Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
How did the universe begin?
physorg.com — One of the most interesting questions considered by astrophysicists deals with the start of our universe. Indeed, there is a great deal of speculation on the subject, with different theories about how the universe began, and what may have existed before the universe came into being.
maheshee11- 550 diggs
- digg it
- racco, on 06/25/2008, -19/+6it began at the beginning and it will end at the end
- duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -14/+3It started 'cause it wanted to.
- Ryan166, on 06/25/2008, -29/+12God.
- racco, on 06/25/2008, -14/+29doesn't exist
- masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -22/+3Prove it.
- gordonj, on 06/25/2008, -3/+23Disprove it.
- gllopc, on 06/25/2008, -3/+26The burden of proof lies with the one whom makes the claim.
- masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -17/+4Prove it.
Should we stop the kindergarten circular argument?
I don't think it can currently be proved or disproved, so the only correct thing to say is you have no evidence that a God exists. The universe is a lot bigger than we've explored and a lot more complex than we understand. We don't know the origins of the universe and we don't know the origins of life. I didn't make a claim. In fact, I responded to the claim that God does not exist. So quit your hypocritical logic and prove it or admit you don't know. The only thing more important than knowing what you know, is knowing what you don't know. - Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -2/+14do you know how scientists and other people who moved past kindergarten get past that circular argument?
by not debating everything anyone claims unless they can provide some reason to argue it.
for instance, Disprove that I have an undetectable, invisible dragon in my garage and an undetectable cat that always sits on my head.
oh but the universe is so much bigger then we have explored and bla bla bla.
so quit your hypocritical logic and disprove it or admit that you believe in only one out of the numerous mutually exclusive beliefs out there for the sole fact that your friends and family do.
The only thing more important then knowing is knowing that you dont know. - masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -13/+1Man, diggers are horrible at reading comprehension. I made no mention to my beliefs and specifically said I don't think it can currently be proved or disproved. Do you mean to tell me with 100% certainty that aliens do not exist? How about dinosaurs if we were having this argument 2000 years ago? You would have been wrong then just as you very well could possibly be wrong now. That's very poor logic and closed-minded to think everything we know of and understand right now is all that exists. That line of thinking is proven wrong at a continuous rate. You really didn't argue any of my points, you just threw some fluff around a poising the well fallacy.
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -1/+11I think you will find that scientists are open to any possibility if you provide enough evidence.
obviously people claimed that dinosaurs existed before we had evidence, why do we now believe them? because they showed proof.
also why would someone seriously believe in dinosaurs without some evidence, its like me claiming I believe in some as of yet to be discovered species of creatures called gagemophorians who lived on earth but I have no evidence, its a stupid point to raise, do you believe me when i say i believe in these creatures? no of course not.
however if I provide some evidence then maybe you have reason to think that maybe I am not just making stuff up. - masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1So... you essentially agree with me than? Though you'll never admit you're admitting it lol
- gordonj, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6No, they're saying that if you can provide objective evidence for the existence of a god then it would be considered.
- masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -22/+3Prove it.
- KhanneaNL, on 06/25/2008, -10/+25That cop-out is becoming a little stale. You are asking me to believe some tribal middle eastern deity created galaxies, gamma ray bursts, black holes, jupiter and dark matter? Don't be so childishly gullible.
- duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -13/+4so it all happened just because? is that what you're saying stop being childishly gullible
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11so some guy just decided to build a new toy and demand we all satisfy our ego while telling us he is good but while allowing bad things to happen that are within his power to stop.
is that what you are saying? stop being childishly gullible. - twomeyw23334, on 06/25/2008, -10/+3Look, I'm not a religious freak but I have been to both a Christian High School and a Jesuit University and I can't stand these "allowing bad things to happen" remarks.
Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant, the fact is Christianity has been around for a long time and has a history of having some extremely intelligent theologians that have debunked statements like those long ago. The fact that people continue to use them (such as you) shows an obvious ignorance to the subject their bashing (which is childish).
In short, if God prevented all bad things from happening we would be slaves, we would have no freedom or ability to make our own choices in life. As it is, we are completely free to do whatever it is we want, we are masters of our own destiny (this is supposed to be a gift from God) and we can use that gift to do whatever we want, even bad things such as killing or hurting or stealing or lying to other humans. In reality, we DON'T want a world where we walk around like happy dogs completely unaware of our being. We want to control our own lives and we want freedom and consciousness, even with its negative consequences, and a true God would provide this, and wouldn't play favorites among his people or act as en elite dictating what is best for his people (even if they disagree). Think of God as the ultimate libertarian. If this is really too deep, watch the Matrix, which ripped off a crap load of Christian theology and addresses some of these same issues. Or you could just read some Christian theology. - Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -2/+11actually I know about these counter arguments and they all just sound like rationalisations and the attempt to quell cognitive dissonance.
ask people who are born starving if they enjoy this liberal world that this all loving being has created for them, how about people who live in intense pain, dont worry, this super powerful being who loves you wanted you to feel this pain so that life would be better for you.
is it not true that by allowing evils that you have the power to stop continue you yourself are at the very least not good?
so then tell me why this all powerful all loving being would not only allow these things to continue but purposely commit them can still claim to love us or at the least claim to be good.
it sounds like some sick person who beats his wife then tells her he loves her and tells her she cant live without him, without him she would be nothing. - nitsuj, on 06/25/2008, -3/+10@twomeyw23334
"...theologians that have debunked statements like those long ago."
Why should we care what theologians say?
I've never seen these statements debunked - your explanation certainly didn't do it. All I've ever heard from theologians is excuses and narrow minded tunnel vision on their subjects. - twomeyw23334, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1"is it not true that by allowing evils that you have the power to stop continue you yourself are at the very least not good?"
How many evils are going on in the world right now? Should the U.S. use force and end all the evils everywhere (imagining we had the capability). And don't reply about how God could do it a way that didn't require force, if a God where to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do, he would have to use some sort of force or take away their freedom to do evil things, aka make them slaves.
"it sounds like some sick person who beats his wife then tells her he loves her and tells her she cant live without him, without him she would be nothing."
God isn't beating us, he's allowing us to beat each other. Your counter arguments are absolutely ridiculous.
"ask people who are born starving.."
This is classic. I try to use logic for my reasoning and not emotion. And as you are arguing against the existence of God right now I would suggest you do the same. I said there are problems with freedom, and we would rather live with those problems and be free than be slaves in a perfect world. Why don't you take someone and lock them in a cube where nothing can hurt them, provide them with food and water and great health care and see what they have to say about their life. Either way, this is stupid, I'm not going back and forth with imaginary emotionally driven excuses. If what I said was wrong give me valid reasoning against it.
nitsuj
What the hell was that comment? Do you have something to contribute to the conversation or say what was wrong with my brief summary of the debunking. By the way, you just hurt my feelings, in a world with your God you wouldn't have been able to type that, God would have intervened to stop you. - nitsuj, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5"What the hell was that comment? Do you have something to contribute to the conversation or say what was wrong with my brief summary of the debunking."
I didn't realize your submission was a 'debunking'. It just seemed like weak apologetics to me.
Don't you think an ALL powerful being would be able to create a reality that did not include perpetual suffering and torment for all living creatures? This reality need not be some kind of impoverished 'prison' version of what we already have. That is a stawman argument. Your definition of 'freedom' is highly subjective.
You might baulk at Murdat's 'emotional' objections but he's bang on. Your opinion of 'freedom' is based around our state of reality and not that which could supposedly be created by an all powerful deity.
The fact that life must consume life to exist, often to much suffering, is a sadistic twist for any creator being to take. Why engineer life this way?
"Why don't you take someone and lock them in a cube where nothing can hurt them, provide them with food and water and great health care and see what they have to say about their life."
Complete strawman argument but this is interesting considering that this is what human societies try to achieve by forming villages, towns and cities. Food, water, sanitation and health care.
By providing these basic needs can we allure to being free from being constantly on the edge of existence and open to the ravages of nature (for which we are now ill adapted).
"By the way, you just hurt my feelings, in a world with your God you wouldn't have been able to type that, God would have intervened to stop you."
I'm not sure what this means as I don't believe in a god. - twomeyw23334, on 06/26/2008, -3/+0"Don't you think an ALL powerful being would be able to create a reality that did not include perpetual suffering and torment for all living creatures?"
This is really pointless as you obviously aren't reading my comments or have comprehension problems.
If there were an ALL powerful being, I would have to believe he could create a reality that did not include suffering merely from the fact that he is ALL powerful. This has nothing to do whatsoever about the arguement at hand, which is why would a loving God make a world that included suffering, or if a world without suffering would really be want we wanted. Again, as clear as I can be, this is not about the powers of a supreme being, this is questioning whether a supreme and loving being would use his powers to prevent or stop all suffering in a world he created specifically for humans, as promoted by the Christian faith.
"Your opinion of 'freedom' is based around our state of reality and not that which could supposedly be created by an all powerful deity."
How could there be a reality of freedom, where individuals could choose to do bad or evil things that directly or indirectly caused suffering to others and at the same time live in a world where no one experienced suffering? Instead of simply saying it could exist (it can't) please describe this universe to me. Unless... your point is that if an all powerful being can't create this than he is not all powerful.... If that is what you are saying, you are moving onto a different arguement against the existence of God - the "how could God create a rock so big he couldn't pick it up if he's all powerful" arguement. If you want to move onto this arguement that is fine, but not before you acknowledge the "a good God wouldn't allow suffering" arguement debunked. Otherwise you are being a weasel and changing the subject. So again, describe this perfect world with freedom of choice and absolutely no suffering.
"societies try to achieve"
Societies try to lock people up in cells to prevent all bad from happening to them? I've heard some equivalizing attempts on digg before but that has to be near the top of the absurdity scale.
