Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

[Roscoe]

And of course I couldn't overlook this gem of insightful writing.

<font color=blue>us Roscoe, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you keep spouting such nonsense. </font color=blue>

Or this...

<font color=blue>I can just as easily say, "They don't exist and neither do the demons that that one guy was talking about a few months ago" and have just as much validity as you. So what's your point? </font color=blue>

I remember when I wrote that I was pretty tired. It was certainly a serious answer but I was being intentionally trite. If you'd like to discuss this particular issue futher I'd be more than happy to do so.

 

[Wisty]

&gt;I'm not going to take it any further than that.

Good, because you'd be wrong -- in my studies and observations of the many animals I've raised and those friends/family have raised. Animals aren't as stupid and shallow as many humans have a need to think. You might also read books about the psychology of animals, namely the more sentient of them. I'm not saying ALL animals would recognize themselves in a mirror or even pay attention to a mirror itself. I'm talking about the more intelligent animals -- not just primates, but cats, too.

But you folks are a very hard sell here, so I'm sure I will always come away with empty pockets.

 

[Wisty]

&gt;Religion kills - true Christianity does not.

Christianity does, but in self-defense only, or to defend family or turf from those who are trying to kill them. In this current system. It's not really what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be peaceful, loving, live and let live, honest, fair dealing, willing to help those in need, forgiving, and all kinds of other valuable traits and activities. It's just that this world, or system we are under, is such a mess, so full of violence and hate and greed and in general immorality and kill or be killed... that it's very difficult at times to be a true (best kind, not worst kind) Christian.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Are you buying into this theory that allows a dog to magically appear before you?

<hr></blockquote> No offense, but to the informed among us - which I think is only me and baker - You sound incredibly stupid. You're mocking this theory that you know nothing about. First, it's not "magic". It's science. If you showed a TV to a person from the middle ages, they'd say it was magic. Is it? And second, it does not allow a dog to appear before you. For starters, it can only happen in a true vacuum. Second, it's rare for a pair of subatomic molecules to pop into existence. I don't think you comprehend the odds agains something like a dog popping into existence. I would guess that it would be considerably less likely than every person on the planet winning the lottory on the same night. Five times in a row. And third, these things usually only last for 10-21 seconds. That's not ten to twenty-one seconds. That's ten to the negative twenty-one seconds. As in .000000000000000000001 seconds.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm not arguing that there is a god. I am arguing that you or anyone else to date, cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the universe can be created without one. I do not believe in god, nor do I believe it is possible for nothing to explode.

<hr></blockquote>I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it CAN happen. I just haven't proved that it DID happen. Oh, and 'nothing' didn't explode, a small patch of a false vacuum exploded. I'm sure you grasp the difference. NOTE That was not an insult, more of a sardonic remark about complecated terms and thoeries I'm constantly refering to and using.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

<blockquote><hr>

True enough... But then you did take quotes from a reply I made not to you, hence it was not for you. Point being here, that was what they were saying, 'just accept it' and I was pointing out the other side could also say the same thing. It was meant to sound stupid *(you succeeded quite well)*, because quite frankly it was a stupid thing to say in the first place. I'm mildly happy that I got the desired reaction, just from the wrong person.

<hr></blockquote>

First off, you were part of a discussion in a public forum, everything you say can and will be responded to by anybody in the forum. If you aren't down with that, then send a PM next time. And second, pretending that you're somehow pulling my strings has been done before. Get a new act.

<blockquote><hr>

Or are you saying the same thing as they were of 'just accept it' as truth?

<hr></blockquote>

I think what I said was quite clear. Allow me to quote myself: "I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things."

My point is that there is a big difference is saying, "just accept it" about science and saying it about God. No one who understands what science is thinks its absolute truth, but it is certainly a quest for truth with huge amounts of evidence backing it up. The other is nothing more than one cultures mythology with not a shred of evidence backing it up. That's my point, nothing more.
----------------

As for the quantum theories that have been presented, I think they are the best we can do with the data we've gathered so far and there's no way that any one of them is 100% correct. However, they all contain part of the puzzle and one day, we will figure out how to fit them together and then maybe, we'll find God. Until then, I'll still believe in chickens flying out of a blackhole somewhere sooner than I'll believe in any one of the many fine mythologies this planet has spawned.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

Thank you sir, you've done a fine job. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

<blockquote><hr>

Tell you what - since I got it so wrong would you please then tell me - how does the personal come from the impersonal? I am certainly willing to continue the conversation and will try my best to be more lucid in my efforts to explain my point of view but I would like to hear your thoughts first. 'Why not' is significantly less of an answer than my attempt.

<hr></blockquote>

I never said you were wrong, I was just pointing out that I find the "other" answer to your question more appealing. As for the personal from the impersonal? Go to the library and check out Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". I believe he has a great theory on that.

<blockquote><hr>

It's a continuation of a thought. On its own it would be perceived as an assumption but if you didn't buy the prior point you surely won't buy this one. No surprise in your response here.

