Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Whereas when I was a kid, adults swore up and down that Santa Claus existed, and I believed them, until I finally figured out that they were....well......lying.

<hr></blockquote>

You know, I've been through the same thing with the multiple male orgasm.

People tell me it exists, but I have yet to see one.

Gotta wonder if it isn't just hanging around with God somewhere outside of space and time!

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[Guest]

So, for those of you who are arguing that God doesn't exist, do you mean at all? Or simply in the way he is portrayed by modern religion?

Is there a supreme being to the universe?

You see, THAT I believe. I do believe there is some inteligence out there that is beyond our comprehension, and that it has played a hand in creating the universe we live in.

I'm just not sure about this *need* we seem to have to understand it.

Some things I can accept on blind faith. Not because of the Bible or anything other than my own (possibly faulty) reasonings.

I can accept the idea of "a" God. What I can't accept is that the Bible is the word of an entity that is incapable of being understood, trying to make mankind understand it.

 

[Guest]

I want to make this very clear right now from my own standpoint. I'm not saying god was a creator. I'm not saying god is Jesus Christ. I'm not saying anything that has anything to do with religions.

I am saying that it is just as infantile to say there is no god, as there is to say there is one. Nothing is proven either way. I'm not going into a 'chicken or egg' conversation. It is entirely possible the universe created God before anything else. Perhaps it created God last, and he/she/it comes back to visit from time to time. Perhaps God is a blob with no emotions of its own and uses the creations it makes as a way to spend the time. I don't know, frankly I don't really care.

But for someone to say something that doesn't exist because it is a unproven theory, is just as insane to say something can be proven by a unproven theory. Especially when the given theory allows the creation of anything instantaneously.

 

[Guest]

Ok, none of that I have a quarrel with either. I guess, that's the "simplified" agnosticism: there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion either way.

The only reason I "made an exception" and tried to be serious in my previous response was that the concept of actually infinite universe and God initiating said universe does not appear to be logically sound; as far as I understand the term of infinite universe: the one that is both endless and "startless".

I'm not arguing anything else here /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>

Hold it, hold it... Without specifying whether actual or potential infinity of the universe is assumed, are you asserting that the God had no role in *errm* causing it to exist? If so, what is God then (in relation to the universe)?

<hr></blockquote>Forgive, but I am not familiar with the terms "actual" and "potential" infinity. How do you define them?

As far as current theories go the universe is "actually" (*g*) infinite. Creation as you are using it here requires that something happens over a period of time. Just because it is this way with what we believe is the universe, doesn't mean it is the whole reality. Why does everything have to happen in our limited understanding of tghe space-time continuum? Why do things have to "happen" per se at all? Stephen Hawking has written a facinating book in which he tries to explain some theories of his which go far beyond our understanding and even attempted (and in some cases succeeded) to mathematically prove that there is more than our 3D+Time system, or even less. Therefore, if you take the factor time out, something can just be. Because we cannot really grasp this concept doesn't mean it is not possible. According to Stephen Hawking, the universe is not just infinite by our understanding of 3D+Time.

<blockquote><hr>

Excluding mental capabilities of organism from the nature physics is trying to describe in no way affects the universe itself; or I'm simply don’t understand what you are saying; or the universe needs to be defined first...

<hr></blockquote>Ok, I will try a different approach. Every thought of ours is nothing else but a very complex series of chemical reactions, which themselves again are bound to the rules of physics. Therefore every thought of ours is part of our universe, since the "mechanics" behind these chemical reactions cannot happen outside of it. It is not possible that the same thought would create the same chemical reaction twice (that's where chaos theory and infinitesimal mathematics come in). In other words, you cannot form thoughts which would cause impossible chemical reactions in your brain, which means that the thoughs anyone can form are bound to the physical and chemical rules of the universe.

I do not know if this makes more sense now. Hawking definitely does a better job of explaining "our" universe.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Under the assumption that the universe is infinite . . .