"I'm not sure what this means as I don't believe in a god."
I assumed you would understand the point that if a God existed as you supposedly want (at least for this arguement) where no suffering ever happened, you would not have been able to type your comment as it made me suffer. - nitsuj, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6"This is really pointless as you obviously aren't reading my comments or have comprehension problems."
Oh, I comprehend very well but I think your permise is flawed. Again, your imagining this reality but then hobbled somehow so that we aren't free. But imagine an existence where life doesn't need to consume other life, there is no struggle for survival and with it the need to possess territory and propagate war. There is no need for conflict or causation of suffering. In many ways it's easy to comprehend that we would have more freedom than we have now. Freedom from the shackles of our biological imperitives.
You haven't even come close to debunking this objection.
In addition, 'freedom' with the christian deity is only borrowed. Once you die it's payback time. Freedom in this mythology is an illusion.
"Societies try to lock people up in cells to prevent all bad from happening to them?"
I didn't say that. Don't try to put words into my mouth now.
Anyhow, regardless, all this talk of christian deity is rather pointless as there's no evidence for such an entity.
"if a God existed as you supposedly want"
I don't 'want' a god to exist. There seems to be no requirement for one. - twomeyw23334, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0I asked you to explain how freedom of choice and a world without suffering could co-exist and you can't do it, thus the debunking stands. The idea that a good God can't exist because there is suffering is wrong.
The idea that someone is free means they have the capability to cause suffering, both intentionally and un-intentionally.
Most suffering isn't caused by land struggles or the last potato chip or any of your other bogus examples. It's caused by selfishness / greed / hatred / non-mutual love... If we didn't posses any if these emotions, or have to suffer from the effects of things like love, what an awesome world we would live in. We would be robots, or completely unconscious beings that didn't do anything but vegg out. We certainly wouldn't play sports, work, or do anything else productive, there would be no need to. Is this what you would want? I know you don't want a God, but this argument is based on how a good God would run the Universe. And as your position is that a good God wouldn't allow suffering, that is the type of God you want. Unless you love your life, and wouldn't want endless tracks of land and never having to eat? - nitsuj, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Okay, you think you debunked it, I don't think you did.
I'll point out a flaw in your logic though.
Theists, let's be specific and say christians, spend a lot of time and effort aspiring to altruism, compassion, selflessness and so on. These are all classed as 'higher' objectives. Some would even say that only god achieves purity in these aspirations.
But the closer one gets to these goals, is it true that one becomes some kind of mindless zombie as you seem to infer?
Does a being with incredible intelligence and perception but also selfless, altruistic and caring make it some kind of mindless drone? Robots? Is god such a robot?
Are christians (and any moral person) trying to become robots by aspiring to these attributes?
Lastly, you're taking human behavior as some kind of absolute baseline. An all powerful god would be able to create an infinite number of realities containing beings with an infinite number of modes of feeling and behaviors. Would these beings be any less free because they didn't experience this infinite array of emotions and states of thinking?
Again, I'll say this for the third time: you're thinking about this reality and hobbling it to suit your argument.
Also, you mention at the end 'eating'.
Why would an all powerful god create life so that to survive it has to destroy other life to obtain it's proteins and nutrients?
From an overall view, the suffering of the biomass on Earth because of this need to consume other life - often while it is still alive! - put's all the human suffering you can possibly imagine into insignificance.
So, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-this, all-that, god claims leave me cold. The above questions can't really be answered because if you believe in god you can't really claim to know exactly what it/he/she's plans are. You hit a dead end on searching for understanding unless you engage with the tail chasing that is theology. But then where does that get you?
In light of no evidence for said 'god(s)' and considering that, regarding life, evolution theory explains a lot of the above elegantly, I'll skip the god belief. - twomeyw23334, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0I never once said I believe in God, nor I'm I trying to provide evidence for proof of a God or trying to get you to believe in God. It is currently impossible to prove the existence of God so any attempt would be futile. I'm definitely not trying to find an understanding.
It is also impossible to disprove the existence of God, though people try. One of the arguments is that a good God wouldn't allow any suffering. This arguement was made and I refuted it. (Granted, this arguement isn't against the existence of a God, it's against the existence of a good God).
The simple fact that freedom cannot existence simultaneously in a world with no suffering, and the fact that a good God would allow freedom, debunks the arguement. You offer no claim against this so I will again assume it debunked. If you want to attempted to refute that arguement, fine. But if you keep trying to change the subject or point out other "flaws" with the Christian God I am simply going to ignore you until you accept that arguement debunked or give a valid reason to why it is wrong. - nitsuj, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3It's flawed and NOT debunked because, and I'll say this for the fourth and last time now, you're imagining THIS reality but somehow crippled to discount free will.
An all powerful being should be able to create a world that did not include suffering and yet the beings of this world would be completely free within the boundaries of their existence - much as we are. Suffering would be an utterly alien concept if not completely unfathomble to them - they wouldn't have to be stopped or restrained from causing or experiencing suffering as this option simply would not exist. Perhaps these beings are highly intelligent, immortal, do not need to consume for energy and do not feel pain - how would they suffer?
But instead, as I said in my post and which you confused with changing the subject, we have a world where we are mortal, feel pain and life MUST consume life which leads to incredible suffering. Personally I find 'freedom' to be a very poor excuse for this configuration and circular in reasoning. Why would a 'good' god orchestrate an existence like this? Why would a 'good' god create nature, of which we're part, to be red in tooth and claw?
"the fact that a good God would allow freedom"
This is not a fact and the for above reasons I've stated is not debunked.
However, I've a sneaky feeling you're going to disagree so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you don't see my reasoning above then I don't think another 100 postings is going to make a difference. Adios. - somnambulator, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Theology is the only 'science' where the answer is know up-front and the skill is in smashing it into the question long enough for it to look like it makes sense.
- twomeyw23334, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0"they wouldn't have to be stopped or restrained from causing or experiencing suffering as this option simply would not exist"
Then they would not be free. You still haven't answered the question. If they don't "have the option" to cause suffering they are not free.
"Perhaps these beings are highly intelligent.."
Do highly intelligent humans cause less suffering? Many highly intelligent people are manipulative and evil, just like some stupid people, though I would say the intelligent ones have more capability to cause suffering.
"immortal"
Are you serious? I'm not wasting my time responding to how immortals would still be susceptible to suffering.
"do not need to consume for energy and do not feel pain - how would they suffer?"
I've already addressed this! Why are you so fixed on physical pain only!? The majority of human suffering is emotionally based. Ask someone about their worst suffering in life. I'm sure it's not going to be that year they broke their leg or got a real bad cut. It's going to be when the love of their life told them he/she doesn't love them any more or their best friend / family member betrayed them or they failed miserably at something very important to them....
"the fact that a good God would allow freedom"
"This is not a fact..."
OK, finally. Thank you, you admit freedom and a world without suffering are NOT compatible. You don't value freedom, would rather be a peaceful vegetable, whatever floats your boat man. - nitsuj, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1How frustrating. No matter how much I attempt to inform you that you are imagining this reality but crippled somehow, it just doesn't seem to sink in - even after several attempts and opening with this issue. You have a real comprehension problem and, if I might add, a severe lack of imagination.
""immortal"
Are you serious? I'm not wasting my time responding to how immortals would still be susceptible to suffering."
Quite serious. An all powerful being is free to create whatever reality it wants. You're not going to waste your time because you are can't conceive of it. This is your limitation and not the limitation of a would-be all powerful god.
""the fact that a good God would allow freedom"
"This is not a fact..."
OK, finally. Thank you, you admit freedom and a world without suffering are NOT compatible."
No, read again. I didn't admit that. I merely stated that something you claimed as a 'fact' isn't so because you cannot show it to be the case. Can you? - twomeyw23334, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0"""immortal"
Are you serious? I'm not wasting my time responding to how immortals would still be susceptible to suffering."
Quite serious"
So you are suggesting immortals would not face any suffering in a free world? Do I really need to provide more examples of emotional suffering that aren't because of death?
I don't have a comprehension problem. I just get aggrevated asking the same question over and over. This debate has been carried on before by those much smarter than ourselves and by people who have put much more energy into the thinking. It goes like this.
A good God cannot exist, as a good God would not allow suffering, and there is suffering in this world.
The response, and debunking,
1) Freedom cannot exist in a world without suffering
2) and a good God would allow suffering.
Point 1, logically, is rock solid. If a being is free to make decisions, including those that could directly or indirectly cause suffering, freedom cannot exist. Because this is so rock solid no one tries to argue it (except you) and the debate continues with the 2nd part of the response. I comprehend your argument, my imagination sucks and I can't imagine a world with a different type of freedom.... Freedom is an English word that has a definition, whenever you start using arguments that go beyond the normal definition of the word to something uncomprehendable by the human mind (except for people like you with awesome imaginations (even though you can't explain (every example you've given has been interfering with freedom)))
You arguing point 1 is like me arguing the initial statement by claiming there is no suffering in the world and that your definition of suffering is just limited by your small imagination.
So on to number 2. This is where the argument continues (normally) as this is subjective. If you follow the argument to its conclusion you have a possibility of two worlds, one with suffering and freedom and one without suffering and without freedom. I many times remark that my dog has a great life, he eats, sleeps and craps. He jumps up and down with excitiment at least 3 times a day for walks (when is the last time you jumped up down with happiness). He has no sex drive and none of the associated issues. Would you like to trade lives with my dog?
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11so some guy just decided to build a new toy and demand we all satisfy our ego while telling us he is good but while allowing bad things to happen that are within his power to stop.
- masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -12/+2All he said was one word, 'God'. You certainly read a lot more into his comment than I did. Obvious why you came here.
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9actually all anyone read into it was the attachment of a sentence to the word saying "doesn't exist"
then you started asking for proof of something intrinsically unprovable, that is when this debate began. - masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -11/+1Nope, it began when someone claimed the unprovable as fact. And you seem to be confusing two different threads...
- Encablossa, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3People, please ignore this idiot. We could've had an intelligent argument instead of this kiddie garden *****.
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9actually all anyone read into it was the attachment of a sentence to the word saying "doesn't exist"
- twomeyw23334, on 06/25/2008, -15/+2You reasoning is almost laughable. You can't believe a God could create something as complex as galaxies, gamma ray bursts, and black holes but random events could?
Something either
a) always existed
or
b) was created from nothing
So if you think you are so much more enlightened for believing a massive amount of quarks suddenly appeared over someone who thinks it is a God that always existed, whatever, neither makes any sense to me so I'm not going to make pretend I'm some genius being, but neither seems more impossible either.- nitsuj, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8We observe 'random' phenomena continuously and we know enough about physical materials to hypothesize on how matter formed shortly after the big bang. Go look up CERN to find out just how much we know about the subatomic world.
There is a (c) option that you didn't mention:
c) we don't know yet.
This is the path that science currently takes as it continues it's journey.
The rest is whether you consider that the universe is a product of natural processes much like we currently detect and observe, or whether you believe that an infinitely complex being of some kind magically made it all appear (out of nothing).
One is based on our latest models of knowledge and understanding. The other is based on mankinds love affair with mythology and self-important 'meaning' of life. Which, incidentally, religion doesn't really solve. - twomeyw23334, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1I'm talking about the matter that caused the big bang. This had to come from somewhere, or always exist, so your CERN reference is not relevant to the discussion.
The third option c) isn't an option. It's true, we obviously don't know, but that doesn't change the fact something has either always existed or something came from nothing.
I can flip a coin with my eyes closed and not know what it lands on, that doesn't mean its not heads or tails, it just means I don't know.
Our universe is extremely complex and again you make the point that it can develop by a natural process while a complex God would have to just appear out of nothing. This absolutely absurd "logic" is based on atheists love affair with their self-important image and belief that they are intellectually superior to anyone who believes in a God.
I'm not saying I believe in a God, I'm saying that the believe that an extremely complex universe came from nothing is no more ridiculous than a God with our current knowledge. - nitsuj, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3The CERN reference is relevant if you want to consider how matter came into being from the big bang singularity. This reference is actually more to do with the subject at hand than your arguments regarding a deity.
You missed the point completely about being honest enough to admit that you don't know if (a) or (b) is true.
You fail to state why my "logic" is absurd. A naturalistic view of the world leads to a very humbling opinion of your own place in the universe. It is religion that seeks to place mankind at a central 'special' position. Also, I personally couldn't care less about intellectual superiority or what ever that means.
"I'm not saying I believe in a God, I'm saying that the believe that an extremely complex universe came from nothing is no more ridiculous than a God with our current knowledge."
No scientist claims that the universe came from nothing. Science claims that it doesn't know yet. Theists claim that their own particular brand of deity is responsible. Unfortunately, theists are unable to provide any evidence for this claim and therefore it goes largely ignored by those how have a scientific or naturalistic world view.
Beyond this your point doesn't make much sense to me. Only theists believe that the universe came from nothing, that a supernatural creator - for which there is NO evidence - somehow conjured it into existence. - twomeyw23334, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0"You missed the point completely about being honest enough to admit that you don't know if (a) or (b) is true."
from my previous comment.. "It's true, we obviously don't know.."
Please read my comments before you respond and make false accusations. I think you are the one arguing with your straw man buddy.
"Theists claim that their own particular brand of deity is responsible."
Yes, and this is wrong, though equally as wrong as those who claim they know that there absolutely is no God.
"A naturalistic view of the world leads to a very humbling opinion of your own place in the universe."
Yes, I fully understand that as is clear from my point of view. We have a full understanding of very little about our universe (supposedly under 10%, but don't ask me how they calculate that). I believe you are the one in your previous comment making the "how much" we know remark.
Which leads back to CERN. Again, I am talking about before the big bang...
"Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity." Where did that 'something' come from nitsuj? We don't know, about this we agree, but it must have either came into being or always existed. If our science eventually discovers that it always existed, that does not suddenly make it true. The truth exists before and after we discover it, thus, your option c doesn't make sense.
"There is NO evidence for this" no ***** sherlock, there is no evidence either way, that is the point. We don't know, which means we don't know it wasn't created by a God.
"No scientist claims..."
If I was arguing with a logical scientist you may have a point, but my comment was replying to a digger who essentially said the universe couldn't have been created by God because it's too complex. A logical scientist would not have said that. Again, I point out that anyone who thinks they have absolute truth about whether or not there is a God or how the Universe began is lying to themselves. I never said anything against all scientists. Why is it those who drop "straw man" assaults all the time are the number one deployer of the arguments? - nitsuj, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3"Which leads back to CERN. Again, I am talking about before the big bang..."
Are you aware that time is a property of space-time and space-time came into being at the big bang? 'before' as we understand it doesn't make any sense at T=0.
"but my comment was replying to a digger who essentially said the universe couldn't have been created by God because it's too complex."
I am unable to find such a statement.
"We don't know, which means we don't know it wasn't created by a God."
And we don't know it wasn't created by a giant ghostly teapot. Why should we consider this possibility? Answer that and you'll answer why atheists don't consider god (much) of a possibility.
Let's stick to the evidence shall we? - twomeyw23334, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0"And we don't know it wasn't created by a giant ghostly teapot" LOL! Another brilliant equivilization! How does a ghostly teapot create a universe. A God, by definition would have the capability to create a universe as he is all powerful, a ghostly teapot on the other hand?
I don't know if it could even hold tea let alone create a universe, unless it is an all powerful teapot, aka a God who chooses to represent himself as a teapot, in which case you are again asking me if the universe being created by a God is a possibility.
"Answer that and you'll answer why atheists don't consider god (much) of a possibility."
much!?
Explain to me how you know there absolutely is / is not a God and you will understand why an agnostic thinks the way he does.
Hint, its impossible, so give up. If you are merely trying to prove that atheists are more logical than theists, whatever, agnostics are more logical than you both with our current knowledge. - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The term atheist is misleading as people generally think it is a person who believes god doesn't exist when it would be more accurate to say that an atheist is a person who isn't a theist. By this definition, you make no positive claims about the world, and thus, is a more stable position. However, if you were to say an atheist is just as irrational as a theist in making a claim that he in no way could know the answer to, I would only agree insofar as that person is actually saying a 100% chance there is no god. That is the wrong decision to make as we don't have all the evidence in the universe, however, given our current evidence, I would say there is a NEAR 100% chance god doesn't exist and we should act accordingly (i.e. no more killing/oppressing each other over dogmas.)
- nitsuj, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Phyraxus pretty much hit the nail on the head and his is also my opinion.
However, to end this on a bit of fun:
"Another brilliant equivilization! How does a ghostly teapot create a universe. A God, by definition would have the capability to create a universe as he is all powerful, a ghostly teapot on the other hand?"
The ghostly teapot is all powerful and all knowing and created the universe by pouring it from it's spout.
"I don't know if it could even hold tea let alone create a universe, unless it is an all powerful teapot, aka a God who chooses to represent himself as a teapot, in which case you are again asking me if the universe being created by a God is a possibility."
The ghostly teapot is actually composed of a billion such teapots that come and go as they please and therefore doesn't like to be called 'god' in the singular. Furthermore the teapot doesn't have any control over time because that's poured in from another dimension by a ghostly coffeepot. Oh, and we can't really know much more about that because it's beyond our mortal understanding (enter right stage, theology). That's why this reality isn't perfectly balanced - tea and coffee don't really mix well together.
...
Now, any sane person would rightly ask for some bloody outstanding evidence to back up this view of the universe. I could happily take your stance and say "Well, there's no evidence against it is there? It must therefore be a possibility!"
It's possible to conjure up a lifetime of possible zany arrangements. God ir no god isn't the only game in town.
You would have to agree that this possibility is shrinkingly small. Likewise with an atheistic view. God is possible, but in light of no evidence and after weighing up the idea, the probabilities seem NEAR 100% (as Phyraxus stipulated) that it doesn't exist. - twomeyw23334, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0There is no evidence for a God, yet no evidence to suggest the 'something' that caused the big bang came from no where or came from nothing. We have no evidence to suggest that something could have always been or something could have been created from nothing. We don't know, and as we don't know we can't say with 100% certainty what caused or created the universe, as you both admit, though you want to place percentages close to 100%. There is no way you can argue this and I'm not going to try.
The teapot example is again a bad example. While there may be no evidence for what 'caused' the universe we can still use logic to determine things that didn't. My computer, for example, could not have caused the creation of the universe because science and logic tell me my computer was created by man who didn't exist until long after the universe began and science tells me time travel is impossible. For your theory to work you claim the teapot is "all powerful and all knowing" which makes it a God, though you lamely try to get around this by claiming it "doesn't like to be called 'god' in the singular." So what? Now you are simply playing word games to get around an extremely weak arguement. You can call your teapot "the child of Big Foot" for all I care, if it is all powerful and all knowing it is a God.
Let's say the universe has simply been beginning and ending through a series of big bangs and big crunches forever. I know I can't apply a time scale to before or after our big bang but please don't reply about that. I think it is clear what I'm getting at and arguing over the limitations of the English language or using language to argue is one of the most boring things imaginable. So, while I can't understand how something could exist for infinity and you offer no explanation or proof of it, I'm just assuming it is true (as it has something like a 49% chance likelihood apparently instead of the mere 1% of a God).