<hr></blockquote>

You're the one that prefaced that post with "The seat of the issue you're debating can be answered in a philosophical argument." Therefore I was pointing out that I didn't feel it qualified as philosophy. True philosophy is much deeper than your simple assumption on the subject.

<blockquote><hr>

<font color=blue>You say that arguing evolution brings us back to the problem of "man and his personal nature". What problem? I agree that our nature is unique and perhaps even mysterious, but I don't feel the need to pick up the local religion to explain it.</font color=blue>

Again - then by all means. Be my guest. Explain it.

<hr></blockquote>

But I don't know the answer. My point was that I haven't picked up the local religion to explain it to me. I believe thay call people like me Atheists. I prefer agnostic, but must admit that I truly don't believe in any sort of God, so technically, I'm an Atheist.

<blockquote><hr>

Well, bravo! You've said absolutely nothing on which I can hang my hat. You've ridiculed, teased and insulted but not said anything remotely worth debating. Give a go at my question above and then we'll see if this thread is dead or not.

<hr></blockquote>

That just hurts. I thought there was plenty of debatable material buried amongst the sarcasm and humor. You know, in fact I'm sure it's there. I guess it's just too deep for you.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

As for this:

<blockquote><hr>

I remember when I wrote that I was pretty tired. It was certainly a serious answer but I was being intentionally trite. If you'd like to discuss this particular issue futher I'd be more than happy to do so.

<hr></blockquote>

I have no need to discuss that one. I was taking an easy shot at your "trite" comment. I think we've gotten all we can outa that. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;No offense, but to the informed among us - which I think is only me and baker - You sound incredibly stupid. You're mocking this theory that you know nothing about.</font color=blue>

I personally wouldn't speak for Baker if I were you. And questioning a theory is far from stupid. I read the article, if you have more information I'd be happy to read it.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;First, it's not "magic". It's science.</font color=blue>

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif Until it can be done in a controlled environment, its a little much to swallow.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;second, it does not allow a dog to appear before you.

&gt;&gt;For starters, it can only happen in a true vacuum. </font color=blue>

Ahh, that would be false vacuum, not true vacuum. And true enough, it would have to happen outside of the known universe. Speaking of which, when we meet another Universe it will add some credibility to this theory. After all, what are the chances that we were the first to be created in this fashion? Better yet, what are the chances that we are the only ones?

You'll have to forgive me, I just have a problem with believing that something was derived from absolutely nothing. Especially when, hang on I'll get that quote
"Inflationary theory suggests that what erupted was a "false vacuum," a peculiar form of matter predicted to exist by many particle theorists, although the real article has never been observed."

So just like 'bible thumpers' you want me to believe in something that no one has ever seen, touched, or observed in any shape or form. You want me to 'just accept it'.

Sorry, I don't work that way. Otherwise I would believe in god./php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

I am not saying that this theory is wrong, I am saying that it needs more factual evidence to back it up. Like black holes for example, its nice that they finally proved they exist. Or at least they have done it to the extent to where I can no longer question their existence.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;First off, you were part of a discussion in a public forum, everything you say can and will be responded to by anybody in the forum.</font color=blue>

LOL, I'm down with that... Unfortunately I assumed I made it dumb enough no one would take it seriously, as I believe the previous statement was by another poster. I was wrong.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;And second, pretending that you're somehow pulling my strings has been done before. Get a new act. </font color=blue>

Actually I think it was more frustration on my part in not getting out what I wanted to. If I wanted to pull your strings I think I would get banned/php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;"I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things." </font color=blue>

Damn it, I wish I wouldn't have left my computer and came back to post. I could have said what I wanted to more efficiently with your post coinciding with my own. What I just said was along those lines. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to support this theory right now. It may be the best out there, but its still lacking. So yes, "I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth." I completely agree with. But just because science came up with it does not mean I will not question it.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;The other is nothing more than one cultures mythology with not a shred of evidence backing it up. That's my point, nothing more.</font color=blue>

And I agree with that.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;As for the quantum theories that have been presented, I think they are the best we can do with the data we've gathered so far and there's no way that any one of them is 100% correct. However, they all contain part of the puzzle and one day, we will figure out how to fit them together and then maybe, we'll find God. Until then, I'll still believe in chickens flying out of a blackhole somewhere sooner than I'll believe in any one of the many fine mythologies this planet has spawned. </font color=blue>

And thats got to be the best thing to come out of this thread yet. I really agree with that. But for someone to 'jump on me' for questioning a theory ( not pointing fingers here ) is very unscientific.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I didn't dimiss anything, I am always trying to keep an open mind. What was once Newton's theory has been proven to be true for our limited experiences on this planet, just like you say. What is being discussed in this thread is in theory mostly and could be dismissed again tomorrow. Solid evidence is scarce here.