<hr></blockquote> Um, the universe isn't infinite though. It was created about 14 billion years ago, and it's been expanding ever since.

 

[Sir_FrankMuddy]

Have you considered that maybe you're supposed to find your own meaning in the bible?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Especially when the given theory allows the creation of anything instantaneously.

<hr></blockquote> Uh, what are you saying here? That you don't belive it? Just because it sounds weird doesn't mean it's not true. It's a standard assumption of quantum physics. I'm not saying it can be proven by the theory, I'm just saying, it's possible, and even likely that the universe was created without the need of any "God"

 

[Sir_FrankMuddy]

So is the evening news, so are your precious gradeschooler's history text books, so is everything ever written about the dietary requirements of human beings, so is everything written about sex, dating and marriage, so are most works of fiction, so is every other article ever put to print. It's all rubbish, contrived made up opinionated nonsense. The bible just happens to be contrived nonsense that advises people not to kill each other.

 

[Guest]

Have you ever considered that it might just be a giant prank by God?

 

[Sir_FrankMuddy]

I'd like to point out that a hundred and fifty years ago, they had the age of the universe pinned at 6,000 years and change, exact to the day of creation. A few hundred years before that, it was a known fact that someone, somewhere, had figured out how to turn lead into gold. A half a millenium before that, Ghasts and Ghouls were reported, under witness of god, to have attacked various graveyards. Before that, a very nice young carpenter walked on water and rose from the dead. Before him, Dragons were a regualar occurence, and Alexander the great had a flying tent pulled by Griffins. Before that, God Kings ruled in Egypt, Odyesseus battled Cyclops, and Herakles ran around diverting rivers in his free time.

We think we know a lot of things for certain. The only thing I know for certain is that sooner or later we manage to prove everything we know wrong. At one point, it was a scientifically proven fact that bumble bees were incapable of flight. 'And yet, it moves.'

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Uh, what are you saying here? That you don't belive it?</font color=blue>

No, I'm not saying that.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;I'm just saying, it's possible, and even likely that the universe was created without the need of any "God" </font color=blue>

I agree its possible. You are obviously not reading what I am writing. What I am saying is this:

Any theory that promotes "creation of anything instantaneously" would also have to include a 'godlike' being. Sooner or later it would happen, not to mention sooner or later another 'me' would just pop into existence.

So, do I buy into this theory? Sure, just as much as I buy into God created it all.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Just because it sounds weird doesn't mean it's not true. It's a standard assumption of quantum physics.</font color=blue>

Right?

 

[Baker|NV]

Just curious... If I might ask how much actual experience do you have in physics/philosophy? From your posts, I might be inclined to assume that you have dangerously little in each in that you know of a few concepts yet fundamentally misapply them.
<blockquote><hr>

Under the assumption that the universe is infinite and the basic axiom of physics is that everything has to follow the same rules, God has to exist. In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means. Thus the rules of logic dictate that God exists under the assumption that the universe is infinite.

<hr></blockquote>
First, the universe is not necessarily infinite. There is finite mass, energy, etc. in the universe. Second, it is a ridiculous misapplication to apply the concept of a materially infinite universe (although it's not even materially infinite) to an ethereal being external to the material universe. Especially when you consider the lack of any reason to believe that anything immaterial exists.

 

[Sir_FrankMuddy]

I think the greatest thing about Chick is that he takes himself seriously. I know he may denounce D&amp;D right and left, but I could've sworn I saw him in the back of the last subversive cult my D&amp;D group sacked. He was the guy in the black robe whispering in the ear of the drugged up church patriarch. I know all the guys in the picture are wearing black robes, but he's the one way in the back, third from the beholder with the ballista bolt sticking out of it. People like Chick give me hope that the world really is one great big twisted RPG, complete with fanatical killer cultists and mind control and all that good stuff.

