|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted August 11, 2009 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Death
What I mean is that if you want an explanation for why the universe is there (must have been come from something), then "god" just moves that same question to god. In that case ou just have to find a reason why "the universe" needs a cause or explanation, but "god" doesn't.
I understand what you're saying, but personally, I don't think that many people are interested in that (or they believe in God for that). If I'm not mistaken you're talking about "what caused the cause"? (aka what caused the Big Bang), and yes there is an infinite path to walk through cause then we would get to "what caused the cause that caused the cause?" (aka what caused God?).
However, in my opinion, such questions are fruitless because whether it was God or something at the Big Bang, that "thing" is not affected by time so asking "what can cause it" or "what was before it" makes no sense whatsoever, it's like asking what's the direction of yellow -- aka no sense whatsoever.
With that said it doesn't mean there's no explanation, it's just that, such explanation may totally be incomprehensible.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 11, 2009 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Death
What I mean is that if you want an explanation for why the universe is there (must have been come from something), then "god" just moves that same question to god. In that case ou just have to find a reason why "the universe" needs a cause or explanation, but "god" doesn't.
I already explained that. There had to be first cause. There could not have been an infiinite regression of causes. The material universe could not have produced itself.
God is a Spirit. God is the first cause. God is eternal. Spirits do not grow old or wear out. Spirits are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
So, now that you know God did not need a cause you can stop saying he does.
Quote:
3) I said I can come up with more than one explanation based on science on how the universe is structured without needing god or the big bang. I said as well, that since that's not verifiable it's the same speculation than god.
Like what? And please don't mentino an eternal universe because that theory tht atheists loved was debunked long ago. Expalain what no atheist has been able to so far please, since you claim you can.
Quote:
The point, however, is that there are other explanations possible that do NOT need a "magical" god who "magically" created everything out of nothing, magically not needing a cause, but that are based o science.
Lol, God is not "magic." Atheists do seem to believ in magic though.
Magical self-creating exploding rocks that magically explode for no reason and magically creating an ordered univese in which pieces of magic rock begin to live and change into different creatures for no reason at all is certaihnly not a valid theory.
Quote:
2) God is no scientific explanation, but just an assumption, since there is no scientific way to explain the properties god would have to have to fulfill the conditions sketched for being a "spirit".
No, God is not just an assumption. Your assumption that God does not exist is an assumption. You hve 0 evidence that he does not exist. I have the universe, the Spirit and his Word that tell me he does. 
Quote:
"Black Box" s a specific term that describes something whose mechanism is unknown - you see only the result, but not the "how". Tht is god, because you are not able to explain the natire of god in a scientific way. We "know" only some properties (defined out of necessity), but not more.
Personal revelations don't help, since they are verifiable as well.
Lol!!!!!! Who says God has to be measurable in a scientific way to be real. It is really strange to thing that a mere man could measure the boundless God. God fills and transcends the universe. He won't fit in any of your puny boxes. And there are lots of things that science not too longer ago could not detect at all.
I'm sorry you don't approve of God being a God who reveals himself and who has personal relationships with believers.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted August 12, 2009 12:05 AM |
|
|
God may or may not exist. Most likely because each religion has its own form of God, then perhaps each one is right on that level (while simultaneously many of them being wrong about each other religion marking people for hell). I personally believe that if you live a good life, help people and respect people, you'll get what you should (either rewarded by whatever true form "God" may be, or perhaps something else people still cannot and will never have an answer for).
To Summarize, I know Elodin isn't saying people will go to hell for not believing in God, and that's a good respectful attitude. However, theists and athiests both need to be less sensitive to each other. All we can ever do is speculate, we'll never be able to prove or disprove one thing or another. I know for certain the Bible is not 100% right, but there are some important lessons in it (namely the ones of mutual respect and love) that align with the majority of other religions. That leads me to believe each religion is based on the same principles, it's just that occasionally people have gotten a little... politically motivated... when writing certain parts of various holy texts.
Respect, it's what's forever =p
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 08:59 AM |
|
|
@ Shyranis
Quote:
To Summarize, I know Elodin isn't saying people will go to hell for not believing in God, and that's a good respectful attitude.
You seem to be new here, so your error in judgement is understandable. It's an example, how easy it is to claim knowledge out of wishful thinking, though.
