Buy Official Merchandise!
Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion

Viewing a Post

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Moniker Posted:

Most of what I’d like to to say has already been said here, so this will likely be short.

OverclockedJesus and man-man put it succinctly. “Who made the universe” begs the question, and it’s illogical to stop an infinite regress by making up something out of whole cloth.

Shii, you attempt to solve this problem by defining something outside of nature, which is irrational on the very face of it. As there is nothing outside nature which has even approached demonstrability, let alone a “supernatural creator” to whom one might ascribe a number of other characteristics, it is wholly unscientific to bumume such a thing exists. We do, however, know that the universe exists – so with the data we’ve got at hand, it makes the most sense to bumume that it has always been around and always will be.

Finally, there was no “before” the universe, because the universe exists in no less than four dimensions. I’m talking about time, here. To say something like “before” the universe or “after” the universe is a non-sequitur of the very worst kind, in the same way “outside” or “past” the universe is absurd.

These questions boil down, ultimately, to faith. Faith is an unsubstantiated belief; something which one holds to be true in spite of a lack of evidence. There is evidence for the universe, clearly, and so it behooves us not to make things up which would violate all known laws of physics. We leave that to quantum mechanics.

QED.

If I’ve screwed something up, it’s the beer talking, and I hope someone will correct me. It’s just that I find first cause arguments to be so ridiculous as to be unworthy of extensive thought.

The problems with your line of reasoning are that 1. I’m trying to convince you to believe what I do, and 2. that I’m examining this situation from a logic-driven, scientific standpoint.

When there is a situation that is unprovable either way, you can argue til you’re blue in the face and have no further proof for your side than your opponent does. You can claim that the universe has always existed and I will continue to believe what I do, and neither of us will ever persuade the other.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!