 

[Vio]

Just to end this conversation, you should all know that *I* am God.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Ok, I will try a different approach. Every thought of ours is nothing else but a very complex series of chemical reactions, which themselves again are bound to the rules of physics. Therefore every thought of ours is part of our universe, since the "mechanics" behind these chemical reactions cannot happen outside of it. It is not possible that the same thought would create the same chemical reaction twice (that's where chaos theory and infinitesimal mathematics come in). In other words, you cannot form thoughts which would cause impossible chemical reactions in your brain, which means that the thoughs anyone can form are bound to the physical and chemical rules of the universe.

<hr></blockquote>
Our thoughts themselves are governed by the rules of physics, yes (although you're assuming a hard-materialism/determinism stance which is not condusive to any "God" entity). It is a mistake, however, to extrapolate an idea that those thoughts are reflective of anything "real" in the universe. Right now I'm picturing a three-eyed purple and pink poka-dot elephant that is as tall as my desk. Such a creature does not exist, the probability of such a creature existing are infinitessimally small, yet my brain is able to picture it do to a combination of past experiences and biology (as well as my current will to picture an absurd creature to illustrate my point /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif).
The fact that I can picture a being doesn't make it exist.

 

[Sir_FrankMuddy]

Hmm. Their are black lines on my paper. I have decided in my infinite and august majesty to declare it to be a color on the grounds that it is perceptually distinct from red, green, and blue, and cannot be easily confused with any of these thigns.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

But for someone to say something that doesn't exist because it is a unproven theory, is just as insane to say something can be proven by a unproven theory. Especially when the given theory allows the creation of anything instantaneously.

<hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone is discounting the existence of God because of a lack of proof. Any rational atheist will admit that the lack of proof of the existence of a being is not proof of the nonexistence of that being. Rather, I think that a rational atheist (a group which I would associate myself with under the assumption that I am rational /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif) will tell you that there is no reason to believe that God does exist and that the burden of evidence should lie on existence rather than nonexistence of something.

Say I tell you that there is an ape-like creature covered in pink hair that lives on the dark side of the moon. Furthermore, I tell you that I know because he communicates with me via telepathy. Do you believe me? I sure wouldn't. I also wouldn't say "Well, maybe some pink ape on the dark side of the moon, I don't really know." I would believe that there wasn't, and that you're the I'm (in the hypothetical /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif) simply delusional. See, a person can produce any number of entities with their imagination, but one would tend to disbelieve in those entities until there is some reason to believe in the existence of those beings. Keep in mind that belief is not necessarily dependent on proof. For example, if I show you footprints and pink hair on the dark side of the moon, you may be inclined to believe me, even without proof, or at least believe that there's not enough evidence to believe either way.

Basically, with no evidence to believe that a God does exist and extensive evidence that indicates that God is simply a delusion of man, an atheist disbelieves in God.

There are very convincing reasons, on the other hand, to believe in the accuracy of Quantum Physics, even if it can't be outright proven. But that's another issue. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I'd like to point out that a hundred and fifty years ago, they had the age of the universe pinned at 6,000 years and change, exact to the day of creation. A few hundred years before that, it was a known fact that someone, somewhere, had figured out how to turn lead into gold. A half a millenium before that, Ghasts and Ghouls were reported, under witness of god, to have attacked various graveyards. Before that, a very nice young carpenter walked on water and rose from the dead. Before him, Dragons were a regualar occurence, and Alexander the great had a flying tent pulled by Griffins. Before that, God Kings ruled in Egypt, Odyesseus battled Cyclops, and Herakles ran around diverting rivers in his free time.

<hr></blockquote>
To focus on failures, sometimes attributable to science sometimes not, absent of scientific successes is a serious fallacy.
<blockquote><hr>

We think we know a lot of things for certain. The only thing I know for certain is that sooner or later we manage to prove everything we know wrong. At one point, it was a scientifically proven fact that bumble bees were incapable of flight. 'And yet, it moves.'

