Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

do you believe that

[metaL]

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

yes, for years scientists have come up with both theories and laws, and then some years later say, yeah well what we said before was wrong, now what we know is right, we're certain. and then the process continues. quadz, it really seems you have either given this idea very little thought or you are just desperately trying to seem intelligent on this subject, which it appears you are not.

by the way, lets see this evidence that supports the big bang. in my opinion, you are an idiot if you believe in such an event.  The earth we live in (and i mean just this planet, let alone the rest of the universe and what lies beyond) is close to perfect in many ways.  wow, a big coincience that our planet possesses the precise temperature, pH, gas composition, etc. to sustain life. is this all chance? give me a break. anyone who believes in the big bang, to me, is mentally retarded. peace kids.

[quadz]

do you believe that

[reaper]

Hang on, now.  Science PREDICTED virtual particles should exist, and then it has CONFIRMED they do exist through multiple experiments.  That's science at its best!

Why would you brush that sort of an accomplishment off by saying they don't have an "answer".  They're the ones asking the questions!!!

i'm at work now, and i got to go, i'll respond later.  but i quoted nothing, because it would be  a real nothing.

It's more reasonable in terms of Occam's Razor, that's for sure.  "When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, Occam's Razor recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities."

an apples to oranges comparison.
i don't believe we know enough about either to make a comparison.  in any event, it's not a big deal to violate this principle

It seems like you have missed my entire point.  Notice you're no longer talking about God creating thunder and lightning, and God creating species.  You're now talking about God doing things that are beyond our comprehension.  Fine.  But God has apparently created a Universe that runs according to basic principles that we can understand, and which indicate God doesn't need to be involved in the basic unfoldment of the Universe, from the big bang onward.  Name one thing since the Big Bang that God obviously _had_ to tamper with.

if there is a god, this is something beyond our comprehension.

Well, come on, man, how much "luck" does it take to have God exist???

beyond comprehension

It seems you missed my point again.  I'm talking about our history books.  Science is continually providing explanations for phenomena that _used_ to be things the theists could get away with saying, "who knows" about!  But science is shining light on your "who knows" and your "who knows" keeps retreating.

not really - see above

[quadz]

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

yes, for years scientists have come up with both theories and laws, and then some years later say, yeah well what we said before was wrong, now what we know is right, we're certain.

I don't think certainty is typically representative of good science.  If some human egos and stubbornness get in the way, and some scientists claimed something was certain and had to eat crow later, fine.  At least, by the very nature of science, they have to admit it and move on.

Scientists are always struggling to illuminate the boundaries of the unknown!

[DaHanG]

do you believe that  particles appear from nowhere without cause
science doesn't have an answer for particles appearing from "nothing".  science doesn't know their cause now either: why and how is the singularity their, along with it's psuedo nothingness.

...there never was "nothing". as i pointed out, nothing isn't a funny kind of something. there should be no debate here. nothing is nothing. if something comes out of nothing, it wasn't truly "nothing" in the first place. the big bang falls back to a singularity; that's the beginning according to the theory. not nothingness.

suppose there were an infinite number of big bangs (or a multi-verse), the probability argument is out the window (not that i still wouldn't believe in god).

as i stated, the multi-verse theory (if it's true) is the ultimate blow to intelligent design. one must wonder if you still believe god exists given the truth of the multi-verse theory, under what conditions would god not exist? it seems god must exist to you, whether we find out that the universe could have only occurred one way, there's a multi-verse, etc. your argument will get significantly weaker, but i guess that's the advantage of faith in something impossible to invalidate. it can't be shaken for some. 

i personally think no matter how we terminate the infinite regress, we're going to terminate it by something simple or some simple concept

you could be right.  i just take issue with you believing this is a more reasonable thought than a god existing.  probably because no one likes to be wrong - time will tell

when someone claims at the very beginning there's a highly complex intelligence (all powerful, etc.), the problem of "why?" has  increased greatly in intricacy, leaving the BIGGER question of "why is there a god at all?" or "what caused this highly complex being?". this outlook is far more emotionally satisfying for many since god in a sense solves all problems of "why?". at this point i feel like if we are a product of nature and nature only, damn what a blessing that is! if it's something primitive-sounding like being intentionally created by something that doesn't require an explanation, my bedazzlement quickly fades. kind of strange i suppose to some . i'm still awaiting evidence.