So in one of these Big Bangs, a civilization evolves through Darwinism much as our own. They continue to evolve for billions of years. Over time the use of their physical bodies diminishes as brain power increases. Eventually they can communicate through thoughts alone, and move small objects with brain power. At first the the telepathy only works short distances, but fast forward billions of more years and eventually the entire civilization can communicate simultaneously, essentially making it single consciousness. Their bodies become completely irrelevant, and their collective brain power such that they now control their own evolution. There is no more mating required, it is effectively a single consciousness that can become whatever it pleases and has tremendous power. According to our science there is supposedly 10 dimensions, of these we know 4. Perhaps this being can use these other dimensions to have complete access to the entire universe at any given time, I don't know. All I know is this being has full understanding and access to all these dimensions. It is all powerful and all knowing.
This is the pinnacle of Darwinism. There is nothing beyond this point. An animal that can get off an island is higher than one then can't, and animal that can get off a planet even higher, and animal that can get to another solar system even higher, etc.... until you reach the crunch. The utmost successful creature would be able to survive a crunch into the next big bang. The only thing that could possibly have a chance do such a thing would be the pinnacle of Darwinism which I just described.
As the series of bangs / crashes are infinite (as currently assumed) there would be many civilizations to reach this pinnacle, in fact there would be an infinite amount. This would not make and infinite amount of Gods as you can't top the pinnacle or duplicate it, at a certain point of evolution these new civilizations would 'join' or become one with the existing consciousness. Now, as there was never a begining, a first big bang, it would incorrect to attempt to label when this God was first created (saying it first happened on the 5,654,775,333,223,443th big bang, for example, wouldn't make sense). As we are talking infinity, the only logical thing to say is that this God (as I'm calling it) has always existed.
I'm not claiming that is evidence for a God, but it is a rational explanation for one based on some really 'out there' assumptions. One being that the series of big bangs has been going on infinitely. You don't offer any evidence for this but apparently it is a much higher probability than a God, a claim you don't offer any evidence for either. It seems to me the percentages are just coming from a gut feeling, so I'll just end by saying agnostics aren't completely more logical than atheist, just around 89% more logical. - Phyraxus, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Even if we only had one shred of evidence that the universe ALWAYS existed (in the sense that there can be no such thing "before" the existence of the universe because time and mass are intrinsically related), this explanation is that much more probable than the god hypothesis (an extrinsic being which has no evidence whatsoever and thus is entirely superfluous in regards to the nature of the universe.)
- nitsuj, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Frankly, your story has a nice sci-fi twang to it but is about as likely as the teapot story (you forgot to mention the coffeepot of time).
"While there may be no evidence for what 'caused' the universe we can still use logic to determine things that didn't."
All man-made teapots are merely idols of the ghostly teapot. Making things up without evidence is fun!
"and science tells me time travel is impossible."
Not for the ghostly teapot. See how easy that is when we give credence to 'all-powerful' entities?
Maybe now you can put a percentage on how much you don't believe the teapot story. I'm pretty sure you're NEAR 100% right?
In the event that you're at 100% then shame on you for your betrayal to the world of agnosticism.
"One being that the series of big bangs has been going on infinitely. You don't offer any evidence for this but apparently it is a much higher probability than a God, a claim you don't offer any evidence for either."
I've never said anything about cyclic big bangs. It seems that now you are arguing with yourself. - twomeyw23334, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0"Maybe now you can put a percentage on how much you don't believe the teapot story. I'm pretty sure you're NEAR 100% right?"
Look, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but if the teapot is all powerful than it is a God. So you're asking more for the probability that the universe is created by God, which is what we have been debating the whole time. You are differentiating your story by claiming this God likes to present himself as a teapot, as if this effects the probability of him creating the universe.
"In the event that you're at 100% then shame on you for your betrayal to the world of agnosticism."
Come on man, what is the probability that a God created the universe AND chooses to present himself as a teapot, your combining two things which makes the probability less, this has nothing to do with betraying the world of agnosticism, it is basic probability. Agnosticism isn't anti-science or math. You are asking me to first figure the probability that a God created the universe and then the probability that this God would represent himself as a teapot, two things I can't possibly do. First I would have to make the assumption that God WANTED to represent himself as something, and then (assuming it could be a teapot) I would have to say that something he chose could be anything, so the probability of him choosing a teapot alone would be near 0 percent.
""and science tells me time travel is impossible."
Not for the ghostly teapot."
WTF!? I was talking about how I know my computer could not have created the universe, what was the point of that statement. Give it up on the teapot, it's just stupid.
Phyraxus, thanks for providing an intelligent response. I see your point, it would seem to be more likely that the universe has either always existed or spontaneously came from nothing because it exists. But you are transferring the probability of existence to the probability of creation. We know the universe exists, don't know if a God exists, there is no evidence for one, but this does not mean if there is one it would be less likely to have always existed or spontaneously came about.
Further, there is no more evidence that something can always exist or come from nothing than there is that there is God. Right now, as far as my knowledge goes there is 0 evidence for all three. So you can't claim that it is more likely that the creation of the universe is more probably from any of them. - nitsuj, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1"Look, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but if the teapot is all powerful than it is a God."
Let's say it's not all powerful but it is responsible for creating the universe. The coffeepot, which you keep leaving out, is responsible for time and that comes from another realm(?!) and pours into this one via this entity. Although bizarre, you could class this as a creation story, myth, etc.
"I would have to say that something he chose could be anything, so the probability of him choosing a teapot alone would be near 0 percent."
That would mean that the probability of 'god' representing himself as anything at all is near 0 percent by this reckoning. Tricky isn't it? Trying to figure out what a god would/wouldn't do is folly.
"Give it up on the teapot, it's just stupid."
BINGO! Now you have some idea of how I feel when somebody mentions the possibility of god.
Again god or no god isn't the only game in town. You can dream up an infinite number of creation/creator scenarios. Let's say there are a billion gods. Let's say that there is a being but it isn't sentient. Let's say that we're all really inside a simulation and cannot begin to comprehend beyond it. etc. etc. etc.
Out of curiosity, are you equally as agnostic regarding the thousands of deities mentioned throughout human history? - twomeyw23334, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0"BINGO! Now you have some idea of how I feel when somebody mentions the possibility of god."
As opposed to what? Something always existing or something coming from nothing!?
You claim you "don't know" because science doesn't know but somehow you can put a probability on one creation story being more probably than another. That is stupid, it's not logical.
I don't care how many times you repeat "there's no evidence" for a God because you fail to provide any evidence that a singularity can spontaneously form from complete nothingness or that the 'something' that made up the singularity always existed. You have "faith" that it must be one of these two possibilities because they fit better in your world view.
"Out of curiosity, are you equally as agnostic regarding the thousands of deities mentioned throughout human history?"
Which deities? Humans invented some deities to explain things in nature and fulfill other needs. If you're asking if I believe that there is a possibility that Zeus is throwing lightening up in the clouds during storms, no. Lightening is explained by science. If you can prove to me one way or the other there is or isn't a God I will listen. But at this point, no one on either side has provided one iota of evidence.
Many theists in my mind are actually MORE logical because they don't pretend to have evidence. Christians, for example, will proclaim that their belief is completely based on faith (not science). You, on the other hand, pretend to have logical reasoning to support the idea that there isn't a God or that one had no hand in the creation of the Universe, even though you don't have ANY evidence of anything else.
Trying to make the arguement look absurd by talking about ancient deities or making up a story of a teapot (which you keep changing) will not work on me. I'm sure I could find a scientist that refused to wipe his butt and shower, or that picked his nose and ate his snot, or do some other really absurd things. I could also point out that some scientists in the past thought the world was flat, and that many scientist, even today, believe in silly deities. That doesn't debunk science or all scientists.
If you have a real arguement provide it already instead of trying to make theists look absurd, as this arguing technique is never a sign of a strong arguement. - nitsuj, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"As opposed to what? Something always existing or something coming from nothing!?"
As opposed to admiting that we don't know yet instead of retorting to entities you cannot make any assumption about or derive any conjecture from: god.
I'll repeat AGAIN: god or no-god isn't the only game in town. If you think it is then you're lacking in imagination.
"You claim you "don't know" because science doesn't know but somehow you can put a probability on one creation story being more probably than another. That is stupid, it's not logical."
So you DO give equal possibility for all creation stories? I don't.
"If you're asking if I believe that there is a possibility that Zeus is throwing lightening up in the clouds during storms, no."
I didn't ask that.
"Many theists in my mind are actually MORE logical because they don't pretend to have evidence."
You consider that this is 'more' logical? You have the strangest definition of logic.
"Christians, for example, will proclaim that their belief is completely based on faith (not science). "
Certainly not all christians. Take for example YEC's and other anti-evolution christian factions that continuously distort science to support their beliefs.
"You, on the other hand, pretend to have logical reasoning to support the idea that there isn't a God or that one had no hand in the creation of the Universe, even though you don't have ANY evidence of anything else."
I don't pretend. Issues I have with 'god' belief: lack of evidence, infinite regress, complete subjectivity, 'god-of-the-gaps', and most of all, belief in this possibility gives you absolutely NOTHING.
Regarding evidence for anything else: science is still at the beginning. Evidence will come in. Evidence showing some kind of god would be interesting for sure but I remain skeptical of this.
As far as I can tell 'god' is the term used when anyone wants to label unknown causes. The concept has been used throughout history in this context. Also called the 'god of the gaps'. It's increasingly shown to be a falsehood as more scientific knowledge comes to light.
