Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

why would you say assumptions are aside, then make nothing BUT assumptions?   

i guess with matters like these you could consider everything assumption, but you have an interesting philosophy nonetheless.

[DaHanG]

by definition we can either have simple beginnings or complex beginnings. if you start with a belief in god, it's almost impossible to change your mind. if you simply look at the two possibilities (simple vs complex beginnings), and leave all assumptions aside, one seems far more probable.

by saying "leave all assumptions aside" i was saying to not go into an investigation with your mind fixated on a conclusion, waiting for proof to disprove it. yes, we are all filled with assumptions, but i meant nothing more than avoiding having a biased state of mind before looking deeper.

by you 'assuming' that the universe is improbable to be capable of forming life you're immediately assuming that it was a completely random process. like darwinism, we see that things that may appear 'guided' may not be. maybe based on the events leading up to the singularity, it was very likely that the universe would be created the way it is. we simply don't know much about this, so humans have a tendency of bringing in god to solve tough problems we have yet to understand.

[jägermonsta]

the universe continues expanding

Yup and one day it's going to stretch apart and we're all going to fall into pieces. Not for a long time... but I'd sure love to be around for that day. 

[reaper]

by you 'assuming' that the universe is improbable to be capable of forming life you're immediately assuming that it was a completely random process. like darwinism, we see that things that may appear 'guided' may not be. maybe based on the events leading up to the singularity, it was very likely that the universe would be created the way it is. we simply don't know much about this, so humans have a tendency of bringing in god to solve tough problems we have yet to understand.

i agree with you.  hopefully time will tell. 

since were not sure of the underlying principles at the beggining, we can't accuratley determine probabilities.  however based on what we know now, it looks like the chance should be very low (each time).  if these events happen more than once(an understatement), the odds for life would change..

[DaHanG]

these are some videos that have had me sucked in. they are incredibly interesting that dive into topics of science/religion/theism/atheism etc. that we've all come to love. i recommend everyone take a look at all and share thoughts. these are some of the world's top intellectuals.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7853929164413117774&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7853929164413117774&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en Colin McGinn
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-886041562474199609&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-886041562474199609&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en Richard Dawkins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260129385438753065&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260129385438753065&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en Steven Weinberg
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4655574614978358368&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4655574614978358368&q=atheism+tapes&hl=en Denys Turner

if anyone finds the videos of Daniel Dennet or Arthur Miller, i'd be very grateful to see the links. these were all created in 2003 by the way.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

i also find it humorous that you have completely misunderstood hawking's idea that information cannot be lost. this theory pertains to physical information.

Really ???
How so? I thought they we're able to completely restructure something given the information stored in the molecules that made it up to begin with.
If the only information in molecules is width, height, circumference, chemical makeup and such, how can they restructure anything from that?
Wouldn't the information in the molecules have to also contain what other molecules it was attached to and what side of itself it was attached, and the exact molecule it was attached to in order to have the information necessary to reconstruct something.
I'm no Physicist, so i may not understand what i'm even talking about, but, from what i do think i understand, it's like this.
You pick up a brick from a large pile. The information in that brick only tells you it's dimensions and make up. How can you reconstruct the exact house it was a part of with that information alone? The information it contained would have to point out the other EXACT bricks it was cemented to and on what side they we're cemented to. So to me, there is way more information there than just physical information.
But who knows, it's almost 1:30 in the morning and i'm tired. I may be just talking out of my head. sie. LOL @ the sie. I love that.

[DaHanG]

you have completely misunderstood hawking's idea that information cannot be lost.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Fine, I'm not arguing that, like I said, i'm not a Physicist. I would ask you to explain to me how i've misunderstood it, but that would greatly lead this thread off topic, so I won't, i'm a bright fellow, i'll figure it out through research.

[quadz]

I suspect it's something like the total amount of matter/energy in the universe is supposed to remain constant?  (Rather than leaking out of the universe as a black hole evaporates, which is what I gather Hawking's information loss paradox predicted.)

But it wouldn't have anything to do with atoms remembering what molecules they used to be a part of, else how could we ever recycle anything?

