Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Questions I would like to pose to athiests
If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from? Why do so many people feel the need to worship? If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones? If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Is hope just a random chance of roulette? There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma?
Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests
reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 03:33 If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from? I've no idea, but at least I'll be honest about the fact I've no idea. If someone thinks they know the answers to these questions, they'd better be ready for the follow-up questions. Quote: Why do so many people feel the need to worship? I'm not sure, but if I can reply to the question with a question, why are so many people wrong in what they worship? Quote: If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? Whoah, whoah, whoah, steady on there. Since when was "significance" and "meaning" in life a synonym for a god? You're not saying that the only way a life could have "meaning" is if that meaning was determined by a super-powerful celestial dictator? I do think that life is an experience and I do think it'll end, but I wouldn't use the words "nothing more" in that sentence and I certainly wouldn't call it a waste of time. You have a child, don't you? Quote: Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones? Your statement about intelligence and reasoning surely is one possible answer to the first question. The second one's an evolutionary matter. Quote: If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Again, why are you equating these two concepts? You might as well swap "God" for "Kim Jong-Il" or "McDonalds" Quote: Is hope just a random chance of roulette? How are you defining hope? Quote: There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma? Universal...? Well, the concept of God doesn't qualify as that. Read the bible - the character of Yahweh is absolutely monstrous. If we were to suppose that there isn't a "universal force of fairness and equality", then that's all the more reason to create as fair a system of laws as we can.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 I've no idea, but at least I'll be honest about the fact I've no idea. If someone thinks they know the answers to these questions, they'd better be ready for the follow-up questions. What possible explanation could satisfy the question? Does this not make you ponder that there could be a God? Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 I'm not sure, but if I can reply to the question with a question, why are so many people wrong in what they worship? Perhaps that is not the important part of the question, perhaps it's the fact that so many people do worship that should be interesting? Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 Whoah, whoah, whoah, steady on there. Since when was "significance" and "meaning" in life a synonym for a god? You're not saying that the only way a life could have "meaning" is if that meaning was determined by a super-powerful celestial dictator? I do think that life is an experience and I do think it'll end, but I wouldn't use the words "nothing more" in that sentence and I certainly wouldn't call it a waste of time. You have a child, don't you? I'm saying what's the point of learning if what you gained is lost when you die. What will your experiances matter to anyone in a 1000 years time? If there is no real lesson plan for us, as there is no teacher, then why bother going to class? I do have a child, she means more to me than anyone else. I would face anything for her well being. If I cease to exist when I die, then I would not be sad. However, if you cannot reflect on your past (because you do not exist), then those experiances you had are lost. Everything you take in is unique to you. All your experiences are interpretted by you, so are unique. If you cease to exist, then what was the point of you experiancing them if they are lost? Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 Your statement about intelligence and reasoning surely is one possible answer to the first question. The second one's an evolutionary matter. I was trying to say that Yes we are different to the other animals, but why are we the only ones with higher reasoning? No other animals have been capable of gaining this level of reasoning over the period of time the Earth has existed? Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 Again, why are you equating these two concepts? You might as well swap "God" for "Kim Jong-Il" or "McDonalds" Because people can have faith in a God that their prayers will be heard. If it is just chance, then you just have to wait and see. Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 How are you defining hope? I am asking you how you define it. You are in a room with a murderer holding a gun who hates you. You hope he doesn't kill you. Do you hope for a 1 in a million chance, but realsie you're probably going to die as that is extremely far fetched? Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 Universal...? Well, the concept of God doesn't qualify as that. Read the bible - the character of Yahweh is absolutely monstrous. If we were to suppose that there isn't a "universal force of fairness and equality", then that's all the more reason to create as fair a system of laws as we can. Yeah, you're right. But logically there are people that will miss out. Are you saying that some pople exist, have bad luck, and then die? There is no higher power at work that can save them, or causing them to have this existance so they can learn this hardship? They have this lot in life, experienace some shittyness, then just cease to exist? What's the point of their life?
you're dumb. please stop being dumb. reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 03:33 If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from? Where does god come from? If he can just be there without reason, so can the universe. Quote: Why do so many people feel the need to worship? 1. Why do so many people feel the need to worship SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS? 2. why do so many people listen to ke$ha? cause dum. k? Quote: If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? do you realize just how dumb you are? Quote: Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones? your reasoning seems to be about as high as that one of a giraffe Quote: If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Is hope just a random chance of roulette? There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma? yes. does that bother you?
Quote: Yeah, you're right. But logically there are people that will miss out. Are you saying that some pople exist, have bad luck, and then die? There is no higher power at work that can save them, or causing them to have this existance so they can learn this hardship? They have this lot in life, experienace some shittyness, then just cease to exist? What's the point of their life? You're right, the fact that half a billion people are severely underfed is totally an argument in favor of the existence of a deity, not against it. ololo
Herr Surth wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 06:53 you're dumb. please stop being dumb. I never said I believed, I was curious about the answers people had. I do not believe it is worth replying to you further, as you're just rude.
your curiosity is just as dumb. you silly troll you.
reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:28 What possible explanation could satisfy the question? Does this not make you ponder that there could be a God? there are two problems with that. firstly that doesn't answer the question at all, it aggravates the question. now instead of having to explain the origin of a few blobs of hydrogen or whatever, you've got to explain the origin of a super-powerful entity capable of willing planets and stars and shit into existence, and creating life on a whim. this isn't progress. secondly, the furthest this could get you is deism, not theism. you use the word God in singular with a capital G - anyone reading this is likely to think you're talking about the Judeo-Christian one, as opposed to say Thor or Zeus. the closest anybody's ever come to inferring the existence of a deity is by saying they don't know how something could have happened; there's an enormous logical gap between that (i.e. supposing that maybe some entity did it on purpose) and determining that entity's qualities (such as: "He listens to my prayers" or "He disapproves of homosexuals" or indeed thinking that He is the right word to use here) btw, if you have an hour to spare, let me recommend the lecture A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 I'm not sure, but if I can reply to the question with a question, why are so many people wrong in what they worship? Perhaps that is not the important part of the question, perhaps it's the fact that so many people do worship that should be interesting? No, I think the follow-up question is more important. "Why do so many people think this?" Well, are they right to think it? We're fallible. The mind plays tricks, and there are people out there who profit by misleading us. Here's another point. Your question implies that there's a majority of people in the world who believe in a god. Well, look at it another way. The majority of people in the world do not think Christianity is correct (and if you split Christianity down into its innumerable different sects, the numbers are even more damning). The majority of people in the world do not think Islam is correct. The majority of people in the world do not think Hinduism is correct. I could go on. There's no religion that cannot be inserted into that sentence. Quote: I'm saying what's the point of learning if what you gained is lost when you die. What will your experiances matter to anyone in a 1000 years time? If there is no real lesson plan for us, as there is no teacher, then why bother going to class? Isn't life wonderful for its own sake? Doesn't it rather devalue human life to suppose that its meaning must be determined by a god we've got to obey, that we're being tested in preparation for an afterlife, etc? What will my life matter to anyone in 1000 years time? I couldn't care less. Most people's endeavours won't matter in that timeframe. Maybe if someone develops a cure for cancer or something, but if you're going to say human life is a waste of time then it seems you shouldn't be impressed by that either. Quote: I do have a child, she means more to me than anyone else. I would face anything for her well being. If I cease to exist when I die, then I would not be sad. There you go. Life for you has meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with a god. Quote: However, if you cannot reflect on your past (because you do not exist), then those experiances you had are lost. Everything you take in is unique to you. All your experiences are interpretted by you, so are unique. If you cease to exist, then what was the point of you experiancing them if they are lost? this question's very easy to turn on its head. if death is the end, if there's no afterlife, then this life is all we have and it becomes even more precious, so let's make the best of it for ourselves, our children and our fellow creatures, and let's try to keep the world intact for succeeding generations. if you think that's a waste of time, i invite you to say so. Quote: I was trying to say that Yes we are different to the other animals, but why are we the only ones with higher reasoning? No other animals have been capable of gaining this level of reasoning over the period of time the Earth has existed? once homo sapiens starts to develop intellectually, it becomes an upward spiral. figuring out how to use tools, standing upright which lets us develop bigger brains, etc... it's like saying once a child can read it'll learn stuff a lot faster. Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 Again, why are you equating these two concepts? You might as well swap "God" for "Kim Jong-Il" or "McDonalds" Because people can have faith in a God that their prayers will be heard. If it is just chance, then you just have to wait and see. or do something about it yourself instead of wasting your time praying Quote: Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 05:15 How are you defining hope? I am asking you how you define it. You are in a room with a murderer holding a gun who hates you. You hope he doesn't kill you. Do you hope for a 1 in a million chance, but realsie you're probably going to die as that is extremely far fetched? the chances that the police will burst in, or that i can talk my way out of it, or that i can live my life in such a way that nobody hates me enough that they want to risk a hefty prison sentence on my life's account... the chances of any of those are much much greater than one in a million, and they're probably a lot greater than the odds that an intervening God exists. however, there's a problem with the 3rd option - that i can live my life in such a way that nobody hates me that much. the problem with that is there are people in the world who loathe everyone here with a level of murderous bloodthirst that none of us really appreciate. and why? religion. Quote: Yeah, you're right. But logically there are people that will miss out. Are you saying that some pople exist, have bad luck, and then die? There is no higher power at work that can save them, or causing them to have this existance so they can learn this hardship? They have this lot in life, experienace some shittyness, then just cease to exist? What's the point of their life? certainly the governments in place could be better than they are (although it absolutely must be said that governments work better in every way when religion is kept out of them), but they work a shitload better than the concept of god would. see my earlier statement about the sheer monstrousness of the depiction of Yahweh in the bible. if what christians keep saying is true, people like me are going to be tortured for ever just for what we think. well, even the poor people of North Korea have a better deal than that.
I never believed the theory of 'the big bang.' IMO, it just contradicts itself. Nothing within nothing creates something that creates everything? What?
It's more along the lines of a singularity 'exploding', so the question is what created the singularity OR what caused the singularity to form. Herr suth has had the best post here.
