[quote=Centreri]My philosophy: Don't mess with Voyager or Syphon. Voyager's too popular, Syphon's always right. More on topic, Creationism is a ridiculous idea, just as ridiculous as God existing. What, God created everything once, then just left it, never to repeat any other miracle?[/quote] That's a common misconception. God is always creating miracles.

Quote from Centreri

My philosophy: Don't mess with Voyager or Syphon. Voyager's too popular, Syphon's always right.

More on topic, Creationism is a ridiculous idea, just as ridiculous as God existing. What, God created everything once, then just left it, never to repeat any other miracle?

That's a common misconception. God is always creating miracles.

[quote=isolatedpurity]I disagree. On simple logic. Everything takes time. The decay of paper takes however many years. But in order for that paper to start to decay, it needs to be made first. In order to make it, you need someone to chop down a tree. The tree needs to grow. No event can just exist in the time line, they need pre-existing conditions. If you move backward in an infinite time line, it defeats time all together because there was infinite seconds for those conditions to have already occurred, pushing back every event infinite seconds. If you say it started with the big bang, what made the big bang occur? Those conditions had infinite seconds to meet, and would have met infinite seconds ago. So unless you want to create theories (or believe in the ones that exist) about some starting point making time planes and blah blah blah, the universe could not have just existed ;/[/quote] Your concept of infinity is flawed. [QUOTE]The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.[/QUOTE]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

Quote from isolatedpurity

I disagree. On simple logic. Everything takes time. The decay of paper takes however many years. But in order for that paper to start to decay, it needs to be made first. In order to make it, you need someone to chop down a tree. The tree needs to grow. No event can just exist in the time line, they need pre-existing conditions. If you move backward in an infinite time line, it defeats time all together because there was infinite seconds for those conditions to have already occurred, pushing back every event infinite seconds.
If you say it started with the big bang, what made the big bang occur? Those conditions had infinite seconds to meet, and would have met infinite seconds ago.
So unless you want to create theories (or believe in the ones that exist) about some starting point making time planes and blah blah blah, the universe could not have just existed ;/

Your concept of infinity is flawed.

Quote

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

Devilesk, that is irrelevant.

Devilesk, that is irrelevant.

[QUOTE] That's a common misconception. God is always creating miracles.[/QUOTE] Define miracle and give me an example.

Quote

That's a common misconception. God is always creating miracles.

Define miracle and give me an example.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Devilesk, that is irrelevant.[/quote] Your "logic" doesn't make sense anyway. [QUOTE]I disagree. On simple logic. Everything takes time. The decay of paper takes however many years. But in order for that paper to start to decay, it needs to be made first. In order to make it, you need someone to chop down a tree. The tree needs to grow. No event can just exist in the time line, they need pre-existing conditions. If you move backward in an infinite time line, it defeats time all together because there was infinite seconds for those conditions to have already occurred, pushing back every event infinite seconds. If you say it started with the big bang, what made the big bang occur? Those conditions had infinite seconds to meet, and would have met infinite seconds ago. So unless you want to create theories (or believe in the ones that exist) about some starting point making time planes and blah blah blah, the universe could not have just existed ;/[/QUOTE] Alright so first you're explaining how junk needs to be "made", however the process can go on infinitely, there need not be a "beginning". Stating that the paper had a beginning is only an arbitrary definition we put on the infinite process that led up to the presence of the paper. And so what if nothing can "just exist" in time. Why can't causes go back infinitely? And now your last line makes no sense. How is the time defeated all together by moving backwards in the infinite timeline. Big bang started the universe, but we don't know yet what was before the big bang. And now the rest of your statements don't make any sense. What relevance does something being "pushed back infinitely" have; what does that even mean. It seems you have some false assumptions of the effects of something being infinite.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Devilesk, that is irrelevant.

Your "logic" doesn't make sense anyway.