However, I have NOT done any research on this.


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

the fact that a newseek poll reveals only 37% of america would vote for a perfectly qualified atheist presidential candidate tells me that yes, it's bad to lack belief.

i probably wouldn't vote for an atheist president, i don't think atheism is a philosophy people should be following.

i try never to deal in absolutes. if things were to change, and we were to come up with reasonable answers i would change my belief (god is probable).   it will be interesting if we exist within a multi-verse.  if a big bang happens repeatedly over time, at some point the universe would die of heat death (a guess), and exist in this state forever . that's what i read on wikipedia anyways   

it would seem to be wishful thinking, that a simpler explanation (other than god), exists. watching those videos it seemed like most atheists might be wishful thinkers as well, i thought that was interesting. 

[DaHanG]

the fact that a newseek poll reveals only 37% of america would vote for a perfectly qualified atheist presidential candidate tells me that yes, it's bad to lack belief.

i probably wouldn't vote for an atheist president, i don't think atheism is a philosophy people should be following.

i try never to deal in absolutes. if things were to change, and we were to come up with reasonable answers i would change my belief (god is probable).   it will be interesting if we exist within a multi-verse.  if a big bang happens repeatedly over time, at some point the universe would die of heat death (a guess), and exist in this state forever . that's what i read on wikipedia anyways   

it would seem to be wishful thinking, that a simpler explanation (other than god), exists. watching those videos it seemed like most atheists might be wishful thinkers as well, i thought that was interesting. 

most atheists running for president (none do since they're unelectable) would immediately argue that they want to go straight to the good aspects of religion. there is no need for all the supernatural fairytails, they are interested only in the good messages religion conveys. what's so wrong with that?

i don't know why you continuously argue the weakness of being an atheist while believing in one big bang. i suspect there is more to everything than just one big bang, and one finite universe does not make sense even from the theistic perspective. like quadz pointed out, what would god do at the end of it? "twiddle his thumbs"? what was god doing for an ETERNITY before this one universe? did this all-knowing being spontaneously just come up with this really cool idea of creating a universe?

it's wishful thinking to think of a complex explanation, rather than a simple explanation at the very beginning. by invoking god you've explained absolutely nothing, because you're now left with the question of how did god come about, or what reason does he have to exist? god is probably the most improbable entity one could ever conceive (the being itself), and i find it humorous that you think the probability of a universe forming the way it did is somehow directly proportional to the probability of god. if that sort of thing convinces you, you're welcome to it.

if those videos convinced you that atheists are wishful thinkers, you must not have paid close attention.

[reaper]

most atheists running for president (none do since they're unelectable) would immediately argue that they want to go straight to the good aspects of religion. there is no need for all the supernatural fairytails, they are interested only in the good messages religion conveys. what's so wrong with that?

i don't think atheism is a philosophy people should be following; ideally i would like people to follow someone who believes in god

i don't know why you continuously argue the weakness of being an atheist while believing in one big bang. i suspect there is more to everything than just one big bang, and one finite universe does not make sense even from the theistic perspective. like quadz pointed out, what would god do at the end of it? "twiddle his thumbs"? what was god doing for an ETERNITY before this one universe? did this all-knowing being spontaneously just come up with this really cool idea of creating a universe?

i believe in the big bang, because the massive amount of evidence supporting it.

[DaHanG]

most atheists running for president (none do since they're unelectable) would immediately argue that they want to go straight to the good aspects of religion. there is no need for all the supernatural fairytails, they are interested only in the good messages religion conveys. what's so wrong with that?

i don't think atheism is a philosophy people should be following; ideally i would like people to follow someone who believes in god

why?

i don't know why you continuously argue the weakness of being an atheist while believing in one big bang. i suspect there is more to everything than just one big bang, and one finite universe does not make sense even from the theistic perspective. like quadz pointed out, what would god do at the end of it? "twiddle his thumbs"? what was god doing for an ETERNITY before this one universe? did this all-knowing being spontaneously just come up with this really cool idea of creating a universe?

