Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

there is no evidence to conclude that we are the only universe or that we were created by the most intelligent/powerful being imaginable that does not require an explanation for why it itself exists. so why did you make a choice on the side of god instead of the multiverse?

why does what i believe have to be solely based on scientific evidence?  i understand what science has explanations for, and i don't think they are applicable to a belief in god (one way or the other).

how can you say you know what science has explanations for and that they don't apply to belief in god? why is it then that 93% of the NAS members disbelieve in god? if your assumption was true, there would be absolutely no difference between belief in god and being a scientist compared to the rest of the population. clearly there IS a link - a very strong one.

we are going to have to find another explanation other than matter just being there, and an extremely improbable occurence.

isn't that exactly what the multi-verse theory explains away? if there are billions (lets say)  of universes, then there is asbolutely no problem with having an improbable event occur with one universe. i personally think we know 'far too little' about life coming about in universes with other laws/arrangements of subatomic particles/etc. to say whether or not life is or is not extremely improbable, so i will reserve judgement.

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, why must we invent a god to create it? if your mind is not satisfied with the explanation for matter, how is it intellectually - not emotionally satisfying - more acceptable for a being with unlimited power/knowledge/etc. to not even deserve this same explanation? isn't god about 1,000,000,000,000+ times more complex than any form of matter? that seems like an easy way out more than a true desire to get to the bottom of the problem.

[DaHanG]

they are FAR less inclined to believe in god than a non-scientist.

i've been trying to stay away from discussion like this, but i do want to add something.   when i go to work, it seems almost no one believes in god, so i'm not sure how much of this has to do with science.

first of all i don't know who the people at your work are, so i will reserve judgement. some people are atheists because of evil in the world etc., my disbelief is purely intellectual.

do you believe that  particles appear from nowhere and form life as know it, with no need for a cause, other than they are just there?

i do not believe particles appear from nowhere and yet are 'just there'. that's a contradictory question you asked. you phrased the question as if these particles have an agenda in that it's normal for particles to appear from nowhere to create life. i do not believe this. as darwinism shows, there is no set path for where nature takes us. it all depends on the conditions. this is why we see supernovas with 10000000000+ degrees in temperature (very hostile areas), and one planet out of 10 trillion like earth (very probably more) where conditions are ideal for life. i g2g to class so i'm cutting this short ;p.

[quadz]

do you believe that

[DaHanG]

the whole 'nothingness' concept reminded me of a very interesting conversation between jonathon miller and denys turner. obviously in 30 minutes they didn't touch every possible side of the debate, but was certainly a good watch. the videos are on youtube and i recommend taking a look:

part 1 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzLz41WkIg0
part 2 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjtlamZ7mmQ
part 3 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Lp8O9-6Xs

it's a very civilized yet complex debate about theism vs atheism. the theist (turner) brings up the point that 'nothing' isn't a funny kind of something, which is true. this reveals in a sense, like quadz pointed out, that this idea of nothingness is a false assumption (verified through experiment). the atheist (miller) says something like "i just can't get over the fact that within this nothingness, there is the omnipotent creator who creates something within this nothingness..."..."and it took so long it seems (13.7 billion years) to create the grateful recipient for life (on earth, only humans are mentally capable of truly appreciating life)". turner puts up a decent fight, he's a very intelligent theologian. check them out

[Whirlingdervish]

particle burps in the vacuum...

[metaL]

omnipotence does not exist.. its just an abstract, radical concept that shares no relationship with God or man.

Interesting - do you have some idea as to what God's inabilities, limits, and limitations may be?

omnipotence possesses far too many paradoxes to be considered here. as elementary as it seems, performing some tasks will render certain other tasks both physically and logically impossible and unfathomable.  The age old question any 5 year old would understand provides an example.  Can God make a rock he can't lift? if not, He's not omnipotent. if so, he can't lift the rock, so He's not omnipotent.

What i am saying is, i believe that this world, universe, and/or what lies beyond was created at some point.  The creator of all this and what lies beyond is what i refer to as God.

[haunted]

An argument that has 2 nonconclusive sides could go on forever. I fully understand the theory behind the big bang, but the way it was supposedly initiated is disingenious to me.  I also disagree with the the theory that it has been re-occuring since -infinity.


Everything has to have a beginning,

 

[DaHanG]

not including god*

[quadz]

omnipotence does not exist.. its just an abstract, radical concept that shares no relationship with God or man.

Interesting - do you have some idea as to what God's inabilities, limits, and limitations may be?

omnipotence possesses far too many paradoxes to be considered here. as elementary as it seems, performing some tasks will render certain other tasks both physically and logically impossible and unfathomable.

[haunted]

Just as a spark can be the initiation for an explosion, the big bang would need an initiation as well. I do not buy into the nothingness/matter/compression thing, it's just not enough to initiate such a thing, in my opinion anyways.

[haunted]

Quadz - the scientific evidence that you refer to often does indeed support you, but is it 100% accurate/conclusive(I'm not saying all of it isn't)?

[quadz]

Everything has to have a beginning

not including god*

Defiant reminded me of this anecdote the other day:

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Regards,

quadz

[Whirlingdervish]

Quadz - the scientific evidence that you refer to often does indeed support you, but is it 100% accurate/conclusive(I'm not saying all of it isn't)?

only The Uncertainty Principle... lol! it's totally infallible!

[haunted]

Quadz - the scientific evidence that you refer to often does indeed support you, but is it 100% accurate/conclusive(I'm not saying all of it isn't)?

Regards,

Haunted

[quadz]

Quadz - the scientific evidence that you refer to often does indeed support you, but is it 100% accurate/conclusive(I'm not saying all of it isn't)?

Oh... no, the history of science (indeed its very nature) involves replacing old theories with newer theories that better fit the observed data.

So it would seem foolish to suddenly proclaim a particular theory is The Final Answer.