Quote

I disagree. On simple logic. Everything takes time. The decay of paper takes however many years. But in order for that paper to start to decay, it needs to be made first. In order to make it, you need someone to chop down a tree. The tree needs to grow. No event can just exist in the time line, they need pre-existing conditions. If you move backward in an infinite time line, it defeats time all together because there was infinite seconds for those conditions to have already occurred, pushing back every event infinite seconds.
If you say it started with the big bang, what made the big bang occur? Those conditions had infinite seconds to meet, and would have met infinite seconds ago.
So unless you want to create theories (or believe in the ones that exist) about some starting point making time planes and blah blah blah, the universe could not have just existed ;/

Alright so first you're explaining how junk needs to be "made", however the process can go on infinitely, there need not be a "beginning". Stating that the paper had a beginning is only an arbitrary definition we put on the infinite process that led up to the presence of the paper.

And so what if nothing can "just exist" in time. Why can't causes go back infinitely? And now your last line makes no sense. How is the time defeated all together by moving backwards in the infinite timeline.

Big bang started the universe, but we don't know yet what was before the big bang. And now the rest of your statements don't make any sense.

What relevance does something being "pushed back infinitely" have; what does that even mean. It seems you have some false assumptions of the effects of something being infinite.

[QUOTE=JordanN]Twice?[/QUOTE] Yes, first off, humanity was created on the sixth day in the worlds creation. And then in the next part, god creates adam and eve... If god had already created humans, why mention creating two more? I speak of Genesis 1 and 2.

Quote from JordanN

Twice?

Yes, first off, humanity was created on the sixth day in the worlds creation. And then in the next part, god creates adam and eve...
If god had already created humans, why mention creating two more?
I speak of Genesis 1 and 2.

Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator? :bleh: Flawed? How? If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago. Blah... you edited. Hold on.

Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator?
Flawed? How?
If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.

Blah... you edited. Hold on.

[quote=Rantent][QUOTE=JordanN]Twice?[/QUOTE] Yes, first off, humanity was created on the sixth day in the worlds creation. And then in the next part, god creates adam and eve... If god had already created humans, why mention creating two more? I speak of Genesis 1 and 2.[/quote] [QUOTE=wiki]Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a single report of creation, which is divided into two parts, written from different perspectives: the first part, from Genesis 1:1–2:3, describes the creation of the Earth from God's perspective; the second part, from Genesis 2:4-24, describes the creation of the Garden of Eden from Humanity's perspective. One such scholar wrote, "[T]he strictly complementary nature of the accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting" (Kitchen 116-117).[/QUOTE]

[quote=isolatedpurity]Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator? :bleh: Flawed? How? If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.[/quote] The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division. If I want to make the universe infinite, the only thing that needs to be infinite is the universe.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator?
Flawed? How?
If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.

The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition

The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division.

If I want to make the universe infinite, the only thing that needs to be infinite is the universe.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator? :bleh: Flawed? How? If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago. Blah... you edited. Hold on.[/quote] The concept of infinity means that there's no limit to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Where did I say God had to make the universe because everything needs a creator?
Flawed? How?
If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.

Blah... you edited. Hold on.

The concept of infinity means that there's no limit to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying.

[QUOTE=IP]If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.[/QUOTE]That is as long as our current laws of physics were held constant. Although it is quite possible that the physical systems in our universe changed as it expanded.

Quote from IP

If you want to make the universe exist on an infinite time line, you make everything infinite. How old is the sun? If you want to give it an exact age, then how old are the conditions that made the sun? Eventually, something is going to have to be infinite years old. And whatever conditions that created it would have to be as well. And it would have created it infinite years ago.

That is as long as our current laws of physics were held constant. Although it is quite possible that the physical systems in our universe changed as it expanded.

[QUOTE]The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division.[/QUOTE] No. That doesn't apply to my argument at all. Though in parts it might seem like it. I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say.

Quote

The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition
The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division.

No. That doesn't apply to my argument at all. Though in parts it might seem like it.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say.