Quote: A rather weird theory would be to say that the Universe really just holds a circle of events. For example a million trillion days from now in this universe, I will be sitting on my chair typing this essay. You could also say that a million trillion days ago in the universe I will be sitting down on this chair typing out this essay; the world exists in such a way that the universe doesn't have to literally add days on, time just moves around the cycle.{so time is infinite} I wrote this a while back, it's part of an essay so it might seem a bit out of context. Have you ever heard of the "big crunch" theory? That would explain how the universe would end. Another "big bang" would occur and everything would happen again. The thing about the Big Bang Theory is that if any variable such as gravity was even slightly different, the universe would not be able to hold life. For example if the value of gravity was too high, stars would not form. If it was too low matter would float out from the blast and nothing would happen. So it's questionable how in this one universe life exists, by something as "random" as the big bang. Edit:sorry for the double post
They say that for a lot of things. "If concentration of THIS was just a little bit less or a little bit more, life couldn't be sustained." However, when you think about it, it isn't really that amazing that the concentration of forces and elements are so perfect to hold life. Why? Because it's only measuring life by our standards of living. If you support the theory of evolution, then reason stands that even if various concentrations of universal forces and matter were totally different from what they actually are, life could have just as easily been created... however they would be living under those circumstances saying to themselves "wow, if our planet had even the slightest bit of oxygen, we could have never had a chance at life!" And that doesn't just count for life forms, it would also count for stars and planets as well. Perhaps in another universe, stars don't exist because they couldn't be created. That doesn't mean life couldn't have found another way. Sure, it would mean that OUR life would be impossible (or perhaps even the stability of OUR universe as we know it) but it doesn't mean that some other way for life to develop couldn't have taken place instead.
the universe creation is a circular argument. Some believe that God/Gods created it, but then the underlying question is who created him/her? On the other hand, if it wasn't God, who was it, someone had to precede and create the universe, and so who/what created him? and who/what created the thing who/what created the universe? But in the end, something had to create the universe, an thus some type of higher being so atheists lose on this debate. Logic fails them to win on this argument.
appshot wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 17:48 ...On the other hand, if it wasn't God, who was it, someone had to precede and create the universe... Why do you assume that "someone" had to precede everything? Why does it have to have been a person? A person doesn't have to be the thing to set everything into motion... so there is no logical reason to assume anything about some "higher being."
@R3: you make a good point, but I doubt any one man, or even a team of scientists could tell us if intelligent life is possible by using completely different elements than the ones we are made of. It really is more of a scientific question than a philosophical one though. @appshot: it could perhaps be normal for matter to exist. Matter(well, energy) cannot be created or destroyed, so either the laws of physics CAN change, and somehow energy was created, or energy has existed for an infinite time. (assuming there is no god). However actual infinitude are thought to be logically impossible (check the internets), unless it goes in a loop. Edit: R3: a conscious being can create the universe for intelligent life, a random event is less likely to do so. Question: how less likely?
Less likely, sure... but not impossible. But to be honest, there really is no point in debating it. No matter what the answer is, our minds can't comprehend it (at least in this point in time). It's like trying to imagine what an object would look like without any color or shade. It isn't possible for our minds to do that.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 11:26 I never believed the theory of 'the big bang.' IMO, it just contradicts itself. Nothing within nothing creates something that creates everything? What? Makes much more sense than the idea of some ancient boat-builder going around and gathering a male and female of every species of creature from the far reaches of the Earth, including the millions of different varieties of insects, then keeping them all alive and obedient on his aforementioned boat for over a month. One of the main reason the "big bang" theory holds and water is because it at least makes an attempt to understand the science and physics behind it, your oversimplified interpretation not withstanding. It makes itself accountable to something, rather than just copping out with "Let there be light". Of course, human knowledge is incomplete, and nobody really -knows- how existence came to exist. I'm not sure anyone reasonable would ever claim otherwise. It's just simply the best explanation we have right now given our current level of information. Which is another reason why the big bang theory is awesome. If ever one day we can prove it's wrong, we just throw it out. No burning at the stake required.
Pyr0man1c wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 15:07 @appshot: it could perhaps be normal for matter to exist. Matter(well, energy) cannot be created or destroyed, so either the laws of physics CAN change, and somehow energy was created, or energy has existed for an infinite time. (assuming there is no god). However actual infinitude are thought to be logically impossible (check the internets), unless it goes in a loop. We already know the laws of physics as we know them haven't always held true. In order for the universe to reach the (known) size it is now, matter would have to have traveled at faster than the speed of light shortly after (Our estimated time of) the "big bang". As for your infinite loop, it's very possible. One possible theory is the "Closed Universe" theory, which assumes that the force of gravity is strong enough to slow down and eventually reverse the expansion of the universe (As opposed to "Open Universe" theories that say that the force of gravity is NOT strong enough to overcome the expansion of the universe, and that the the universe is a one-shot affair). This would mean that, at "the end of time", the universe will eventually re-condense into another super-singularity and the big bang will repeat itself all over again. It doesn't explain how it all came into being in the first place, but there is something poetic about it.
anyone watched the lecture i linked to? sum total of the universe is zero thanks to negative energy. matter and energy are interchangeable. so if he's right, the universe can come from nothing. Quote: the universe creation is a circular argument. Some believe that God/Gods created it, but then the underlying question is who created him/her? On the other hand, if it wasn't God, who was it, someone had to precede and create the universe, and so who/what created him? and who/what created the thing who/what created the universe? But in the end, something had to create the universe, an thus some type of higher being so atheists lose on this debate. Logic fails them to win on this argument. you misunderstand atheism. it's a rejection of theism, not deism. theism is the claim that not only is there a god(s) but that we can know and indeed do know a lot of stuff about it/them, e.g. that he listens to our prayers and disapproves of homosexuality. to be an atheist all you need to really do is reject the VERY SPECIFIC claims made by the religious.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 19:52 anyone watched the lecture i linked to? sum total of the universe is zero thanks to negative energy. matter and energy are interchangeable. so if he's right, the universe can come from nothing. I think it's the other way around... but I have no experience in this so correct me if I'm wrong. 1 + -1 = 0. With energy plus negative energy you get nothing, correct? But doesn't that only work in one way? You can't add or subtract something from nothing and get something, but you can add or subtract something and something to get nothing. 0 + 0 - 0 = 0 and 0 / X = ????? but 1 - 1 = 0 Let's say that 1000 is the value of all energy in the universe. Let's also say that -1000 is the value of all negative energy. If you combine these two entities into one, you get nothing in return. However, how do you go about doing that in the other direction? That theory shows that it's possible to obtain nothing by combining everything. However, what it doesn't explain is how to divide nothing to gain something.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 00:52 anyone watched the lecture i linked to? sum total of the universe is zero thanks to negative energy. matter and energy are interchangeable. so if he's right, the universe can come from nothing. Quote: the universe creation is a circular argument. Some believe that God/Gods created it, but then the underlying question is who created him/her? On the other hand, if it wasn't God, who was it, someone had to precede and create the universe, and so who/what created him? and who/what created the thing who/what created the universe? But in the end, something had to create the universe, an thus some type of higher being so atheists lose on this debate. Logic fails them to win on this argument. you misunderstand atheism. it's a rejection of theism, not deism. theism is the claim that not only is there a god(s) but that we can know and indeed do know a lot of stuff about it/them, e.g. that he listens to our prayers and disapproves of homosexuality. to be an atheist all you need to really do is reject the VERY SPECIFIC claims made by the religious. Yeah I watched it all, I personally find things on astronomy very interesting so it was actually time well spent. However like the lecturer said there are people who agree with him and people who disagree with him. Not just random people who know very little about the subject its people who are very respected in their fields. So it all comes down to what you personally think. Good watch though.
I always thought of it this way, if there is a god, why take your chances? if there is not a god then ok but if there is, its to late your fucked when you die, but its more then that its a faith that brings you happiness and most people who I know who are religious are good hard working people, while most people who dont believe him so they think they can create all chaos they want which led to horrible things. Yes alot of people take religion and turn it into something bad cults, terrorist, but we only notice them for that reason while more of the world has crime create form the ones who don't believe. On a side note, what if, just if the big bang was real, the way we were created and evolved was real, but what if god was behind all of that.
(SSnipe) -BLU3Y3Z- wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 04:45 I always thought of it this way, if there is a god, why take your chances? if there is not a god then ok but if there is, its to late your fucked when you die this is what religion always boils down to in the end... threats. by "take your chances" i presume you mean being honest about having doubts about the extremely specific claims made by religion, bearing in mind the complete lack of evidence for them. secondly, belief isn't a choice. i don't know how your mind works, but i can't choose to believe something even if i'm threatened with punishment if i don't. thirdly, there are several contradictory religions who make this threat. the pope says only catholics are going to heaven and other non-catholic christians are going to hell with all the other atheists. some protestant churches say the same thing in reverse. islam says all non-muslims are going to hell. who's right, blu3y3z? which of these if any are correct, and which are liars and frauds? fourthly, you're saying this god of yours is going to torture people just for not being convinced of his existence (again, see above re: complete lack of evidence). what a colossal prick. what a cruel, merciless monster this god of yours seems to be. you want to worship something as evil as that? what does this say about you? Quote: but its more then that its a faith that brings you happiness and most people who I know who are religious are good hard working people, while most people who dont believe him so they think they can create all chaos they want which led to horrible things. Yes alot of people take religion and turn it into something bad cults, terrorist, but we only notice them for that reason while more of the world has crime create form the ones who don't believe. interesting you say that. you're pro-torture and anti-freedom of religion, and the reason you take these extraordinary positions is religion. you wouldn't think that if it wasn't for religion, surely. you talk about people "taking religion and turning it into cults and terrorists". well, i presume you consider yourself a moderate, yet you're anti-freedom of religion and pro-torture as a punishment for not being the right religion. as for the fundamentalists, i hope you're aware that islamic jihadism isn't a misinterpretation or corruption of the quran and hadith. i invite you to read them. "most people don't believe him so they think they can create all chaos they want" - the religious always like to find a hidden agenda for anyone who doesn't believe their extremely specific claims. it can't be because you've got fuck all evidence or because your holy book is revolting, can it? "more of the world has crime create form the ones who don't believe." in america, the proportion of prison inmates who are atheists is significantly lower than the proportion of atheists in the free population. i wouldn't necessarily argue that this proves anything, but you said it. as for the rest of the world, the more secular countries always do best in societal health - low crime, good education, good health, low teenage pregnancy etc. Quote: On a side note, what if, just if the big bang was real, the way we were created and evolved was real, but what if god was behind all of that. like i said, you take the problem and you grossly multiply it. you go from having to explain the origin of a few blobs of hydrogen or whatever, to having to explain the origin of an enormously powerful creature. this is not progress.