@ Death (& Elodin)
You are missing the point here. We have the claim that "God" IS the explanation, the first cause. Scientifically spoken, though, we just have the evidence that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing, and so the conclusion is obvious: there must be MORE than the universe of matter and energy we perceive. That's not a speculation, that's a necessity, and where I agree with Elodin is, that it is simple and easy to see. There MUST be more, so this is not the question of THE cause, it's a question of what more there is.
God, however, doesn't answer anything.
Lots of things were unperceivable for us in the past - we are expanding our knowledge and with our knowledge the boundaries of the universe. At no point of our history we were forced to look for further causes. We could have stopped with the old picture - the earth, heavens above, god made everything, period. We didn't, though. And we found out a lot of things with a lot of practical use that seemed to broaden our understanding of how things work. I repeat that we have no reason to assume - as we never had -, that WE, NOW, HERE should understand everything, see everything, know everything; we've gone a couple of steps farther than our forefathers, but that's it.
So why be content with "god" as an explanation now? No reason at all.
@ Elodin
Quote:
There had to be first cause. There could not have been an infiinite regression of causes. The material universe could not have produced itself.God is a Spirit. God is the first cause. God is eternal. Spirits do not grow old or wear out. Spirits are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
So, now that you know God did not need a cause you can stop saying he does.
We start to move in circles again. The red statement and the blue one is not the same thing. The blue one reads: The material universe AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT, cannot have produced itself. Right. However, the red one is just a claim, and the blue one nullifies that. If the material universe as we perceive it was all there was, you could say that. But since we know it is not, we cannot say anything about infinity and regression orders beyond the borders of the material universe we know.
Basically, the same logic that allows you to pull god as a first cause without a cause out of a hat, allows me to postulate not
cause -> effect but
cause <-> effect
under the assumption that time not only is moving forwards but backwards as well, that WE live in the material universe going into one direction of time, but that there is a "negative" or "parallel" universe moving backwards in time. God is an assumption as well, and it has the disadvantage that it is difficult to assign physical properties.
I could launch now in complicated explanations, that E=mc>2 is 1) inly a special case of the general wave equation and only one solution; that the complete equation is E>2 = c>2p>2 + m>2c>4, and if you pull the square root you get TWO solutions, one for positive energy and one for negative energy (the second solution being "ignored"), that a permanent and ongoing creation not only makes sense, but is in line with experimental evidence and can be explained, if our material, positive-energy universe is surrounded (in more than a 3-dimensional sense) by a negative-energy Bose-Einstein-Condensate, which would make our universe the "waste heat" of said NE-B-E-C... I can point you to some interesting lecture here, but I assume you have found your explanations and are not interested, but correct me, if I'm wrong.
Quote:
No, God is not just an assumption. Your assumption that God does not exist is an assumption. You hve 0 evidence that he does not exist. I have the universe, the Spirit and his Word that tell me he does
For the umptieth time, Elodin, I don't need any evidence that god does NOT exist, as I don't need any evidence for that the pink spaghetti-monster does not exist. It's YOU who needs the evidence that god DOES exist. An idea or assumption doesn't get the status truth because no one can disprove the reality of that idea. I could just assume, we are surrounded by little green spirits that no one can perceive, who gove us inspiration sometimes, which is where ideas come from. Could you disprove that? No. But that doesn't make them reality. So please stop with these fallacies.
Quote:
Quote:
"Black Box" s a specific term that describes something whose mechanism is unknown - you see only the result, but not the "how". That is god, because you are not able to explain the nature of god in a scientific way. We "know" only some properties (defined out of necessity), but not more.
Personal revelations don't help, since they are not verifiable as well.
Lol!!!!!! Who says God has to be measurable in a scientific way to be real. It is really strange to thing that a mere man could measure the boundless God. God fills and transcends the universe. He won't fit in any of your puny boxes. And there are lots of things that science not too longer ago could not detect at all.
I'm sorry you don't approve of God being a God who reveals himself and who has personal relationships with believers.
LOL as much as you want, but polemics aside, the fact is, that you are UNABLE to describe the nature of god in a scientific way, EVEN THOUGH, you are busily describing his properties (spirit, first cause, creator and so on) and claiming enlightenment and personal relationship with him for good measure.
Note, that I do NOT speak about "measuring" god - you are putting that word into my mouth. I said, that you are unable to explain or describe the nature of god in a scientific way, which means, you cannot "align" the universe and ourselves - scientifically - with god: what IS "spirit"? If it's "real", it must be possible to describe it, at least mathematically. Mathematics can express a great deal, and infinity is no problem. You can't, though.