[quote=isolatedpurity][QUOTE]The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division.[/QUOTE] No. That doesn't apply to my argument at all. Though in parts it might seem like it. I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say.[/quote] I don't think you understand what you're saying. And of course I don't understand what you're trying to say, I stated that in my last replies. And how does that not apply? It seems to be exactly what you are saying. If not you must [I]elaborate[/I].

Quote from isolatedpurity

Quote

The paper's existence is not infinite so therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Fallacy of Composition
The universe is infinite, therefore the paper must be infinite. Fallacy of Division.

No. That doesn't apply to my argument at all. Though in parts it might seem like it.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm trying to say.

I don't think you understand what you're saying.

And of course I don't understand what you're trying to say, I stated that in my last replies.

And how does that not apply? It seems to be exactly what you are saying. If not you must elaborate.

The concept of infinity means that there's no limit [s]to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying[/s]. What I'm saying is everything needs a starting point. And that point has other starting points. Where does it end? If you make time limitless with a universe [i]always[/i] (just) existing, every event spans back forever and forever and that isn't logical.

The concept of infinity means that there's no limit to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying.

What I'm saying is everything needs a starting point. And that point has other starting points. Where does it end? If you make time limitless with a universe always (just) existing, every event spans back forever and forever and that isn't logical.

[quote=isolatedpurity]The concept of infinity means that there's no limit [s]to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying[/s]. What I'm saying is everything needs a starting point. And that point has other starting points. Where does it end? If you make time limitless with a universe [i]always[/i] (just) existing, every event spans back forever and forever and that isn't logical.[/quote] If everything needs a "starting point" and that point has other "starting points", the point is that it doesn't end. That's the idea of it being [I]infinite[/I], limitless. Every event spans back forever and forever, how is that not logical. You have not shown that to violate logic. If you're using the paper analogy, then my fallacy of division/composition is relevant.

Quote from isolatedpurity

The concept of infinity means that there's no limit to the amount of definite conditions with a definite timeframe, not what you're saying.

What I'm saying is everything needs a starting point. And that point has other starting points. Where does it end? If you make time limitless with a universe always (just) existing, every event spans back forever and forever and that isn't logical.

If everything needs a "starting point" and that point has other "starting points", the point is that it doesn't end. That's the idea of it being infinite, limitless.

Every event spans back forever and forever, how is that not logical. You have not shown that to violate logic. If you're using the paper analogy, then my fallacy of division/composition is relevant.

Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity. And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead. As we should have existed... infinite years ago.

Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity.
And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead.

As we should have existed... infinite years ago.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity. And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead.[/quote] You can infinitely "move" every event, but that doesn't change the order in which it happens. If I call 2008 the year 1000, that doesn't make me not born yet or dead. Now if that reply isn't related to what you're saying you must elaborate what you mean by "move" and "back into infinity"

Quote from isolatedpurity

Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity.
And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead.

You can infinitely "move" every event, but that doesn't change the order in which it happens. If I call 2008 the year 1000, that doesn't make me not born yet or dead.

Now if that reply isn't related to what you're saying you must elaborate what you mean by "move" and "back into infinity"

Who's saying we aren't infinite? To a photon, we are.

Who's saying we aren't infinite?
To a photon, we are.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity. And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead. As we should have existed... infinite years ago.[/quote] No... You can move its origins back infinitely, not its present state.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Because you can infinitely move every event, including this topic, back into infinity.
And since we aren't infinite, we would already be dead.

As we should have existed... infinite years ago.

No... You can move its origins back infinitely, not its present state.

It doesn't matter what you call the year because it doesn't change the year. However, you tell me what year it [I]truly [/I]is. [QUOTE]No... You can move its origins back infinitely, not its present state.[/QUOTE] If you move the tree back infinitely, you have to move the paper with it?

It doesn't matter what you call the year because it doesn't change the year.
However, you tell me what year it truly is.

Quote

No... You can move its origins back infinitely, not its present state.

If you move the tree back infinitely, you have to move the paper with it?