Actually Scott it’s the other way around.The world is constantly expanding.Because of the Big Bang.
It’s amazing how people (myself included of course) get so mislead.Everyone is told right from the beginining that the universe is infinite.But it’s not.At least that’s what our science says.
Bull.
Yeah, pretty much.
Pretty much everyone is agnostic to some extent. Anyone who absolutely refuses to consider any other possibility, whether they believe in God or Zeus or nothing, would be a very frightening individual. That’s all I’m trying to say.
I assume you mean the universe? The planet earth is definitely not expanding, and even if it were, it wouldn’t be because of the big bang. We obviously can’t measure empty space, so we can’t know if it is expanding or not, but we definitely know that the matter in the universe is expanding.
What I’m saying is that such a being can only exist if it doesn’t have to make sense. 
I imagine the Agents will be around to some of your places soon enough.
Yes I meant universe.I read how they found that sometime ago.I don’t fully remember it now but it has to do with the fact that everywhere we look we get “images from the past”.I don’t know if you understood that but if you dind’t I’m sorry but i can’t really explain it to you.
[quote=“GehnTheBerserker”]
Yes I meant universe.I read how they found that sometime ago.I don’t fully remember it now but it has to do with the fact that everywhere we look we get “images from the past”.I don’t know if you understood that but if you dind’t I’m sorry but i can’t really explain it to you.[/quote]
That’s true, and I remember why it is if anyone is interested (or doesn’t already know): Light, as fast as it may travel, still takes millions of years to reach us through the vast expanses of space, so by the time the light from distant galaxies reach our eye, the images we are seeing are millions of years old. However, just because the galaxies we are seeing may not still exist, doesn’t nessicerily mean that they universe itself isn’t infinite, just that the matter within it is.
EDIT: When I wrote this next part I thought we were talking about the expansion of the universe rather than whether or not it was infinite, so if you’re not interested in that, skip it.
This is what I was trying to explain in my response to Scott. We know the universe is expanding because of something called “red shift.” This is basically the doppler effect (the reason the sound from a car driving away from you is lower pitched than the sound from a car driving toward you) applied to light. Any waves emmitted from an object moving away from you are going to appear to have a larger wavelength than they should. In the case of the sound waves emitted from the car, this means your ears detect a lower sound. In the case of light emitted from stars or galaxies, this results in the light shifting toward the red end of the spectrum (in the visible spectrum, red light has the longest wavelength). So, we know that the universe is expanding because all the stuff we look at is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. All of this only applies to matter of course, because empty space doesn’t emit or reflect light.
EDIT: Drenholm beat me to the punch on this next one
As far as getting “images from the past,” this is true. It’s just because light travels at a finite speed, so if something is one light year away (meaning it takes light 1 year to get here from the object), then you’re seeing the object as it was 1 year ago. If you look at stuff that’s really really far away, you see it as it was a really really long time ago. Whenever you look at the sun, you’re looking 8 minutes into the past, because it took the light from the sun 8 minutes to get here.
I’m on a little more shakey ground on this next part:
I think what Gehn’s getting at is that by looking at things that are billions and billions of light years away, we can see back in time to the beginning of the universe, and if we can do that, we can pretty much tell for sure whether there’s a finite amount of matter or not. And saying there’s a finite amount of matter in the universe is pretty much the same as saying the universe is finite. Maybe there’s an infinite amount of empty space out there, maybe not, but who cares?
I certainly don’t.Well what I was trying to explain (with little to no success) was that the universe isn’t infinite.And I think I read somewhere that the “void” itself is a product of the Big Bang.
Oh and concerning the original matter : I dunno about everyone beeing agnostic to a certain extent.I agree that everyone who is religious has a bit of agnosticism within but I don’t think all the nonreligious do.Namely atheists.Of course most atheists missuse the ergonomy of the word.
A true atheist : and this is what I meant is someone who denies the possibility of there beeing a higher power.In that sense most self proclaimed atheists are a bit hypocritical (no pun intended).
[quote=“Ancient Weapon”]
I believe we are the causes; but that would just be because I don’t believe in a god or gods.[/quote]
the only thing i believe is that i don’t understand this existence and i don’t pretend to. i think that religions are a way for people to find security in something that does not cause me insecurity. i also fully accept that any of them might be right (although for just about all of them, i sincerely hope they are wrong because their vision of god is inaddequate).
i say that to establish that it is not because of god that i don’t believe in freewill.
i will continue with my reasoning after addressing bluefoot.
