Forbidden Donut

Chicken... because chickens lay eggs, but eggs don't only produce chickens.

edit: granted we are talking about chicken eggs... if we are talking about other eggs as well... Then my above conclusion is wrong.

Dinosaurs laid eggs. Chickens came into existence far later than the terrible lizards, ergo the egg came first. WAY first.

Ok. You wrote that as I was adding my edit... no fair.

even if talking exclusively about chicken eggs. Where did the first chicken come from? It was a retarded baby something else. So it still came from an egg that came first. This question is now and has always been answerable and a pretty easy way to figure out who I shouldn't try and argue with.

How do you define a chicken egg? An egg that hatches a chicken or an egg from a chicken?

And egg from which a chicken hatches or an egg laid by a chicken. Sorry. There is no other answer then "egg".

god created chickens, which laid eggs.

heathenous jew. /happy.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="^_^" border="0" alt="happy.gif" />

If you're going to subscribe to creationism then we might as well ask. Which came first? God or...?

This question is a pet peeve of mine. No. You aren't deep for asking it. And your answer is probably wrong. (to the general populace that asks this*, not you specifically)

*high school girls.

Well... God could be a sixth dimensional being. From this, he'd exist outside of how we understand time... no?

But a fundamental truth of all existence is that it must abide by the laws that define it. For a god to exist in any dimension, he must also abide by the natural laws of that dimension. With that truth, god could never have ultimate power.

One law that is true across all dimensions is that whenever one dimension has a manifest effect on another dimension, its effect is limited by the laws that define that (the affected) dimension. With that truth, god would be powerless to override any of the natural laws that define our known dimensions -- a feet that would be necessary to create all things from nothing.

For god to exist in another dimension, he would have to have access to [the ability to impact] our known dimensions to do his work. If that were the case, then we must also be able to access his dimension from our own. With that truth, we could touch/see/study god.

...Gotta catch a bus, but I have more that I may add later.

Why are you people so philosophical and I'm sit here wondering why I am far less superior than all of you /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />.

You are take a few leaps here. If God created the natural laws, who is to say that he couldn't change them or suspend them. For instance, if you wrote a computer program, you have the ability to change the code and alter the program. If it is a scripted language, you could do it on the fly. Also, if we go back to theory on dimensions, a higher level can always access a lower level, but not the other way around. Even if it does happen, what would be experienced at a higher level dimension would not be comprehensible by current human minds.

tl;dr version: God hates Gov, and no one cares whether the chicken or the egg came first.
-dan

the same old crap. just worded different. no proof of God at all. and all arguments ever are something to the effect that they don't need proof or the proof would be impossible to provide. but no, it's always up to the people who don't believe to come up with proof that something doesn't exist. yeah, that makes a lot of sense. well you know what, I'm just gonna go fuck the tooth fairy right now. oh she is real. don't believe me. well prove that she doesn't exist. oh and another thing, only people who believe in her can see her. so you will never see her and will never believe she is real when she really is real. yeah, beat that bitch.

This is a popularity contest.

Chicken tastes better.

YAAAY CHIKKN

I just wrote a philosophy paper on Descartes' argument for existence of God.

There is a whole book of proof.

It is called Bible.

How do you know if any history is true? You read a history book. The Bible is a history book my friend.

History is written by the winners. Read an actual history book about how the bible was written, editted, re-written, redacted, re-written again, redacted twice more, and severely edited on those same two occasions.

Not an attack on faith. Just an attack on faulty reasoning supporting said faith. If you're looking for proof of your faith, then you fail at faith.

No.

We know certain historical facts because we can back them up with attainable, physical evidence. The christian bible is certainly shrouded in historic context, but none of the ridiculous shit that people said happened can be backed up by any legitimate scientific findings. It's more of a lifetime "inspired by real events" story and, aside from the old testament, a bad one at that.

When we read about shit that has absolutely no physical evidence to support, we call that mythology. Atlantis anyone?

The difference between the legitimate study of history and the christian nonsense you've convinced yourself to be fact is the difference between the objective search for truth and the blind denial of it.

When we find Mayan stories engraved in stone that tell about a fireball sent by the gods from heaven falling to the earth, we assume a meteor, identify the crater, and study it. If the same (far less ludicrous story than most in the bible) story were set at the end of the old testament, christians would take it for truth and assume god was punishing the world for its sins. And a less devout christian would say "lol, we all know the old testament was just a bunch of allegories, silly -- people were just trying to explain what they didn't understand. it was just a meteor that existed naturally but was guided to earth by the hand of god".

Please. There's nothing reasonable, rational or logical in what you naively hold as truth.

Edit: Jedd, I'll respond to your far less nonsensical but still irrational argument later. I'm afraid at the moment that your brother might have actually caused me a brain hemorrhage.

Edit 2: Please consider this an attack on your faith.

Should that period be inside that quotation mark?

Meh, Jedd's just framing the argument in flatland terminology and making a conjecture about a potential explanation for god. Doesn't seem so much like an argument as it is a suggestion, implied even in your post, that if God were to exist in dimensions of higher levels than our own then we would be unable to see the mechanisms of his works but we would see his works manifest in our lower dimension. Ergo, when you say, you neglect to recognize that the laws of the lower three dimensions, while they apply to all higher dimensions, do not imply limitations at those higher levels, merely our own. God can't make something out of nothing in the 6th dimension, but when he makes a smoothie it looks like a big bang in our dimension. That sort of shit.

