|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 09, 2009 09:20 AM |
|
|
Fortunately the alternatives are not some god on one side and big-bang on the other. 
It's obviously wrong to ask why god should be this way or that. Since there is no scientific reason to assume the existance of ANY god in the first place, there is no scientific reason to give this hypothetical god a certain form. In other words, if you believe that there is a god, there is nothing wrong with believing in a specific one.
See it this way - if you assume you have an illness, but no doctor can find anything at all, if you keep to your belief, is there anything wrong with pinpointing the illness? If YOU see certain symptoms for it - you feel bad in a certain way - but no doc can find any objective evidence for an illness, there is obviously no way to get any objectively usable information about the "illness". In that case you can just as well believe in a specific illness as well (that can't be verified).
In other words - god isn't SCIENTIFICALLY debatable and every belief is as good as every other.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 09:27 AM |
|
|
Which actually was my point. So far no religion has (at all) has given any valid reason why theirs is the only valid one, and their 'god' was the one that created the universe. Which a bunch of text written by humans proves nothing to me. They can claim it divinely inspired till they turn purple with pink pokadots in the face, human hands still wrote all the 'texts', with no valid proof that any divine being had a hand in it.
Because every other religion claims the exact same thing (that believes in a specific deity), and their texts are different. So not all of them can be true. So until valid proof that one is truer then the next (which I do not think will ever be forthcoming), stating that the universe was created by a deity is all well and good but there is no proof it was 'God' or 'Allah' or 'Mary Poppins'.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 10:50 AM |
|
|
Well, I know it's your point, but it's "invalid" in a certain way.
Think about the illness example: So you have that guy claiming that he has beta-neurotonsilitis extremis, the left-turning variant, and now you are asking the guy what makes him think beta, and not alpha or gamma, and left-turning and not right-turning. However, no doc has found any objective evidence for him to be sick in the first place, so when he insists on being ill without any factual evidence he can just as well make his own diagnosis.
If there is another guy now, feeling ill, no doc finding any evidence, this guy saying he has gamma-this, right, turning - that's what to be expected. I mean, that he calls it different and that he maybe feels different symptoms, because it's outside of any objective way to compare anyway.
So there are a couple possible conclusions here:
a) there is no illness and they imagine it only.
b) there is such an illness, it's just not possible to find objective evidence for it, but it's felt differently, even though it's basically the same (This would mean that god, allah and so on are all the same thing, but people see only part of the truth and therefore mistake it.)
c) SOME are imagining things and SOME not
d) There is more than one illness of that kind that somehow share things in an unkknown way.
In any case it doesdn't make sense to argue IN A SCIENTIFIC WAY about something that is scientifically blank.
It's like you'd ask why the pink spaghetti monster is pink and not purple: you cannot expect a reasonable answer since the assumption as such is not supported by objective evidence.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 10:52 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:55, 09 Nov 2009.
|
Sorry to do this Jolly, but I have to ask ... HUH? I am now officially extreamly confused.
Afraid you are going to have to simplify whatever you just said, cause I just have no clue what you just said.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 11:14 AM |
|
|
I'll try.
Let's say you have two people: one claims the existance of a pink spaghetti-monster, the other postulates a purple rigatoni-behemoth.
Both are unable to give ANY scientifically objective, verifiable evidence for their claim.
At this point it makes no sense to ask a question founded on REASON (i.e. why whould there be THIS thing better or more believable or logical than the other?), because the assumptions isn't founded on reason either.
I mean, if someone makes a claim that isn't verifiable, and someone else makes a somewhat contradictory claim that isn't verifiable either, it makes no sense to ask why you should one prefer over the other AND EXPECT A REASONABLE (or verifiable) ANSWER.
To keep in the example, what COULD someone say, verifiably, that would make the pink spaghetti-monster in any objective sense more likely than the purple rigatoni-behemoth?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 11:16 AM |
|
|
That may be true, but I hold the hope that one day my question will be answered to my satisfaction nonetheless. Mayhap somebody can actually prove their case. Until then, I will keep asking For the pursuit of knowledge, however unobtainable it may be, is a worthwhile pursuit.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
Well, no, it's unreasonable.
A believer - a REAL believer, I mean, not one that has been made part ogf a religion and wears that belief like skin colour without caring much - has SUBJECTIVELY reason to do so, otherwise he wouldn't believe.. I mean, it's not like you'd be prsented with all beliefs there are and then get to pick one for any OBJECTIVE reason; whatever reasons there are for believing a specific thing, they are SUBJECTIVE - like the thing that you saw a ghost which makes you believe in ghosts. This isn't objectively verifiable, but subjectively - obviously - quite compelling.