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
The bumble-bee calculation is in no way a scientific "proof". It's a basic hand-waving argument that oversimplifies the actual aerodynamics involved (it's not intended to be an exhaustive proof). This is in no way a proof of inaccuracy in aerodynamics.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Any theory that promotes "creation of anything instantaneously" would also have to include a 'godlike' being

<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote><hr>

God, is supernatural.

su·per·nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

That means God is outside science

<hr></blockquote>

what was that about shooting yerself in the foot?

 

[GBob]

Just to clear up the whole bumblebee thing. They are perfectly sound aerodynamic flyers they just don’t fly like planes or birds. When they looked at the lift that should be provided by flapping rate and size of the standard bumblebee they found it insufficient to allow the bee to fly. In time with improved understanding and after careful study they found that bumblebee wings twist in such a fashion that don’t shed vortex the same way as planes or birds do. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft with their steady, almost in viscid (without viscosity) flow dynamics, insects fly in a sea of vortices, surrounded by tiny eddies and whirlwinds that are created when they move their wings. They were initially misunderstood but are perfectly sound aerodynamically.

 

[Baker|NV]

Like I said.

"....argument that oversimplifies the actual aerodynamics involved."

The details are not necessary to make the point. But yes, you're correct.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;what was that about shooting yerself in the foot? </font color=blue>

If your going off the primacies that I'm defining god as Jesus Christ, Allah, or Zeus yes... I just shot myself in the foot. I'm not, so no... I didn't. If there is indeed a god, science sooner or later will define him also. Mankind will accept no less.

My point was that "creation of anything instantaneously" includes a godlike being that could have the ability to create, change, or manipulate mankind therefor making him/her/it "god" as described in most religious texts. It would be whatever scientist who thought this up shot him/herself in the foot.

I'm not arguing that there is a god. I'm not arguing that there is no god. I'm arguing that until science can prove something can come from nothing ( yes back to this ) that one theory is just as valid as the other.

And I just like to debate./php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Rather, I think that a rational atheist (a group which I would associate myself with under the assumption that I am rational ) will tell you that there is no reason to believe that God does exist and that the burden of evidence should lie on existence rather than nonexistence of something.</font color=blue>

Agreed.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;There are very convincing reasons, on the other hand, to believe in the accuracy of Quantum Physics, even if it can't be outright proven. But that's another issue.</font color=blue>

I also agree with this. But until Quantum Physics can prove that vacuum fluctuations happen for scientific reasons "So the universe could come from nothing because it is, essentially, nothing" is just as ludicrous in my mind as a supernatural being doing it. Things just magically 'Pop' into existence? Come on./php-bin/shared/images/icons/crazy.gif

I wish this wasn't a god thread, there are so many amazing places this discussion could go.

 

[Lady from Hell]

*wonders where all the Bible-banging Christians in this thread went*



*looks around*



Aaaahhhhhhhhh!!! It's been hijacked by a bunch of smart-a$$ scientific philosophers!!!!!!!
No wrong done there, but where's the middle line ppl? heheheheh
Mmmkay then...


*wonders where in the heck this thread is going now*

Hey, ppl, why not just start a new one? Instead of taking this one off into other directions?

Whatever /php-bin/shared/images/icons/eyes.gif

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I also agree with this. But until Quantum Physics can prove that vacuum fluctuations happen for scientific reasons "So the universe could come from nothing because it is, essentially, nothing" is just as ludicrous in my mind as a supernatural being doing it. Things just magically 'Pop' into existence? Come on.

I wish this wasn't a god thread, there are so many amazing places this discussion could go.

<hr></blockquote>
The uncertainty principle is in a way the beginning of quantum physics. Basically the derivation of the uncertainty principle is based on limitations on measurements that can be done. You can never know an object's position and momentum with infinite accuracy. You also can never know an object's energy and duration of that energy to infinite accuracy. Although the principle is based on measurements, however, physicists have over time taken this to be a more fundamental law. In other words, energy can be violated over a limited time. If you're of Einstein's school of thought, this view is a mistake, however much experimental data seems to indicate that a probabilistic interpretation is, in fact, fundamental.

