Ye Religion Thread

[jägermonsta]

Actually I posted that video because I thought it was funny.  Thanks for assuming I posted it to "ridicule"..assuming would be the religious thing to do :>

I thought the video was funny. 

[DaHanG]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread for a while.
Reeper, forget it man, i gave up a long time ago, it's crazy. I think the thread's name should be changed to something like "Attack the people that believe in God."
If you notice, I nor even QD ever post here anymore. We can't. Every time one of us says anything 5 others come on and try to tear it to shreds. We're out numbered, Period. It ain't happening.
There is way more believers in God that "could" post, and probably even have better arguments than we've provided thus far.
But they don't want to come on here and have 5 people jump on and try to tear apart everything they said.
You know, it doesn't make any difference how logical our statements are or how illogical they're argument about it is. 4 or 5 of them will agree with each other regardless, post ridicules, make fun of, and throw out a little sarcasm and suddenly every thing you said has been made to seem illogical, unfounded and stupid.
Unless you just enjoy being ganged up on and beat down all the time i wouldn't bother even looking at this useless thread anymore.
I mean some of their arguments don

[Whirlingdervish]

If you notice, I nor even QD ever post here anymore. We can't. Every time one of us says anything 5 others come on and try to tear it to shreds. We're out numbered, Period. It ain't happening.
There is way more believers in God that "could" post, and probably even have better arguments than we've provided thus far.
But they don't want to come on here and have 5 people jump on and try to tear apart everything they said.
You know, it doesn't make any difference how logical our statements are or how illogical they're argument about it is. 4 or 5 of them will agree with each other regardless, post ridicules, make fun of, and throw out a little sarcasm and suddenly every thing you said has been made to seem illogical, unfounded and stupid.
Unless you just enjoy being ganged up on and beat down all the time i wouldn't bother even looking at this useless thread anymore.

Sorry you feel that way.
I try not to tear into people at all in this thread and rather into their arguments, but if I've offended I apologize.

BTW,
What ever happened to standing up for your belief in God in the face of adversity like Job, or going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature?

How about turning that other cheek, big guy?
 

[Arm0r]

Chances of life in our and possibly any universe, crunch on these numbers, insane.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo

[jägermonsta]

Willing to gamble on the fact it was all chance. /shrug

"Shit happens."

[deft]

Speaking of chance..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw&mode=related&search=

In the video vicodin posted it says the universe is roughly 14 billion light years across, and in the one I posted it says 78 billion..haven't bothered researching it.

[reaper]

Willing to gamble on the fact it was all chance. /shrug

"Shit happens."

life certainly doesn't happen by natural phenomen if there isn't multiple formations of the universe, or parellel universes.

maybe I have the concepts wrong, but apparentley there is a fairly high chance we should be able to detect parellel univeres, and if there was only one universe, one should form and die of heat death, and that would be it..

to many people (most people), god has already revealed himself, and it's not relevant, or suprising that god hasn't directly revealed himself, in theories like evolution.

[quadz]

Well, we're certainly looping back over territory that has been debated in great detail earlier in this thread, at this point.

Oh well, damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead.

Chances of life in our and possibly any universe, crunch on these numbers, insane.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo

I think what's important to note in this video, is that these appear to be creationists who acknowledge that everything we see today could have come from getting the preconditions right for the big bang.

That's really a pretty big step for creationsists, isn't it?

[quadz]

The main problem they're trying to grapple with is one of complex preconditions. "So complex it's improbable." But then they give an UBER COMPLEX creator a free pass to exist, as though that solves anything.

To me, it's <expletive> stupid, because it just pushes the complexity problem back one level.

[FYATroll]

THis is the only thing ill post in this thread....quadz hopefully you can see your arugement both ways. You're right, the odds of there being a God are astronomical, but the odds for the big bang happening and everything being the way it is for life to exist isn't any better...no1 has a sound arguement when it comes to the beggining of the universe if they are basing it on odds alone. Obviously, one side or another hit the jackpot and the astronomical odds played out and came through....

[Whirlingdervish]

I'd say the biggest difference between any creationist theory and any non-creationist theory is where the buck stops.

Currently, we aren't all that good at reconciling our knowledge of quantum mechanics with the scale of the universe at the big bang, and the laws of gravity. this is where most non-creationist theories break down.
science doesn't explain everything, YET, because we don't have enough solid observations and because some of the data that we'd need to conclusively prove anything about the big bang is no longer measurable.

yet we still try to figure out exactly how the universe was originally, and this is the greatest strength of non-creationism.
we don't hit a point where we don't understand things and skip it, we ponder it until we understand it then move to the next stage.



the creationist theories on the other hand, completely ignore the initial conditions of the universe (or deem them incomprehensible just because we don't know them YET) and skip that stepping stone to jump all the way to what created those conditions. This is a leap you could not accurately make without in-depth knowledge of those initial conditions, so the creationist theory breaks down right at the point that they skip over the facts and postulate an omniscient being who is uber complex to create a reason for our ignorance of the initial conditions of the universe.

creationist theory is like trying to explain how the internet was made by being completely ignorant of how computers work and then saying that Al Gore made it from scratch, and that we don't need to know anything about computers to prove it.

[quadz]

Hi, FYATroll, thanks for replying.

[Robot]

What about the idea of the universe having always existed?  Does that have no validity?

[Whirlingdervish]

well it could have validity.

the only real argument against it is our perception that the universe is currently expanding.
we do not know for sure, but one day it could contract back into the infinitely small point that it errupted from.

It would seem that at one point, an expanding universe would either

a: expand indefinitely (there is a finite amount of energy in the system so this is improbable)

b: contract back to a point once gravity overcomes the force of expansion (possible)

or

c: run out of usable energy at a certain point at which the universe would be 0 degrees kelvin and all energy had been used to try to overcome the force of gravity that holds back the expansion. (also possible)


the last two are contingent on the rate at which the universe is expanding and the rate at which gravity exerts it's force.

[reaper]

All I'm saying is that it seems unbelievably boneheaded to postulate the necessity for such an uber-complex being to exist, to SOLVE a COMPLEXITY problem.

As you stated, the authors are obviously religious.