Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

We also need more information about the Pink Unicorn before we start weighing the strength of opposing theories.

Checkmate!  Suck on that, a-unicornists!

[paradisel0st]

ROFL nice one Quadz. Also, reaper

you're an idiot 

[Whirlingdervish]

That looks like a horse that's been dyed pink and had an antelope horn glued to it's head with krazy glue.

 

[zndkw1n]

only 2nd amendment gun nuts and bush voters believe in creationism and intelligent design.

[DaHanG]

I don't think zndkw1n likes Bush...

 

[reaper]

Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.
Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.

that is really an interesting theory, but it does not resolve purpose, design, or order .

There are 4 theories stated above. As whirling said, why must there be a purpose? Why must design or order be fully understood before we reject superstitious, baseless claims?

If there was a purpose for the universe (and no one knows what the universe is), life would be the first guess.  Also it appears there is a purpose for all things, you don't have to believe that, that's fine.  design, order , perfection, and purpose are all arguments for the existence of a god.  Feel free to reject the existance of god, with no evidence, a little evidence or however much evidence you think there is.

If you simulate life through an adaptive computer virus/worm, more advanced than we can today, you are surely simulating a form of life. although the virus wouldn't feel pain like we do, so I suppose we need a new defintion of life.  Anyways, that's just an analogy to show that the fundamentals needed for life can be more important in understanding life, than a description explaining life from its "inception".  Funny what you are saying is to complex, and impossible, exists today - not that I think god is the more improbable explanation.

god doesn't add complexiity when you don't have an alternative explanation.  you have a few possibilities at the inceptiopn of the big bang:
1) physical laws form  that don't support life (prominent)
2) physical laws form that support life as we know it (like winning the powerball x 10)
3) physical laws that can support life (2d life, imaginative life.., probablity extremely low)

so because we see things the way they are ,event "2" occured, assuming there was only one big bang,  that's very improbable, so something is wrong (imo) .  You are now hoping for an extrondinary amount of universes, or mulitple big bangs to allieviate the probablity problems.  or the probablities I listed are wrong. You can assume that, but that's not evidence.  Supposedly physics will unify quantom theory with the theory of relativity, and this will help us understand what should happen at this supposed moment of infinte density.  I guess you would hope the probablities change; my guess is they will be similar to our current estimates. ( I could be bastardizing the whole concept, but I believe that's the situation).  Also the universe should die of heat death, and not end in a big crunch which could start again ( I guess with dark energy/matter, we may not be properly calculating the gravity of the universe to know this, but that's what I read from some prominent physicist). 

The chances are not looking good that we have a great understanding of things as is, which makes a book like Dawkin's very presumptious, especially when we are considering a billion universes to solve probabliity problems,  or imaginary time, which doesn't agree with the evidence (with one universe).  Also there is more evidence that we should be able to detect mulitple universes.

God is not in our realm of understanding scientifically, so god is not hurt by the probablity problems.  that's my opinion, that we do not know what's going on, so it's ok to give god a 'free' pass.  Again the catholic church loves the big bang, because it fits in with common sense - what the universe should look like if there was a creator.

 

Insert Quote
That looks like a horse that's been dyed pink and had an antelope horn glued to it's head with krazy glue.

 

[deft]

So stupid.

[reaper]

So stupid.

one thing is for sure, your comment is stupid.

[deft]

The creationist calling something stupid, that's cute.

[DaHanG]

Default theory: a complex molecule emerged from a simple, natural history of events.
Alternative theory a: a more complex entity accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory b: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.
Alternative theory c: an even more complex entity accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the complex entity which accounts for the molecule.

that is really an interesting theory, but it does not resolve purpose, design, or order .

There are 4 theories stated above. As whirling said, why must there be a purpose? Why must design or order be fully understood before we reject superstitious, baseless claims?

If there was a purpose for the universe (and no one knows what the universe is), life would be the first guess.

That's assuming a purpose is already given, not that life necessitates a purpose. Once acknowledging life's existence, we would investigate how this life came about. We have the honor of knowing in the 21st century that the method god chose to bring about the diversity of life is made it look like god wasn't there at all. 99.9% of all species god supposedly created are now extinct, and there are many flawed anatomical designs among life forms as well as impractical ways of sustaining life (Do I really need to eat/sleep/drink so often, why can't I just live and be more productive and fulfilled!?  )

Funny what you are saying is to complex, and impossible, exists today - not that I think god is the more improbable explanation.