Quantum physics basically is physics under that school of thought in which probability is fundamental. Things popping into existence is not a consequence of God, necessarily. This is merely a consequence of the particles created being able to exist without violating physical laws (which God isn't likely to be bound by anyway). If you want to picture God behind the scenes, you can, but I would bet that most physicists will tell you it's simply probability.

 

[Roscoe]

You know something is officially dead when the Jackals are all that remain. *evil grin*

 

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>

Just curious... If I might ask how much actual experience do you have in physics/philosophy? From your posts, I might be inclined to assume that you have dangerously little in each in that you know of a few concepts yet fundamentally misapply them.

<hr></blockquote>

Oh, I do not claim to have a PhD in either of them. But I have extensively studied the works of Heisenberg (since I was a student of one of his first "diciples") and Hawking during my time at University. It was while studing the biochemistry of the brain when I realized that mankind really knows nothing of what is going on. Everything is based on theories, which get proven and often they are disproven again by something else or they develop another theory which fits their scheme, say it is likely that it is so, since they wrapped this theory around their proof in the first place.
Ok, I do understand that this is the way scientists found it works best. But to say that something IS so (because of this or that) and disregarding other possibilities is not very scientific and it happens a lot in this thread here, let alone the world of scientific professionals.

<blockquote><hr>

First, the universe is not necessarily infinite. There is finite mass, energy, etc. in the universe.

<hr></blockquote>That's nothing else but an assumption based upon an unproven theory. I cannot recall that anyone ever testing the boundaries to prove it true. So, I assume the universe is infinite. That's what my (and many of Hawking's) philosophies are based on. Of course he thought of many things which may be just as likely but contradict previous ones, and some strengthen them. But I do not believe to see "scientific" proof of anything discussed here about the universe or God in my lifetime (from other people than him). This only leaves philosophy.

<blockquote><hr>

[...] ethereal being external to the material universe. Especially when you consider the lack of any reason to believe that anything immaterial exists.

<hr></blockquote>I never described an ethereal being. The universe (God) would consist of everything in it and thus becomes more than its parts. This would even be possible IF the universe was finite; works with the human body, why shouldn't it work with something bigger?

Besides, matter is nothing else but another form of energy, so what exactly is material and what is not? And why this 3D+Time thinking when Hawking has mathematically proven that there's more to our universe than that?

And because my experience is so limited, why don't explain to me what makes the Big Bang theory so valid, besides the current, ongoing expansion of what these (and obviously you) believe is our universe?

 

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>

Such a creature does not exist, the probability of such a creature existing are infinitessimally small, yet my brain is able to picture it do to a combination of past experiences and biology (as well as my current will to picture an absurd creature to illustrate my point ).

<hr></blockquote>Without going into any calculations here, I would guess that the chance for such a creature existing is not that small. But that does not matter, the chance exists (mathematically) and therefore you cannot rule out this possibility. What's left then? When there are endless possibilties and the chance for this is endlessly small, it leads to the problem of infinity divided by infinity which, as you know, is an indeterminate form, which leaves everything possible. So therfore you cannot say it is IMpossible.

And there we come around to the beginning of my theory, that in an infinite universe everything is possible.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Any theory that promotes "creation of anything instantaneously" would also have to include a 'godlike' being. Sooner or later it would happen, not to mention sooner or later another 'me' would just pop into existence.

<hr></blockquote> For the last time, read the damn article! You're trying to argue with me based on quantum theory, which you apparently know nothing about. Yes, technically that is true. If vacuum fluctuations are indeed fact, which is a fundametal theory of quantum theory, then yes, eventually another "you", and a god-like being would be created. But the odds of something so complex, and so specific would be so infintessimally small that they would not happen for billions of trillions of millions of years.