I don't need a church to tell me how to be a decent person. And also religion has been all about "Do what I say to do or your damned for all of eternity" ....sounds like more of a threat than a chance for enlightenment.
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! Also include laws of space, time and force constants and you have a delicious recipe for a universe. As the soup cooled, the space around it expanded slightly. Matter had anti-matter, and when matter collided with anti-matter it is destroyed releasing pure energy. There was more matter than anti-matter and that is why there was some left over. After roughly 3 minutes the universe is the size of a football, around 3000 million kelvin in temperature. At this time, in the tiniest fraction of a second, it expanded by millions of light years in all directions. As the universe cooled down simple particles formed, and atoms and eventually the universe we know today.
jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
Do you mean an infinite cosmos? Even then everything that could happen might not, depending on the rules of the cosmos. And what evidence do we have that there is one?
I classify myself as an atheist. I was given the great gift (thought they may not have known it at the time) of not being taken to a church for regular worship. Though I will admit I did attend a couple of "Vacation Bible Schools" as a kid but even then I thought the whole idea of the "imaginary friend" that is the Judeo-Christian "God" to be silly and felt the people around me were delusional. But I digress... As for the creation of the universe, I like the idea of the infinite universe, the zero-sum concept. I'm going to watch that video tomorrow as I am very intrigued. Before reading this thread, I had always said that I'm open to the possibility that some conscious being started the Big Bang and/or created the conditions for it to exist. But, that being said, to also go on to say that this being requires me to worship it, will subject me to heaven or hell when I die, listens to me if I pray... that is wayyyy too far-fetched for me. From here on the outside of religion, I see it simply as a form of mass control. The root being threat of eternal hell if you fuck up. The "Powers That Be" decided to prey on peoples' fear of what happens when you die to create a hard-to-refute scenario (since no one can tell you what happens after you die, I believe you cease to be, but I secretly hope you reincarnate and start all over) where if you are bad, even if no one sees you do it, Lord Almighty sees you do it and you'll be judged to be damned to hell after you die. It's a GREAT way to control massive amounts of people! Everything else was added on after the fact. Prayer is a way to get you into a ritual where you are constantly reminded of Big Brother watching your every move. But, believing that after this, there's nothing, I am driven only to be as good to others as I can be and enjoy the time I have here, however long it may be. I don't need the threat of eternal damnation. There's enough punishment here in life, and I usually end up getting punished in a karmic way if I do something I shouldn't do and don't get caught. As for Pascal's Wager that was posed earlier, I believe that if there is in fact a judgment after I die, a silly little thing like not believing in something I can't perceive with any of my 5 senses isn't going to keep me from an eternal reward if I've been relatively good.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! I'm not sure where you're getting "However, it is also true that one day the universe must end...". That's a mighty big claim you're leaving completely unsupported out there. I'm sure it's feeling pretty lonely and would appreciate the company of some explanation. At any rate, I wouldn't be so hasty with calling things paradoxes. Neither you nor I can fathom the concept of "the end of time", so neither you or I are in any position to say what's paradoxical and what isn't. A one-sided geometrical shape seems pretty paradoxical at first glance, too. If you've ever studied calculus, I'm sure you recall the first time hearing that "9.999999999..." repeated endlessly and "10" are actually the same number, and I'm sure that probably struck you as paradoxical at the time. For someone who doesn't seem to understand all of this very well (And doesn't seem to be trying to understand very hard), you're certainly stubborn in trying to "refute" all of this.
We live in a 4 dimensional world, obviously the 4th one being time. There doesn't have to be this concept in the cosmos, there could be one - or millions of dimensions! Like I said, the laws of physics are unknown and no one can say or predict what happens there. And, it doesn't even have to "expand" or come to an end. It could have existed for an infinite time and it will last for an infinite time. It could be infinite in all dimensions (if there are any!) or a tiny singularity. You also never know, it could be turmoil there; and any day or any time our universe may just cease to exist.
No, you're right. I had a hard time picking the word for what I said. Admittedly, I don't think paradox is the right one, but what other would could I use? Dover wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 08:22 I'm not sure where you're getting "However, it is also true that one day the universe must end...". That's a mighty big claim you're leaving completely unsupported out there. I'm sure it's feeling pretty lonely and would appreciate the company of some explanation. I don't have to explain it. You did it for me. You said that anything and everything would have to happen, correct? The universe ending is something that would therefore have to end up happening... eventually.
Crimson wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 03:35 (since no one can tell you what happens after you die, I believe you cease to be, but I secretly hope you reincarnate and start all over) Just wondering what you mean by reincarnation? Why would wou want to be reincarnated?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 09:40 No, you're right. I had a hard time picking the word for what I said. Admittedly, I don't think paradox is the right one, but what other would could I use? Well, in elementary school, people would raise their hand and say "I don't get it" when they didn't understand something, not "This is wrong." R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 09:40 Dover wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 08:22 I'm not sure where you're getting "However, it is also true that one day the universe must end...". That's a mighty big claim you're leaving completely unsupported out there. I'm sure it's feeling pretty lonely and would appreciate the company of some explanation. I don't have to explain it. You did it for me. You said that anything and everything would have to happen, correct? The universe ending is something that would therefore have to end up happening... eventually. Reread what I said carefully. Anything that can happen, must happen. Assuming the universe in truly infinite, if time ends the universe is no longer infinite and the statement no longer holds. No paradox, just a finite universe. You're also making the assumption that time ending is something that "can happen". The theory behind what I said is that any number greater than zero muliplied by infinity will yield infinity, which in statistical terms is the surest guarantee you can ever have that something will happen. This is not the case if you multiply infinity by zero (in which case you get just zero). Without knowing more about "the end of time", neither of us can say for sure what the odds of it occurring are. This is entirely different from the things mentioned earlier in this thread (like the laws of physics no longer applying, or a big bang occurring), because we "know" (As much as we can "know") that they have already occured at least once, and therefore the probability of it happening again are greater than zero.
Thinking about it again, paradox was the correct word to use. If everything must happen, then the end of the universe must be one of the things to happen. Anything that begins must eventually come to an end. That's how our level of reality works. If the universe is infinite, then it can't end. But if it can't end, then it is therefore not infinite because that is something that can't happen. For something to be infinite, there can't be anything that cannot happen; even if it doesn't make any sense to us. What I was saying earlier is that we can't comprehend a lot of things that is supposed to happen in the universe. That means that it is very possible for the laws of physics, logic, and reality to change drastically. However, despite that, it doesn't change the idea that an infinite universe must encompass all things possible. All things in our level of reality included; meaning all things must eventually come to an end. I don't think that the concept of infinity can really be applied to the universe. Perhaps there is a concept, other than infinity, that isn't possible for humans to comprehend. Think about it, infinity really isn't a hard concept to understand. It's a human concept after all. It just means endless possibilities. If the universe really has states that we can't understand, why are we so sure that it can be measured by a human concept? That goes beyond simply not understanding how a scenario plays out... it goes to a level where we just can't measure the vastness of what the universe encompasses. For example, to us, there are two ways to order things: Sequentially and non-sequentially. But what if there is a concept that we just can't comprehend? Counting (1,2,3,....) in a different dimension could be totally different then we know of it. So why assume that the vastness of the universe can be measured by the human concept of infinity?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 19:43 Thinking about it again, paradox was the correct word to use. If everything must happen, then the end of the universe must be one of the things to happen. Anything that begins must eventually come to an end. That's how our level of reality works. If the universe is infinite, then it can't end. But if it can't end, then it is therefore not infinite because that is something that can't happen. For something to be infinite, there can't be anything that cannot happen; even if it doesn't make any sense to us. What I was saying earlier is that we can't comprehend a lot of things that is supposed to happen in the universe. That means that it is very possible for the laws of physics, logic, and reality to change drastically. However, despite that, it doesn't change the idea that an infinite universe must encompass all things possible. All things in our level of reality included; meaning all things must eventually come to an end. It's like you didn't read my response. If you did, you certainly didn't understand it. Let me try going slower; 1) There is a certain probability that any given event will occur. 2) If that probability is greater than zero... 3) and given an infinite amount of time... 4) then that event will eventually occur. Does "the universe coming to an end" satisfy condition 2? If you think so, why?
Quote: Why do so many people feel the need to worship? People believe in a God because they need something in life to hold on to. Things like Gods give them hope and make life just that much easier for them. People who believe in something higher always have the idea that there is someone who always listens to them and makes them feel good, because they always have someone with them who they "know" and trust. Quote: If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? Life and death are still something we do not know much about. I have read a lot about these subjects, but there is no clear answer yet. I have been baptized/holy communion etc. I grew up being a catholic, but I would rather call myself an atheist. I believe in an afterlife, but not in a so-called "heaven" or "hell". I am very confident that there are things around us, which we often call "ghosts" or "spirits", the souls of the deceased. But this has nothing to do with worshiping a god or religions. Life after death and the significance of life is a globally discussed subject. First, the significance of life. While reading books and articles on the internet I encountered this question many times. There are many different answers to it, but the one that I found most interesting was the following: "We are (re)born with a purpose. We contribute to the world for our successors. We are born with a task to complete and to gain more experience to grow. Then, when we are reborn again, we will have more experience already and become a better, more successful person. When we have served our purpose about eight times you become an elderly spirit (the wisest of all) and you have lived eight human lives already. When that time is up, your spirit/soul will move to the astral world and you have the ability to travel between several dimensions. You are a free spirit that will (probably) never be reborn again. But remember that during the time on earth, you have shared your experience with much younger spirits and created a better world." Now the life after death part. I have read a lot of stories on near-death-experiences, ghost encounters (apparitions) and more paranormal things (now don't laugh at me, it's just what I'm interested in). When my grandmother was in the hospital in a bad condition, in her dream (don't know if it was a dream/lucid dream or reality) she saw her husband (my grandfather), who told her to come to him, because he missed her so much. He wanted to be with her. A few days later my grandmother died, but before that, she told this story to my mother, who then told me the story about 6 months ago. This, for me, is enough proof that there is something after death. Also people with near-death-experiences. It cannot be a coincidence that everyone has the same experience when they are on the verge of life and death, it's impossible to be a coincidence. There are even stories of people who had been blind for their entire life who had a near-death-experience. These people had never been able to see hospital equipment, but after they had a near-death-experience and found themselves floating over their dead bodies, they could describe in detail what the room looked like, what the equipment looked like and even what the doctors looked like! A friend of mine had a theory, which he thought would prove that there was life after death. This one: "On this very day, you still have memories of your childhood, last year's birthday party, holidays etc. Would it sound logical if this all ends when you are dead? All those well kept memories vanish, just like that." A scientist would say that it's possible, because after death, there is no more brain activity. A paranormal person would say that it is not possible for those memories to vanish, because they are kept in the subconscious, which is the soul and not the brain (like scientists would say). Now back to your questions. I understand that you want to have answers to your questions, but it would be better to ask your questions in a different way. Because the majority of them has nothing to do with religion, they are just commonly asked questions which can be answered by any random person, religious or not. I also suggest you start looking up articles or books on those subjects, compare the answers and draw your own conclusions, because the things you are asking for now, are nothing more than opinions.
