do you believe that
Oh... no, the history of science (indeed its very nature) involves replacing old theories with newer theories that better fit the observed data.
Quote from: reaperdo you believe that
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!!!
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."
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.
Well, come on, man, how much "luck" does it take to have God exist???
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.
Quote from: quadz on January 24, 2007, 01:20:21 PMOh... 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.
Quote from: reaperdo you believe that particles appear from nowhere without causescience 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.
do you believe that particles appear from nowhere without causescience 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.
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).
Quote from: dahangi personally think no matter how we terminate the infinite regress, we're going to terminate it by something simple or some simple conceptyou 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
i personally think no matter how we terminate the infinite regress, we're going to terminate it by something simple or some simple concept
Quote from: dahangIt seems like the more science discovers, the less there is for God to do all day.
It seems like the more science discovers, the less there is for God to do all day.
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?
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.
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.
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.
but im sorry, i do not feel that i am the result of "millions of years of adaptations".
Stephen Hawking, what a total random a-hole!
...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.
Even God would use this method if he indeed created a planet for creatures to live on.
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.
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