 

[Roscoe]

For the last time, read the damn article! You're trying to argue with me based on quantum theory, which you apparently know nothing about. Yes, technically that is true. If vacuum fluctuations are indeed fact, which is a fundametal theory of quantum theory, then yes, eventually another "you", and a god-like being would be created. But the odds of something so complex, and so specific would be so infintessimally small that they would not happen for billions of trillions of millions of years.

Is that in addition to the billions and billions of years the universe has already existed?

 

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>

Is that in addition to the billions and billions of years the universe has already existed?

<hr></blockquote>

And then he is talking about possibilities here, meaning, no matter how little the chance, it could happen tomorrow or next month, it could have happened a thousand times already, or, just like he says it happens far far in the future.

It's possible. To argue that it won't happen, because the chance is so little is not logical.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

For the last time, read the damn article! You're trying to argue with me based on quantum theory, which you apparently know nothing about. Yes, technically that is true. If vacuum fluctuations are indeed fact, which is a fundametal theory of quantum theory, then yes, eventually another "you", and a god-like being would be created. But the odds of something so complex, and so specific would be so infintessimally small that they would not happen for billions of trillions of millions of years.

Is that in addition to the billions and billions of years the universe has already existed?[/i]

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
Sorry, but Worm's wrong on this one. You can't compute the possibility of a God entity popping into existence through quantum mechanics because a God entity transcends the corporeal world. If God were a function of matter/energy then it could be done, but God by definition is related to neither (btw, we're talking about physical energy here bible thumpers, not "love energy" /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif).

 

[GBob]

Yes I just thought someone might misinterpret what you where saying and thereby continue the misconception bumblebees can't fly. Imagine the poor little things being grounded by the FAA and having to walk to gather food with those little tiny legs.

 

[Guest]

Aristotle is said to have been first to make a distinction between the two, and he denied existence of actual infinity.

- Actual infinity is that which exceeds and always has exceeded all finite measure. Or mathematically: a property p of object is actually infinite, if, for every natural number N, p exceeds N.

That to me implies absence of something that can be called end or start.

- Potential infinity is that which exceeds a measure on every iteration of measure. Or mathematically: a property p of object is potentially infinite, if, for every natural number N which exceeds p, there is a natural number M exceeding N, which also exceeds p.

One could also say that potential infinity, as the infinite presented over time, refers to a process, whereas actual infinity indicates completion of a process, infinite at a moment in time,.

<font color=blue>As far as current theories go the universe is "actually" (*g*) infinite.</font color=blue>

Well, that to me implies that it had no initial state, and consequently God could not have initiated it *scratches head*.

Also, under no circumstances could he have afforded himself the liberty of stretching it out over the time period of six days. Thus Bible sucks, violently /php-bin/shared/images/icons/uhoh.gif.

<font color=blue>Creation as you are using it here requires that something happens over a period of time.</font color=blue>

No, unless I have somehow screwed up with the definitions. It requires that universe had (*errm* and still has) initial state, caused by God.

<font color=blue>Just because it is this way with what we believe is the universe, doesn't mean it is the whole reality.</font color=blue>

In that case, again, the universe needs to be defined first, I think.

<font color=blue>Why does everything have to happen in our limited understanding of tghe space-time continuum?</font color=blue>

Because, any arguments to the contrary absent, anything that does not and would never manifest itself in the space-time continuum, could be referred to as not existing to us existing in said continuum.

<font color=blue>Why do things have to "happen" per se at all?</font color=blue>

I love answering rhetorical questions in annoying manner: so that they manifest themselves, in the universe.

<font color=blue>Stephen Hawking has written a facinating book in which he tries to explain some theories of his which go far beyond our understanding and even attempted (and in some cases succeeded) to mathematically prove that there is more than our 3D+Time system, or even less.</font color=blue>

I have not read the book, unfortunately. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion he made was that there would be no place left for God. So, if it is his theory that is used to support the existence of God, it would have to have been someone else who made that conclusion. It would not automatically make such a conclusion false, but it would be interesting to know who and how; if I'm to gather the will to start learning about Mr. Hawking's theory.