So the answer of your question is, that a certain someone has SUBJECTIVE reason to believe in Jahwe and another may have SUBJECTIVE reason to believe in Allah. Since there is no objective foundation for believing ANYTHING, subjective reasoning is all there is, all you will ever get, and - if consequemntly thought to the end - all that's ever necessary.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 04:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How is YOUR interpretation better then the Mormon or Buddist or Jehovas Witness, or ... Why should we take YOUR book (should you have one) as the RIGHT one?
I already said many times why I believe what I believe. In this thread I already posted why the book of Mormon is fake since you already asked the question you just asked again. I'm not going to go through every religion and write an essay why they are wrong.
There are many thousands of manuscripts of the Bible. Far far far more than of any other ancient document. The Bible is a historical document. There are various prophecies recorded in the Bible that have come true but I'm not going to write an essay referring to them either.
It is not my job to make you believe what I believe. A Christian is to speak the truth. If that truth finds a place in your heart so be it. If not, I have done my part.
As for you referring to me speaking in tongues, I've never said you should believe what I do because I speak in tongues. I said I speak in tongues and that is one of the witnesses to me that Jesus lives. As is the Spirit. I frankly could care less if you dismiss my religious experiences.
Quote:
I also believe (I won't speak for Corribus on the following) that organized religion is not healthy. A lot have become warped, and some have become outright frauds. Money and politics rule them, not a 'higher power'. quote]
You are of course entitled to your beliefs. But the fact is Christian churches have done many great things for society and continues to do so.
Oh, it is very untrue to say that they warp people or make frauds out of people or that money and politics rule organized religion.
Quote:
Kim Il-Sung were raised as a christian, and when it comes to cult of personality he were extreme...
He was an atheist and communist.
Shyranis
Quote:
I never said you said that exactly, it was merely the spirit of what you have said.
Actually you said nothing about spirit and said, all I did was "a repeat of 'nuh uh, they are too atheists" which is false. I wrote a paragraph why your argument that if a person is selfish or egotistical they are not an atheist is just silly.
JJ
Quote:
Thermodynamics isn't really relevant here.
Oh but the laws of thermodynamics are very relevant here. We know the universe is not eternal and that matter and energy could not spontaneously come into being form absolute nothing with no cause.
Quote:
However, when the organizations get political...
I don't think religious people should go in a closet and shut up or that any other group should do so either. Religious people have a right to be involved in politics too, just like everyone else. Atheists don't have a right to rule. Religious and non-religious people have a right to peaceably assemble and speak their minds.
Churches should speak out on moral issues like abortion and such. Just like everyone else.
Of course, the IRS says churches are not supposed to endorse a particular candidate but they seem to ignore it when a certain party is endorsed by churches or other nonprofits (Obama's church, ACORN, the National Endowment for the Arts, ect.)
Quote:
Of course, it's fairly clear why you direct such a question at atheists. You aren't stupid, and you know that atheists aren't going to be able to give you a straightforward scientific answer. And when the atheist says he doesn't know, you say, "Ah-ha!" The implication is that if a satisfactory scientific answer is unavailable, then therefore God must be the answer.
Actually my argument is not that there is no evidence. My argument has been the laws of thermodynamics are evidence. Matter and energy are not eternal and can't come into being from absolute nothing with no cause.
I have offered my explanation of how matter and energy came into existence. The first cause, the uncaused cause, was necessarily self-existent and eternal. God.
You are free to believe there is some other explanation that defies thermodynamics, but that is as much faith as faith in God.
Quote:
Disagree. A ball is guided toward the ground by gravity, not an intelligence.
Yes, but gravity is not a random event.
Mystical
Quote:
By the very logic given that everything has to have a cause, that would mean that even if the 'god' that had a son 'jesus' was in fact behind the creation of the universe..he had to come from somewhere. A cause BEFORE him. IE he was himself created by something. And that something was created by something. And that something was created by something. IE there still would be no logical 'first'. Saying 'oh be he is eternal and exist outside of time, and had no 'cause'' is identical to saying 'oh the matter and energy existed outside of time and had no 'cause'. Thus saying that the first matter in the big bang was a deity. Which I am pretty sure nobody believes. I could be mistaken however.
The law of thermodynamics does not prove that the 'god' that had a son 'jesus' is behind anything, or that he/she even exists
To my knowledge only non-Christians have brought Jesus into the discussion. And certainly I have never argued that the laws of thermodynamics imply the existence of Jesus in any way.