Every creator story I've ever heard, including your own version (I'm sure you'll admit), smacks more of human invention and cultural influence than anything else. Unlike agnositics, I'm prepared to discriminate and exercise skepticism on these grounds until evidence comes in to the contrary. If such evidence does appear I'll change my mind in an instance - really, it's OK to do that.
"Trying to make the arguement look absurd by talking about ancient deities or making up a story of a teapot (which you keep changing) will not work on me."
Reductio absurdum? Never mind. BTW, I didn't change the teapot story. You just misread/ignored parts of it. Point is, it's a creation myth of sorts. You state it's made up. I state most theistic beliefs are equally made up. You reject it because it sounds absurd. I reject all stories of 'god' because IMHO, they're absurd. Do you see the point now? If you've got a god story that isn't absurd I'd like to hear it.
"I could also point out that some scientists in the past thought the world was flat, and that many scientist, even today, believe in silly deities. That doesn't debunk science or all scientists."
You could point that out but I'm not sure why you'd bother because it's irrelevant.
"If you have a real arguement provide it already instead of trying to make theists look absurd, as this arguing technique is never a sign of a strong arguement."
I'm not trying to make theists look absurd. But certainly many theistic beliefs are absurd. - twomeyw23334, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0"As opposed to admitting that we don't know yet instead of retorting to entities you cannot make any assumption about or derive any conjecture from: god."
What!? That is my stance. We don't know. You are the one claiming to have knowledge of probabilities of different creation stories.
"So you DO give equal possibility for all creation stories? I don't."
Give me evidence that one is more probable than the others. This is all I'm asking, it shouldn't require a massive response and it shouldn't need so much repeating. And no, the fact that 'you don't' isn't evidence.
"Certainly not all christians."
Yes some Christians are wackos as are some atheists.
"I don't pretend. Issues I have with 'god' belief: lack of evidence...."
And what other creation of the universe stories don't have these issues. Yes, that is the same question again, I'm still waiting.
"Evidence will come in"
Ok, so finally an answer. You have no evidence though you can estimate a probability of what the evidence will say when it comes in. Are you a fortune teller?
"BTW, I didn't change the teapot story..."
"The ghostly teapot is all powerful"
"Let's say it's not all powerful but..."
"I reject all stories of 'god' because IMHO, they're absurd. Do you see the point now? If you've got a god story that isn't absurd I'd like to hear it."
A story about a God is completely absurd, as is something coming from nothing and something always existing. Are there other possibilities that aren't absurd? I'd greatly like to hear them as well. I'm not the one claiming to have any answers here, you are. The burden is on you to provide evidence that something coming from nothing, or something always existing is more probably how our universe started or to provide me with another non-absurd story that I don't know about.
"I'll repeat AGAIN: god or no-god isn't the only game in town. If you think it is then you're lacking in imagination"
Then inform me of the other possibilities and show me the evidence that they are more probable. - nitsuj, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1"What!? That is my stance. We don't know. You are the one claiming to have knowledge of probabilities of different creation stories."
I don't think any creation 'stories' are particularly probable, but some are certainly false. I discriminate based on my own interpretation of the source of such myths while you crank them all to 100% probable.
For example, the Iroquois creation myth talks about creation on the back of a giant turtle. Genesis creation myth talks about a god magically creating the Earth and then populating it with life. A combination of modern cosmology, geology and biology put pay to literal interpretation of these myths. So your claim that there is no evidence against certain creation stories is patently FALSE.
One of my main points is that even you have to discriminate between creation stories - hence the teapot/coffeepot story. You don't believe that one but as far as I'm concerned most creation myths are about as likely.
"Give me evidence that one is more probable than the others."
I never claimed that any of them are probable. On the contrary, you seem to think that all of them are. So being that you're the one claiming that they're all probable, why don't YOU provide evidence that they're all probable?
"And what other creation of the universe stories don't have these issues. Yes, that is the same question again, I'm still waiting."
The answer is the same as it has been from the start. I agree, there's no evidence for what happened at T=0. I've never held any other opinion or made any claim to the contrary. You've wasted a lot of your time and effort arguing against yourself (as I've pointed out previously).
""Evidence will come in"
Ok, so finally an answer. You have no evidence though you can estimate a probability of what the evidence will say when it comes in. Are you a fortune teller?"
Weak. Are you claiming that no human should attempt to estimate likelihoods based on current knowledge? My reasoning is simple: there is no current evidence for a god anywhere we look. NONE! Why bother conjuring one up for T=0? God-of-the-gaps anyone?
Happy to be proven wrong.
"Then inform me of the other possibilities and show me the evidence that they are more probable."
Again, I NEVER claimed to provide such evidence. I DO claim that some things aren't worth believing in due to LACK of evidence - god(s) being one of them.
Stating an alternative to god or no-god is simple. How about the possibility of 5 gods (plural)? 10 gods. A billion gods. I daresay it could get a good deal more varied than this depending on your given definition of 'god'.
Your own logic seems to be: something came from nothing OR something always existed. You seem to get disgruntled because I stand back and simply say 'I don't know' - this was my (c) option. For all we know there may be some strange in-between probability state based upon quantum effects or some peculiar configuration similar in logic to light being both wave and particle - something strange, something as yet totally unknown and undiscovered, something totally counter-intuitive to the human mind.
So, if you're going to throw a 'god' into the mix, a possibility which you claim may be true, then I want to know exactly what this means.
Please provide your definition and how you derive such a definition along with how and why you consider such an entity possible at all. - twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0"I never claimed that any of them are probable. On the contrary, you seem to think that all of them are. So being that you're the one claiming that they're all probable, why don't YOU provide evidence that they're all probable?"
You clearly claim some are more probable than others. I think they are all absurd and therefor equally NOT probable and equally probable. As I have 0 evidence for or against any of them I cannot make claims that some are more probable then others.
"Weak. Are you claiming that no human should attempt to estimate likelihoods based on current knowledge? My reasoning is simple: there is no current evidence for a god anywhere we look. NONE! Why bother conjuring one up for T=0? God-of-the-gaps anyone?"
Attempt likelihoods? I thought you made no claim about likelihoods!?
There is no evidence for something spontaneously being created, NONE!
There is no evidence for something always existing, NONE!
There is no evidence for whatever other possibility we don't know about yet, NONE!
"Again, I NEVER claimed to provide such evidence. I DO claim that some things aren't worth believing in due to LACK of evidence - god(s) being one of them."
OK, so other creation stories which also have a complete lack of evidence are worth believing? How about a little consistency?
"For all we know there may be some strange in-between probability state based upon quantum effects or some peculiar configuration similar in logic to light being both wave and particle - something strange, something as yet totally unknown and undiscovered, something totally counter-intuitive to the human mind."
Is there any evidence for this totally unknown and undiscovered thing? ANY, or is it 0.
"So, if you're going to throw a 'god' into the mix, a possibility which you claim may be true, then I want to know exactly what this means."
I claim it may be true because you have yet to provide any evidence that anything else is more likely. I don't know (and when I say that I mean it) so until I see some evidence one way or the other I have to consider it just as likely as the other known possibilities, which also seem absurd to me.
"Please provide your definition and how you derive such a definition along with how and why you consider such an entity possible at all."
God - the supreme or ultimate reality
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator of the universe
How do I consider it a possibility? Because no one has provided me with any evidence that says otherwise, or with any evidence that there is a more likely beginning to the universe. At this point I have heard no evidence to anything regarding the beginning of the universe, which means I must consider anything that can't be proven wrong to be a possibility. I can't say that the Universe could not have been or is likely not to have been created by a creator because I have no evidence to make such a claim, as I've repeated so many times I must have set a new Digg record. - nitsuj, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"You clearly claim some are more probable than others. I think they are all absurd and therefor equally NOT probable and equally probable."
So what is that? Everything 50/50?
Do you consider christian mythology, norse mythology, greek mythology and my teapot mythology all equally probable?
"There is no evidence for something spontaneously being created, NONE!
There is no evidence for something always existing, NONE!
There is no evidence for whatever other possibility we don't know about yet, NONE!"
Never claimed there was. Why are you yet again inventing arguments against yourself?
For clarity, my assertion is that certain creation myths (greek, roman, norse, whatever) can be discounted because of current knowledge and lack of evidence for them.
"Is there any evidence for this totally unknown and undiscovered thing? ANY, or is it 0."
By your reasoning it shouldn't matter for you to call it an equal possibility. Is this a possibility, 'yes' or 'no' will do.
If you discount it as a possibility please explain why and also for the same reason why you include 'god' as a possibility.
"God - the supreme or ultimate reality
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator of the universe"
Please explain what 'ultimate' reality is and how it differs exactly from the reality we experience. Please explain what 'perfect' means in this context. Explain a proposed energy source for 'all-powerful'. Explain how knowledge is stored in an 'all-knowing' being.
Of course, you won't be able to. 'God' in this case is just another name for 'unknown'.
Here's the crux of it. My main beef is with theism. It's apparant that you're not a theist. If anything, you give possibility to the god of Spinoza, a creator that set everything going at T=0 then stepped out of the way. You're in good company - a lot of scientists have taken this view.
For my own part, I don't think 'god' can be defined in any meaningful way and certainly human history is peppered with it's own interpretations.
And because of this, I take the choice to LACK a belief in god(s) until evidence comes in. Likewise with your always something or nothing from something scenarios.
The main difference between us then is that I don't think it's probable because of the lack of true definition and flawed human interpretation (theism). I think it's ok to make a judgement call based on what you know and be proven wrong later. You seem to be of the opinion that without evidence either way anything is possible.
Realistically, I don't think either opinion is going to change on here. - twomeyw23334, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0"So what is that? Everything 50/50?"