Pyr0man1c wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 01:29 We don't live in an infinite universe? Debatable, especially in regards to time. In spatial terms, if we have an "open universe" (Gravity is insufficient to reverse the universe's expansion), then we do live in an infinite universe in the strictest sense. The mathematical definition of infinite is "To increase without bound". We know for a fact that the size of universe is increasing, and unless some force exists to curb its expansion, then "infinite" is the exactly proper term for it.
True, but the amount of matter isn't increasing (as far as we know), and so i don't think we can describe the universe as "infinite". Infinite in time and space maybe, but that's quite different.
Dover wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 02:52 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 19:43 Thinking about it again, paradox was the correct word to use. If everything must happen, then the end of the universe must be one of the things to happen. Anything that begins must eventually come to an end. That's how our level of reality works. If the universe is infinite, then it can't end. But if it can't end, then it is therefore not infinite because that is something that can't happen. For something to be infinite, there can't be anything that cannot happen; even if it doesn't make any sense to us. What I was saying earlier is that we can't comprehend a lot of things that is supposed to happen in the universe. That means that it is very possible for the laws of physics, logic, and reality to change drastically. However, despite that, it doesn't change the idea that an infinite universe must encompass all things possible. All things in our level of reality included; meaning all things must eventually come to an end. It's like you didn't read my response. If you did, you certainly didn't understand it. Let me try going slower; 1) There is a certain probability that any given event will occur. 2) If that probability is greater than zero... 3) and given an infinite amount of time... 4) then that event will eventually occur. Does "the universe coming to an end" satisfy condition 2? If you think so, why? That's what the second part of my post pertains to (the part you failed to quote.) You're only talking about time and the probability of something happening according to our (human) way of comprehension. The term infinity is similar to the term omnipotent in that both are used to describe the presence of all things. Just like mathematical number sets such as whole numbers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.....] odd numbers [1, 3, 5, 7, 9,....] Integers [...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....] etc. An infinite set encompasses every single combination of numbers possible. From every single number to every single tiny trillionth decimal place and forever onward. There is literally no end to each number and no end to the amount of numbers in this set. If any one element of this set is not present, then, by definition, the set cannot be considered infinite. This includes the number 0, which is symbolic for nothing or the absence of something. Therefore, when you're talking about things in terms of reality, this also has to encompass things that have 0% probability of happening. Something with a 0% probability obviously doesn't exist and cannot happen, however it still needs to be calculated if the universe is truly infinite. It's the lack of their probability to happen that needs to be observed and taken into consideration. Whether or not the universe can truly end is beyond our understanding, but if the universe is truly infinite we have to accept that the idea of it ending (or lack there of) cannot be omitted. Doing so would be like omitting the number 0 from the number set infinity; if you do that, the number set is no longer considered infinite. So, taking away the idea of the universe ending means that the universe is therefore not infinite.
I never really see why science and the belief in a higher being are mutually exclusive... I guess because of the general retardation that religious folk bring, but still. I think it's rather reasonable to assume the big bang happened as science described it, and that was caused by some greater being. That being said, the bible/quar'ran/torah/etc aren't factbooks, and everyone who takes them as such should be removed from society. They're storybooks with interesting tales and some (repeat: some) lessons in them. Not a guidebook or a factbook.
Oh, I see the problem. You don't know what "infinite" means. You think it means "all numbers", for some strange reason. Again, you're making things complicated than they are on behalf of your ignorance. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:47 You're only talking about time and the probability of something happening according to our (human) way of comprehension. Obviously. What other way of comprehension do we know about? R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:47 The term infinity is similar to the term omnipotent in that both are used to describe the presence of all things. Incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite If you took a given number "x", and began to add (or subtract) any other given non-zero number "y" to (from) x repeatedly without end, you would still end up at infinity (or negative infinity), even though you would obviously "miss" numbers that are not multiples of y. The condition of not having a bound or ending point is still satisfied. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:47 Just like mathematical number sets such as whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.....) odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9,....) Integers (...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....) etc. An infinite set encompasses every single combination of numbers possible. From every single number to every single tiny trillionth decimal place and forever onward. There is literally no end to each number and no end to the amount of numbers in this set. You're obviously confused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set Every single set you just posted is an infinite set. They all have no bound or endpoint, since there is no known greatest whole number or integer. For any number x you cared to name, I would only have to provide you with x+1 (x+2 in the case of your odd numbers set), and the set would continue. Boundless, endless. The set you're thinking of would be termed "All real numbers", but even that doesn't encompass everything the way you think it does. The only part you're actually right about is that there's no end to the amount of numbers in such a set. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 09:47 If any one element of this set is not present, then, by definition, the set cannot be considered infinite. This includes the number 0, which is symbolic for nothing or the absence of something. Therefore, when you're talking about things in terms of reality, this also has to encompass things that have 0% probability of happening. Something with a 0% probability obviously doesn't exist and cannot happen, however it still needs to be calculated if the universe is truly infinite. It's the lack of their probability to happen that needs to be observed and taken into consideration. Whether or not the universe can truly end is beyond our understanding, but if the universe is truly infinite we have to accept that the idea of it ending (or lack there of) cannot be omitted. Doing so would be like omitting the number 0 from the number set infinity; if you do that, the number set is no longer considered infinite. So, taking away the idea of the universe ending means that the universe is therefore not infinite. You have your definitions mixed up, but since I straightened that out already above, I'll mostly ignore this. Keep in mind that the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...x+1) is still an infinite set, despite not encompassing zero. And besides, nobody is omitting anything. We're here discussing the possibility of the world ending, aren't we? I simply questioned your assumption that the universe will end one day. I swear, R3. Sometimes I feel like you post just because you enjoy reading your own bullshit. >:[
Dover wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 21:09 Every single set you just posted is an infinite set. I'm going to be completely honest here. I ignored every single thing you just wrote in your post and only focused on this. You could have just wrote that in your post and I would have stood down. Now it isn't that I don't know what infinity is; I'm not confining it to a number definition as I was only trying to play an example, it's just that when I was writing my post I apparently had a brain fart and failed to realize what I quoted you saying. What makes it even more embarrassing is the fact that I actually put the "..." before and after the numbers representing forever until infinity... For some reason I was confusing it with the idea of omnipotence. (Which, by the way, I was wrong about in that other thread too. I had it misdefined slightly). So you're right. I don't really know what else to say. "Lol"?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 19:10 Dover wrote on Sun, 16 January 2011 21:09 Every single set you just posted is an infinite set. I'm going to be completely honest here. I ignored every single thing you just wrote in your post and only focused on this. You could have just wrote that in your post and I would have stood down. Now it isn't that I don't know what infinity is; I'm not confining it to a number definition as I was only trying to play an example, it's just that when I was writing my post I apparently had a brain fart and failed to realize what I quoted you saying. What makes it even more embarrassing is the fact that I actually put the "..." before and after the numbers representing forever until infinity... For some reason I was confusing it with the idea of omnipotence. (Which, by the way, I was wrong about in that other thread too. I had it misdefined slightly). So you're right. I don't really know what else to say. "Lol"? <3
*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître note "Belgian ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST" who said that science and religion were mutually exclusive?
well, what happened next was quite funny. he went to the pope and told him about his theory, and the pope offered to make it dogma - i.e. something catholics are told they must believe. there's certainly nothing scientific about that. certainly you can point to scientists throughout the centuries who believed some batshit crazy things, such as alchemy or catholicism.
reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 10:33 If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from? Why do so many people feel the need to worship? If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones? If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Is hope just a random chance of roulette? There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma? If we believe the creationist theory, then who created the creator? God must've come from somewhere as well. Just for reference, I'm agnostic.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 17 January 2011 01:00 I never really see why science and the belief in a higher being are mutually exclusive... I guess because of the general retardation that religious folk bring, but still. I think it's rather reasonable to assume the big bang happened as science described it, and that was caused by some greater being. That being said, the bible/quar'ran/torah/etc aren't factbooks, and everyone who takes them as such should be removed from society. They're storybooks with interesting tales and some (repeat: some) lessons in them. Not a guidebook or a factbook. The problem is that religion tends to empathise on the all knowing part. Something that is simply impossible, this is why science claims religion to be rubbish. Science however cannot prove or deny the truth of religion either, since there is no evidence that supports or denies the existence of a higher being. However science makes it rather plausible there is no such thing as a creator (God according to Christs).
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3. Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3. Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy). Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know.
Toggle Spoiler Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3. Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy). Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know. And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel.
Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 21:07 Toggle Spoiler Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3. Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy). Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know. And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel. Since the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum), and the oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years, it cannot be older than that, unless you can speed up/slow down the speed of light. Einstein relativety theorem suggests that this is impossible, since it would get an infinite mass.
This might just be me being stupid, but wouldn't it be double that? From a source, light will travel in all directions. If the furthest source of light (star) we know of is 13 billion light years away, then we know that light from that star took 13 billion years to travel from that star to our planet. But what about on the opposite side of the star? Wouldn't light travel that way too? The star should be like a mid point in the calculation rather than an endpoint. (making a total of 26 billion light years from Earth all the way to the farthest reaches of light from a star 13 billion light years away.) In the following diagram, the blue dot is Earth and the yellow dot is a star 13 billion light years away: Granted there is no way to confirm this. The universe could very well have an edge just beyond that star at the 13 billion light year mark. But logically, the space between any star and our planet could also be considered a radius of which we know space resides in. (The distance from Earth to a star is 10 billion light years for example, therefore, there is a radius of 10 billion light years all around that particular star that the universe at least extends to.)