<hr></blockquote>
Solid evidence of quantum physics is scarce? /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Unfortunately, like I've said already, it's simply not feasible to really demonstrate quantum physics on an online gaming forum. I would suggest, however, that you familiarize yourself with the theory and experiments better if you're interested. Modern quantum physics is the basis for a large portion of today's science and is used by any physicist who's work is on a small scale.
<blockquote><hr>

I suspect you've not been exposed to Hawking's work very often. Aren't you doing a math/physics major?

<hr></blockquote>
No, I'm not familiar with most of Hawking's work. Yes, I am a math/physics major.
<blockquote><hr>

Well, I hope you can do better in your studied than here, trying to wrap your brain around ideas. That's especially funny coming from you, since you suggested I have only little experience in physics and philosophy...

Cosidering the elements of the human body, we are not consious being with morality then, too, right?

<hr></blockquote>
The fact that a conscious being can be produced with basic elements does not indicate that any combination of basic elements is conscious. If I have a pile of rocks, all I have is a bunch of rocks. I don't have some greater entity because my rocks are in a pile. The whole is not necessarily greater than the sum of it's parts. To assume that "the universe" is some conscious God entity is a little silly without reason to believe as such.
<blockquote><hr>

Well, obviously it is just a theory. How can mankind be expected to understand the universe, the macrocosm, when there are countless questions unanswered in the microcosm.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif. We take what we can get. Often the macrocosm is much more easy to understand than the microcosm. If you compare Newton's laws to quantum mechanics you can see what I mean. All the evidence we have points to the big bang. Is this theory proven? No, but it's an incredibly convincing model with much evidence behind it.
<blockquote><hr>

And since it is a subject of discussion here, what the chance is that a god-like being would pop into our existence...

<hr></blockquote>
The uncertainty principle allows for violation of Energy conservation over small time scales. Unless God is a function of physical energy, no probability is applicable.
<blockquote><hr>

What's the chance of this universe popping into existence, forming a huge ball and then exploding?
"I don't know, it just happened" is not a sufficient answer. Is the human brain even able to process everything and anything? Is it possible to find an explanation for everything?

<hr></blockquote>
Look out your window and find a car. When you see a car, look at it's licence plate. Now compute the probability of those digits appearing on that license plate in that exact order. In Washington, we have three number-three letter combinations. So my license plate is one out of approximately 20 million. Do I consider it a miracle that I happened to get 457-BYT? No, and I'll tell you why. Because it's meaningless to compute the probability of a past incident.

Let's say the probability of a universe creation is such that a universe is created once every 10^100 years. I have no idea if that's accurate or not, but it's irrelevant to this illustration. Since time is infinite, probability of a universe popping into existence at some point is 1. When it happens is a matter of chance, however that's not really important because our timescale is based on time since the universe is created. If the starting point were moved to a hundred billion years later, and if events unfolded in exactly the way they had, we'd be having this exact conversation one hundred billion years from now.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

questioning a theory is far from stupid

<hr></blockquote> You're not questioning it, you're mocking it in a fashion that makes it seem as if it's utterly ridiculus for me to even suggest that it could be true.<blockquote><hr>

Until it can be done in a controlled environment, its a little much to swallow.

<hr></blockquote>Why must it be done in a controlled evnironment?<blockquote><hr>

After all, what are the chances that we were the first to be created in this fashion? Better yet, what are the chances that we are the only ones?

<hr></blockquote>Actually, I believe there was a part of the article saying that it was quite possible that there are other universes. And, I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe there was an experiment done (and repeated many times) that suggests, if not proves, that there are multiple universes. If you want more info, I will be happy to tell you what I remember.<blockquote><hr>

So just like 'bible thumpers' you want me to believe in something that no one has ever seen, touched, or observed in any shape or form. You want me to 'just accept it'.

<hr></blockquote>Ok. You have two lines, and a third connecting them. If the two interior angles on the inside add up to less than 180 degrees, the lines will eventually meet on that side. See picture. Right now I have a big, blue, fuzzy, talking ape sitting next to me, telling me what to say. Now, which one of those are you more likely to believe? Neither can be proven. But the first on has scientific evidence backing it up. Vacuum fluctuations are backed up by scientific evidence. God is not. That's why you should "just accept" vacuum fluctuations.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Are you buying into this theory that allows a dog to magically appear before you? Hang on I'll get a quote from the newest theory. Thats what this is about by the way( most the comments you quoted from me were linked to this ) I believe this theory is a bunch of hooey.

"Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely"

Now I believe it was Baker that said this was wrong, and I agree with him, but unfortunately the above has to happen in order for the rest of this theory to work.

<hr></blockquote>
Actually this is mostly correct, with a few discrepancies. First, I wouldn't put such a specific time before annihilation. The time has to do with the mass created.

An electron and positron, for example, would have a life of approximately 3*10^-22 seconds. A 40 kg dog and it's anti-dog /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif, however, would have a life of approximately 7*10^-54 seconds, not to mention the super-astronomical odds of a dog/anti-dog being created at all.