Oh, "Jesus" is supposed to be capitalized in the English language, as is "God" but you are free of course to continue to refer to them in lower case letters to show your disrespect for Christianity or whatever else you are trying to prove.
A painter is not bound by the painting he creates. The painter exists outside the boundaries of the painting that he painted.
God does not need a Creator. God is the first cause, the uncaused cause. He is self-existent and eternal.
The laws of thermodynamics make it clear the universe is not eternal and that matter and energy needed a first cause. God is a Spirit, not matter or energy.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 04:25 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
I don't think religious people should go in a closet and shut up or that any other group should do so either. Religious people have a right to be involved in politics too, just like everyone else. Atheists don't have a right to rule. Religious and non-religious people have a right to peaceably assemble and speak their minds.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Quote:
My argument has been the laws of thermodynamics are evidence. Matter and energy are not eternal and can't come into being from absolute nothing with no cause.
Your understanding of thermodynamics is completely wrong, but there's no hope in convincing you of this fact. So, believe what you want. Frankly, I've never understood why some people try to use science to justify their beliefs in the supernatural.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 04:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ
Quote:
Thermodynamics isn't really relevant here.
Oh but the laws of thermodynamics are very relevant here. We know the universe is not eternal and that matter and energy could not spontaneously come into being form absolute nothing with no cause.
We know nothing of that sort. Time is neither constant nor absolute, so even the term "eternal" is not free of pitfalls or even well-defined. Causality in the sense it is used in the macro-cosmos is a completely different beast on the quantum level. We have, in fact, not much of a clue about anything concerning the real nature of the universe.
I actually don't see any sense in claiming that either. I mean, it doesn't look like the world of science has come to the same conclusions than you, so why claim something it's clear you have no clue about? You start making claims, abusing scientific terminology and theories to conclude completely unscientifically things about matter, energy and "spirit" which to my knowledge is not scientifical.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 12:31 AM |
|
|
And I responded to your paragraph pointing out how they weren't merely egotistical or greedy. Yes, you can be of any faith and be such, and yes, there are as many greedy self centered atheists as anybody else. My argument is that they were so convinced of their godhood in their cults of personality that they could not possibly (on a technical level) be atheists.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And I responded to your paragraph pointing out how they weren't merely egotistical or greedy. Yes, you can be of any faith and be such, and yes, there are as many greedy self centered atheists as anybody else. My argument is that they were so convinced of their godhood in their cults of personality that they could not possibly (on a technical level) be atheists.
Show me where Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ect said they were gods. Reputable links please. I don't think you can.
Lots of pepole live as if they are the center of the universe. They doesn't mean they actually think they are a god. It just means they are selfish and egotistical.
Quote:
We know nothing of that sort. Time is neither constant nor absolute, so even the term "eternal" is not free of pitfalls or even well-defined. Causality in the sense it is used in the macro-cosmos is a completely different beast on the quantum level. We have, in fact, not much of a clue about anything concerning the real nature of the universe.
I actually don't see any sense in claiming that either. I mean, it doesn't look like the world of science has come to the same conclusions than you, so why claim something it's clear you have no clue about? You start making claims, abusing scientific terminology and theories to conclude completely unscientifically things about matter, energy and "spirit" which to my knowledge is not scientifical.
No, I'm abusing nothing. Are you claiming there is no entropy and so the universe could be eternal? Are you claiming out of absolute nothing something can pop into existecne without a cause?
Both of those notions violate the laws of thermodynamics. So your only claim could be that you believe (have faith that) the laws of thermodynamics are wrong and that the universe is eternal or that things can suddenly start to exist out of absolute nothing without a cuase. That takes a lot of faith.
Oh, there are a lot of scientist who do believe in God and who do point to the laws of thermodynamics.
I never said science said anything about spirits. Science can't detect a spirit so obviously sciecnce can say nothing of spirits. But that fact is science does say the universe is not eternal and that matter and energy can't pop into existence form absolute nothing with no cause.
Quote:
Frankly, I've never understood why some people try to use science to justify their beliefs in the supernatural.
The laws of thermodynamics are not why I believe in God. But they are evidece that point to the existence of God.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 02:49 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Oh, there are a lot of scientist who do believe in God and who do point to the laws of thermodynamics.
Could you please specify a cosmologist or astrophysicist who qualifies?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 05:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
Oh, there are a lot of scientist who do believe in God and who do point to the laws of thermodynamics.