That's why god - as an explanation for things - is a "black box", and "X" as in "unknown" - a placeholder for lack of a better explanation. God has never been a help in explaining things and he isn't now. Believing in "god" as a "first cause" doesn't feed the hungry nor cure the sick nor did it further the understanding of the world we are living on.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 09:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
God is a Spirit. God is the first cause. God is eternal. Spirits do not grow old or wear out. Spirits are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
So, now that you know God did not need a cause you can stop saying he does.
Again and again...this is NOTHING ELSE but ideas out of your head. Boom. Stop telling others these are FACTS. They are not!
The idea God is a spirit or whatever doesn't explain his "presence out of nothing". And we are not talking about time, but about presence, and creating things out of nothing (like the universe...). Because if you claim that to be true, than the BigBang can claim the same for itself aswell. If God comes out of nothign, the BigBang can aswell. Or you have any evidence AGAINST that?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 11:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
cause <-> effect
under the assumption that time not only is moving forwards but backwards as well, that WE live in the material universe going into one direction of time, but that there is a "negative" or "parallel" universe moving backwards in time. God is an assumption as well, and it has the disadvantage that it is difficult to assign physical properties.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
No, there can be no eternal universe. There is a little thing called entropy. And certainly the universe is not 2 conveyor belts with one going forward and the other backwards.
No, God is not an assumption. All things material have to have a cause. Therefore there had to be an uncaused cause that is not matter or energy, which could only be the eternal God.
Quote:
For the umptieth time, Elodin, I don't need any evidence that god does NOT exist, as I don't need any evidence for that the pink spaghetti-monster does not exist. It's YOU who needs the evidence that god DOES exist.
No, stop it already. You are the one saying God does not exist. Yet you offer no proof of your assumption. Yes, you do have to offer proof of your claim. Atheism is the deviant belief. Almoast all people who have every lived have believed in God so you certainly have to offer proof of your claim.
Your claim God does not exist is just a statement of faith.
My evidence is the universe, the Spirit of God, and the Word of God. You have 0 proof of your faith that there is no God.
Quote:
Note, that I do NOT speak about "measuring" god - you are putting that word into my mouth. I said, that you are unable to explain or describe the nature of god in a scientific way, which means, you cannot "align" the universe and ourselves - scientifically - with god: what IS "spirit"? If it's "real", it must be possible to describe it, at least mathematically. Mathematics can express a great deal, and infinity is no problem. You can't, though.
Sorry, God is not a material being so you'll have no luck with material instruments. And like I said God is boundless and transcendent. Again, God is real but not matter or energy. You can't detect a spirit with a material instument. And since all of God is at every point in space and time even if you could you would have no way of knowing you had detected him since all of him is everywhere at all times.
Your statements get more and more silly all the time. How can you describe love for your fellow man with a mathematical equation? Lol!!!! You think a mortal man should be able to wrap God up in an equation. Heeee he heeeeee.
There are a great many statements used to describe God in the Bible. The ultimate expression of who God is is the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is God manifesting himself as a man.
Quote:
That's why god - as an explanation for things - is a "black box", and "X" as in "unknown" - a placeholder for lack of a better explanation. God has never been a help in explaining things and he isn't now. Believing in "god" as a "first cause" doesn't feed the hungry nor cure the sick nor did it further the understanding of the world we are living on.
Sorry, you've offered no proof as to why God can't exist. No, God is not a placeholder, he is the eternal being who created everything.
Of course belief in God doesn't feed the world. But it is interesting to note that it is the theits who have ministries to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. I've never heard of atheist organizations doing such though there are many thousands of Christin organizations doing it. So faith that "God does not exist" certainly does not help and is in my opinion harmful. Religious people as a who are more charitable tnan non-religious people.
Sure, belief in God does furthur our understanding of the world. Christianity is responsible for modern science. Christians knew that there are not thousands of nature spirits cusing things to happen willy-nilly. The universe is ordered. This concept was necessary for science.
@Angelito
Quote:
Again and again...this is NOTHING ELSE but ideas out of your head
That is rather strange for you to say. How many times have I quoted the Bible in these forums? Those ideas are not out of my own head but come from divine revelation.
Your faith that "There is no God" just comes out of your own head. Fortunately few people in history have held that idea. Now, sometimes you talke of bein an agnostic and sometimes you say God doe not exist, so I am never exactly sure what view you are staking out.