i believe in the big bang, because the massive amount of evidence supporting it.  why does a finite universe not make sense?  if it turns out the universe formed the way it does arbitrarily , or it's formation was improbable , this should still make sense - at least if you are basing sense on science.  what god would do is incomprehensible.  however we should feel free to speculate.

i'm curious, you seem to "hope"  for a better explanation other than chance.  so there would have to more than one event, regarding the formation of the universe.  so there would be prior big bangs, or we would be part of a multi-verse.  it seems to me, if the universe we observe is the only one, and there were prior big bangs, at one point the universe would stay at a point for an infinite amount of time.  you don't seem to be happy with this, so we must be in a multi-verse.  there is no "evidence" for this, but it would seem to help you believe we have the basis of a simple explanation to things.

the key was one finite universe does not make sense, not a. like i asked, how did this all knowing god simply get this cool idea to make a universe after being around for an eternity?

i do hope for an explanation better than chance, but i'm not going to shoo away the problem by invoking something many orders of magnitude more improbable. i don't think there was somehow an all knowing, all powerful, all good highly complex intelligence from the very get go. there must be some natural basis at the beginning of things - something far from this amazing chance of having this perfect being simply "always there".

it's wishful thinking to think of a complex explanation, rather than a simple explanation at the very beginning. by invoking god you've explained absolutely nothing, because you're now left with the question of how did god come about, or what reason does he have to exist? god is probably the most improbable entity one could ever conceive (the being itself), and i find it humorous that you think the probability of a universe forming the way it did is somehow directly proportional to the probability of god. if that sort of thing convinces you, you're welcome to it.

my belief in god, isn't attempting to explain anything related to the above questioning. i don't think the universe forming the way it did is proportional to the probability of god.  however if there was a god, he would be the reason the universe was formed.  under the pretenses i've been speaking under, god wouldn't be unnecessary.  what one person considers a logical point of view, another considers irrational

it seems for the past 15 pages you've been obsessed with probabilities. if these were not the claims you've been speaking under, what were they? and what makes god "probably" necessary?

if those videos convinced you that atheists are wishful thinkers, you must not have paid close attention.

just what i thought of a few people in those videos, i don't think most atheists are wishful thinkers.

what  in the videos lead you to this conclusion?

for those who are interested
http://www.mininova.org/tor/220269
http://www.mininova.org/tor/564307

the first is an audio book on relativity from einstein himself, the second is an e-book "a brief history of time" from stephen hawking which contains a chapter on time.  of course, you would have to have copies of these already, and download for backup purposes only (not sure if this is legal either)

you wouldn't think time would be so complicated, it would be nice to understand these things more, but i think those two links above are great for the average person.


dahang, i think these are the videos you were looking for.  you might be able to just pick the ones you are lacking:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/414840

unfortunately i can't use torrents, they are blocked by a firewall here at school.

[haunted]

Hardcore athiests are almost as bad as hardcore religious people, raging lunatics. The bing bang and evolution are both paradigms that are falsifiable and testable, but as in most theories, are not proven in a mathematical sense. Much of the evidence and extensive research that many have posted here is fantastic, but the foundation is still ultimately a theory, and it merely acts as a guide for the research and further research. Arguing so strongly for athiesm is like building a house and labeling it 'the strongest house in the world' when the foundation is made up of shwag stems.

[quadz]

Arguing so strongly for athiesm is like building a house and labeling it 'the strongest house in the world' when the foundation is made up of shwag stems.

Hmm.  How is it different from saying, "I believe the evidence for the big bang and evolution show us that God's design for the universe was so elegant that He didn't need to be involved during its unfoldment, post-singularity."  Unlike athiesm, this view presupposes God was involved before the big bang--but from the big bang forward, there's no practical difference between this view and athiesm.

.. Gnome sane?

Since I (personally) feel the statement I've made above is valid from a theistic point of view, I find it interesting that from the big bang forward, it looks like athiesm.

. . . And if God didn't need to be involved from the big bang forward, we can shift our full attention to speculating wildly about whether God even needed to be involved before the big bang.


Regards,

quadz