[quote=“Bluefoot”]
Bull.[/quote]
haven’t you learned to hear me out yet!? 
anyway… i’ll now define what i am talking about. if you’ve already read up on the issue of freewill and philosophy, then i’ll cut to the chase and say that i am a soft determinist.
in this frame of thinking i can say that i believe in the kind of freewill that a slave or prisoner is denied. the freedom to do whatever you want.
but do you ever wonder what- if anything- determines what it is you want?
libertarians claim that that cannot be explained. they claim that what we choose is something completely internal. they don’t like to phrase it this way but they are arguing that what we choose is completely random.
i am of the school of thought (determinism) that all of our decisions could theoretically be calculated if we were able to see everything about a person. when you take a person’s genetics, life history, and current situation you could know exactly what they were going to do.
there has always been that phrase “i wouldn’t have done that if i were you”. but that is not exactly true. you can say “i wouldn’t have done that if myself was in your situation” or “i wouldn’t have done that if my brain was in your body” but you can’t say “i wouldn’t have done that if i actually was you”.
so what do i actually think? i think that human’s are controlled by the laws of physics just as much as a billiard ball is. we might be a little more complex but we are purely reactionary just like everything else. that leaves no room for freewill other than the soft determinism view that i mentioned at the start.
life is a ride, a ride that gives the illusion of control. it is in realizing this that we gain more control over our lives than those that believe they had control from the start.
I was merely responding to your insubstantiated claim with one of my own. What’s the problem?
Now then…
I have no problem with this part of your post, except of course that in my opinion you’re wrong. Humans are aware, billiard balls aren’t. We can think. This truly is just a matter of opinion. You believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) that human thought is subject to the laws of physics. I don’t.
I don’t see how you can justify this statement given what you say you believe. If freewill does not exist, if everything we do could be predicted by a sufficiently complex computer, then we have zero control over our lives. None. There is no way to “gain more control.” There is no control. Everything that happens, has happened, and will happen is a direct result of whatever first cause set it all in motion to begin with. You can’t have it both ways.
Okay then, explain to me why such a being must be able to have mutually exclusive terms. Surely you agree that we can know some properties of God. Even if you say we can know nothing about God, you are still saying that we know that God has the property of not being able to be known. We can thus know something about God and your statement must be false.
i don’t disagree with the first part, we are clearly different than billiard balls. however i wonder what you think ‘thought’ is?
computers can do some amazing things these days, can’t they? all the different mediums that they handle, calculating so many things simultaneously that we would need a calculator just to find out what that number is, and the internet itself has become a monstrosity of information. but we have to remember that behind ALL of it, it’s just 1s and 0s.
brains are much more complex than computers but they have an explanation nearly as simple behind the daunting concept of “what is thought?”. thought is a result of chemical and electrical manipulation within our brains and yes, these chemical and electrical interactions do adhere to physical laws.
perhaps i should have explained it more, i just didn’t think that part would be analyzed.
if you acknowledged that you had no freewill, how would that effect what you do? do you just think you would go comatose or something? we still have to participate in the dance of life (well i guess you could kill yourself) but we can also still have dreams and fun and love and peace.
think about how your memories and knowledge effect you, think about where you would like to take your life, realize that what you are exposed to and what you expose yourself to now will change how you determine your choices later in life. depending on how you play your cards you could end up as a pornstar, a moviestar, a career criminal, a wealth of other things, or dead.
not having freewill is not the same as having an autopilot- not having freewill is realizing that you are the autopilot.
[quote=“Raizen1984”]
Okay then, explain to me why such a being must be able to have mutually exclusive terms. Surely you agree that we can know some properties of God. Even if you say we can know nothing about God, you are still saying that we know that God has the property of not being able to be known. We can thus know something about God and your statement must be false.[/quote]
Ok, now we’re getting into wacky intricate logic, and I’ll be the first to admit that’s something I know very little about. If you wish to take that as an admission of defeat, go for it. I’ll just say the following and leave it:
People have the capability of believing in things that don’t necessarily make sense. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In the case of religion, it’s something that can give people strength and help them through the tough times in their lives. So, while it may be possible to logically disprove the existence of God, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s something that should be done, or that doing it will serve any purpose other than a mental excercise.
If that didn’t make any sense, you might consider reading Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. His views on religion are very similar to mine, and he is clearly an infinitely better writer.
it takes almost as much zeal to be an atheist as it does to be a believer.