Quote:
The idea God is a spirit or whatever doesn't explain his "presence out of nothing". And we are not talking about time, but about presence, and creating things out of nothing (like the universe...). Because if you claim that to be true, than the BigBang can claim the same for itself aswell. If God comes out of nothign, the BigBang can aswell. Or you have any evidence AGAINST that?
God is eternal. He did not come out of nothing. He is not material. Please read my earlier statments on the matter.
No, the Big Bang had to have a cause. If the Big Bang produced the universe the ultimate cause of the Big Bang was God. God is the first cause. Again, there can't be an infinite regression of causes so the first cause had to be eternal and self-existant.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 12:08 PM |
|
|
I'm sick and tired of reading, how words are put into my mouth, and how the same nonsensical litany of claims is repeated ad nauseam, steamrollering on, oblivious to reason, logic, thought, and sense, how facts, history, and truth are twisted and turned and juggled with, just intent on crushing all "deviant" thoughts under the bootheel of endless dogmatic repetition of... nothing, hollowness, void, clad in words.
Which in itself is cause and purpose enough for such zeal - make enough smoke and people may believe in a fire.
Over and out.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 01:08 PM |
|
|
Finally, JJ, a sensed attitude.
Before being out as well, just a reminder:
There is not a single statistic or social research proving that being impregnated with the spirit of God improves our perception of good and evil. Nothing that says that the behavior of the believer is inclined to a less aggressive response and towards peaceful tendencies, rather than the atheist. Nothing that shows us that religion was more of a source of peace, kindness and love than just the normal perception of the morality of each human, believer or not. Nothing that proves that the spiritual legacy of a creator is enriched if sprinkled on the fertile ground of religion.
Admittedly, there were religious men whose creative impact influenced in a positive way our present and future, but in the same way convinced atheists produced the same result.
Nothing which proves that the result of this discussion and a possible conversion or renouncement will make us better.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 01:49 PM |
|
|
Well, that last one was a forlorn hope, if any, to begin with - I participated in enough arguments with religious background in these last months to know that quite well.
Still, once in a while a glimmer of chance seems to present itself to have a discussion mostly free of dogmatic gibberish - turning inevitably out to be wishful thinking and a waste of time.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 03:27 PM |
|
|
Agreed, JJ. Elodin has turned the discussion into a farce.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
|
Well the whole discussion is a farce from the beginning, isn't it? I mean, how can you argue against someone who has the infallable argument that "things are so because God willed it so" at his hand? This is a self-confirming statement, and thus can never be disproven, and thus there is no sense in arguing over it - it's a pure matter of faith whether you believe it or not.
For me, there is no single reason to believe that there is a God. Historically, it has been claimed from religious sources, but there is actually no single evidence for even the tinyest event in history of time that should require anything but present day physics.
And as for Elodins argument about entropy and initial creation - yes, it is a paradox how the universe was originally created. But to go from this paradox to the conclusion that there must be a God is a leap of faith, as there is nothing indicating that's actually the case.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 04:13 PM |
|
|
Well, no, it's no paradox. It just is one more evidence that the big bang theory is wrong because it can't explain the existance od the universe. It leads simply to the conclusion that there must be something more than what we perceive, because what we perceive is not enough to explain its existance.
As I say for the 3rd or 4th time, this is not very noteworthy. Looking back we seem to know and perceice a lot more than our predecessors, but there is no reason to assume that we know everything or even everything important.
|
|
Kraken
Famous Hero
I just love being elemental
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wasn't Hemmingway a drunk? I think he was letting to booze do the talking when he said that.
Sorry, but mythical fairy tales of a self creating universe are preposterous. It takes a lot of faith to believe that when the laws of thermodynamics clearly show that something can't pop into existence from absolute nothing without a cause. And please don't mention a singularity because it too had to have a cause.
If you want to believe fairy tales of magic rocks creating themselves and exploding to produce the universe where pieces of the magic rock begin to live and magically change into other creatures be my guest.
It seems you are not thinking outside the box, only thinking the box that your atheist teachers built around you.
I'm really not sure how I didn't answer your question. I used to be a non-Christian too. But I had an open mind and a heart that wanted to know the truth. When the Spirit of God moved, I responded. I left the denomination of my father even though it meant that I was disowned by my family for a time.