0 evidence means it is impossible to put percentages on different outcomes. As I have no evidence I can't say there is a 20% chance of a God or a 40% chance the 'something' that made up the singularity always existed. I'll leave the percentages to you.
"The main difference between us then is that I don't think it's probable because of the lack of true definition..."
Again, we don't define the truth, the truth exists, we discover it. And, I don't think it's probable either, but there is nothing else that I think is more probable, therefore I can't make a statement about different percentages.
"You seem to be of the opinion that without evidence either way anything is possible."
No, I think currently we only have enough evidence to discount certain things. God isn't one of them. If you want to reserve judgment that the universe was most likely not started or created by a God, then fine, I don't really have a problem with that at all.
My problem is when you bash others who choose to make the opposite judgment, that a God did have a part in creating the universe, until proven wrong later, as neither of you are basing these judgments on evidence.
- nitsuj, on 06/25/2008, -2/+8We observe 'random' phenomena continuously and we know enough about physical materials to hypothesize on how matter formed shortly after the big bang. Go look up CERN to find out just how much we know about the subatomic world.
- duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -13/+4so it all happened just because? is that what you're saying stop being childishly gullible
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4If god created the universe he/she/it is obviously a scientist.
- amoo3, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1You fool! You're on Digg. Never mention He-who-shall-not-be-named.
- StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I am continuously baffled by people who think that to explain one unlikely thing, you should posit an even MORE unlikely thing with less evidence for it.
They largely seem to think that they are so smart, that they are the first one to say "oh, it must have been God", noone has ever thought of THAT before, and that everyone is out to get them for it, too. Its really pathetic. Like if somebody didn't bring up God ever other minute we'd forget about what you stupidly believe in.
- racco, on 06/25/2008, -14/+29doesn't exist
- Chainheart, on 06/25/2008, -5/+15Astrophysicists? Don't you mean cosmologists?
- kenvsryu, on 06/25/2008, -1/+24We don't need no makeup in here.
- arobicha, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0You should see what beauticians think Charm-physics is...
- kenvsryu, on 06/25/2008, -1/+24We don't need no makeup in here.
- totallyspotless, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6with the words 'uhm hello, I'd like to welcome you all to..."
- bela17, on 06/25/2008, -10/+1360 degrees
- zadadka, on 06/25/2008, -6/+2"Once upon a time..."
- CaLeDee, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7It began with a bang.. A big, bang..
- duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -12/+3like what I did to your mom
- wtrwlkr, on 06/25/2008, -7/+0I see what you did there
- csw1342, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4Welcome to the 4th Grade. These "your momma" jokes will continue for quite some time depending on your ability to mature and the social groups you interact with.
- cdigioia, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2I know you are, but what am I?
- wtrwlkr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1shut-up poopy-head!
- wtrwlkr, on 06/25/2008, -7/+0I see what you did there
- webcrumb, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1"Oh *****. Oh no. I'm sorry. This has never happened to me before..."
- mgmirkin, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded!"
"Well not so much nothing as something and not so much exploded as started drifting apart until the magical inflation fairies said 'stop!' At which point inflation slowed down. But today we know that the expansion of the universe is somehow speeding up at an increasing rate, despite the force of gravity, whcih should be pulling everything together."
"Oh what fools these mortals be..."
*Wink*
Not accurate in the slightest, but so what?! =oP Must have a sense of humor about these things!
Cheers,
~Michael
- duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -12/+3like what I did to your mom
- zyklon, on 06/25/2008, -2/+14I do believe Julia Childs died with the only copy of the recipe.
- mccake, on 06/25/2008, -6/+1from something called 'singularity'.
Quote from Wikipedia:
"a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way"
So it is created by something "undefined". - mateoberry, on 06/25/2008, -11/+12I sleep so much better at night knowing that an aged, white bearded, possibly Caucasian (depending on who you ask), superman created the Universe.
- a2fan, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0Christopher Reeves had a beard?
- b0gus2008, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Christopher Reeves is the Christian god?
- Encablossa, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Ah gees, he forgot the sarcasm tag.
- a2fan, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0Christopher Reeves had a beard?
- dstz, on 06/25/2008, -5/+4 “It collapsed from a previous large phase, bounced at a small but not zero radius, and expanded again to the large phase we are living in,” says Hartle. "
Never imagined it could be otherwise.- dstz, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Sorry to upset you people! but it's got to be cyclical if you don't want the hand of God anywhere in the process. But it's maybe because I know about Lavoisier:
"Rien ne se crée, rien ne se perd, tout se transforme" (nothing appears, nothing disappears, everything changes)
Never imagined it could be otherwise.- ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Not so - the only way it could be cyclical is if the mass density of the universe is greater than the critical density, and it doesn't look that way.
Having it be non-cyclical does not require the supernatural - events happen in the universe that are non-deterministic, non-causal. Check out quantum randomness sometime.- dstz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"is if the mass density of the universe is greater than the critical density, and it doesn't look that way"
Interesting, I didn't know we could say that it isn't, because logic would pretty much indicate that it is. More informations about that? - ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4@dstz
Cosmologists base that hypothesis on the fact that the redshift in light from distant galaxies is actually increasing, indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Were things cyclical, and the mass density were greater than the critical density, we would expect to see the opposite: that the expansion was slowing down (however fractionally). This is not the case, however.
What this means in the end is that, instead of a "Big Crunch" universe ending, we instead come across a situation known as Heat Death, where the universe reaches maximum entropy (remember, entropy in thermodynamic terms has nothing to do with "disorder" or "chaos" but rather is a measure of the unavailability of a system's energy to do work) and everything slowly cools to absolute zero. It has been suggested that, in an ever-expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively further away from Heat Death, but this claim is disputed.
- dstz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"is if the mass density of the universe is greater than the critical density, and it doesn't look that way"
- starmanjones, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2[>it's got to be cyclical if you don't want the hand of God
[>anywhere in the process.
i find the notion that a mean, ego driven, all powerful entity that uses weapons of mass destruction on us because we aren't worshiping him right... cynical. - StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1What, it can't be acyclic without God? Well who does God have to make him non-cyclical.
More from the peanut gallery....
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Not so - the only way it could be cyclical is if the mass density of the universe is greater than the critical density, and it doesn't look that way.
- dstz, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Sorry to upset you people! but it's got to be cyclical if you don't want the hand of God anywhere in the process. But it's maybe because I know about Lavoisier:
- masterm1nd, on 06/25/2008, -11/+4There isn't a beginning. And it's all speculation, so description is unnecessary.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/25/2008, -1/+58Well, a mommy and a daddy universe, who loved each other very much....
- dvsbastard, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4I always thought the universe was delivered by a really big stork...
- cdigioia, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1...and this gives the two people pleasure *shudder*
- VandyB, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1Pics or it didn't happen
- wtrwlkr, on 06/25/2008, -4/+12I enjoy Stephen Colbert's take on trying to explain the origins of the universe, as written in his book:
"Step 1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
Step 2: Repeat as necessary"- herschman321, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0Step 3: Profit
- Coven, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Stephen Colbert is above underpants gnome jokes
- herschman321, on 06/25/2008, -3/+0Step 3: Profit
- cryonix, on 06/25/2008, -1/+18The concept of the universe 'beginning' is only fitting for our own instincts. From our plane of perception everything has a beginning and end. (Almost like how we can see faces in abstract shapes, we need to make things familiar to understand them) Once we break that down enough, those concept may fall apart and we may discover the universe just simply 'is' and always has been. no beginning, no end. (However From our perception a 'beginning' is fairly logical with the facts at hand.)
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1Yeah, thanks for that, Alvin Toffler.
- thebassmaster, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8While I do see where you're coming from, and totally agree, there still remains the fact that we can trace the movement of all matter in the universe back to a single point. Our plane of perception describes this as a 'beginning'; it doesn't necessarily have to be as such, but obviously something very complex (yet simple!) happened at that point in 'time'. It will be an amazing feat of physics if we can describe the series of events that happened there... I hope to live to see it!
- Murdats, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4actually we have evidence that all matter in the universe originated from a single point as it is all moving away from that point.
so the universe as we know it probably has a beginning, however whats outside our universe probably didn't, seeing as outside out universe time does not exist thus there is no beginning or end.- JigoroKano, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Yes, without time there is no beginning, no end, and most importantly no dynamics. There can be no creator to think without thoughts and act without actions... not without a time-like dimension.
- cutright, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0To Murdats: Agreed. There should be a distinction made between the universe and the notion of the multiverse that comes about from the theory of inflation (which is very strongly supported). Just because we have evidence to support that the universe began at a single point... that's to say time doesn't exist outside our universe, its just that anything existing in our universe has no way of experiencing anything outside said universe. Yet, we can infer what else might be out there... Have I royally confused anyone yet?
- cutright, on 06/25/2008, -0/+0*...that's not to say time...*
- gllopc, on 06/25/2008, -14/+6If memory serves me, it was the result of God lighting a fart, shortly after winning an arm wrestling match to his frat buddy.
Right?- Coven, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4What frat was god in? Alpha Omega?
- StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Psi Phi.
- Coven, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4What frat was god in? Alpha Omega?
- Dundasbro, on 06/25/2008, -12/+6In the beginning, there was nothing... And then it exploded.
- blackfett, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2- Terry Pratchett
- Dundasbro, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah I probably should have at least put quotation marks, couldn't remember his name though. Thanks.
- Encablossa, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3That's what she said?
- blackfett, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2- Terry Pratchett
- RandomCommenter, on 06/25/2008, -7/+0IMO its too much for the human brain.
A beginning suggest there was time before the universe but before the universe there would be no time. Time is something humans made up as a measurement and since the universe is beyond any time that humans can comprehend then how can time itself exist before, during or after the universe.....
