Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

first of all, science cannot disprove god. it also cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

you basically said it's unlikely there wasn't a god because things are too complex for there not to be. that has nothing to do with the big bang theory (theory of how the universe began). luckily, the darwinian explanation elegantly blows your questioning of the complexity of things out of the water. modern theologians do not ask "how do you explain the flowers/humans/birds/oceans/mountains/etc." anymore because we now know why. they have resorted all the way back to "why is there something instead of nothing?" - (god must be responsible). as the inifinite regress subject pops up again, we keep in mind that there is indeed something. but who's to say it came from nothing? as hard as it is to accept that there was always matter/energy in some form, it's much harder to accept that there was a divine being that always existed outside of time. it's a superfluous hypothesis, and really does not explain anything.

[Whirlingdervish]

"superfluous hypothesis"

..what an elegant way of putting it.
 

[cyberneticimplant]

first of all, science cannot disprove god. it also cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster.

you basically said it's unlikely there wasn't a god because things are too complex for there not to be. that has nothing to do with the big bang theory (theory of how the universe began). luckily, the darwinian explanation elegantly blows your questioning of the complexity of things out of the water. modern theologians do not ask "how do you explain the flowers/humans/birds/oceans/mountains/etc." anymore because we now know why. they have resorted all the way back to "why is there something instead of nothing?" - (god must be responsible). as the inifinite regress subject pops up again, we keep in mind that there is indeed something. but who's to say it came from nothing? as hard as it is to accept that there was always matter/energy in some form, it's much harder to accept that there was a divine being that always existed outside of time. it's a superfluous hypothesis, and really does not explain anything.

Well said.

[LaMont=GSN=]

the witch trials had little to do with religion and a whole lot to do with politics

Not trying to nitpick you here, QD, as much as throw in a minor note of clarification here.  The witch trials in North America and Europe from approximately 1450 to 1750 were mostly the result of fear and ignorance and not politics (except perhaps in a vigilante sense).  There has been some interesting research done on the witch trials that ties most of it back to unusually wet summers causing outbreaks of ergot poisoning.  Ergot is a fungal infestation on rye that contains several very powerful alkaloid poisons, some that have psychotropic effects.  In fact it was the study of ergot's compounds that introduced the world to LSD.  Ergot poisoning causes the body to writhe and contort in ways that would be impossible under voluntary muscluar efforts (from whence the term St. Vitus' Dance).  Diaries and ship's logs from the time indicate that people were killed by the masses because they were superstitiously afraid that the healthy folk (who hadn't eaten contaminated rye bread) must be practicing dark magic.  I remember reading a bunch about it a year ago; I'll see if I can dig up the links.

As you were... 

LaMont

[yodasmyBONG!]

g1 dahang

[reaper]

you basically said it's unlikely there wasn't a god because things are too complex for there not to be. that has nothing to do with the big bang theory (theory of how the universe began).
luckily, the darwinian explanation elegantly blows your questioning of the complexity of things out of the water.

the darwinian explanation does not blow my questioning out of the water - rather it enforces it.

the current big bang theory isn't a series of an astronomical amount of events (forumulations of a universe).

[cyberneticimplant]

How do you know the probability of a universe that supports life is low?

[quadz]

the darwinian explanation does not blow my questioning out of the water - rather it enforces it.

But what is often overlooked, is that genetic + darwinian evolution is NOT a random process.

So the complexity that evolved didn't happen just "by chance".

the current big bang theory isn't a series of an astronomical amount of events (forumulations of a universe).

[cyberneticimplant]

The only thing that has to be exact are strenghts of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe. Once matter behaves the way it does I think there is a fairly high probability since amino acid polypeptides can sponaneously form under the conditions of early earth. Ofcourse proving that life can spontaneously form from those polypeptides is difficult, since apparently it took billions of years. However, we know that there is no "hand of god" keeping the universe in motion.

Darwin's theory explains how organisms evolve from other organisms. It is irrelevant in this discussion.

[reaper]

But what is often overlooked, is that genetic + darwinian evolution is NOT a random process.

So the complexity that evolved didn't happen just "by chance".

but it's a process that probably won't get things "right" in one try - that was my point anyways

Where did you get that?

[quadz]

I hate to be too pedantic, but....

[quadz]

But what is often overlooked, is that genetic + darwinian evolution is NOT a random process.

So the complexity that evolved didn't happen just "by chance".

but it's a process that probably won't get things "right" in one try - that was my point anyways

What do you consider "right", and what do you consider "one try"?

The fossil records supporting evolution are rather detailed.  I don't understand what part you're referring to when you talk about getting things right in one try.  (Do you still have your appendix? )

whatever happens at the start of the big bang, there are certainly billions of possibilities to form a universe where there isn't earth like planets.

[DaHanG]

I hate to be too pedantic, but....   

we know that there is no "hand of god" keeping the universe in motion.

It's not possible to know whether there is a "hand of god" or not.  It may be possible to know a Grand Unified Theory that indicates no "hand of god" is needed, however.

i agree. we do not 'know' there is no god, but there is no evidence to support the idea there is a god - especially an all powerful/all-knowing/omnibenevolent (something most of the world believes) - intervening. i forgot who made the quote but it suits this purpose: "Isn't the garden beautiful enough to not think there are fairies beneath it?"

[QuakeDuke]

I hate to be too pedantic, but....   

we know that there is no "hand of god" keeping the universe in motion.

It's not possible to know whether there is a "hand of god" or not.  It may be possible to know a Grand Unified Theory that indicates no "hand of god" is needed, however.

Aye, and to me therein lies the foundation of all opinions of the formation of the universe - as long as man can only "indicate" not prove, not knowing for certain whether the supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) exists, no matter how razor thin the possiblity, it is still a viable possiblity....

With that possiblity I lean toward what Galileo said "Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so." Just because we haven't figured a way to measure it yet doesn't mean we won't at some juncture. We also know whether something is needed or not or our inablity to figure it out doesn't negate the possiblity of it's existence.

QD

[DaHanG]

not that you were implying this, but lets not confuse what is possible with what is good reason to believe.