Funny that complex life exists today? Again, it's covered by the theory of evolution.

god doesn't add complexiity when you don't have an alternative explanation.

God is the alternative explanation.

You are now hoping for an extraordinary[sic] amount of universes, or multiple[sic] big bangs to alleviate[sic] the probability[sic] problems. You can assume that, but that's not evidence.

I'm not hoping for anything in this context. I personally wouldn't enjoy a celestial dictatorship, but eternal happiness doesn't sound that bad. My personal preference is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence.

The chance that the big bang unfolded this particular universe appears to be very improbable. To postulate a being capable of dictating how a particular universe will unfold must itself, himself, or herself be even more improbable for exactly the same reason that the finely tuned universe is improbable. By invoking a creator, the problem of complexity and improbability is significantly worse.

Even though the multi-verse theory solves this improbability, the existence of only this universe coming about naturally is still many orders of magnitude better than the alternative of an intention of design. Modern physics actually does have a lot to say about the multi-verse theory. Still a not a universally accepted principle, it appears to be gaining credibility with time.

The chances are not looking good that we have a great understanding of things as is

And our current lack of omniscience does not imply a need to fill in our gaps with invisible creators to the likings of inner convictions.

God is not in our realm of understanding scientifically, so god is not hurt by the probability[sic] problems.
 

The Pink Unicorn is also not in our realm of understanding scientifically, so it is not hurt by the probability problems.

[FYATroll]

only 2nd amendment gun nuts and bush voters believe in creationism and intelligent design.

So like the billion+ catholics and the billion+ muslims are all gun nuts and bush voters?????

And thats all im saying..I refuse to get involved in this thread again

[quadz]

Also it appears there is a purpose for all things, you don't have to believe that, that's fine.  design, order , perfection, and purpose are all arguments for the existence of a god.

I'm half inclined to type in the three or so pages leading up to this quote, as it was even more powerful in context.  But anyway:

Children are especially likely to assign purpose to everything, [...] Clouds are 'for raining'.  Pointy rocks are 'so that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy'.  The assignment of purpose to everything is called teleology.  Children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.

Moving on...

Feel free to reject the existance of god, with no evidence, a little evidence or however much evidence you think there is.

This is backward.  The intellectual burden should be on you to explain why you would postulate a hypercomplex being like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or god), when simpler alternatives have been discovered at every step of the way so far.

For example: Science has revealed the chemical / biological mechanisms by which present-day complex life forms can evolve from an initial DNA-like or RNA-like molecule.  We are left with a gap: how did that initial molecule form?

In previous posts, you have seized on this gap to give a hypercomplex being like the FSM, or a Pink Unicorn, (or god, who is surely at LEAST as complex as a Pink Unicorn) a free pass to exist, to intervene in the creation of a single molecule!

But we already have a simpler alternative.  We are talking about a single molecule... with an estimated billion-billion earth-like planets in the universe, over the course of billions of years... being bombarded by cosmic radiation (which we already KNOW causes mutative effects.)  The odds become stacked so that an RNA-like molecule *should* eventually form--not just on Earth, but on many other earth-like planets... WITHOUT supernatural help.

So... WHY do you prefer a more complicated and seemingly unnecessary solution?  (Why a skyhook instead of a crane?)


Regards,

quadz

[deft]

Because believing in FSM gives us a false sense of knowledge, it answers every question that could ever be asked, all with the same answer.  Sometimes less thinking is really more!!

 

[deft]

This is part 5/6 and 6/6 on a youtube video, I wouldn't recommend watching the first 4, but this is just a must see.  It's about whether the devil exists or not.  I spent most of my time watching these clips laughing.   To be quite honest it's pretty pathetic that not only are these views present in the 21st century, but are accepted by so many and make up the majority of America. 

The debate starts around 6 minutes in, but the first bit is worth a watch also..

5/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cPvTSwtJRRQ&watch_response

6/6:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nHeqg0btluo

[metaL]

  Praise Sasquatch!!