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 03:19 Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 21:07 Toggle Spoiler Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where! True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen. Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox! If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity! The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ... We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3. Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy). Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know. And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel. Since the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum), and the oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years, it cannot be older than that, unless you can speed up/slow down the speed of light. Einstein relativety theorem suggests that this is impossible, since it would get an infinite mass. The oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years old, which means whatever created that light was 13 billion light years away 13 billion years ago. It doesn't tell us how large the universe is -right now-.
We live in a vicious circle. The sun will destroy itself in another 4.5 billion years. With this explosion a lot of material, gases, fluids etc. will be released into the universe. Then with these materials new planets start forming and a new system such as ours will probably start to exist. Then this will destroy itself again and rebuilt itself again. It's an odd world we live in.
Wasn't there a theory that light was affected by gravity, anyways?
Billions of stars explode and implode everyday and humans observe them all. We have seen the pictures too. I don't think anyone concludes that such gigantic explosions are the result of the whim of some super intelligent sentient being. They just happen due to a natural repeating process of birth, life and death. Why the heck would someone not apply the same concept to the universe as well? And why do people think there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? Also why do people think there is nothing outside out universe? I can't/won't accept that! When are we going to relive ourselves from this silly extremely limited-in-scope circular way of thinking?! I think this is just humans confusing and confunding ourselves with our too-unflexible linear way of thought. That's the source of all this confusion. The Big Bang makes sense but its failure to properly explain what was before it has lead to confusion. So according to most people: there was a massive god who had always existed in the darkness of nothingness. All of a sudden, "he"/"she"/"it" decides to make something and boom, makes a big bang happen and we all came out of it. OR, there was nothing and a Big Bang orccured. Come on now, what if there were billions of universes. That's why I find the current model very unsatisfying: We are looking at the universe from the inside and assuming it to be a house outside which there is nothing. What if "our" universe was just 1 house in a giant cosmic street which was part of a massive suburb full of other "houses" outside of a massive cosmic city which was part of a giant cosmic country which in turn was part of a giant cosmic superplanet and which in turn was part of a cosmic solar system and we go on and on and on. Are you following me on this analogy? This makes sense to me personally. I think it's something to do with a magnifying glass. Our position on earth is supremely magnified from our point of view. And if we magnify more, we see bacteria and atoms and what makes them up beyond which we can't really magnify any further. Now when we "zoom out" the possibilites are supremely endless and infinite. We maybe wrongly thinking that there is a maximum "zoomed out" position. And we call this position "god." It simply doesn't click for me...not making sense. Because there needs to more zooming out than that too and it seems possible to do so. So the universe imo has no boundaries. It stretces on and on. So let me make a summary: Let's say we hop on Battlestar Galactica and keeping going in one direction hoping to reach the edge of the universe, we will keep failing cos no matter how far we go...we will only uncover more and more. We will never be able to go outside the universe because there is no outside! Eventually we will reach a point so far into deep space that we can see the gigantic contents of our univrese in one giant tangled ballweb of smoke and dust. And we can still keep going and going and going in the vain hope of reaching the place outside the universe but we won't be able to. We will eventually end up finding yet another universe or just squirming around in deep dark space. This is what makes the most sense for me; maybe I am misunderstanding/overlooking some things. Seems possible but any comments?
You know the saying "there is always a bigger fish"? It's sort of the same way with science. No matter what great question you solve, there will always be a bigger one behind it. Q: Why do things fall to the ground? A: Because of gravity. Q: Where does gravity come from? A: The pull of the planet's core. Q: Why does the planet's core generate a gravitational force? etc etc... You can go on forever that way and eventually end up with the question "what caused the big bang?" to which there is probably an answer that will lead to another larger question.
For me; I think the reasoning we make in relation to everything having a purpose is a little odd. We seem to make rational statements about simpler lifeforms until we get to ourselves. For example: If you asked 100 people (Half of which believe the Universe was created by a God; and half of which did not) - "What is the purpose of this tree? (common tree species)" I would presume that the answers would be a combination of the following: 1. To grow and to die. 2. To photosynthesize and provide oxygen. 3. To stabilize the soil beneath. Etc All practical and rational answers. Yet, when you pose the question, "What is the purpose of a human being?" The answers would vary wildly. Is it likely that Human Beings are that much more special than simpler lifeforms in terms of having a purpose? Is it irrational to believe that we might have a similar purpose to these less complex lifeforms? Do we not grow and die as they do? Does the fish suddenly have a destiny because it is a more evolved or complex lifeform than algae? I think not. The main problem I see with this entire issue begins in the earliest of days. The days where Man first started to ask and investigate why things worked the way they did. The first scientific endeavors and thirst for knowledge. You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all. Can you see the problem? Worlds worst graph, I know. It's a quick way of demonstrating how behind Science is in comparison to the weight of conclusions due to the need to have actual scientific evidence to support claims, which takes alot of effort, understanding which all come with the most important aspect - Time. Conversely, the only requirement to acknowledge that a certain God exists is "faith". If we knew back then what we know now, I wonder how religion and the claims that a God exists would be perceived today? Apologies for the rant / incoherent sentences and ideas. Incredibly tired, yet the thread title sparked a what little energy I have left atm to say something.
[quote title=reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 04:33]If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from? Why do so many people feel the need to worship? If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time? Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones? If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Is hope just a random chance of roulette? There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma?[/quote Quantum physics can explain most of this. Kinda like how things can indeed be in more than one place at one time, or how atoms can exist and then just not exist for no reason at all. Or how the impossible (ie a dinosaur wearing a pink tutu singing lady gaga can appear infront of you then vanish) people feel the need to worship because w/o this where would many of the week minded people morals end up. If it werent for worship then people would just do whatever fearing no consequences. And way back when, when worship started they were worshiping stars. We are not the only ones. Its called evolution. And im sure in the next million years or so we will see a higher evolutionary product of ourselves. As for the final question in your statement. Hope is for the weak. Realize that things are bad and like any other action that gets its opposite yet equal reaction that it will change. Of course there is no fairness or equality. Look at our world, or civilazation for this matter. Why is it that there are people starving and people eating like theres no tomorrow. Why did the tsunami hit japan and only fuck their shit up. If the world were fair and equal then events like this would bone the entire world in the same fashion it did japan. However this does not exist. As for karma, its an extreme set of coincidence that is the same as the law i stated earlier for every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction. Now if you made it this far you deserve to read this from me. Religion and worship is a much needed part of life. Without this process the world would be a much more violent and full of dispair because we would not have the people that beleive if they do something wrong or unjust that they are going to burn in hell forever because of this. If in the beggining of days nothing ever happened for people to want to worship (weather it was actually a god, some person making shit up, or for the realists out there an extra-terrestrial being) then we would be in a far worse off place. Im only glad that I live in a day in age where the majority of things can be proven or disproven, because I dislike and find things that there are no physical evidence for extremly rediculious. If I cant see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or have rational explination for then it more than likely doesnt exist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,looks like a duck, smells like a duck, chances are pretty good its a duck. Another philosophical moment broughten to you by blunts.
snpr1101 wrote on Mon, 31 January 2011 00:33 You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all. keeping in mind about the definittion of science Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science. To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks.
shippo wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 10:37 Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science. To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks. "people came from rocks"? oh dear firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how the world began". the world is not a living thing. evolution is a process whereby living things - including humans - change over an extremely long timeframe. as for physically tested, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the record of molecular biology. there's none at all for "God". as for "repeatable", evolution is still happening. if you want to say that "God" created people, what a great deal more complicated you've just made the question; now the origin of life is wherever this god of yours came from. if we instead accept the theory of evolution, humans developed over an almost incomprehensibly long period of time from lower lifeforms, so the origin of life is really primitive forms of life which can arise through abiogenesis.
shippo wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 10:37 snpr1101 wrote on Mon, 31 January 2011 00:33 You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all. keeping in mind about the definittion of science Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Quote: To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks. I wonder, did god come from rocks?
Why can't something come from nothing? In reality, we cannot experience "nothing", so we don't know what is possible and what is not possible with it. What if "nothing" is just a concept that we try to base arguments on, but also a concept that isn't actually real?(basically, this is an idea that we cannot experience nothing, and it may have never existed) Why do we think all things have to begin and end? This is something that we accept without question, but what if this is not actually true? What if things have always existed, and have always been ever-changing? Crazy.
Look at that tunafish with his glasses, talking crazy physics!
Spoony wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 12:22 "people came from rocks"? oh dear firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how the world began". the world is not a living thing. evolution is a process whereby living things - including humans - change over an extremely long timeframe. as for physically tested, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the record of molecular biology. there's none at all for "God". as for "repeatable", evolution is still happening. Could you give an example of evolution? Quote: if you want to say that "God" created people, what a great deal more complicated you've just made the question; now the origin of life is wherever this god of yours came from. if we instead accept the theory of evolution, humans developed over an almost incomprehensibly long period of time from lower lifeforms, so the origin of life is really primitive forms of life which can arise through abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a theory that tries to explain how life arises form nonlife. There are 2 or 3 different theories on it which do you believe? Herr Surth wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 12:25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Quote: To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks. I wonder, did god come from rocks? interesting experiment. however it does not really suport evolution at lest not the kind required in The Theory of Evolution. First of all in the experiment the E. coli did not change into another spiece of bacteria it only changed some of its genetic characteristics. simplified deffinitions: Microevolution-change in genotype or phyenotype (general characteristics) Macroevolution-change in speice microevolution aka (natural selection)has been proven and is scientificly repetable. I don't despute this. However it is Macroevolution I despute.
shippo wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 06:19 Spoony wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 12:22 "people came from rocks"? oh dear firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how the world began". the world is not a living thing. evolution is a process whereby living things - including humans - change over an extremely long timeframe. as for physically tested, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the record of molecular biology. there's none at all for "God". as for "repeatable", evolution is still happening. Could you give an example of evolution? look up just about any animal or plant you like - including homo sapiens - and read up on how it evolved. but make sure it's a living thing, not a rock or a planet Quote: Abiogenesis is a theory that tries to explain how life arises form nonlife. There are 2 or 3 different theories on it which do you believe? i don't really care, it's enough to believe that it's plausible.
shippo wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 06:19 simplified deffinitions: Microevolution-change in genotype or phyenotype (general characteristics) Macroevolution-change in speice microevolution aka (natural selection)has been proven and is scientificly repetable. I don't despute this. However it is Macroevolution I despute. sup, guess what? you fail science! congrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Herr Surth wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 07:45 Look at that tunafish with his glasses, talking crazy physics! yeah, what was going through his mind at whatever time in the morning that was?!