It seems like the more science discovers, the less there is for God to do all day.

you misquoted me, that's quadz' quote

[metaL]

Yes, our Earth, one member of an estimated 10 trillion planetary systems in the Universe, is very well suited to sustaining life that evolved on this planet!  Wow!   

In any case, you seem to be confusing the Big Bang with random chance.  Even if you believe in God, surely God could have started the Universe off with a Big Bang and had it come out like it is today.  Our planet is one in tens of trillions.  Why do we think we're so special?
/quote]

lol, all of this really just supports intelligent design, saying that there are trillions of planets that are capable of sustaining life further rejects the hopelessly ignorant possibility of the big bang theory.  I have taken several classes on religion, including 2 classes based solely on whether or not God exists.  I have seen many angles of both arguments and understand much of this subject.  I am not bragging in anyway, as i believe most people could earn a biology degree from the university of north carolina as i did if they apply themselves.  I am simply saying that my views on this subject do not come from a standpoint of ignorance.  quadz, explain to me what exactly you think caused the creation of the universe... because thus far it seems you are just countering the arguments of theists with random internet links that hold very little evidence on this matter.. fuck opinions, where are these facts you speak of?

[quadz]

lol, all of this really just supports intelligent design, saying that there are trillions of planets that are capable of sustaining life further rejects the hopelessly ignorant possibility of the big bang theory.

[Whirlingdervish]

The earth we live in (and i mean just this planet, let alone the rest of the universe and what lies beyond) is close to perfect in many ways.

[metaL]

i used the word almost perfect because there are millions of variables that govern the ability for a planet to sustain life, and the final result as far as the general environment of Earth is pretty damn fascinating if you ask me. but of course, this was all just chance, after all the creation of the universe could easily be compared to winning the lottery. lmao. and living things do evolve, yes.. for many reasons, but im sorry, i do not feel that i am the result of "millions of years of adaptations". and as far as endangered species, what man does has nothing to do with our world being near perfect in its POTENTIAL to sustain life.  this is man's world, we've destroyed innocent civilizations, enslaved minorities, and made species extinct.  none of this is our planets fault, its man.

as for quadz, who as had "more religious upbringing than anyone could ever withstand", all the fascinating data, links, lectures, etc. that you propose, to me, just further support intelligent design.  i asked you what you think created the universe. you said you have no idea. good answer. no one knows for sure.  if there was some sort of big bang, i believe there must have been some sort of outside influence (God) which is responsible for the emergence such a complex, fascinating result (the universe and what may lie beyond).

[DaHanG]

You should also take into account what you actually mean by  "perfect".
If we happened to breath hydrogen sulfide instead of oxygen, our atmosphere would be poisonous to us.
You only see our world as perfect, because you are the result of millions of years of adaptations that made creatures more adept at surviving on this planet.

good point.

 

[DaHanG]

but im sorry, i do not feel that i am the result of "millions of years of adaptations".

what sort of biology have you been studying?

[Whirlingdervish]

I dunno about the rest of you but the"Earth is perfect for life to exist" argument seems about as inane to me as the "Sun orbitting the Earth" theory...

It's just completely backwards in it's assumptions..


It seems to me that the thing that can adapt (or be changed) the easiest would be the thing with the short lifespan and high rate of reproduction. Even God would use this method if he indeed created a planet for creatures to live on. It's just so much easier and so much more energy efficient.