Could you please specify a cosmologist or astrophysicist who qualifies?
http://www.valleypresbyterian.org/curriculum/science/quotes.htm
Paul Davies (astrophysicist)
Quote:
"The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe" astrophysicist Paul Davies; Superforce (1984)
Lord Kelvin
1824-1907 (William Thomson) British physicist; helped lay the foundations of thermodynamics.First and second laws of thermodynamics. Absolute temp scale. Trans-Atlantic cable.)
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."
Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.
Sir Fred Hoyle (Astrophysicist) (
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics as well as with the chemistry and biology are there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. ... The numbers that one calculates from the facts seem to be so overwhelming as to put this conclusion beyond question."
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/id5.html
Quote:
Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics & author): “Every thing and every event in the physical universe must depend for its explanation on something outside itself. When a phenomenon is explained, it is explained in terms of something else. But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god. The universe is the way it is because God has chosen it to be that way. Science, which by definition deals only with the physical universe, might successfully explain one thing in terms of another, and that in terms of another and so on, but the totality of physical things demands an explanation from without."
George Smoot (COBE Project Leader, astrophysisist):
Quote:
Regarding recent COBE findings: “‘What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe.’ He added, ‘It’s like looking at God’”9 and, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
Robert Griffiths (Heinemann recipient in mathematical physics):
“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 06:03 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:08, 10 Nov 2009.
|
Just as I figured. Thank you Elodin, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. The same old song and dance. "God is eternal, but the matter/energy can't be." Why? "Because I (or my book) says so." But what about another force/deity? "Nope, can't be them either." Why? "Because I (or my book) says so."
Then the claim comes that I do not respect Christianity. Sorry you don't get to claim what I do or do not believe or what I do or do not respect. I get to decide that. There is a difference in belief and fact. Your 'personal truth' is fine with me, but it is not fact. Fact is something that can be backed up. I do respect your personal truth as you see it, but you represent them as Fact. Which just is not the case.
I honestly don't care what you believe, I will respect your right to believe whatever that is. To have your own 'personal truth', if you told me that your 'personal truth' was that the Easter Bunny was Superman in disquise..I would respect that belief, but would not hold it as 'Fact'. I am sorry if you can not see the difference, and there is no disrespect meant in that statement (or any of this post).
Now as to this statement...
Quote:
There are many thousands of manuscripts of the Bible. Far far far more than of any other ancient document. The Bible is a historical document. There are various prophecies recorded in the Bible that have come true but I'm not going to write an essay referring to them either
Nostradomeus has more success rate in prophecies then the Bible, so maybe HE should be considered the Mesiah?
There are many writers (fiction writers like Stephen King) that have hundreds of books written by them. Maybe their works should be considered the true 'Bible'. You forget, as much as it is claimed that the Bible is divinely inspired..it was written by mans hand. Bah we went over this so I won't even bother going over it again. I've pretty much heard what I needed to hear. Thank you Elodin.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 08:47 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
I don't see a word about the laws of Thermodynamics. I see very generally phrased statement of faith that the body of laws of nature put a couple of them in awe and inspire them to rash conclusions.
From a scientific point of view, for the umptieth time I'm going to explain to you WHY the laws of Thermodynamics do not apply.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the laws of Thermodynamics are valid only for CLOSED systems. "Closed" system means that nothing comes in and nothing gets out, which, by the way, would include god, whether he is "spirit" or something else - since he is supposed to be able to interact with the physical universe it's not a closed system anymore.
As an example imagine a lake. If you take the lake and shrink-wrap it to isolate it from everything else, providing the shrink-wrap is really isolating things off, the lake is now a closed system and the laws of thermodynamics apply with all consequences. However a lake isn't isolated in reality, there's the climate, it rains, there's the sun that evaporates water, there are creeks who transport water to the lake and so on. It's an open system.
What does "open system" mean EXACTLY? I mean, if the universe is FINITE in some way, there will come the point when the system becomes a closed one automatically, right? Eventually there will come the point when you can say, that's all there is, right? Four dimensions, ten, who cares as long as their number is finite?
But it's not that easy, least of all with god. With god being spirit and able to create, where does he come from? What's more, with him being able to create everything out of nothing - he could do it again, couldn't he? Potentially the god-force makes everything completely open, unbounded and limitless.
The question has to be asked - why would the universe be limited or closed at all? Why would it have a beginning and an end?
Which brings up point 2: what is TIME?
