Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 08, 2006, 01:27:57 PMQuote from: DaHanG on December 07, 2006, 11:37:29 PM i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988. How do you know you didn't have a problem with it? The whole concept of a "pre-life" (which would be necessary to have died) opens up the necessity of an "after-life" of some sort. Quote from: QuakeDuke on December 15, 2006, 12:55:43 PMQuote from: quadz on December 15, 2006, 12:24:13 AMYeahbut... I thought that was kind of axiomatic? For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago? How would we know?Well, using the reasoning I've been trying to following in this thread, it's impossible for the entire Universe as we understand it to have been created just 30 seconds ago because of all the hard (fossils etc) evidence that points to the contrary To say all this evidence could be done "naturally" in the last 30 seconds and be shown to be millions/billions/trillions of years old doesn't meet (and I emphasis current) current scientific methods...i am enjoying the irony behind these two statements. you pick and choose what you like instead of what is most reasonable. a religious person picking and choosing what they like? NEVAR!DHG
Quote from: DaHanG on December 07, 2006, 11:37:29 PM i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988. How do you know you didn't have a problem with it? The whole concept of a "pre-life" (which would be necessary to have died) opens up the necessity of an "after-life" of some sort.
i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988.
Quote from: quadz on December 15, 2006, 12:24:13 AMYeahbut... I thought that was kind of axiomatic? For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago? How would we know?Well, using the reasoning I've been trying to following in this thread, it's impossible for the entire Universe as we understand it to have been created just 30 seconds ago because of all the hard (fossils etc) evidence that points to the contrary To say all this evidence could be done "naturally" in the last 30 seconds and be shown to be millions/billions/trillions of years old doesn't meet (and I emphasis current) current scientific methods...
Yeahbut... I thought that was kind of axiomatic? For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago? How would we know?
modern science shows there isn't this 'need' you think there is for a god
I see. Ok.. and this would differ how from a "non-religious" person picking and choosing what they like instead of what (to others) might be more reasonable?
non-religious people (i would think) do NOT believe in some sort of pre-life before conception?
Quote from: dahangnon-religious people (i would think) do NOT believe in some sort of pre-life before conception?non religious people really don't believe in anything. maybe they pick and chose things reasonably, but they're only picking from things we "know" because of the scientific process.
Quote from: dahangit's much easier to believe matter/energy existed forever, than a god existed forever outside of "time"your above quotation is jumping to a lot of conclusions, that's not much different than a religous person choosing what they want to believe.
it's much easier to believe matter/energy existed forever, than a god existed forever outside of "time"
what a crime! i mean, if i'm going to believe in something it must be silly and baseless
Quote from: dahangwhat a crime! i mean, if i'm going to believe in something it must be silly and baseless that would seem to imply religion is silly and baseless - which it isn't. it's your opionion though and i'm not gonna knock it
Quote from: dahangone uses reason/evidence, the other is speculation that a 3 year old with a wild imagination could conclude. just because both are picking and choosing doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences between religious/non-religious thinking. in general religious people believe in god. i'm sure many of them use reason to believe in a god. also, there's no evidence(to me) that would make it unreasonable to believe in god. and yes, i do think the big bang theory supports religion, because it's not probable the initial stages of the big bang formulate a universe that supports lifeas far as some ideas (hypothesis) out there that say the universe could of been around forever; that's speculation. either way it's not making it unreasonable (by any means) to believe in a god.you can knock someone believing in god - but don't say believing in the universe being around forever, and there is no need for a god is anymore rational(at this point in time).
one uses reason/evidence, the other is speculation that a 3 year old with a wild imagination could conclude. just because both are picking and choosing doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences between religious/non-religious thinking.
how are any forms of intelligent life such a lottery win? The universe is billions of years old, with billions of galaxies, and billions of planets and stars within each galaxy..probability is favored for life, we (intelligent life) have found non-intelligent life in the VERY small fraction of the universe we know.
Quote from: defthow are any forms of intelligent life such a lottery win? The universe is billions of years old, with billions of galaxies, and billions of planets and stars within each galaxy..probability is favored for life, we (intelligent life) have found non-intelligent life in the VERY small fraction of the universe we know.yeah probability is favored for life in the universe now, at the start it was not (according to the big bang theory). "The lawlessness of the singularity entails that it 'would thus emit all [possible] configurations of particles with equal probability'Indeed, the singularity and the symmetry-breaking stages occurring shortly after the big bang, where the particles and forces acquired their specific masses and strengths, had an extremely low probability of occurring in a way that leads to an animate universe."
i believe in a god, and was noting that accepted science now would imply a god - or it least imply we are pretty "lucky" (if the big bang theory is correct as it stands)
is it me or did you interpret that completely backwards? "would thus emit all [possible] configurations of particles with equal probability". if every configuration is equally probable, then there is no individual configuration that is more unlikely than the next. going along with this thinking, doesn't this imply there are an infinite number of configurations possible from this big bang? who's to say only one (or very few) configuration(s) out of infinity is to support life? even if i am misinterpreting the concept, who cares if it was improbable?
the article in your link says that "had an extremely low probability of occurring in a way that leads to an animate universe." who is the authority on this matter
If god exists who created him or where did he come from?