I don't see the Earth changing to accomodate our growing needs as lifeforms. If this planet was truly made "for us" by an intelligent designer, he would have found a way to make the planet's resources self-sustaining and it's orbit perfectly constant around an undying sun. Why put in all the effort to design this "perfect" planet for us, only to let entropy undo all of your work and destroy the little creatures you made? Take into account that "god" is supposedly outside of our time, and it gets even more idiotic. It would be destroyed as soon as it was done being made as far as God was concerned.
If 50 million years is the blink of an eye to him, then the lifespan of our earth is equally insignificant in length, from his point of view.

It's like people think that God would put together a puzzle with infinite pieces and then throw it at the wall and stomp it to bits.. Either that or they never examined their beliefs with a rational mind.

All of the life on earth fits quite well with the conditions here, because any other form of life that had different needs wouldn't survive them to breed. End of story.

[reaper]

Stephen Hawking, what a total random a-hole!

yeah, the same guy who speaks as if global warming exists (to the extent it causes problems). if this guy says something, it doesn't mean it's right.  einstein eventually determined there was thinking behind the universe, i wonder what he would think now?

do you think he did not understand the concept of multiple big bangs, or a multi-universe?  or the advent of a vague proposal from stephen hawking would change his mind.  quantom theory of gravity, and his theories regarding time, don't change the fact that there is a 1: google times google (forgive my math) chance that a universe like this forms.  yes, it is still a number like this, for any universe to form that could support any life.   just a something i thought was interesting, i wonder why he determined that.

...there never was "nothing". as i pointed out, nothing isn't a funny kind of something. there should be no debate here. nothing is nothing. if something comes out of nothing, it wasn't truly "nothing" in the first place. the big bang falls back to a singularity; that's the beginning according to the theory. not nothingness.

nothing except for god then, there was in a sense nothing to refer to, except for god

Even God would use this method if he indeed created a planet for creatures to live on.

of course!

as i stated, the multi-verse theory (if it's true) is the ultimate blow to intelligent design. one must wonder if you still believe god exists given the truth of the multi-verse theory, under what conditions would god not exist? it seems god must exist to you, whether we find out that the universe could have only occurred one way, there's a multi-verse, etc. your argument will get significantly weaker, but i guess that's the advantage of faith in something impossible to invalidate. it can't be shaken for some.

for me not to believe i would need a pretty solid alternate explanation to god.  obviously i would need more evidence to change my beliefs than you would.

when someone claims at the very beginning there's a highly complex intelligence (all powerful, etc.), the problem of "why?" has  increased greatly in intricacy, leaving the BIGGER question of "why is there a god at all?" or "what caused this highly complex being?". this outlook is far more emotionally satisfying for many since god in a sense solves all problems of "why?". at this point i feel like if we are a product of nature and nature only, damn what a blessing that is! if it's something primitive-sounding like being intentionally created by something that doesn't require an explanation, my bedazzlement quickly fades

according to your thinking, you must think there is a multi-verse, or multiple big bangs.  unless you believe in extreme chance.    there is the possibility that if a multi-universe exist, we may never be able to detect them, and the possibility science will show there shouldn't be more than one big bang.  just the fact that we may find out more information on one big bang, or that a multi-universe should exists, doesn't cut it for me - as far as showing me a  more reasonable explanation aside from god.  the thing is now, you can talk about things under the pretense of one big bang, and the hypothesis is not crazy.  it's a fairly valid scientific conception - that you could suppose there to be one big bang

[Whirlingdervish]

it's only a valid concept if you can identify what existed prior to that "one big bang" that started our universe.
If you could provide evidence as to the conditions before the big bang, and draw conclusions that point to how it was initiated, you could effectively negate the possiblity of there ever being a previous big bang by extrapolating the observed patterns backwards to their sources.

Unfortunately anything that existed prior to the creation of the universe is outside of time and thus not measurable at all. ever.


furthermore, if you are to assume that the universe began with one big bang and there was nothing prior to that, you have to assume that the energy that the universe posseses is finite (there's nothing beyond the beginning to keep adding more) and at one point it will run out of it due to the energy loss caused by it's expansion since the bang. You pretty much have to support the cold-death theory of the end of the universe in order to agree with the "one big bang" theory..