Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (1): Conquistador, anonymous(2).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6550 - jokeface (01/19/2013) [-]
Got a question for the atheists. Not the agnostic, "maybe, maybe not" atheists. The hardcore, totally sure of themselves, "no way in the non-existent hell could there be a God" atheists.

How many of you believe in the infinite universe theory? (Don't worry, it's not gonna be that simple, I have more questions after you answer)
User avatar #6703 to #6550 - boomboyrage (01/21/2013) [-]
Some physicists do take multiverse theory kinda-sorta-seriously. Perhaps there have been multiple universes with multiple big bangs, and each new universe receives a different roll of the cosmic dice, thus having different laws of physics. This is a philosophically satisfying interpretation of the fine-tuned universe problem. However, it's also completely stark raving unfalsifiable. Until we develop instruments which can actually see outside of the universe (which is not bloody likely), or create a universe in a jar that we can poke with scientific instruments (slightly more likely) this remains a theory to stay grounded in science fiction.
User avatar #6585 to #6550 - dcmp (01/19/2013) [-]
Multiverse theory is plausible I suppose. And no there is no way any man-made god exists. So give me your other questions I guess.
User avatar #6668 to #6587 - reretzu (01/20/2013) [-]
Actually, according to most variations of the multiverse theory there exists a universe for every outcome possible according to the laws of our universe.

The Christian god does not follow the laws of out universe, therefore most variations the multiverse theory doesn't include him.
User avatar #6672 to #6668 - jokeface (01/20/2013) [-]
Good point.
User avatar #6566 to #6550 - noblexfenrir (01/19/2013) [-]
It would be hard for you to find an atheist like that since most only reject the belief of a god and don't really say there is not one definitively. But I'll bite, I am agnostic on a universal scale but on a personal level in relation to my human ability to determine my surroundings and gather knowledge, god does not exist.

I don't "believe" in the multi-verse theory, I do however see it gathering a good amount of evidence at a decent pace, so I find it very plausible.
User avatar #6586 to #6566 - jokeface (01/19/2013) [-]
Well this was the idea I had. Suppose there are indeed an infinite number of universes, and every outcome has occurred in them. Wouldn't it be possible for a God to exist in at least one of them?

Then I'd expect the adamant atheist to say something like, "Well sure, I guess, but it's not this universe." And I'd say "Why not this one?" And they would say "Because there is no evidence supporting it and there is strong evidence against it."

At this point, I would ask, if there are an infinite number of universes with every possible outcome, then would it be possible for there to be a universe where God exists but creates the world in such a way so as to make His existence seem unapparent? If so, couldn't it be this one?

I'm not trying to force people to accept the existence of a God, because I know that's not going to happen. But I feel a wave of outrage when people try to flat-out declare that God cannot possibly exist. Maybe He does and maybe He doesn't, but you cannot prove the nonexistence of something.

Again, this isn't me trying to convert anyone; I realize the argument to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong is weak and ridiculous. Like I said, I just hate when people try to claim they're positive about there being no God.
User avatar #6593 to #6586 - noblexfenrir (01/19/2013) [-]
Someone can easily say that it is equally possible for a universe to exist without god and then we would be back to where we are. I do however have a very long explanation which I will not post here unless you care to read it, that talks about this idea (and the whole notion of "disproving" god) and how god wouldn't be applicable to this kind of reasoning since it appeals to probability within the confined of natural law, which god is not apart of.

"You cannot prove the nonexistence of something"
Technically yes because we are not omniscient creatures, however because of that very fact we have to employ our own knowledge to the universe around us.

Basically, humans cannot say everything exists because we don't know everything in the universe, therefor we have to take the stance of non-existence until evidence for a particular idea arises. An example of this would be me saying there exists a purple rock with 20 tentacles with a brain in each somewhere in the universe, now technically, it's possible. However, we as humans would say this creature doesn't exist, until I gain some evidence, and if this evidence is proven false, we are back to non-existence.

Which is why the god argument makes me laugh when given this way, as you said believing in something because it can't be proven wrong is a weak argument, not believing in something because there is no evidence for it is logically sound and is basically what humans do for everything else.
User avatar #6592 to #6586 - dcmp (01/19/2013) [-]
If there is indeed an infinite amount of universes then (hypothetically) there are also an infinite amount of universes with god(s) in them. However this would also mean that there are an infinite amount of universes without god(s) in them. This also means that there are an infinite amount of universes where the sky rains cotton candy. I can say this about anything, but it doesn't really hold any value since multiverse theory, while plausible, may also not be. So really trying to argue that could could exist in multiverse theory is kind of dumb, just as arguing that cotton candy rain could exist in multiverse theory. Also it is possible to prove the nonexistence of something. We can prove that spiderman is nonexistent in reality. He resides in comic books, but he doesn't trope around the streets of Manhattan with spider powers.
User avatar #6596 to #6592 - jokeface (01/19/2013) [-]
Well obviously Spiderman is the concoction of comic book writers, and we know this because they claimed to have created him. You could argue that God is the concoction of the people who wrote the Bible and other holy books before it, but those people never claimed to have made it up. They claimed it was real. Stan Lee never claimed Spiderman was real.
User avatar #6600 to #6596 - dcmp (01/19/2013) [-]
Yes but whether or not someone claims something to be real, does not determine that it is real. The people who wrote the bible may have claimed it was real, but that doesn't mean it is. And we can test the validity of the bible, and its claims, and we can determine that it is historical fiction at best. Anecdotal tales, just like every other holy book ever written by man.
User avatar #6603 to #6600 - jokeface (01/20/2013) [-]
I'm not saying it must be real based on someone claiming it is. I'm saying that if the originator of the account claims it as falsehood, then it must be falsehood (unless they really did witness it and just don't want to share it, but if that's the case, they wouldn't have shared i to begin with).

And no, there's no way to determine that the Bible must be fictional. At best we can say some parts of it were exaggerated or misinterpreted (such as the time in which certain events occurred) but overall there's no way to deny that the events happened.
User avatar #6605 to #6603 - noblexfenrir (01/20/2013) [-]
You can if they are based on supernatural claims we can prove didn't happen, because they can't happen.
User avatar #6609 to #6605 - jokeface (01/20/2013) [-]
Not really. Just because we can't recreate the results, doesn't mean the results couldn't have happened. Humans aren't all-powerful.
User avatar #6612 to #6609 - noblexfenrir (01/20/2013) [-]
That isn't how science works mate.

First of all, supernatural events are automatically false because there has yet to be a proven anything "supernatural".

Second, many events we can prove false that are trying to be events of the past because we can check effects we would see today and as a result check it's validity. The flood as an example, is false because the sedimentary record and fossil record don't match up even close to such an event.

Third, Science doesn't follow the "Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it didn't happen" mindset, that is an idiotically ignorant worldview. It may be true, however to believe something is true when we have no possible way of recreating the events, is bad science. (Remember this is pertaining to a supernatural tale and not something we view ourselves. What we do is see an event and look for a cause to it, not claim any supernatural reason because we can't find any.)
User avatar #6590 to #6586 - kingnarnode (01/19/2013) [-]
that's actually pretty interesting, but i don't think a god would exist in any universe due to the fact that the whole idea of god transcends the laws of physics, so from a scientific standpoint I think any scientist would just say no. Because there is a universe with any POSSIBLE outcome, I think scientists would just discredit God as a possibility.
User avatar #6553 to #6550 - beatmasterz (01/19/2013) [-]
I don't know everything about it, but it seems implausible.
 Friends (0)