Time isn't all that easy as it may look at first sight. Meanwhile we know that for every particle there is an anti-particle, and if particles are CREATED they are created in pairs. For all practical purposes it has been proven that anti-particles move BACKWARDS in time. This leads to the fantastic conclusion that there might be an antiverse, a mirror image of our own universe, made out of anti-particles with all charges being the other way round, where time flows into the other direction...
Is it necessary that there is a beginning and an end? Our macro-experience may make us nod at this, but there is actually not one good reason to assume that - if time runs in both direction, then what is the beginning here is the end there which would make it a circle.
Be that as it may, for SCIENTIFIC purposes it's enough to note that we haven't got enough information found to make any definite statements about the properties of the universe in any way that would allow to transfer the laws of thermodynamics onto the universe as a whole - just because a law is valid WITHIN a certain environment it doesn't have to be valid for the environment as a whole. In fact we have enough information available to be very suspicious about doing that.
Because that's how science works: If an assumption (transfer of laws of TD onto the whole of the universe) makes sense only when you have to assume forces you can't scientifically verify, you take that as a hint that the assumption is possibly wromng - otherwise you could leave science to the priests.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 10:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just as I figured. Thank you Elodin, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. The same old song and dance. "God is eternal, but the matter/energy can't be." Why? "Because I (or my book) says so." But what about another force/deity? "Nope, can't be them either." Why? "Because I (or my book) says so."
Once again you falsely claim I said things I did not say. I did not say "Because I (or my book) says so."
The laws of thermodynamics say matter can't be eternal. Ever hear of entropy? I mentioned it in this thread.
Quote:
Then the claim comes that I do not respect Christianity.
More false claims. I said, "Oh, "Jesus" is supposed to be capitalized in the English language, as is "God" but you are free of course to continue to refer to them in lower case letters to show your disrespect for Christianity or whatever else you are trying to prove."
Quote:
I honestly don't care what you believe, I will respect your right to believe whatever that is. To have your own 'personal truth', if you told me that your 'personal truth' was that the Easter Bunny was Superman in disquise..I would respect that belief, but would not hold it as 'Fact'. I am sorry if you can not see the difference, and there is no disrespect meant in that statement (or any of this post).
I honestly don't care what you believe or if you think I'm crazy for believing what I do. And I very well know the differences between facts and beliefs.
Quote:
Nostradomeus has more success rate in prophecies then the Bible, so maybe HE should be considered the Mesiah?
False statement. None of the prophecies in the Bible have failed.
Quote:
There are many writers (fiction writers like Stephen King) that have hundreds of books written by them. Maybe their works should be considered the true 'Bible'. You forget, as much as it is claimed that the Bible is divinely inspired..it was written by mans hand.
No, Stephen King says his writings are fiction so it would be stupid to say his writings are divine truth.
Like I said there are far far far more manuscripts of the Bible than of any other ancient document. The Bible is a historical document. Luke is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient historians.
Yeah, the Bible was written physically by man's hand but the words are those directed by the Spirit of God.
Quote:
I don't see a word about the laws of Thermodynamics.
Oh please. "When a phenomenon is explained, it is explained in terms of something else. But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural."
In other words the univers could not produce itself.
"What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe."
In other words the universe is not eternal.
The fact is the evidence is that the universe is not eternal and did not produce itself. Chose to reject that if you wan't to. I don't care. Atheism requires a lot of faith.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 10:30 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:33, 10 Nov 2009.
|
But the 'laws of thermodynamics' does not prove anything. At least not that YOUR god was the force/being behind it.
Edit : Which is the difference between your 'personal truth' (that God created the universe) and Fact (That we have no clue what created the universe..if anything).
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 12:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see a word about the laws of Thermodynamics.
Oh please. "When a phenomenon is explained, it is explained in terms of something else. But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural."
In other words the univers could not produce itself.
"What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe."
In other words the universe is not eternal.
The fact is the evidence is that the universe is not eternal and did not produce itself. Chose to reject that if you wan't to. I don't care. Atheism requires a lot of faith.
You are just throwing around apples and oranges and mix them as you like because in that quote you use the word "universe" in several different meanings. You cannot DEFINE reality and say, if I define reality this way than I can explain it only that way. That's not how science works. With science you look what there is and don't define hat you would like to be there, and science has no clue about "the entire physical universe".
And the evidence they found for the birth of the universe is neither convincing nor is that "universe" in that quote "all of existance".
As I'm not tired to repeat - we have no clue about "all of existance" nor do we have a clue about "the entire physical universe" which isn't necessarily (and very likely) not the same thing.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 03:48 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin, I don't see anything about thermodynamics in there anywhere.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