More to follow ...

 

[Roscoe]

Well, that to me implies that it had no initial state, and consequently God could not have initiated it *scratches head*.

Also, under no circumstances could he have afforded himself the liberty of stretching it out over the time period of six days. Thus Bible sucks, violently .

I always find these comments quite interesting. If you define god in context of the Universe you might be right. If you define the universe in context of God you'd be wrong.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

It was while studing the biochemistry of the brain when I realized that mankind really knows nothing of what is going on. Everything is based on theories, which get proven and often they are disproven again by something else or they develop another theory which fits their scheme, say it is likely that it is so, since they wrapped this theory around their proof in the first place.
Ok, I do understand that this is the way scientists found it works best. But to say that something IS so (because of this or that) and disregarding other possibilities is not very scientific and it happens a lot in this thread here, let alone the world of scientific professionals.

<hr></blockquote>
The measure of science is purely functional. In the seventeenth century, Newton wrote his principia. Newton was wrong. It turns out his theories/equations break down when things go fast or get small. But it is overly simplistic to dismiss Newtonian mechanics as being the "theory du jour" to be replaced by some new idea. Newton's mechanics explain almost every aspect of physics one encounters in everyday life. Newton's physics simply weren't the complete picture. In the 20th century quantum physics and relativity were developed. Now physics can go to small scales and high speeds. We can predict and describe even more than we could with Newton. Is current science complete? No, but it's overly simplistic to dismiss it as being a passing fad.
<blockquote><hr>

That's nothing else but an assumption based upon an unproven theory. I cannot recall that anyone ever testing the boundaries to prove it true. So, I assume the universe is infinite. That's what my (and many of Hawking's) philosophies are based on. Of course he thought of many things which may be just as likely but contradict previous ones, and some strengthen them. But I do not believe to see "scientific" proof of anything discussed here about the universe or God in my lifetime (from other people than him). This only leaves philosophy.

<hr></blockquote>
Unproven, yes. But every indication points to a finite universe in volume, mass, energy, time, etc..
<blockquote><hr>

I never described an ethereal being. The universe (God) would consist of everything in it and thus becomes more than its parts. This would even be possible IF the universe was finite; works with the human body, why shouldn't it work with something bigger?

<hr></blockquote>
The current discussion is about God, not the universe, the two are not the same. If you see the universe as God, then you're talking about a different God with little to no meaning. You're "God" is not a conscious entity, it is not any basis for morality, it has nothing to do with humanity. It is ridiculous to use the term "God" here.
<blockquote><hr>

Besides, matter is nothing else but another form of energy, so what exactly is material and what is not? And why this 3D+Time thinking when Hawking has mathematically proven that there's more to our universe than that?

<hr></blockquote>
That's not even relevant to anything in this discussion....
<blockquote><hr>

And because my experience is so limited, why don't explain to me what makes the Big Bang theory so valid, besides the current, ongoing expansion of what these (and obviously you) believe is our universe?

<hr></blockquote>
The Big Bang theory best describes all astronomical observations one can make... There is currently no better theory.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Without going into any calculations here, I would guess that the chance for such a creature existing is not that small. But that does not matter, the chance exists (mathematically) and therefore you cannot rule out this possibility. What's left then? When there are endless possibilties and the chance for this is endlessly small, it leads to the problem of infinity divided by infinity which, as you know, is an indeterminate form, which leaves everything possible. So therfore you cannot say it is IMpossible.

<hr></blockquote>
The chance of such a creature popping into existence is unimaginably small, and even if the creature were to pop into existence it would almost immediately cease to exist by conservation of Energy. So really we're talking about the probability that such a creature would evolve.

So the question goes to the probability of origination of life multiplied by the probability of life evolving to some absurd creature. With finite mass in our universe the chances of such an existence are unimaginably small. A rational person would believe that such a being does not exist, even if there is a possibility that it does.