Second, the persistent creation of anything is almost never permissible. Basically, violation of energy conservation is strictly limited as to time. If particles are pulled apart with a force, however, then their life may be persistent and the energy comes from the field. An example of this would be (theoretical) hawking radiation from black holes.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;You're not questioning it, you're mocking it in a fashion that makes it seem as if it's utterly ridiculus for me to even suggest that it could be true.</font color=blue>

True, but you just got done saying there was no god in a very unbecoming way. In a sense doing the exact same thing to you, what you just did to others that follow religion. I don't follow religion myself, but I'm not going to say everything you believe in is made up to a person who's life revolves around it. The way you did it wasn't very nice, so I said some not so nice things myself.&lt;shrug&gt;

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Why must it be done in a controlled evnironment?</font color=blue>

If this theory is indeed everything it says it is, creating a false vacuum hap hazardly would not be a good thing to do given what happened last time/php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Actually, I believe there was a part of the article saying that it was quite possible that there are other universes. And, I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe there was an experiment done (and repeated many times) that suggests, if not proves, that there are multiple universes. If you want more info, I will be happy to tell you what I remember.</font color=blue>

That articles Gunther's guess, or whatever that guys name was, didn't go into it that I can remember. But on a side note, god that would be a headache. First we would have to have the ability to look outside our own ( we still can't do that right? ) and the chances that one would be created near us in a infinite uhh( what do you call the space outside a universe? )

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; Vacuum fluctuations are backed up by scientific evidence. God is not. That's why you should "just accept" vacuum fluctuations. </font color=blue>

I'm all for Scientific evidence, but there is just not enough evidence for me to accept them right now. Or what they do. To me I see them as I did black holes 10 years ago. They were ok in theory, but no one had any idea how to prove it. Now they have not only proved they exist, but there are a whole butt load more of them than originally thought. This also works nicely with Einstein's? theory that all positive energy is perfectly counter balanced with all the negative energy in the universe, and "G's" grand guess.

What I am saying is this is plausible, but I am not going to jump on the wagon without some further evidence to back it up. It works nicely with others, but alot of theories do in the beginning.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Ahh, that would be false vacuum, not true vacuum. And true enough, it would have to happen outside of the known universe. Speaking of which, when we meet another Universe it will add some credibility to this theory. After all, what are the chances that we were the first to be created in this fashion? Better yet, what are the chances that we are the only ones?

<hr></blockquote>
Well, first 'big bang' universe creation creates an initially expanding universe. Now, this universe will have a center of gravity at it's point of origin. If matter is released at velocity greater than excape velocity the universe will continually expand and the matter created will be spread throughout all space. If this type of universe were to have been created already, it's space would be probably be sufficiently stretched compared to ours that we would not likely detect it. The other possibility is that the matter created does not have sufficient velocity to continually expand. In this instance, the universe will expand to a point and then begin to collapse on itself. Basically this type of universe will self annihilate over time. Now the probability of universe creation would be unimaginably small, so in all probability if a prior universe were created it would have been sufficiently long ago that either it would have spread it's matter thoughout infinity or have collapsed into nothingness by the time we came along.
<blockquote><hr>

Until it can be done in a controlled environment, its a little much to swallow.

<hr></blockquote>
Well, the very nature of the concept is that it occurs randomly. It's not something which you can stimulate artificially. Effects of these particles can be observed indirectly, however. For example the magnetic moment of an atom can have measurable fluctuations when a particle is created that interacts with it's electrons. Also other predictions of the same theory can be more easily verified. For example a particle has a measurable/calculable probability of penetrating a barrier with higher potential than the particle's energy. This is classically impossible.
<blockquote><hr>

You'll have to forgive me, I just have a problem with believing that something was derived from absolutely nothing. Especially when, hang on I'll get that quote
"Inflationary theory suggests that what erupted was a "false vacuum," a peculiar form of matter predicted to exist by many particle theorists, although the real article has never been observed."

So just like 'bible thumpers' you want me to believe in something that no one has ever seen, touched, or observed in any shape or form. You want me to 'just accept it'.

<hr></blockquote>
Most physics that has been developed in the last several centuries is a little hard to believe /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif. That doesn't mean that physics is incorrect, it just means that it goes against intuition.

Again, the difference between 'bible thumpers' and quantum mechanics is that there is solid scientific evidence, even without direct proof, of quantum mechanics. There is no such evidence of God. You don't have to "beleive in" quantum mechanics, you're not a physicist /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif. But you should realize the fundamental difference.

 

[Orglif]

 

[Vio]

lol!