*head explodes*- bman1984, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1No, there most definitely is time.
- StaticThunder, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Not without something to measure it with.
- bman1984, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1By that requirement, nothing exists. Time exists every bit as much as matter. Stay in school.
- bman1984, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1No, there most definitely is time.
- hapax, on 06/25/2008, -17/+1In the beginning, there was Zero. And when God divided by Zero, the result was the Infinity known as the Universe.
When God created Man, he was in God's true image and could divide by Zero. But after the Serpent tempted Man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, Man became aware that dividing by Zero was a mathematical impossibility. And God cast Man out of Paradise, and so Man lost his divinity and the ability to divide by Zero.- CaLeDee, on 06/25/2008, -6/+14Man created God in his own image. Not the other way round.
- mattbatt77, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2For all other world religions except Christianity: you are correct. Let's see though, the teachings of Christ run contrary to human desire and thought: loving one's enemy, laying down one's life to gain true life, giving in order to receive, submitting one to another in love. In order to lead one must first becoming a servant. Men and women being equal (written in a time of total inequality). Why would man create a religion so contrary to power, greed, pride and control; a religion so contrary to human ego?
All the apostle's who at one time were afraid and denied Christ later were brutally killed, crucified and tortured for a myth? One must think: if they truly knew Christ was dead, how could they have such hope and boldness in the face of intense persecution? Were they all filled with delusion? And I suppose the millions of Christians today--what, insane? Over a billion people completely out of their mind, not one good for the betterment of humanity?
Is that why so many on Digg feel frustrated: they think they are surrounded by over a billion crazy, lunatic Christians? Well, I'd ask you: research literature, science, art, humanitarian aid, world-wide service and contributions made to humanity from Christians: quite the opposite of an insane, delusional persona.
Please try to think: within history and archeology, ancient historians confirm there was a Christ who changed the world as we know it. Surprisingly, his body had never been found -- amazing due to the fact that we know so many details of his birth, location, ministry, followers . . . and in such a small country! If it is all a lie, wouldn't his followers died with him? How was the world revolutionized? How have countless lives been changed?- CaLeDee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1How and why have countless people lost their lives in the name of this so called religion? Stop looking only at the positives, because we both know the negatives far outweigh all of it.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3"For all other world religions except Christianity: you are correct."
LOL BIG LOL - mattbatt77, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Wow, huge generalizations! Sure, people in any name of any religion can commit wrongs, but you must look at Christ and the majority of the church throughout 2,000 years. Mother Theresa? Billy Graham? Franklin Graham? Martin Luther? Good Samaritan? Salvation Army? Not to mention Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Leonardo DaVinci, Rambrant, Newton, Galeleo (yes, the Catholic church had issues with him, but he was a believer and a great scientist!) Amazing contributions to the betterment of society.
Phyraxus: the one major difference of Christianity than any other religion: you can't work yourself into heaven or peace or nirvana nor can becoming a better person, without Christ benefit you. But while we ALL were lost in sin, Christ died for ALL. This teaching contradicts all other teaching, study it for yourself. And after that, what other teaching relies on their teacher raising from the dead, not just their doctrines and sayings? Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius? Everyone knows they are dead, their teachings never solely relied on them coming to life. But do we know Christ is dead? Thousands of people knew him personally. His disciples were brutally tortured for a lie? Know one knows where his body is. I'd say if you can disprove the resurrection, you have destroyed Christianity and proven it all a lie and fantasy. But can you? - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I don't need to prove anything. That is the burden of proof fallacy. You are the one making a positive claim (i.e. jesus became a zombie) and you need to provide evidence for it.
- mattbatt77, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2For all other world religions except Christianity: you are correct. Let's see though, the teachings of Christ run contrary to human desire and thought: loving one's enemy, laying down one's life to gain true life, giving in order to receive, submitting one to another in love. In order to lead one must first becoming a servant. Men and women being equal (written in a time of total inequality). Why would man create a religion so contrary to power, greed, pride and control; a religion so contrary to human ego?
- CaLeDee, on 06/25/2008, -6/+14Man created God in his own image. Not the other way round.
- freecris, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3We can't know how did the universe begin, but we know for sure how it will end:
with a Chuck Norris' Roundhouse Kick. - hapax, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1Sorry, ignore
- H0ns, on 06/25/2008, -4/+12Lolcatbible:
§3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz- TheBrain21, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.
- jamessavik, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Robert Byrd had the universe created with a little pork left over from one of the many projects that bear his name. Earth was going to be named after him too but God said enough is enough you son of a bitch.
- Goblin, on 06/25/2008, -0/+30It started with a mis-calculation in a previous universe's large hadron collider.
- robbiedo, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1You mean from the universe where the bearded USA did not cut funding for the Superconducting Super Collider.
FTFY.
- robbiedo, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1You mean from the universe where the bearded USA did not cut funding for the Superconducting Super Collider.
- crazybugger, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4No beginning, No end!
- bratterscain, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1142
- Coven, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2That certainly took long enough.
- robbiedo, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I just watched the movie. I really expected to be disappointed, but it really wasn't bad. Actually, was pretty cool.
- TheBrain21, on 06/25/2008, -0/+33"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Adams - sportsstar67, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1the universe began like all life begins, with a BANG
- cdigioia, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3...yeah, you like the bitch! BAAANG!
Or so I imagine it goes, naturally I have only pornography to guide me.
- cdigioia, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3...yeah, you like the bitch! BAAANG!
- WoollyMittens, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3"The biggest bang since the big one."
- diablo2032, on 06/25/2008, -12/+2i wish i knew, but i seriously doubt we'll ever know...anyone that has a theory is probably full of bs. big bang? please...you cant get something from nothing, things just dont happen...they're caused.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6No one ever said there was nothing before the big bang.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8The big bang is not about something from nothing - it is everything from everything in a different form. Educate yourself on the topic before you next attempt to speak on it.
- mrogi, on 06/25/2008, -7/+0In the beginning there was nothing. God farted and the rest is history.
- heavystone, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3God farted, and the planets are the ***** nuggets that came flying out.
- DopplerDuck, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1You mean sharted, right?
- bllambert, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1...very carefully?
- michael43, on 06/25/2008, -14/+10Why is it that supposedly intelligent (and I use that word liberally) people can surmise or imagine a big bang from nothing, or a universe that's always been here forever and ever and ever, but can't entertain the possibility of the existence of a Creator? Any mention of a Creator or God and you are instantly labeled as a fanatical idiot, at least by most of the diggers. The standard answer is you can't prove the existence of God, but you can't prove any of the ***** theories you have either. Why not consider all possibilities? Digg me down now, because I believe in God.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -6/+13The question is why, when some people want to try to understand as much as they can about the universe and it's origins, do people like you have to come along and say "stop trying to understand, it's just God?" If everyone listened to people like you, we wouldn't know anything about anything, because fanatical idiots have tried to stop science from the very beginning.
Another way to put it is, if you want to make the assumption (with no evidence) that God created the universe, that's fine for you. But many of us think that's not a very useful assumption.- michael43, on 06/25/2008, -8/+3You have proved my point with your arrogant reply. I never said "stop trying to understand, it's just God", those words are your own. What I want to know is why "people like YOU" can't entertain the possibility of a creator with the same so called "open mindedness" that you think about parallel universes, big bang theories, and the other trillion theories out there? You can't answer that question without insulting people of faith because you are an egotistical piece of ***** that by your own beliefs, must have evolved from a gigantic cosmic turd. Now, do you like being insulted?? I didn't think so.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7But I never denied there might be a creator, I only said I thought it was a bad scientific theory, and insisting that it be treated as equivalent to other theories is unreasonable.
Your reply shows that even you don't think it's about science - you think it's about "people of faith" vs "other people". If you could separate the science from the religious beliefs, maybe it would be more clear to you why creator theories aren't taken seriously by many people. - michael43, on 06/25/2008, -6/+1kh99 - I never said it's about "people of faith vs other people". You really should stop doing that, it's irritating to rational people. Listening to you twist my words to fuel your own argumentive agenda is tiring so I'm going to stop. Regards....
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The difference is that these other hypotheses/theories can all be explained by natural phenomena. A god by definition is supernatural and in no way does any explanatory work.
If, however, god did exist and there is empirical evidence for it, scientists would be the first to let you know after exhausting all natural causes.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7But I never denied there might be a creator, I only said I thought it was a bad scientific theory, and insisting that it be treated as equivalent to other theories is unreasonable.
- michael43, on 06/25/2008, -8/+3You have proved my point with your arrogant reply. I never said "stop trying to understand, it's just God", those words are your own. What I want to know is why "people like YOU" can't entertain the possibility of a creator with the same so called "open mindedness" that you think about parallel universes, big bang theories, and the other trillion theories out there? You can't answer that question without insulting people of faith because you are an egotistical piece of ***** that by your own beliefs, must have evolved from a gigantic cosmic turd. Now, do you like being insulted?? I didn't think so.
- nitsuj, on 06/25/2008, -5/+14Nobody thinks the universe came from nothing.
There is potentially an infinite number of possibilities. It's only worth persuing those possibilities that have evidence supporting them. So far, there is no evidence that conclusively points to a creator being responsible for the universe.
In particular, most christians seem to have a myopic view that their particular creator story is the only one in town. It's not, there are thousands. As far as evidence goes the christian story is no more convincing than any other, i.e. not much.
You only have to look at some posts from creationist idiots on here when ever an evolution theory story comes up to understand why there is such a reaction. - jesusfish, on 06/25/2008, -5/+7If God created the universe, then who or what created God?
- JimmySpaza, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3Supernatural entities don't need to be created to exist like things in this time/space continuum do.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5Assuming you're serious, 1) How do you justify that statement? and 2) since we're talking about creating the time/space continuum and not something within it, how do you know that the time/space continuum itself is not a "supernatural entity"?
