beginning? What is that, you say? You know -- whatever it was that showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here first, at the earliest moment in time. Have you ever strained your brain to think about that? Wait a minute, you say, isn't it possible that in the beginning there was nothing? Isn't it possible that kazillions of years ago, there wasn't anything at all? That's certainly a theory to consider. So let's consider it -- but first by way of analogy. Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls. Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed room that's pitch black inside. Then what happens? Well, let's say your goal is to get something -- anything at all -- into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do? Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed. But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing. Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time. There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them? The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room). Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football? That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room? The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room. If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause! Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. Period. This black infinite room has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing. So here's the question: if originally -- bazillions of years ago -- there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now? Yes. For something -- no matter how small -- cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing. What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing! If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything. Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing. However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence. What was it? Was it one thing or many things? Was it an atom? A particle? A molecule? A football? A mutant baseball? A refrigerator? Some cookies? Was it God ?
I was hoping that space the size of a football pitch but completely empty analagy would result in a Portman road attendance joke.
Completely agree DH. Even if was just to describe it as "Wahhabi Islam" that would be better. Because it's a very narrow section of Islam and interpretation of their scripture.
Wow, cracking theory KIO. I've already made my beliefs known elsewhere on this thread and even though I don't expect many to share my own beliefs (nor care either as each persons belief or non-belief is their own particular business) I find it very difficult to come to terms with the theory that we owe our existence on earth to a couple of particles of dust crashing into each other millions of years ago. If that were true I'd have a marvellous eco-system growing in the filters of my Maytag. I know micro-organisms must exist in the fluff but I've yet to see them develop into scorpions or locusts or sperm whales yet even though I havn't cleaned the damn thing for months.
After all this and a bit of reading turns out I am an "agnostic atheist" because I believe no deity exists, but I do not know no deity exists (and I am unsure if it can be proven). So it turns out I have a religion too!...
Following on: If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here. So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today? Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls. What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls -- no matter how much time passes -- cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter. Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are. What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it? Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens! So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing. So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence? Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens? No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness. So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could -- though it seems absurd -- change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe. So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth. So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more. While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter. What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it. So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist. Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example. Third, to produce Something Else -- out of nothing -- requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe? Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something. Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite. Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing -- which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence. But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2 -- enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right? There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist. Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this. Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable. What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another. The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but -- no matter what -- Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.
At least scientists can change their belief system when new theories are discovered by others , they question everything and evolve by sharing ideas. A scientist wants to be challenged and knows that there are no answers to how the universe was created just theories . The religeous man is the opposite and in some cases just challenging his "God made everything" theory is considered blasphemy and as the pope tried to say the other day insulting religeon is the same as insulting his mother and if anyone does it they should expect to be physically attacked. This from a man at the top of the Catholic church where forgiveness is one of the main principles.. "Respect for religeon is code for fear of religeon" (Bunny ears just for you Carrabuh so I don't get accused of plagiarism again).
I don't think of a beginning, more a perpetuating cycle. The universe as our scientists understand started from a singularity and expanded out in a cosmic soup forming atoms , molecules and eventually life as we know it. They also believe that the expansion is slowing and that it all may collapse in on itself again. Could the universe be one perpetuating cycle of expansion and contraction, to infinity and beyond! Afterall if you presuppose that there is a god and that he created everything, how did he come about? Was he sitting around for eternity and suddenly thought I know lets make a planet and populate it with weird creatures to worship me, though I will give them freewill to not worship me, but if they don't then I will damn them to a very nasty place, lets call it hell. The nice ones who worship me they can go to a nice place, Sam fox's cleavage....no we'll call it heaven! they must follow my book, only I will let them write it so that they really have no idea what to really do! Once in a while I might give some crackpot a sign or even better I will send my son down to muddy the water a little bit, "he's really quite good but since then that Dynamo has come along and his tricks are much better!". Even better I can let other people invent other highly dubious deities and let them all kill each other in my name. Though I'm sure I told them not to do such things in their holey books, if only I'd written them or perhaps could set them straight. No that would be far to difficult, I created man, fishes, mountains, the universe, Kylie's bottom and mustard so surely I could give them a sign, have a chat on Graham Norton? afterall I love them and that. No I prefer to be a vengful, lazy and mysterious god who they can have faith in! That'll really wind the doubters up! Bah!
George Carlin said much the same thing GM .. Every day I used to pray to God for a new bicycle but it never appeared, so I stole one instead and prayed for forgiveness. "Emo Philips"
It's our limited human life span that predictates that we seek a beginning and an end, but what's wrong with the concept of perpetuity. There has always been everything it has just evolved form over a never ending cycle. Some things have developed that have the power to shape time space and matter, but in reality if you popped Dynamo or Paul Daniels back in time and had them wandering around pulling off tricks the bible and Quran may have made for very different reads! "You'll like these commandments, not alot,but you'll like them!" Bah!
I think even if religion didn't exist, people would still find reasons to kill each other. The fact that the Islam-extremists are prepared to buy into their religion so much that they are willing to kill those who oppose it , even though the truth of their Holy Book and the existence of their God can't be proven makes me think they are just violent people. Couple this with the fact the vast majority of religious people are peaceful - arguably religion promotes peace - and I have to question whether religion is as dangerous as people say.
I often think of religion as very much like a grant of power or any position of authority (which is essentially what I think people are claiming when they say they are acting in the name of [Islam] - they are claiming some sort of externally granted authority that we should obey). If you give power to a good person, they'll use power as a weapon for good. If you give it to a violent, intolerant, murderous irrational psychopath, chances are they'll use the power to do something irrational that promotes violence, intolerance or murder with it. A bit like money. It's why Wahhabism goes hand in hand with oil money. It's just religion is one of the most dangerous and imbalanced weapons of them all. And of course there's the age old adage that people who want lots of power tend to be the ones it shouldn't be given to...