 

[Guest]

ROFLMAO/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

I know. Deep breath

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Well, first 'big bang' universe creation creates an initially expanding universe. Now, this universe will have a center of gravity at it's point of origin. If matter is released at velocity greater than excape velocity the universe will continually expand and the matter created will be spread throughout all space. If this type of universe were to have been created already, it's space would be probably be sufficiently stretched compared to ours that we would not likely detect it. The other possibility is that the matter created does not have sufficient velocity to continually expand. In this instance, the universe will expand to a point and then begin to collapse on itself. Basically this type of universe will self annihilate over time. Now the probability of universe creation would be unimaginably small, so in all probability if a prior universe were created it would have been sufficiently long ago that either it would have spread it's matter thoughout infinity or have collapsed into nothingness by the time we came along.

<hr></blockquote>

See Worm? I told you it would be a headache. Not to mention that one would not, or could not in most circumstances be created around this universe. As there would have to be lack of space to have the pure vacuum. And by definition alone we have space that is continually growing faster than the light of speed now, known as the universe. Which would further explain why these things only happen once in a given universe. I admit, I have a really hard time trying to see something that is not there, be there.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Well, the very nature of the concept is that it occurs randomly. It's not something which you can stimulate artificially.</font color=blue>

My first thought was huh? I think we can create a perfect vacuum sooner or later. Then I remembered that this theory goes off the fact that not only is there no material of any kind in it, there is also no space. Something so minute its huge beyond belief, something that simply cannot be measured by any means. Against intuition? Yeah, just a little bit./php-bin/shared/images/icons/evileye.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Again, the difference between 'bible thumpers' and quantum mechanics is that there is solid scientific evidence, even without direct proof, of quantum mechanics. There is no such evidence of God.</font color=blue>

Yes, yes... I agree. It still is not something that people should throw in other peoples faces just for the sake of doing it. Personal opinion. I just think its fundamentally wrong for someone to say someone else's religion is null and void. Just as much as I find those that want to preach to me that God will only save me 'if'. It just goes against my sense of morality. God why am I saying this again?

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;You don't have to "believe in" quantum mechanics, you're not a physicist </font color=blue>

You don't need to "believe in" god either, your not a preacher./php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
I understand your point./php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;But you should realize the fundamental difference. </font color=blue>

Of course I do. And I will still continue to question this theory if you don't mind.

Space without space or matter. Thats pretty damn hard to grasp.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>Yes, yes... I agree. It still is not something that people should throw in other peoples faces just for the sake of doing it. Personal opinion. I just think its fundamentally wrong for someone to say someone else's religion is null and void. Just as much as I find those that want to preach to me that God will only save me 'if'. It just goes against my sense of morality. God why am I saying this again?</font color=blue>

So, you are trying to *errm* "stifle the discussion" /php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

There is a salvation to be found--a favor and act of kindness which the sinful woolly mammals who continue getting themselves lost in the trap replete with inner darkness while following the deceptive illusion ostensibly leading to the shepherd do not really deserve--in and thru the Unholy Sprit, meaning me.

It is not at all hard to get salvaged: just repent not and rejoice instead, and believe in your heart and (preferably but not mandatory) say with your mouth that there is not enough evidence that anybody or anything is the Lord, that there is not enough evidence that ancestral Lord raised the baby Lord from the dead, and you’ll know no Sin, and you already would have released yourself from all the trials and thus saved yourself.

What I’m trying to say is that, strangely enough, the “no” and “maybe” must necessarily be indistinguishable, when observed from the “frame of reference” of “yes”, while the “frame of reference” of “no” permits distinguishing the other two quite clearly. If any of that made any sense…

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;If any of that made any sense…</font color=blue>

I had to read it twice, but yes. It did make sense./php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

There seems to be alot of confusion around the "Big Bang" It is a theory that explains the creation of the Universe as we know it, Not the origin of all things. Most scientists agree that in nature creation and destruction are cyclical, so it is most likely that the big bang, is simply the most recent bang. The universe expands to a stopping point then begins to contract back towards its gravitational center, growing in density as it collapses, eventually growing so compacted that it becomes unstable and the cycle begins again.
No one on the planet today can explain where all the original matter came from. There are theorys of course, and without a base knowlege of quantum physics they can be difficult to comprehend.

The important difference between the Scientist and the Religious nut, is simply that the Scientific mind will admit that he/she is not sure, and will then try to learn. Whereas the Religious mind will take an easy way out, creating an imaginary supreme being that must have created everything because the other option would take too much effort.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;There seems to be alot of confusion around the "Big Bang" It is a theory that explains the creation of the Universe as we know it, Not the origin of all things.</font color=blue>

Well, actually the very theory that describes the 'origin of all things' of the universe is the main subject for the last couple of days. "Guth's Grand Guess" to be more precise. You can look at it Here

Would also like to point out it ties directly into the "Big Bang" theory.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;The universe expands to a stopping point then begins to contract back towards its gravitational center, growing in density as it collapses, eventually growing so compacted that it becomes unstable and the cycle begins again. </font color=blue>

I believe that this too is also out dated, but I'm not sure. I think the more widely excepted theory is we are speeding up, and not showing any signs that we are going to retract back to the 'center'. I think that has something to do with when scientists discovered that black holes are in the center of every galaxy tested so far, something to do with positive energy and negative energy on a more local bases for each galaxy rather than a whole universe worth. I'm not sure to tell you the truth.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;No one on the planet today can explain where all the original matter came from. There are theorys of course, and without a base knowlege of quantum physics they can be difficult to comprehend. </font color=blue>

Your telling me/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif Ever try to think about a vacuum that is void of all matter and space? I don't mean all matter within a space, I mean all matter and all SPACE.