I have one quesion for christians in specific. How much of your religion do you think, is truly christian? Down to the core, like it's supposed to be designed by jesus and his apostles. Straight from god. The only real way.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 06:24 but make sure it's a living thing, not a rock or a planet eh i was trying to get at the point that evolutionists don't have a very good explanation of how life came from non life. acording to evolution, each animal decends from a less complex organism this ultimatly leads however to the problem of how life originated. food for thoght: if 4.6 billion years ago the earth is formed (made up of water and rock) and you get some moleculs that form and create amino acids, DNA and a cell, you sill have to consider that this all came form, esentially rock or mineral. MUDKIPS wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 16:59 I have one quesion for christians in specific. How much of your religion do you think, is truly christian? Down to the core, like it's supposed to be designed by jesus and his apostles. Straight from god. The only real way. eh depends on your deffinition of christian, originaly the term "Christian" ment folower of Christ, which was given to the early followers of Jesus. however over the 2000 someodd years there have been many cults and offshoots that claim to be "Christian" but are not really. basicly I believe the Bible is 100% fact and that it is what we are to live our lives by. tradition or other sorces are not to be accepted in place of the Bible.
IF WE CAMED FROM MONKEYS THEN WHY THERE STILL BE MONKEYS? HA, CHRISTIANS 1, ATHEISTS 0 I thought the mass of religion threads were over...
shippo wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 18:25 eh i was trying to get at the point that evolutionists don't have a very good explanation of how life came from non life. acording to evolution, each animal decends from a less complex organism this ultimatly leads however to the problem of how life originated. yes, it does, and abiogenesis is the most plausible theory so far advanced. Quote: food for thoght: if 4.6 billion years ago the earth is formed (made up of water and rock) and you get some moleculs that form and create amino acids, DNA and a cell, you sill have to consider that this all came form, esentially rock or mineral. miller urey experiment proved that organic material can arise from inorganic matter. but don't say "this all came from" as if the person next door's grandfather was a lump of granite Quote: basicly I believe the Bible is 100% fact and that it is what we are to live our lives by. tradition or other sorces are not to be accepted in place of the Bible. why do you think that?
The bible is the biggest selling fiction book ever. Tru story.
shippo wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 18:25 basicly I believe the Bible is 100% fact and that it is what we are to live our lives by. tradition or other sorces are not to be accepted in place of the Bible. Exactly what I was hoping for. The vast majority of the bible, and christian religion, is not remotely christian. During the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries when Christianity became prominent, there was a need for it to be defined. In a number of councils (most famously the council of Nicaea) various elements of bible literature and rites were being decided on. One major issue was the split between Aristotelean and Platonic philosophy: Which one would christianity follow? Aristotelean philosophy meant following a certain set of rules based mainly on virtues, that would provide a system to base your actions on, and judge them by. Platonic philsophy meant following exalted ideals. Inattainable perfect goals and states of being, that one should strive for their whole life. The most fervent follower of the Platonic line (and one of the "founding fathers" of it) was Augustinus, and it's his system of beliefs that was adapted in christianity. What does this mean? Basically, a load of bishops sat down, and decided what was and was not to be put in the bible. Some gospels were removed, others were altered (this is all on paper) (cant be arsed to type the rest now, ill continue later)
Spoony wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 18:58 yes, it does, and abiogenesis is the most plausible theory so far advanced. Abiogenesis is an interesting subject. I think that if they could get this to work we could do a lot of things with this for the benefit of the medical field. However keep in mind that they still can't get a living cell yet and that's with them knowing what they are trying to create. With evolution, it is random. So trying to create something as complicated as a living cell randomly, that's preaty difficult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis under topic Current Models No one has synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. Quote: miller urey experiment proved that organic material can arise from inorganic matter. but don't say "this all came from" as if the person next door's grandfather was a lump of granite Actually I would like to apologize for that comment earlier. That was a little pointed of me and I am sorry. Quote: why do you think that? Well I haven't found any thing to prove it not being 100% accurate.
Alright, time to resume my post. Basically, what was really being decided was, what was more important: worshipping an ideal, or practicing an ideal? The decision was obviously made to worship the ideal. This was very problematic, although people at the time did not realise it. The original jewish faith that christianity is based on evolved from and among the various polytheistic religions in the fertile crescent and around, heavily influenced by Assyrian and Babylonian religions, which in turn were influenced by Sumerian religions. These were very focused on worshipping the king as an agent of the gods, who was given the tools to build cities, empires, you name it. This was a religion that was very much based on action, and deeds, through a system of beliefs that was reinforced with rituals and religious tablets all over the land. For instance, seals were stamped with godly symbols, and if any thief would break them he would call the wrath of that particular god upon himself. Judaism evolved to be a monotheistic mirror of this kind of religion; based on an ideal of a promised land in which the people shall live according to the laws laid down by their god. Jesus of Nazareth, someone other than him, or maybe the same man who went by a different line, wanted to distantiate himself from the promised land ideal, and focus more on the "good life" aspect of Judaism, ie, if everyone follows the rules and lives by these loving ideals, we might have a good world. So, instead of following the original Aristotelean ideals of Jesus, a Platonic way of thinking was adapted. This meant more focus on the worship and belief, rather than actual acts. This meant that instead of making an effort for a more virtuous and better world, more effort was made to make people believe. This in time led to the persecution of heretics (that are now considered saints in some of the more orthodox christian ways) and the enforcement of silly doctrines, based on superstition. A lot of adaptations were made to the bible to reinforce this new way of thinking about christianity, so many that if you compare original greek manuscripts to say, a 7th century bible, you'd think they were from two completely different religions. What is my "problem" with this? Let's have a look at the differences: Jews are known for their entrepeneurship, ingenuity and perseverence. They thrive in difficult environments (like in the early medieval ghettos in italy, or during the roman occupation where a whole new form of judaism was born) and through all their hardships have still survived. Christians are no longer known for their compassion, which is what the original focus of christianity was. Instead they are known for their unrelenting quest to convert everyone (inquisitions, burning of heretics, conversion attempts of indians), corruption, arrogance and in modern days, pedophile priests. (again, cant be arsed to continue, maybe later today)
shippo wrote on Mon, 18 April 2011 20:10 Abiogenesis is an interesting subject. I think that if they could get this to work we could do a lot of things with this for the benefit of the medical field. However keep in mind that they still can't get a living cell yet and that's with them knowing what they are trying to create. With evolution, it is random. So trying to create something as complicated as a living cell randomly, that's preaty difficult. Sure. But according to what you've said so far, the origin of life is however this god of yours came into being; you haven't yet said how you think that happened. If you find it difficult to believe that a single cell could arise, I'm not sure why you find it easier to account for an enormously powerful and super-intelligent entity instead. Quote: Quote: why do you think that? Well I haven't found any thing to prove it not being 100% accurate. that's a really bizarre way to reason. firstly there are a whole lot of books in the bible, written by different authors - in most cases, almost nothing is known about those authors. and which books were included in the bible and which weren't (lots of them were rejected) was decided by a group of bickering politicians and religious leaders well over a thousand years ago, but hundreds of years after Jesus and thousands of years after Moses (if there was such person as either). if you want to say you trust this bickering group of men, at least some of whom clearly had vested interests in the question, to decide which books were "inspired by God" and which were not, go ahead - you're then left with the question of proving there's a god at all, then that these books really were inspired by that god, then that this god is right all the time. instead you seem to be taking the position of swallowing this 1000-page book in its entirety until someone can point out a flaw. well, OK then. two things. you said a few posts ago that you not only think it's 100% accurate, but that we should live our lives by it and reject other sources in favour of the Bible. OK then. i'll take one point about the supposed 'truth' of the books and one point about the way we should live our lives. truth first. who was Joseph's father? two of the gospels give entirely different answers to this question. (joseph referring to jesus's father, not the technicolor dreamcoat guy in Genesis) now, on the way we should live. here's a question: what should we as a society do when a man commits the crime of rape against a woman? what should the laws be? i say the man should be put in prison for a long time, and the woman should have counselling available if she wants it. the bible says the victim is forced to marry her attacker. which of these two is better? or do you have a better idea than either? i say that if that really did come from a god, he has no fucking idea.
Spoony wrote on Tue, 19 April 2011 02:30 Sure. But according to what you've said so far, the origin of life is however this god of yours came into being; you haven't yet said how you think that happened. If you find it difficult to believe that a single cell could arise, I'm not sure why you find it easier to account for an enormously powerful and super-intelligent entity instead. we as christians believe that he has always existed, and that he is outside the time line of us here one earth, so He has existed past, present and future.. (I can explain and go more indeepth with this if you like) Quote: truth first. who was Joseph's father? two of the gospels give entirely different answers to this question. (joseph referring to jesus's father, not the technicolor dreamcoat guy in Genesis) Well I'm no Biblical schollar, but I will try to answere both questions as best I can. from what I have learned and read most biblical scholors belive that one line was purly the male or Joseph's line the other was Marry's and the part where it says son of, probably ment son-in-law of, which would make sence, because even now it is not uncommon to be refered to as son or father for in-laws. Quote: now, on the way we should live. here's a question: what should we as a society do when a man commits the crime of rape against a woman? what should the laws be? i say the man should be put in prison for a long time, and the woman should have counselling available if she wants it. the bible says the victim is forced to marry her attacker. which of these two is better? or do you have a better idea than either? Well I'm no Sociologest, but you have to keep in mind that they have a much different culture than ours. Alos keep in mind that the attacker would be put to death if she was married. But as far as the question you put forth I don't know enough about the Middle eastern culture and values to make an honest opinion on it. @MUDKIPS interesting stuff. I see your still typing though so i'll wait untill your done.