I am filled with the Spirit of God and speak in tongues. I know Jesus lives.
That is one of the most insulting things you can say to an Atheist, Elodin. Hemingwary wasn't a drunk, he was an Author, and if he was only a drunk, then why would anyone care about him? And a rock creating itself and the Universe is THEISM not ATHESIM! And what is this Atheist teachers???????????? I was never taught to be an Athesit, I was taught to be a Christian! I decided to be an Athesit myself! There are only Religious teachers, no Atheist teachers as far as Religion. And I find it hard to believe you were an Athesit yourself. If your statement is true, saying that the spirit of God moved you, then why am I an ATHEIST? I'm probably a better open-minded thinking. And I know Jesus lived, but he died, so how can someone 2000 years old still be alive? And another thing, you never tell us any bit of proof that God exists, I can wright a book on how there is probably no God. Elodin, just because something sounds WAYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyy too easy, doesn't mean it's always right! Now good day to you sir!
____________
Vini Vidi Vici
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
|
Oh no, please...this was almost closed, you restarted it 
JJ, we don't know if "bug" bang is wrong or right, it is only a supposition. 500 years ago we did not know earth is not flat and it is moving. Everyone was saying an object will never fly.
I have faith in the human genius and curiosity. One day we/they will answer to this, as well as they answered to thousand past dilemmas. We are on the way.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:55, 12 Aug 2009.
|
@alc
Quote:
Well the whole discussion is a farce from the beginning, isn't it? I mean, how can you argue against someone who has the infallable argument that "things are so because God willed it so" at his hand? This is a self-confirming statement, and thus can never be disproven, and thus there is no sense in arguing over it - it's a pure matter of faith whether you believe it or not.
There's a difference between having a productive, civil, enlightening discussion with someone you disagree with, and having a discussion with someone who is putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of their lungs.
Conversations between theologists and scientists and every creature in between can be enlightening. See, for example, the fantastic essays at the Templeton Foundation (http://www.templeton.org/belief/).
Quote:
And as for Elodins argument about entropy and initial creation - yes, it is a paradox how the universe was originally created. But to go from this paradox to the conclusion that there must be a God is a leap of faith, as there is nothing indicating that's actually the case.
Elodin makes a mockery of science every time he opens his mouth. He's a complete scientific ignoramus who throws around technical terminology in supposed support of his nonscientific arguments, as if the mere mention of a big, scary word like thermodynamics proves that he is right. It's proof by obfuscation at its worst, and perhaps to the layman it might pay dividents, but to a scientific professional like myself, it comes across sounding like a twelve year old trying to lecture Steven Hawking in cosmology.
I will give him credit for originality, though. Rarely have I seen someone arrive at a religious explanation of the Universe through a process of elimination approach supported by scientific reasoning. Unfortunately for him, anyone with even a modicum of scientific training can see through his ridiculous caricature of scientific truth. Worse, anyone with even a modicum of training in logic can see through his arsenal of logical fallacies, false premises, and contradictory arguments. He'll never acknowledge them if you point them out, of course, so what's the point? THAT is why the discussion is a farce.
The main point is that there isn't necessarily a paradox at all; for one thing, the world's greatest physicists don't yet completely understand how thermodynamics behaves in a relativistic quantum singularity, yet we're supposed to take Elodin's word for it that simple consideration of elementary school level thermodynamics contradicts 50 years of work by the greatest scientific minds in the world? That's absurd, and the fact that he keeps blabbering about it on and on and on and on and on and on and on has, indeed, turned the discussion into a joke. You can make any reasoned arguments you want, and he's just going to come right back and spit the same inane pseudoargument back at you: "But, thermodynamics, 2+3=5, LOL!!!!!"
You are right, alc, that there's not likely a true compromise point in any discussion between a scientist and a theist, and in that sense it's true that nobody is going to "prove" their position. The entire discussion of science vs. religion here is based upon a fallacy of false choice - i.e., that you must discard one in order to agree with the other. So if your goal in participating in such a discussion is to arrive at an answer to convince the other side through logic that you're right - then yes, it is fruitless. If your goal is try to understand the boundary between science and religion, or to just have an interesting discussion about that topic, then it doesn't have to be fruitless, but it certainly will be when all the other, more reasonable voices are drowned out by the argumentum ad nauseum noise issuing from the mouth of a single person.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 05:12 PM |
|
|
Good posts above. 