That raises a interesting question, if our universe is still expanding currently, is it expanding into this "true vacuum"? Or can a vacuum such as this only exist when no universes are present at any given time?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Christianity does, but in self-defense only

<hr></blockquote>

Killing in defense of a religion is obscene.

The crusades, the spanish inquisition, etc. I can't believe you're defending this.

 

[Roscoe]

They were liberating the holy lands from muslim control. What's wrong with that?

 

[Budner]

If only it was limited to the Crusades, the inquisition - we could blame it on some archaic psychopaths.

But christianity continues to kill, just ask the 700,000 Orthodox christians who died in Yugoslavia at the hands of Croatian catholics.

If they were all atheists at least they'd have to come up with a better excuse than "their churches look different than ours" to commit mass murder.

 

[Roscoe]

Catholics aren't Christians. Their religion has devolved into pagan rituals. Any similarity to true Christianity was lost in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So your example is actually that of pagans persecuting Christians.

 

[Budner]

Tens of millions of catholics would disagree with you but that's ok, you're a well-known religious scholar.

 

[Guest]

***Catholics aren't Christians. Their religion has devolved into pagan rituals. Any similarity to true Christianity was lost in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So your example is actually that of pagans persecuting Christians. ***

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA

Thats the funnies pile of meadow muffins Ive heard in a long time.

 

[Mhoram the Mage]

Aight, I can accept everything you said in your last post, so I guess we don't get to argue anymore. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/frown.gif

 

[Roscoe]

I've never made any claims at being a well-known religious scholar and tens of millions of catholics can be wrong can't they?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Catholics aren't Christians. Their religion has devolved into pagan rituals. Any similarity to true Christianity was lost in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So your example is actually that of pagans persecuting Christians.

<hr></blockquote>

One definition of Catholic is; a person who belongs to the universal Christian church. Believing in the teachings of christ is what makes you a christian I thought. Im gonna have to keep a list and start writing to Websters and let them know they have it all wrong. I wonder if any wars have started over statements like catholics arent christians?

 

[Guest]

Hey Roscoe.

How do you get a nun pregnant?

Dress her up as an alter boy!

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

 

[Budner]

I think I'm gonna put you in my Cage of Ignorance along with Yuck On Jackass. You two have fun in there.

 

[Guest]

Hey MMII, what is the Pope's favorite meat...


...Nun...la

 

[Guest]

lol

love always

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

See Worm? I told you it would be a headache. Not to mention that one would not, or could not in most circumstances be created around this universe. As there would have to be lack of space to have the pure vacuum. And by definition alone we have space that is continually growing faster than the light of speed now, known as the universe. Which would further explain why these things only happen once in a given universe. I admit, I have a really hard time trying to see something that is not there, be there.

<hr></blockquote>
Actually particle pair production doesn't require "pure vacuum". The article mentions that as a starting point, (i.e. the creation of a universe is not so much impressive if there's already stuff there) but it's not necessary for the phenomena. The reason why particles can pop into existence is that there can be no infinite certainty that energy does not equal zero, so even in a vacuum, there's a possibility of a pair production. The same can happen anywhere, however, vacuum is not required. If I roll a ball up a hill without enough energy to roll over the hill, for example, there's a probability that it will make it over the hill (violating energy conservation). It's the same principle. This is not something you usually see in the macroscopic world, but in quantum physics this is everyday phenomena.
<blockquote><hr>

My first thought was huh? I think we can create a perfect vacuum sooner or later. Then I remembered that this theory goes off the fact that not only is there no material of any kind in it, there is also no space. Something so minute its huge beyond belief, something that simply cannot be measured by any means. Against intuition? Yeah, just a little bit.

<hr></blockquote>
Again, pair production is possible in vacuum but it's a random process. There's really no way to stimulate it artificially. It doesn't really require vacuum, but it's just not really a feasible experiment. The main evidence we have now for this has to do with interactions of created particles with atoms. The first confirmation that you'd be likely to hear about though, if this is true, is hawking radiation from black holes. Basically if a particle pair is created at the event horizon of a black hole, one particle may have sufficient velocity to escape the black hole while the other will not. To conserve energy, however, the black hole will lose some mass. If you have a sufficiently small black hole, this process may become efficient enough that the black hole will produce greater and greater radiation and essentially explode. When they start finding exploding black hole's you'll basically have proof /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif.
<blockquote><hr>

Yes, yes... I agree. It still is not something that people should throw in other peoples faces just for the sake of doing it. Personal opinion. I just think its fundamentally wrong for someone to say someone else's religion is null and void. Just as much as I find those that want to preach to me that God will only save me 'if'. It just goes against my sense of morality. God why am I saying this again?