shippo wrote on Tue, 19 April 2011 15:44 we as christians believe that he has always existed, and that he is outside the time line of us here one earth, so He has existed past, present and future.. (I can explain and go more indeepth with this if you like) i think you'd better, because you're making an enormous claim here. what do you have to back up such a huge assertion, much much much bigger than anything any scientist says about the origin of life? Quote: Quote: truth first. who was Joseph's father? two of the gospels give entirely different answers to this question. (joseph referring to jesus's father, not the technicolor dreamcoat guy in Genesis) Well I'm no Biblical schollar, but I will try to answere both questions as best I can. from what I have learned and read most biblical scholors belive that one line was purly the male or Joseph's line the other was Marry's and the part where it says son of, probably ment son-in-law of, which would make sence, because even now it is not uncommon to be refered to as son or father for in-laws. yeah, "biblical scholar" is a phrase you'll hear whenever someone tries to get around the fact that something the bible says is either obviously wrong or morally appalling. another is "theology". what a biblical scholar or a theologian will never tell you is "yeah, that's wrong, i dunno why he wrote that" Quote: Well I'm no Sociologest, but you have to keep in mind that they have a much different culture than ours. Alos keep in mind that the attacker would be put to death if she was married. But as far as the question you put forth I don't know enough about the Middle eastern culture and values to make an honest opinion on it. Firstly, what makes you think this only instructs those people at that time and place? The commandment is not repudiated later in the book. God gave you this rule and He has not repealed it. Secondly, the point about whether the attacker was married shows you what's going on here; it's a culture where women are seen as property, and this is hardly the only thing in the bible which shows that. If she's married then raping her is a terrible offence - not because of any consideration of the woman as a human being, but because you're using another man's property. If she's not married then you can just rape her, pay off her dad and you've bought yourself a wife, if "wife" is the right word... "sex slave" is probably nearer the mark. I'm going to repeat the original assertion just to see if I can get the reaction such a monstrous thing deserves. If a man rapes a woman, they have to get married. The victim of a violent sexual assault is then forced to spend the rest of her life married to the scum who violated her. Anyone of normal moral sensibilities ought to "have an opinion" on it without needing to research the culture; this alone tells you all you need to know about the culture. And remember, this law is coming to you from this god of yours. Go ask your mother or your sister's opinion on it, if you dare. Stand up in church next time you're there and say there's a law in the Bible we as a society are not following. Write to your congressman about it, maybe.
We believe that God has always exsisted. He created the world and univers. Like The Theory of Evolution, we have no scientific(impearial) evidence of how the world/univers began, but it is what we believe, just like your belief. Quote: yeah, "biblical scholar" is a phrase you'll hear whenever someone tries to get around the fact that something the bible says is either obviously wrong or morally appalling. another is "theology". what a biblical scholar or a theologian will never tell you is "yeah, that's wrong, i dunno why he wrote that" Would it help you if I just removed the biblical scholar part? I always thought a biblical scholar was a person who studied the Bible and it's authenticity. Quote: Firstly, what makes you think this only instructs those people at that time and place? This is found in Leviticus wich is made up of laws and rules to govern the Isrealite's society. If you don't mind me asking what (in your opinnion) makes moral values right?
shippo wrote on Wed, 20 April 2011 05:25 We believe that God has always exsisted. He created the world and univers. Like The Theory of Evolution, we have no scientific(impearial) evidence of how the world/univers began, but it is what we believe, just like your belief. oh dear. i thought we'd already cleared up the fact that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of the "world and universe". evolution is a theory and a fact that explains a biological process whereby living things develop over time (very very long periods of time, of course), and there's actually quite a lot of evidence for it. the fossil record, the record of molecular biology, the genome project... the fact it's been physically observed, the fact that like a good theory it makes predictions which have borne out, etc. please free yourself of the "just like your belief" idea. a few posts ago you said that you thought everything in the bible was 100% true, and later you said this was because nobody had found anything to suggest otherwise. this is nothing at all like the way scientists approach darwin's theory. but i'm glad to hear you say you have no evidence for creationism. most creationists aren't that honest. Quote: Quote: yeah, "biblical scholar" is a phrase you'll hear whenever someone tries to get around the fact that something the bible says is either obviously wrong or morally appalling. another is "theology". what a biblical scholar or a theologian will never tell you is "yeah, that's wrong, i dunno why he wrote that" Would it help you if I just removed the biblical scholar part? I always thought a biblical scholar was a person who studied the Bible and it's authenticity. if someone studied the bible and its authenticity and came up with conclusions unflattering to christianity and/or judaism, would you consider him/her to be a biblical scholar? Quote: Quote: Firstly, what makes you think this only instructs those people at that time and place? This is found in Leviticus wich is made up of laws and rules to govern the Isrealite's society. deutoronomy actually, though that's a forgivable error. those two books are pretty similar in terms of barbarism. well, if you think these laws - sick, disgusting, unjust laws that strip human beings of their dignity - only apply to one particular group of people, do you think the same about the rest of the old testament? the ten commandments, for example? and you said earlier that you didn't know much about the culture at the time. well, the laws are coming from god, aren't they? if it's as brutal and unjust a society as it sounds, you have your god to thank for it; his laws reinforce the appalling state of affairs. Quote: If you don't mind me asking what (in your opinnion) makes moral values right? you're still talking about the law that says a rape victim must marry her attacker, are you? someone has to explain to you what's wrong with that?
(question refrased) Creationists believe: in the begining was God, and he created the univers, our world, ect. as Evolutionists what do you believe was the begining of the univers? (I'm going somewere with this) Quote: if someone studied the bible and its authenticity and came up with conclusions unflattering to christianity and/or judaism, would you consider him/her to be a biblical scholar? Yes if a scientist studied biology and came up with conclusions unflattering to The Theory of Evolution you would still consider him/her to be a "valid" scientist right? Quote: Quote: Quote: Firstly, what makes you think this only instructs those people at that time and place? This is found in Leviticus wich is made up of laws and rules to govern the Isrealite's society. deutoronomy actually, though that's a forgivable error. those two books are pretty similar in terms of barbarism. well, if you think these laws - sick, disgusting, unjust laws that strip human beings of their dignity - only apply to one particular group of people, do you think the same about the rest of the old testament? the ten commandments, for example? and you said earlier that you didn't know much about the culture at the time. well, the laws are coming from god, aren't they? if it's as brutal and unjust a society as it sounds, you have your god to thank for it; his laws reinforce the appalling state of affairs. I was talking with my mom (she likes to study the Bible indeepth) she was saying that back then in those times, the culture had arranged marrages, and the men were the head of the house hold and were required to work and provide for their house holds, make all decisions, and were generaly responsible for them. the law in Dureronomy was more of a protection for the woman and a punishment for the man. back then the concept of marrage was way different than what it has become today. the man was forced to pay the father 50 sheckls (large sum) and he had to marry her and was forced to take care of and provide for here as long as he lived. Do you know who the Jews for Jesus are? if you don't they are jews who have become christians but they know all the history and culture of the jews and the old testament. they also answer question people have about things, like this question you gave. if you like I can im the email address of one of them to you. Quote: If you don't mind me asking what (in your opinnion) makes moral values right? I'm asking about them in general in your opinion why do you believe your morals or values are right? what is your basis for saying your morals are "good" and other things are "bad"?
shippo wrote on Wed, 20 April 2011 16:55 (question refrased) Creationists believe: in the begining was God, and he created the univers, our world, ect. you've said you have no evidence for this, so if you want to assert that some entity did create the universe, it's an enormous jump from there to saying you know the first thing about that entity (using the word "he", for example) Quote: as Evolutionists what do you believe was the begining of the univers? (I'm going somewere with this) i don't have the faintest idea, but at least i won't pretend i do. Quote: Yes if a scientist studied biology and came up with conclusions unflattering to The Theory of Evolution you would still consider him/her to be a "valid" scientist right? of course. Quote: I was talking with my mom (she likes to study the Bible indeepth) she was saying that back then in those times, the culture had arranged marrages, and the men were the head of the house hold and were required to work and provide for their house holds, make all decisions, and were generaly responsible for them. the law in Dureronomy was more of a protection for the woman and a punishment for the man. i expect if you had told her that the verse came from the Quran rather than the bible, her response would not be so polite. forcing the victim of a violent sexual assault to marry her attacker is for her protection? no, putting the bastard in prison would be for her protection, and the protection of other women. punishment for the man? no, it's barely a punishment at all; it effectively means that a man can pick a wife just by raping her. it's a punishment for the woman. that's literally what it is. it is a punishment for the victim of a violent sexual assault; it makes her situation even worse. without any regard for what she wants for her future, whether she wants to get married at all or if she likes some other man, she's forced to marry a violent sexual predator. Quote: back then the concept of marrage was way different than what it has become today. the man was forced to pay the father 50 sheckls (large sum) and he had to marry her and was forced to take care of and provide for here as long as he lived. the concept of marriage certainly is different. the bible approves of polygamy, for example; and it clearly views women as something like the property of men. think about that when you say the rapist has to look after her; you might as well say he's got to look after his livestock. Quote: Do you know who the Jews for Jesus are? if you don't they are jews who have become christians but they know all the history and culture of the jews and the old testament. they also answer question people have about things, like this question you gave. if you like I can im the email address of one of them to you. whatever. christianity may have made a bad choice in deciding to keep the barbarism and brutality of the Old Testament when establishing itself as a religion. can i press you for an answer about the ten commandments? you said the rape law is only for the israelites, doesn't that apply to the ten commandments then? Quote: I'm asking about them in general in your opinion why do you believe your morals or values are right? what is your basis for saying your morals are "good" and other things are "bad" i'd rather stay specific than go general if it's all the same with you. we were talking about a law that says the victim of a violent sexual assault has to marry her attacker, which adds to the trauma of the crime by destroying her future. i've unequivocally condemned this as primitive barbarism; you've defended it. i don't think i'm the one with the explaining to do.