- JimmySpaza, on 06/26/2008, -7/+1"Assuming you're serious"
Yes, I'm quite serious.
"1) How do you justify that statement?"
It's justified because of theological reasons. These theological reasons will probably not be believed or even entertained unless one first acknowledges that God might exist.
For example, if the Bible is accurate, then the supernatural realm including God exists. The Bible says that God has always existed and is without external cause or beginning.
"2) since we're talking about creating the time/space continuum and not something within it, how do you know that the time/space continuum itself is not a "supernatural entity"?"
Well, given the premise of your question and assuming you want a non-theological answer...then I don't know.
But, if we're going to delve into the metaphysical world of speculation and unverifiable theory, then allow me to present the theory that the Bible is accurate including its supernatural components and God exists. - adasha, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5No serious scientist could ever accept that God has 'always' existed without 'external cause or beginning' because it goes against the whole concept of rational science. If God has always existed then there must be a reason for that - if his existence was proven tomorrow scientists would simply move onto the next layer down.
It all comes down to the same thing at the end of it all: if the Big Bang started it all what caused it, if God put us here where did he come from? Why is? - eir574, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4"if his existence was proven tomorrow scientists would simply move onto the next layer down."
It's turtles all the way down, adasha. Hadn't anyone told you? - JimmySpaza, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2@adasha
"No serious scientist could ever accept that God has 'always' existed without 'external cause or beginning' because it goes against the whole concept of rational science."
OK. Fair enough. But, when you're dealing with a Being that exists outside of this universe and is not subject to the logic of this universe...it's time to loosen up the scientific rules a little.
Look, see how the laws of nature are conveniently dismissed or avoided when discussing the Big Bang singularity? Well, you need to dispense with such natural laws otherwise the Big Bang singularity could never work.
Same thing with an analysis or study of God.
Is it possible that somethings exist outside of this universe that don't make logical sense to us? Sure.
Now, ponder what would happen if a supernatural being from outside this universe made contact with us. Logic and science would probably not be sufficient to deal with that encounter. Thus, the problem with dealing with God...
"If God has always existed then there must be a reason for that"
True. Per the Bible, God has a reason for everything.
"if his existence was proven tomorrow scientists would simply move onto the next layer down."
If you were restricted to the scientific methodology and pure logic, yes.
"It all comes down to the same thing at the end of it all: if the Big Bang started it all what caused it, if God put us here where did he come from? Why is?"
Good questions. And when science is incapable of answering such questions because the subject matter is not a natural process or entity, then one must use whatever tools are available to continue the study - theology, prayer, loosened up scientific rules, etc. - nitsuj, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2"then one must use whatever tools are available to continue the study - theology, prayer, loosened up scientific rules, etc."
Or combine them all into what is commonly know as 'making ***** up'.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3Supernatural entities don't need to be created to exist like things in this time/space continuum do.
- tragic8, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2Kh99, you are absolutely incorrect. No one says “stop trying to understand, it’s just God”. Also, you said “if everyone listened to people like you, we wouldn’t know anything…”. The opposite of your statements is generally true. While there are exceptions, most of our learning institutions were established by Christians in the pursuit of knowledge and a better society. If one assumes a creator, one will approach science in a different way then one that assumes something else. While there have been times when religion stifled growth, that is the exception and not the rule. Also, you should not feel threatened by the simple idea of a creator if you truly feel it does not exist. Let those who wish to take a different path take that path without obstruction.
Nitsuj – there are mountains of evidence for a creator, you simply choose to ignore it. The complexity of the design of everything we see is indicative of some kind of higher intelligence. There is nothing I can tell you ( I assume you have already researched the I.D. theory) that you haven’t already seen but it doesn’t matter. This is a discussion based on religion and emotion and not science or logic. You say there is potentially an infinite number of possibilities. I say there is potentially a God. You keep looking for how it was made, and let me see what I can discover in what was made.
Oh yeah, jesusfish... Either we created God or he created us. Jury is still out I guess! If God is truly God as we imagine such a thing, it would need no creator for it would not exist as we do. Imagine if your time were infinite. You would not traverse time from old to new or past to future, you would exist in all times. There could be nothing that came before you. Sounds ridiculous, I know... Then again, I think it's ridiculous that we are in existence, thinking about our own thoughts, and having this conversation.- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Sorry tragic8, you haven't shown me to be incorrect at all, much less "absolutely incorrect". You said "No one says 'stop trying to understand'" but in fact I see people saying that every day on digg and elsewhere. In fact you admit later that there are people who say this. I never said that all religious people feel that way. And I don't feel threatened at all by the idea of a creator, I just think it's a poor scientific theory. This isn't because it can't be proven (although it might be better to say that it's not a good theory because it can't be *disproven*). I think it's a poor theory because it leads nowhere. Science is an attempt to understand, and that theory is a dead end that doesn't add to our understanding (except maybe in a very trivial way).
As for michael43's comment, he implies that people aren't intelligent if they don't consider the "alternate theory", then goes on to call other theories bs and makes it clear that there's only one he is willing to accept. In fact I think it's quite obvious that he hasn't considered any theory whatsoever, but has just decided what to believe. I don't think that's someone who should be questioning other people's intelligence. Believing in a creator doesn't take any intelligence at all.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Sorry tragic8, you haven't shown me to be incorrect at all, much less "absolutely incorrect". You said "No one says 'stop trying to understand'" but in fact I see people saying that every day on digg and elsewhere. In fact you admit later that there are people who say this. I never said that all religious people feel that way. And I don't feel threatened at all by the idea of a creator, I just think it's a poor scientific theory. This isn't because it can't be proven (although it might be better to say that it's not a good theory because it can't be *disproven*). I think it's a poor theory because it leads nowhere. Science is an attempt to understand, and that theory is a dead end that doesn't add to our understanding (except maybe in a very trivial way).
- michael43watch, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4Hello michael43; I feel obliged to inform you that you are indeed an idiot.
Enjoy your day.- michael43, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2Hmmm...considering you named yourself in my honor, I suppose that makes you my first groupie. That makes you so special I'm going to let you suck the sweat off my balls. You enjoy your day as well my little cum bucket.
- kh99, on 06/25/2008, -6/+13The question is why, when some people want to try to understand as much as they can about the universe and it's origins, do people like you have to come along and say "stop trying to understand, it's just God?" If everyone listened to people like you, we wouldn't know anything about anything, because fanatical idiots have tried to stop science from the very beginning.
- VideoHost1, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I donno but its pretty big
The Stars aren't all stars.
Most are other galaxy's
Here's a Link to The Hubble Telescope
Running in Deep Field. Its been called the
Most Important Image taken by Man.
http://2.0web.tv/index.php?option=com_seyret&task= ...- Zerophnx, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Incredible Video
- donkeySays, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1That's what she asked.
- Toshibi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6We suppose that even in nothing there exists states of nothingness. Nothing could be an average, honestly. Think of it like a number line, -1 on the left, 1 on the right, and 0 smack in the middle. Zero would be nothing, of course. -1 would be some strange state which I couldn't describe very well, and 1 would be what we have here. Now if you have these three states of "nothing" and they are balanced, then the average is 0, or nothing. Suppose that at some point, not in time, but in being nothing, the system falls into an imbalance. So we get a whole bunch of something on one side or the other...we get an abundance of 1 nothings, as opposed to -1 nothings, or so on. The average is no longer 0. You now have something. We see his sort of average to 0 in all sorts of fundamental behaviors in our universe today.
Time isn't some imaginary thing from the minds of man, it's a dimension, just like length and breadth and so on (or radius and degrees). Of course we could have the philosophical argument that everything in the universe rests only in the minds of man and such, but then that opens up all sorts of worm cans. When the universe began, it wasn't at some point in time, it was the initial moment in time, it's arrow gaining a direction and just as all the other dimensions did, expanding.
As for the problem of the creator, that isn't the goal of science....we don't care about your theology. Your theology teaches us nothing about the way the universe works, it's not falsifiable, we can't test it. Perhaps God (or Xenu or magic fairy dust) spawned this universe that we live in, but then, who created the creator and so on. Could our universe be a giant simulation in some alien cosmologist's lab, possible...but then that means we have an upper bound on our own processing power in this universe...we can't have more processing power than the computer we're in.
Finally, the big bounce that Hartle seems to be a fan of, last I heard, the math didn't work out right. From what I understood there is this noticeable acceleration occurring in our expansion which would prevent a closed and recurring system. But you know, i haven't kept up with the literature since college.
-Summer Glau
P.S. I can kill you with my brain.- Sulzer, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2http://xkcd.com/406/
- DutchGuilder, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1> the math didn't work out right. From what I understood there is this noticeable acceleration occurring in our expansion which would prevent a closed and recurring system.
The acceleration is just the up-slope on a nice, predictable sinusoid. The math is actually very clean for a sinusoidally expanding-contracting universe with a minimum radius of the Schwarzschild metric for the entire mass of the universe; you can read the details here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/CosmologyPar ...- Toshibi, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Thanks.
- Zerophnx, on 06/25/2008, -1/+0It's not that (at least from my perspective) most of the religious are being labeled as fanatical idiots, but ponder this perspective.
We are world of technology, science, and mathematics. We love what we can do and explain with numbers. Try to tell these people that there is something that can't be done with numbers, and they often prove it wrong (just look at a scientific calculator sometime, lots of possibilities).
Now these people are being told the universe came to exist due to a supernatural deity possessing omnipotent powers. Of course they are curious to find out how they can measure or calculate this in a more tangible fashion. Go for it. There isn't any reason we should discourage what could be defined as scientific prog