Is it illogical to base any further concept off of this conjecture? Absolutely. Is it a fun thing to think about? I think so.

But if one dimension can interact with one of our "lesser" dimensions (I don't really understand what you mean there), then our lesser dimensions can interact right back with that dimension. Nothing in physics is a one-way street. I'm saying that if a god existed (and I mean that in the natural sort of way) in another dimension, then it would have to be possible for us to interact with his dimension (and therefor him) from the dimensions we're aware of.

Imagine the flatland. It is a two dimensional world. There is height and width but no depth. creatures in this dimension can interact, but can not move along depth to interact with flatlanders of another plain. I like to picture single cell organisms the way you would examine them under a microscope as flatlanders (completely inaccurate, but it helps me to visualize).

Imagine a ball is passing through this plain and a flatlander observed it. First, a small circle would appear out of nowhere. The circle would grow and then shrink back into nothingness. The flatlander would not understand what just happened, because it can't comprehend the third dimensional object.

In essence, yes, we can interact with a higher dimensional object, when the object passes through our plain, but it may never pass through our plain, but we will have trouble understanding what is happening.

This, if nothing else, is an awesome thought exersize.

I totally understand what you're trying to say, but that doesn't refute my point at all. I'm trying to say that regardless of how difficult it may be, the opportunity to interact with god must exist if he were to exist.

And just for the sake of discussion, you're making the pretty huge assumption that the flatlander is incapable of comprehending a third dimension. That's an assumption that doesn't hold true for human beings -- we are openly exploring the possibility of many dimensions. Rather than arbitrarily attributing unknowns to a "higher" being, scientists seek out the literal truth when something is difficult to understand.

Maybe comprehend was the wrong word, but could you imagine trying to understand viewing time? It'd take quite a while to just be able to make out what was you were seeing. I'd like to think that there were humans out there who'd be able to adjust quick enough to make something of it. I wasn't questioning science motives or religious faith. I was simply remarking upon the possibility of common ground and the fact that beings could exist outside the restraints of time.

There's no evidence to support that anything could exist outside the "restraints" of time, so while the expression "anything is possible" would certainly apply, that hardly makes it probable enough to entertain the idea.

The reason it's fair to say that flatlanders wouldn't understand what was happening was not mentioned in the post describing the event. In flatland a square is a square is a square. A circle is a circle is a circle. Nothing changes in flatland, merely moves. So when an entity appears in flatland that isn't moving, but isn't staying the same then it is something never before experienced in flatland. It's not a flatlander, because flatlanders can't get bigger and smaller. Human nature is to ascribe things we don't understand to the supernatural, or to try and find a natural explanation. Millennia of experience teaches us there is almost always a good scientific explanation for things.

Now, in flatland, I can't view or interact with other planes, other flatlands. Correct? That would be interacting with the higher dimension. It's impossible. We are subject to the whims of time, however we have no control over it. I can't talk to a past me, or a future you. We can see that people age, that trees grow, that the stars move through the heavens, but we can't "prove" time exists. Nor can we interact with it in anything more than a passive way.

I agree though, if something exists, then we must be able to interact with it. So you're saying that either God doesn't exist, or he does exist and we haven't figured out how to interact with him. Since the burden of proof is on the latter supposition, it's fair to assume that in the absence of evidence God is a fiction. Meanwhile, isn't this conversation fun?

Fun like cancer.

Quantum science would like a word with you. All theory of course but evidence suggests that time acts differently in different situations. A photon on one side of the universe entwined with a photon on the other side will still react instantly to a change in the entwined photon. That violates so many laws of space and time it should make your balls hurt. We're not certain what the "restraints" are in our own dimensional experience, let alone others.

For the record I think you're dead on, but entertaining this idea has actually been the primary activity of some specific pockets of scientists for the past decade and led to the creation of the LHS. The concepts probability has no bearing on it's value as an idea. There's no evidence of alien life forms in the universe either. But we still listen cause if we don't then we might miss it when it happens.

This isn't a conversation about "God" anymore. It's a conversation about how little we truly understand of our universe.

Quantum physics doesn't conflict with what I said, though. We know time can be bended warped and manipulated, and we are exploring the possibility of it doing some pretty radical things, but that doesn't mean the proton you mentioned is working outside the constraints of time. I'm not questioning or defending what we do or do not know, I'm questioning the implication that there are planes of existence that miraculously ignore all of the laws that define existence. Whether or not we fully understand those laws is an entirely different discussion.

Fair enough. But the point isn't all that complicated. Can I walk through a wall? No. Teleport? No. Vanish? No. Subatomic particles do it all the time though. The laws don't apply to everything the same way. Yeah we understand that things get wacky when shit gets REALLY small or REALLY big or REALLY fast or REALLY slow. But since there's variation in the applicability of our previously well defined laws of reality we should be willing to assume that our laws are either poorly defined or too specific to our existence and experience to apply across the board.

But the photon is totally working outside of our understanding of time as defined by thousands of years of recorded experience of it. You can't send a signal faster than light speed. So how do these two particles, separated by potentially millions of light years, know what the other is doing? If you concede that the constraints of time and space are flexible then they really aren't "constraints" any more, are they?

"that which requires no proof can be dismissed without proof"

Forgot who said that but there. end of argument.

That was a joke right?

Yo mang, crazyd, check the back of a version of the Bible from a good publisher, it's got source citations.