Quote: Quote: as Evolutionists what do you believe was the begining of the univers? (I'm going somewere with this) i don't have the faintest idea, but at least i won't pretend i do. you believe in Evolution but you have no idea how it happend. so doesn't that mean you believe this on faith? Quote: forcing the victim of a violent sexual assault to marry her attacker is for her protection? no, putting the bastard in prison would be for her protection, and the protection of other women. punishment for the man? no, it's barely a punishment at all; it effectively means that a man can pick a wife just by raping her. it's a punishment for the woman. that's literally what it is. it is a punishment for the victim of a violent sexual assault; it makes her situation even worse. without any regard for what she wants for her future, whether she wants to get married at all or if she likes some other man, she's forced to marry a violent sexual predator. Like I have said before you are looking at this with the western culture in mind. this is Midle Eastern culture. it's like the Europeans when they came to the Americas and were trying to trade and buy land from the Native Americans who had no concept of land ownership. Then they get mad at them for trespassing on THEIR land. Even Jesus commented on this concept in Mark 10:2-6 on divorce. 2 Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He replied to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted us to write divorce papers and send her away." 5 But Jesus told them, "He wrote this commandment for you because of the hardness of your hearts. 6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." God does not aprove of divorce yet he alowed it and gave ruels to govern it. God does not aprove of rape but He puts ruels in place for that too. You keep gripeing about "I don't think its fair" or "that's not right" WHY is it right or wrong? what is your basis for saying this? And it beter not be, because laws or society says so. because in 1939 Nazi German society said it was fine to murder 3 million people, 1831 the American government said it was fine to take thousands of acers of Indian land and relocate the polulation, in 1949 China's society thought it was fair to take everyone's wealth, rich or poor and "redistribute" it. Quote: can i press you for an answer about the ten commandments? you said the rape law is only for the israelites, doesn't that apply to the ten commandments then? I would be happy to answer it, but I think it would be best to finish the others first.
shippo wrote on Wed, 20 April 2011 20:57 Quote: Quote: as Evolutionists what do you believe was the begining of the univers? (I'm going somewere with this) i don't have the faintest idea, but at least i won't pretend i do. you believe in Evolution but you have no idea how it happend. so doesn't that mean you believe this on faith? this is getting ridiculous, shippo. how many times have i told you that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe or the world? it covers living things. it does not say anything about planets and such. as for "believe in evolution" and "evolutionists", are you trying to make it sound like the theory of evolution is equivalent to a religion? and no, faith is believing stuff without evidence, and there's an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. Quote: Like I have said before you are looking at this with the western culture in mind. this is Midle Eastern culture. yes, i'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who views women as human beings, you're talking about a culture that doesn't. spare me your moral relativism, i'm right and the barbarians who wrote your holy book were wrong. modern secular western culture is better than the barbarism of the middle east a few thousand years ago. and please don't humiliate yourself by asking why, have more self-respect than that. Quote: God does not aprove of divorce yet he alowed it and gave ruels to govern it. God does not aprove of rape but He puts ruels in place for that too. I don't approve of rape, which is why I suggested a different rule: the offender is put in prison for a long time, and counselling made available to the victim. by contrast, the bible's rules punish the victim and come pretty close to rewarding the offender? rules which take a traumatized victim of a violent sexual assault and make it so much worse for her by destroying her future, forcing her to marry her attacker. if you think a god came up with that, what a complete retard he is. he has no idea, NO IDEA of right and wrong. any person on the street could come up with a better law on rape than the idiot who wrote deuteronomy. i don't think that came from a god, i think it was written and conceived by men, and since it clearly favours men my position seems a bit safer. there's no mystery. it was a barbaric culture and these barbarians wanted to make it easier to behave the way they liked, treating women as their property... so yeah, make laws they liked and say a god said so. of course. as for "god does not approve of rape", that's not a safe assertion at all. even if we didn't have this rule on rape which punishes the victim and in a sense rewards the offender, perhaps you also wanna look at deuteronomy 20:10, samuel 12:11-14, deuteronomy 21:10-14, zechariah 14:1-2, numbers 31:7-18, judges 21:10-24... some of these are very enthusiastically in favour of rape. Quote: You keep gripeing about "I don't think its fair" or "that's not right" WHY is it right or wrong? what is your basis for saying this? And it beter not be, because laws or society says so. because in 1939 Nazi German society said it was fine to murder 3 million people, 1831 the American government said it was fine to take thousands of acers of Indian land and relocate the polulation, in 1949 China's society thought it was fair to take everyone's wealth, rich or poor and "redistribute" it. again, it's really funny that you think i'm the one with the explaining to do. maybe you should ask why this god of yours punishes rape victims. as for the ridiculous examples you degraded yourself by citing, that's easy. ask a European Jew if it was right to murder them for being the wrong religion. do you want to be murdered for being the wrong religion? no? then that's easy. don't murder someone else for being the wrong religion. hooray, we've learned that murdering people for not being the right religion is morally wrong, but it's very alarming that you didn't seem to know that already. if you are raped, do you want to be further punished by being forced to marry your attacker? do you mind the idea of your future being destroyed so you can be the plaything of a violent sex offender? if not, why not? what a stupid question. no, worse than stupid... insulting. what a shining example of the damage religion can do to a person's mind.
hey shippo, why is your english so horrible? Or, to put it into your terms, horibel?
Spoony wrote on Wed, 20 April 2011 21:47 shippo wrote on Wed, 20 April 2011 20:57 Quote: Quote: as Evolutionists what do you believe was the begining of the univers? (I'm going somewere with this) i don't have the faintest idea, but at least i won't pretend i do. you believe in Evolution but you have no idea how it happend. so doesn't that mean you believe this on faith? this is getting ridiculous, shippo. how many times have i told you that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe or the world? it covers living things. it does not say anything about planets and such. The Theory does and that is what I was talking about. But it's ok I should have stated that more clearly above. You said there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, the process, and not the theory I assume. Are you talking about macro evolution (process of one specie evolving into another) or micro evolution (process of smaller changes within the same specie)? I define specie as a group of animals that look similar and can reproduce like (dogs and wolves I group them under the dog specie). Quote: as for "god does not approve of rape", that's not a safe assertion at all. even if we didn't have this rule on rape which punishes the victim and in a sense rewards the offender, perhaps you also wanna look at deuteronomy 20:10, samuel 12:11-14, deuteronomy 21:10-14, zechariah 14:1-2, numbers 31:7-18, judges 21:10-24... some of these are very enthusiastically in favour of rape. Those are very poor examples. Most of them are prophecies about the Israelites being attacked and plundered. Judges 21:10-24 is the only one that even comes close and even in that one God never commanded any of it. Quote: Quote: You keep gripeing about "I don't think its fair" or "that's not right" WHY is it right or wrong? what is your basis for saying this? And it beter not be, because laws or society says so. because in 1939 Nazi German society said it was fine to murder 3 million people, 1831 the American government said it was fine to take thousands of acers of Indian land and relocate the polulation, in 1949 China's society thought it was fair to take everyone's wealth, rich or poor and "redistribute" it. again, it's really funny that you think i'm the one with the explaining to do. maybe you should ask why this god of yours punishes rape victims. as for the ridiculous examples you degraded yourself by citing, that's easy. ask a European Jew if it was right to murder them for being the wrong religion. do you want to be murdered for being the wrong religion? no? then that's easy. don't murder someone else for being the wrong religion. hooray, we've learned that murdering people for not being the right religion is morally wrong, but it's very alarming that you didn't seem to know that already. if you are raped, do you want to be further punished by being forced to marry your attacker? do you mind the idea of your future being destroyed so you can be the plaything of a violent sex offender? if not, why not? what a stupid question. no, worse than stupid... insulting. what a shining example of the damage religion can do to a person's mind. What a nice way to beat about the bush. I asked one simple question: what is the basis of your moral values (why is it right or worng). You have avoided it 3 times. If you don't want to answer it, just say so but please don't keep avoiding it. You don't have to reply but attest think about this, if you don't have God telling you what is morally right or wrong, who then decides what is? @ Herr Surth lol sorry, spelling was my worst subject in school. I have used spell check so now it should be easier to read.
please don't lie and say i avoided the question, as insulting and degrading a question as it was (seriously, i can't believe i've just had to explain to someone why murdering the jewish population of europe was wrong) - any idiot can see i answered it. and for the record, it was never me who had the explaining to do in terms of morality; my moral sense, while not perfect, is obviously superior to yours and MASSIVELY superior to whoever conceived your holy books. i would ask where you get your sense of right and wrong from, but i'm not persuaded you have one.
I used those 3 examples to prove that moral values based on just society alone is subject to the whims of man. If man decides what is right or wrong, then we have no moral absolutes and hence nothing to say what is right or wrong.
shippo wrote on Thu, 21 April 2011 21:34 I used those 3 examples to prove that moral values based on just society alone is subject to the whims of man. and i proved you don't need to base moral values on the majority or who's in power, you just need to ask one person who'll be the victim of what you're talking about. does anyone want to be murdered for being the wrong religion? no? then don't be the one doing the murdering. do you want to be a slave? then don't be a slave-holder. design the rules of society as if you didn't know whereabouts in that society you would be. for example, say slavery is wrong because you don't know whether you might be a slave or not. Quote: If man decides what is right or wrong, then we have no moral absolutes and hence nothing to say what is right or wrong. good lord, see what i said before about how much damage religion can do. it's completely shredded your moral sensibilities. firstly, you seem to define a "moral absolute" as a moral idea that was decided by something non-human. well, suppose the ideas in your bible really did come from a god, though they look like they came from men - primitive, barbaric men at that. doesn't mean that god has any fucking clue about how to run a civilised society. see the rape rule - this god has NO FUCKING CLUE. his moral ideas are TERRIBLE. get that word, shippo - TERRIBLE. if your god's moral ideas are "absolute", they're absolutely awful. secondly, if there really was no such thing as a moral absolute, it would in no way follow that there was "nothing to say" on right and wrong. maybe your preacher has been telling you otherwise, but he wasn't telling you for your own good, just like whoever told you the absurd ideas about evolution didn't want you to be educated on the subject. thirdly, your argument destroys itself. if you think humans can't decide right and wrong, then you can't decide who can decide right and wrong for you either. see? you have such a low opinion of humanity that we have "nothing to say" on morality; then how do you know this god of yours is good?
Man's moral compass is bad! I'm going to trust a book written by man that claim it wasn't written by man!
So in your opinion, you say that moral, values and absolutes come from one's opinion of how one would wish to be treated? ex. someone steals my car from me. I don't like it. so I don't think stealing is a good thing.
why are you still arguing with shipp? Its obvious that he is mentally deficient...
shippo wrote on Fri, 22 April 2011 04:30 So in your opinion, you say that moral, values and absolutes come from one's opinion of how one would wish to be treated? ex. someone steals my car from me. I don't like it. so I don't think stealing is a good thing. it's a good start, and it's miles and miles and miles better than the crap you read in the bible. and no, surth, i don't think he's mentally deficient, i think he's been indoctrinated.
Well he certainly wasnt very bright to begin with... hey shippo: Is the pious loved by god because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by god? RANDOM QUOTES