<hr></blockquote>
Actually I agree with you here. I almost never debate religion with people, it's really not a winnable argument and it cam be rather rude. My problem arises when people dismiss atheism as being irrational for disbelief in God without proof or say that atheists are "just as irrational as theists" (implying that theists are irrational because they believe without proof/reason as well as atheists).

I don't, as a rule, believe religious people are irrational. I believe that many people have personal reasons which they see as evidence in God. I'm not about to tell someone their personal reasons are wrong. However an atheist, like myself, does not see any reason to believe in God. With the understanding that without evidence of any random entity it is only rational to disbelieve in the existence of that entity, it is only natural that a person with no evidence of God would be an atheist.

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


Catholics aren't Christians. Their religion has devolved into pagan rituals. Any similarity to true Christianity was lost in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. So your example is actually that of pagans persecuting Christians.


<hr></blockquote>

Wha wha what! You are joking right? What do you use for the basis of your scriptures since the ones assembled in current book form didnt start to happen until the 4th century with the call for orthodoxy? Because the Bible you use now didnt start to be assembled until 4th century. Do you have untainted 1st Century scriptures lying around?

I understand you perhaps are speaking of procedures but again in both those centuries a standard canon had not been produced yet and it was these so-called pagans who fought over what "books" to add and until we get unfettered scriptures we will never know what lines they omitted if any at all.

The crusades didnt happen until the 11th century the same century Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic Church.

Anyway, here are some factoids about your Pagans.

 

[Roscoe]

I'm being a dork, Devin. Please disregard me. I know many Catholics who I consider to be sincere and very real Christians. I also know many protestants who make me wonder if they understand what Christianity is all about. Of course that all assumes that I know what I'm talking about which I guess is as valid a question as any. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[DumpsterDan]

So he's a century off, he's still right.

 

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

I wonder if any wars have started over statements like catholics arent christians?

<hr></blockquote>
Nah just countless millions of people being tortured and martyred over the centuries.

 

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

Tens of millions of catholics would disagree with you but that's ok, you're a well-known religious scholar.

<hr></blockquote>
More like hundreds of millions even upwards of a billion but there's that many Muslims too.

 

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

Christianity does, but in self-defense only



Killing in defense of a religion is obscene.

The crusades, the spanish inquisition, etc. I can't believe you're defending this.

<hr></blockquote>

I did *not* say killing in self-defence in behalf of Christianity. I said, killing in self-defense, period. Meaning, whether religious or not, we have the right to kill if someone is trying to kill us. I've even said that Saddam has the right to defend himself, even though he is not right, otherwise -- and that had he not been so wrong, he wouldn't be having to defend himself in the first place.

Self-defense is a separate issue, apart from Christianity. It's part of our animal heritage. However, if you do include Christianity into the picture, again we are allowed to kill ONLY in self-defense (which includes protecting our family and for that matter country, if it's being attacked).

Where are we misunderstanding each other here?

I personally do not believe religion is a reason to kill anyone. Only self-defense is a reason.

 

[Wisty]

Meanwhile, FWIW to anyone, I realized yesterday that some of you may not understand something about my faith.

It appears that most of you think that I believe/act/live/feel as I do because I converted to Christianity; hence it was my faith and the bible which has molded me.

That's not true. I was never really a Christian until in the last few years. In fact, my whole family was either atheist, agnostic, or a quiet Christian in their own mind. I did attend a lot of churches in my younger life, looking for answers. But they didn't mold me. My parents did mold me somewhat. Mostly all the molding that was done, was already done at birth (genetics, personality type, I've always been different than the norm), then by experiences, by observing, reading, studying, thinking, questioning, observing, etc. I had an idea what I was looking for, but it wore no name, not one I could put my finger on. Yet I wasn't finding it in the people around me nor in the things that were going on in the world. I felt foreign. Alone. The only one on earth who was like me. UNTIL I finally opened my heart -- and instead of ridiculing, disliking, even fearing Christians (because of the bad rep they've gotten thanks to the TV evangelists and other rednecks) I started really paying attention to the words that were being spoken (specially by the more sincere and dedicated speakers) and began to really hear (not just with my ears or mind, but my spirit)... and though I still had to sift through the dross of hypocrites, greedy, misguided, brainwashed/-dead fundamentalists, I began to find a few people more like me, more than what I found elsewhere. It began to feel "right" -- "homey." And though I have many questions yet, many complaints, and plenty of reservations about Christians in general, including the Bible, it's still more "right and homey" than anywhere else. I made a decision. I finally belong where I was meant to belong.