And maybe I should say that when I used the word "paradox", it was perhaps misleading, personally I think Big Bang theory is fine, for as much as it covers, it does just not explain what happens, only that it started out really small and then expanded (which is pretty solidly proven, as I understand it).
Personally, I don't have a problem with people thinking there is some sort of higher power. Going back to BB and universe beginning and all, whatever started it, we don't know, so whether you choose to just accept that we don't know it or want to put some "will" behind it is personal choice. Ok, I do think the idea of the bearded old man up on the cloud is a bit random, but ok, I guess you create your Gods from the imagery you see around you, so it makes some sort of sense in that light.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 05:18 PM |
|
|
Hey, stragely enough that sounds familiar: I accidentally wrote the same thing in the abortion thread (quoting myself here):
Quote:
That people like you even USE the words science and scientific, is basically an offense against science, scientists and their great work - you and yours don't even know what the word means. You have no respect for either scientists or science. It's just another arrow, when it comes handy, to fire upon those who are standing in the way of "the true truth" which has as much to do with science than the Bible can be called a scientific text book. Because if science is contradicting any one of your precious beliefs - "true truths" -, then it's uddenly not valid anymore. If it was for people like you, scientists would have been burned at the stakes, as soon as they started to come up with things that seemed to contradict the Bible.
No further comment necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Salamandre, Physics today has some problems - there are so many holes in big bang theory, so many experimental evidence that doesn't fit, so many predictions that have been proven wrong, that the theory should have ben dropped some time ago. In fact there have been lots of complaints that there is an establishment at work especially in Physics that tries to conserve their models no matter the cost. There has never ever been a model with so many flaws before that was NOT dropped.
The theory is pretty much dead.
The problem is, that theoretical physics will have to udergo a serious revision, if it wants to come up with smething better.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 05:28 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Hey, stragely enough that sounds familiar: I accidentally wrote the same thing in the abortion thread (quoting myself here):
Yeah, I was actually going to put up that quote because I had liked the way you stated it, but I couldn't remember where it was. 
Quote:
The [Big Bang]theory is pretty much dead.
The problem is, that theoretical physics will have to udergo a serious revision, if it wants to come up with smething better.
I don't think it's so much dead as it is very incomplete and still in need of a lot of modification. Problem is, there is so much that is still hotly debated and not understood, and a lot of basic physics still needs to be understood (particularly, gravity's role in everything) in order to really make a good model of the beginnings of the universe. As I stated above, physicists still don't completely understand the thermodynamical laws, and particularly the second law's relationship to time, and doubly particularly its relationship to time at the quantum level.
Most scientists agree with the core ideas of the Big Bang, but the details need to be, and will be, heavily modified and changed as our understanding of the basic laws (and how they fit together) are continually modified. But that's the nature of science, of course.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 06:28 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:34, 12 Aug 2009.
|
@ Corribus
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is an ignoramus, right? I presented scientific arguments that you can't refute. Just saying, "Oh well, some day we'll find an explanation but we know for a fact God did not cause the universe" is not an explaination. Let's face it, if you say God did not cause it, you have a religious belief that you take by faith because you certainly can't prove it.
Yes, it seems some atheists in the discussion have been sticking their fingers in their ears saying "LALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of their lungs. "God didn't do it. LALALALALLALALALA. There is no God. LALALALALALAAAAA!"
Quote:
He'll never acknowledge them if you point them out, of course, so what's the point? THAT is why the discussion is a farce.
You sir have stated an "inaccuracy." If you presented convincing facts rather than just gushing forth personal insults perhaps you could convince me.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 12, 2009 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are missing the point here. We have the claim that "God" IS the explanation, the first cause. Scientifically spoken, though, we just have the evidence that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing, and so the conclusion is obvious: there must be MORE than the universe of matter and energy we perceive. That's not a speculation, that's a necessity, and where I agree with Elodin is, that it is simple and easy to see. There MUST be more, so this is not the question of THE cause, it's a question of what more there is.
God, however, doesn't answer anything.
That's right, but regarding the bold part. Assume for a moment, that we KNOW that God exists. Even then it wouldn't answer anything, and why would it? What kind of answer do you want, assuming that God is indeed true?
"God created the Universe" would be a true phrase with that assumption, but it doesn't "answer" anything more than without. I'm not sure what answer do you expect though.
(again I understand your point, this is not the reason to believe in God, but my example above was with an assumption mind you).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
