Author Topic: Ye Religion Thread (Read 1036932 times)

quadz · « **Reply #540 on:** January 21, 2007, 01:39:33 PM »

Quote from: reaper on January 21, 2007, 01:08:53 PM

Quote from: defiant
Maybe it is extreme luck that we are here, or maybe it isn't at all.

according to science it is. if the creation of the universe is a one shot deal, it would seem even more peculiar, even though the probability of this type of life would be the same at each inception of the universe.

DaHanG · « **Reply #541 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:34:03 PM »

Quote from: reaper on January 21, 2007, 01:08:53 PM

Quote from: defiant
Maybe it is extreme luck that we are here, or maybe it isn't at all.
according to science it is. if the creation of the universe is a one shot deal, it would seem even more peculiar, even though the probability of this type of life would be the same at each inception of the universe. you can take what you want from that, personally i find it a very strong argument for a higher power of the universe.

extreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.

BustaMoo · « **Reply #542 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:45:32 PM »

There is a God and He is black!

reaper · « **Reply #543 on:** January 21, 2007, 05:17:26 PM »

Quote from: dahang

extreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.

i agree with the point that the theory of evolution isn't chance. things evolve, because if there is a good mutation, the creature is more likely to pass on it's traits. that's obviously not chance. however i fail to see how this is analogous to the universes inception.

first, the solid scientific theories are for one big bang. so evolution is not analogous, under this pretense.

second, even if there was a large number of big bangs, there is a multitude of possible formations of universes that would "work". these are all just as likely to form, based on the laws of science during the inception of the universe. a universe like ours requires precise forces to differ it from a multitude of other possible universes. so this is random, or chance (unlike evolution) . which is based on matter not following the laws of science. science only has the explanation - the universe is this way, because it has to, because we observe it that way.

if you believe in the idea of a god, of course this supports your argument. it is one nice accident, like winning the lottery.

quadz · « **Reply #544 on:** January 21, 2007, 06:05:27 PM »

Quote from: reaper on January 21, 2007, 05:17:26 PM

first, the solid scientific theories are for one big bang.

Are you sure about that?

reaper · « **Reply #545 on:** January 21, 2007, 06:38:50 PM »

Quote from: quadz

Actually I think it's the other way around: If you Believe in God, and your God is Omnipotent, then by definition you must believe your God is *capable* letting the Big Bang be totally random, and still result in what we see today.

If your God can't do that, then your God isn't Omnipotent.

An Omnipotent God would by definition have to be capable of setting up the preconditions for the Big Bang to be totally random, and yet still yield the possibility of it unfolding exactly as we see today.

So if you believe in an Omnipotent God, then you must believe in the possibility that God didn't tamper with the Universe in any way and that He could have set it up to be totally random at the Big Bang.

Regards,

quadz

i think i was pretty right on about the probability being very low for a universe like ours to form (instead of another unlike our universe).

quadz · « **Reply #546 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:08:54 PM »

Quote from: reaper on January 21, 2007, 06:38:50 PM

all the observable evidence is from the start of the big bang, and the scientific laws are only suited for one big bang.

[BTF]DeathStalker · « **Reply #547 on:** January 21, 2007, 10:16:28 PM »

Why is it so improbable that God has anything to do with any of this ???

[BTF]DeathStalker · « **Reply #548 on:** January 21, 2007, 10:35:46 PM »

Or "a" God, or a Supreme Being ???

[BTF]DeathStalker · « **Reply #549 on:** January 21, 2007, 11:18:52 PM »

Everything we see in Nature wasn't created through random events.
That's impossible. If everything in the world, the sky, the Universe came about through ramdom events, we would have nothing, we would be nothing, there would be nothing. It had to be articulacy and spesifically designed, then put into motion.
What are the chances that random event resulting from the BigBang without some form of intelegence behind it could or would produce what we have?
Give me numbers, give me the odds.
This isn't me talking out of Faith. It's a logical conclusion.
I am certanly not anti science. I don't believe science has figured out how it happened, but more like how he did it. But because 99.9% of all sientists refuse to believe in God or any higher power, they cannot and willnot admit to it in that way.
God has done many many things from the Creation of our Planet to the parting of the Red Sea using all the elements that he created. Science comes along afterwards and figures out how he did it (er uh exuse me, how it happened) then goes back and says "Hey all, see, the're is no God, this is how it all happened, randomly by chance".
Scientist want every one to believe there is a reason for everything, and i for one do believe there is a reason for every thing. But then they turn right around and say the creation of the world was . . . . A stroke of luck??? A luck of the draw???
WTF ???
Everything in the world had to be put together immense precession for it all to work and sustain life.

quadz · « **Reply #550 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:48:52 AM »

Quote from: [BTF]DeathStalker on January 21, 2007, 11:18:52 PM

Everything we see in Nature wasn't created through random events.

Um, duh?

reaper · « **Reply #551 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:25:24 AM »

Quote from: dahang

extreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.

dahang, i would like to know your thoughts on my response.

DaHanG · « **Reply #552 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:16:12 AM »

Quote from: reaper on January 22, 2007, 05:25:24 AM

Quote from: dahang
extreme luck? to quote richard dawkins: "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism were a 'theory of chance', it wouldn't work." i encourage you to dig deeper and really try to understand that science isn't a bunch of god hating know-it-alls.
dahang, i would like to know your thoughts on my response. while darwanism isn't about chance, the inception of the universe is (a random low chance to get a universe like ours). certainly darwninism can't be used as an analogy to the creation of the universe based on probabilities. in darwanism things are more likley, and not random, where at the beggining of a big bang, the way the universe forms is random. so how could darwanism be used to describe the creation of the universe. would some type of trend apply, even though the theories don't seem analogous.

first of all, darwinism at the very LEAST should raise our consiousness to the idea that just because something appears to be designed, it doesn't mean it is. to say everything must have a cause, god must as well (as russel said). in the very BEGINNING there should NOT be a highly complex all-powerful being, because that in itself requires a HUGE explanation (far greater than any universe). the fact is, the universe IS very chaotic and NOT ideal for life - humans will die INSTANTLY almost EVERYWHERE in the universe. with an estimated 10 trillion planets in our galaxy is it THAT improbable that at the very least ONE planet was suitable for life? i highly doubt it.

given 10 trillion oppurtunities for lets say a "1 in a 100 million shot for conditions to be adequate for life to come about" (i suspect the chance for life is in fact not this extreme). this leads to an assumption that approx. 100,000 planets should have life on them. it's hardly winning a lottery given the oppurtunity presented in this chaotic universe.

Whirlingdervish · « **Reply #553 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:20:54 AM »

Quote from: quadz on January 22, 2007, 01:48:52 AM

In other words, far from scientists believing everything is 100% random, a couple well-defined sources of randomness (or, rather unpredictability) have been discovered: quantum uncertainty; and information loss in black holes.

so you're saying god could be hiding behind the event horizon of black holes, pushing sub-atomic particles and bits of radiation out the "backdoor" to influence the ever changing shape of the universe?

reaper · « **Reply #554 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:40:52 AM »

Quote from: dahang

to say everything must have a cause, god must as well (as russel said). in the very BEGINNING there should NOT be a highly complex all-powerful being, because that in itself requires a HUGE explanation (far greater than any universe).

life such as ours forms by improbable chance, according to current scientific explanations, regarding the inception of the universe. and you really can't make a comparison (on scientific grounds) between god, and the universe existing forever or coming from nothing, because we don't know enough about either.

Author Topic: Ye Religion Thread (Read 1036932 times)

El Box de Shoutamente