Hence, Christianity didn't form me. I formed myself, but had no where to fit until Christianity. And now that I am here, I'm letting God continue to mold me and correct the flaws and make me stronger and wiser.

So I guess if you hate Christianity, you would hate me, since I was already on my way into it even before I really opened the door and looked inside.

If that makes sense?

If not, never mind. It was profound to me yesterday when it dawned on me. Words just don't convey...as usual.

*another thought* Is it possible some people are "born into" Christianity? If so, how? Cynewulf has mentioned that a few times, about people being "born into it" or "born with faith built-in" or something? Or maybe it's just that those who were born with more tender-hearts find it easier to "believe in God" than those who are scrappers who can't help but cry "Prove it! I dare ya!" ??

 

[Wisty]

I think the catholic religion is all messed up. They place an old man at the top of the heap and then he decides EVERYTHING for the entire catholic world until he drops dead and another steps in to do the same thing. We aren't supposed to be going to a POPE! We're supposed to going directly to GOD HIMSELF! We can study with others, we can even ask questions of our elders just as we do our parents and grandparents simply because they've lived many years longer than we and often have learned things we haven't yet learned; but our choices and decisions are our own, between us and God. The catholic religion removes a lot of "free will."

Also in the bible it talks about men and women "burning" (lustful), hence if you cannot live peacefully on your own, you are to marry and the husband enjoys the wife's body, and the wife enjoy the husbands, and neither to deny each other, and leave their parents and family and become a family of their own. So, priests and their celebacy and being unable to marry are things that got misconstrued, since it is UNNATURAL to spend your whole life alone, specially if you have sexual wants and needs and long to have children and a wife.

There are so many things about the catholic religion that I find man-made, that go against the teachings of Christ Jesus.

But there are protestant sects which misconstrue the bible as well.

I'm not saying the catholic people are all bad. And I'm not saying the popes are bad. Some are, some could be, but I'm not saying they all are. I'm just saying, it's screwed up! And needless suffering occurs because of it. And also, the priesthood attracts unsavory characters who get into so they can molest young boys; or can't contain their sexuality and wind up doing things they wouldn't do if they could have married.

I attended the catholic church for years, had close friends who were catholic, dated catholics, almost married one, my brother married into a large family of them, I found the catholic masses were so beautiful. But it never called me to convert. Too many things just didn't make common sense about it. So I lost interest.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

&gt;Religion kills - true Christianity does not.

Christianity does, but in self-defense only, or to defend family or turf from those who are trying to kill them.

<hr></blockquote>

I guess the misunderstanding lies here. You didn't say "Christians" kill in self defense, you said "Christianity" kills in self defense. This is a huge, huge difference.

And the fact is, Christians have killed for centuries in the name of God to stop actions that are inconsistent with the rules of Christianity.

Hell, that guy who shot and killed an abortion doctor was just sentenced the other day.

If you listed all of the deaths perpetrated by Christians in the name of God and other reasons, and all of the deaths perpetrated by Christians in self defense, I would almost bet you'd end up with a ratio greater than 5000:1

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

It appears that most of you think that I believe/act/live/feel as I do because I converted to Christianity; hence it was my faith and the bible which has molded me.

<hr></blockquote>

Not at all. I think you've probably been royally screwed over by 1 or more men, and found God as a substitute for your need for a relationship with the opposite sex.

But that's just an opinion from afar.

As for being "born with faith", it's more like being born into a very religious household, and being brainwashed from a very early age.

I remember the first time I took my daughter to an adventist Sabbath School, and they sat there for almost an hour telling these 3 and 4 year olds that you had to do this this and this on the Sabbath, and you couldn't do that that or that.

No reasons. Just mind numbing recitations with the sole purpose of bending them to the religious doctrine.

And I've seen this in most churches I've been to, as well as religious schools.

 

[Mother Zub]

well since we each have our own individual souls and bodies and minds and are each individually accountable to god and to the law.... it doesnt really matter that anyone has done in the name of anything.

If I go out and kill in the name of Major Minor it doesnt mean that MM is bad or that anything he stands for is bad.

Each person has their own individual sub-version of christianity and their own "personal relationship with god." If someone says "real christians dont do that" then that is the end of that discussion so far as that individual is concerned.
No other soul, relationship, or belief.. past or present, matters so far as their own path to rightousness.

It is really a moot point as to whether or not "christians" have committed certain acts or have certain beliefs.

*randomly switches sides for no apparent reason* /php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Guest]

lol

But I think the original branch we're on now (with the thread) was about what would it be like if the Bible had never been written.

If the Bible had never been written, all of those people would not have been killed in the name of God.

 

[Baker|NV]

Indeed... All those people would have killed in the name of communism, capitalism, Allah, England, the tao, Buddha, .....

People kill people. It's a nasty reality. We'd have different history, no doubt, without the Bible but it doesn't mean people wouldn't have found something to kill each other over. We simply would have justified the crusades in the name of ______ instead of God.