In any case, my main argument here was that you essentially claimed that your brain could not produce something which didn't exist because the brain follows the same physical laws. The formation of an idea in your brain, however, is fundamentally different from the manifestation of that idea in reality.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Yes I just thought someone might misinterpret what you where saying and thereby continue the misconception bumblebees can't fly. Imagine the poor little things being grounded by the FAA and having to walk to gather food with those little tiny legs.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
Yes, I suppose it's good to clarify. People in general have a nasty tendency to catch tiny snippets of real science and distort them into personal works of fiction (as evidenced by the conception that aerodynamics says bees can't fly in the first place /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif).

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Sorry, but Worm's wrong on this one.</font color=blue>

I already knew that, but thanks anyway/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;You can never know an object's position and momentum with infinite accuracy. You also can never know an object's energy and duration of that energy to infinite accuracy. </font color=blue>

Agreed.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Things popping into existence is not a consequence of God, necessarily. </font color=blue>

This is where we part ways. I'm not saying "god" does this, but I do not accept something "popping into existence" from nothing. That would be supernatural. This theory is just as wrong as the theory of God in my mind.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;If you want to picture God behind the scenes, you can, but I would bet that most physicists will tell you it's simply probability.</font color=blue>

I don't like to think that, but you knew that already didn't you? I much prefer science explanations over anything else, but to simply say it is not possible when unable to prove otherwise or give another explanation just as valid is wrong.

 

[Guest]

that's a lot to read...but one question...
what if the bible was never written?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

what if the bible was never written?

<hr></blockquote>

Are you thinking audio tapes? Screen play? We'll do lunch.

But seriously, if the Bible had never been written, then this forum would have a lot fewer posts, we'd have 80% less con artists in the world, and there would be the same amount of really tall buildings in New York City that there was on September 10, 2001.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Sorry, but Worm's wrong on this one

<hr></blockquote> Look at my post again. I said "God-like", not "God". I figured someone might say that it wouldn't be possible for God to be created like that. I meant simply a being with powers so far beyond ours it would appear to be a god.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

&gt;&gt;Things popping into existence is not a consequence of God, necessarily.

This is where we part ways. I'm not saying "god" does this, but I do not accept something "popping into existence" from nothing. That would be supernatural. This theory is just as wrong as the theory of God in my mind.

<hr></blockquote>Look, you're arguing with science on your gut instince here. It's just stupid to say "That doesn't sound right, it's wrong.". All calculations and evidence we have say that this happens. Just accept it.

 

[Guest]

God exists, just accept it.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;All calculations and evidence we have say that this happens. Just accept it. </font color=blue>

Sounds just as stupid doesn't it? I will not accept it until given enough information to to sustain the theory, and it hasn't yet.

 

[Guest]

Hmm...if you're saying what I think you're saying...I feel the same way...
But on a more personal level, I feel that the world would be a much better place without God and all forms of organized religion. I feel all the evils in the world are created because of God. I claimed Satanist for a while, but left it because that too was twisted by human nature (It's really ironic). Now I just believe in Me. And I love Me. And through Me, I found I can truley love others. It's easy to say too...Me! Short and sweet. Some say I could call it Meism. Too long. And that would make it organized...and I'm sooo not organized. My mp3's are tho...

 

[Guest]

We would probably worship Isis and her son Horus, Sol Invictus/Mithras main holiday would be December 25th (surprise surprise). Stuff like that.
Of course most major works of literature and art would be different, accordingly.
Probably there would be more unified world around the Mediterranean, maybe there would be no Islam...

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;what if the bible was never written? </font color=blue>

I might be able to answer this with a more direct question.

???

 

[Guest]

Are you following me? lol jk...I like these pictures ya'll paint if the bible didn't exist...looks nice...

 

[Guest]

If you want evidence, go look for it. Shouldn't be hard. Me and Baker keep telling you it happens. If you don't believe us, then look for yourself. I'm not going to go around backing up every little fact that you dispute.