[quote=“Megatherium”]
brains are much more complex than computers but they have an explanation nearly as simple behind the daunting concept of “what is thought?”. thought is a result of chemical and electrical manipulation within our brains and yes, these chemical and electrical interactions do adhere to physical laws.[/quote]
Perhaps the word I should’ve used was “awareness” rather than “thought.” Regardless, modern science is nowhere close to comprehending the human brain, and until it does, I’m not going to make any assumptions.
[quote=“Megatherium”]
think about how your memories and knowledge effect you, think about where you would like to take your life, realize that what you are exposed to and what you expose yourself to now will change how you determine your choices later in life. depending on how you play your cards you could end up as a pornstar, a moviestar, a career criminal, a wealth of other things, or dead.
not having freewill is not the same as having an autopilot- not having freewill is realizing that you are the autopilot.[/quote]
Again, you’re implying choice where none exists. Obviously I don’t think that knowledge of the lack of freewill would make one comatose. Rather, it would have the one and only one effect that it could possibly have, an effect predetermined by everything that has happened to you and ultimately everything that has happened in the universe. What I am exposed to and what I will be exposed to cannot be changed. I have been exposed to the only things I could have been exposed to, and will be exposed to only the things I can be exposed to. There is only one way I can “play my cards.” It may feel like I have a choice, but when I make that choice it will be the only decision I could possibly have made. Choice is nothing but an extremely complex physics problem, and the knowledge of the lack of freewill is just another value to be plugged in. If freewill does not exist, then choice is an illusion. Again, you can’t have it both ways.
P.S. Shouldn’t you Brits be asleep? Criminy, I thought I was going to get a reprieve.
[quote=“Bluefoot”]
Ok, now we’re getting into wacky intricate logic, and I’ll be the first to admit that’s something I know very little about. If you wish to take that as an admission of defeat, go for it. I’ll just say the following and leave it:
People have the capability of believing in things that don’t necessarily make sense. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In the case of religion, it’s something that can give people strength and help them through the tough times in their lives. So, while it may be possible to logically disprove the existence of God, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s something that should be done, or that doing it will serve any purpose other than a mental excercise.
If that didn’t make any sense, you might consider reading Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. His views on religion are very similar to mine, and he is clearly an infinitely better writer.[/quote]
It’s not all that intricate, discussing whether religion is moral or not is. I know that I don’t have the skills to argue such things as of yet and I am betting you don’t either.
I would appreciate it if others could examine my arguement against the existince of God (a infinitely perfect being that punishes and rewards people) before I offer it up to my professer for examination.
Fair enough. My brain is currently being fricaseed by some fairly obnoxious CS theory problems, so it sure seems plenty intricate to me.
As far as the morality of religion goes, I’m sure that, like the Force, it can be used for good or evil . And if you think I’m wrong, feel free to just ignore me and let me wallow in my ignorance. At the moment, I need to focus on the mind bending problem that counts for a grade.
actually modern science has quite a comprehensive blue print of how the brain functions in everyday activity. most of what is not understood is hormone release, instinctual behaviors, etc. thought - which parts of the brain think about what have been mapped out quite well. the function of thought breaks down quite simply if you work it out.
i think there has been a miscommunication. i mentioned going comatose as a setup to the autopilot comment later on, i’m sorry it failed in getting the message across. i am preaching against the libertarian view of freewill, but as i said earlier, i fully believe in the “being able to do what you want” form of free will.
you like some things and you do not like other things, am i right? there are things you would like to do and things that you would not like to do. what you are exposed to will play a part in determining how your life ends up. so i’m not saying that you have a choice here in the libertarian sense, i’m saying that by alerting you to these facts, you may be set down a path that causes you to care more about the things you take in. it will help you assess how useful information is to you and your goals. in the end it might help you wind up in the place you wanted to be rather than a place you didn’t want to be.
i’m just trying to make you make yourself make better decisions 
So, you do believe in freewill then. Guess it’s not crap afterall. ; ) That’s all I was looking for.
if that’s what you want to call freewill
so if we are on the same page (relating this back to the original issue) what does that say about religions that promise an afterlife in which one is rewarded or punished when what they did during life was completely out of their control? to relate that to a real world issue, what complications arise in our legal system?
P.S. i’m totally not british. not that there is a problem with being british…
Sorry, I forget where everyone’s from and it seems like a majority are from that area, so I made a guess. Didn’t mean any offense by it. Where are you from?
I didn’t call it freewill, you did.
I’m gonna have to drop this one for tonight. I’ve got a nasty problem set due in less than 8 hours and I’m next to nowhere on it.