|
Post by Phantom Zero on May 25, 2010 2:59:40 GMT
Time to restart this, so what are you ideas?
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 25, 2010 4:14:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rabidbadger on May 25, 2010 16:18:34 GMT
Are we to believe in a creator God or a Big Bang? Basically, are we to believe that something came out of nothing? According to the first law of thermodynamics, 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed.' Seeing as everything is made of energy in one for or another, the mantra disproves a 'Big Bang' theorem. Of course, physically a Creator God is equally improbable. It all boils down to personal belief... Personally, I am of the opinion that there is a god. I will be interested to see how the arguments progress in this thread...
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 25, 2010 23:58:14 GMT
The theory is not that the universe started with a big bang out of nothing. There are many theories involving multiple dimensions and such things, my personal favorite is the "Brane Theory".
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 27, 2010 2:07:02 GMT
I believe in both the Big Bang and God. I know there's a scientific explanation for everything, but what if God drives the science? Where did the speck at the beginning come from? How was it made?
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on May 27, 2010 14:19:46 GMT
That's the thing: What if? We can't assume God is behind everything we don't understand. That's like saying "A wizard did it!" every time a plothole appears in a movie.
Anyway, you must understand the concepts behind the brane theory. In it, the universe exists on many dimensions and has existed for a long time, and the big bang isn't just a speck that randomly explodes, but something far more complex.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 31, 2010 13:54:58 GMT
Erg... I'll use Darwinism and IDT Darwinism. It relies on the fact that genetic mutations, random ones could make stuff like us. Intelligent Design theory challenges us. Intelligent Design Theory: Only something intelligent could have made stuff this complex, but it relies on that darwinism isn't true. The fossils aged differently challenges that. My theory: Something Intelligent slowly moulded us, changing life from one cell to stuff like humans. I like to combine things like these, more religious and more scientific theories, and they tend to fill each other's holes in.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 1, 2010 19:58:04 GMT
Actually, a lot of people do that. The problem is that religion has an awful lot of holes that cannot be filled by science without flatly contradicting the majority of the bible.
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Jun 1, 2010 22:28:30 GMT
I'm going to re-post an argument of mine from the old Forum...
I believe there is no God. Why? Because there is no compelling proof. We do not know WHY there is gravity, but that does not mean we can assume there is a God. You guys are trying to just tell me that since there are invisible unicorns (just assume it is true) they are by default, pink. Why? Because a thousand's year old dogma says so. Why aren't they blue or green I ask? And you reply, "because they just are pink, this thousands year old book says so". I respect the bible greatly, but as a literary piece, not as the center of a universe of arbitrary dogma. Why isn't God a huge crystal that lives in the center of the Earth? Because somebody said he lived way up in the air, and it stuck. Because people needed something to hope for, something to wish for, something to guide them. Religion is good at that. I see great merits for religion. But it is false.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 1, 2010 23:26:44 GMT
And, as stated in the other thread, why do the unicorns have to have a color in the first place? I mean, what color is glass?
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Jun 2, 2010 13:24:01 GMT
Well, when you denote a color, it has an alpha, a red, a green, and a blue channel. The alpha channel is for transparency. If you stack up a lot of glass it's usually green, so not perfectly transparent. Another explanation is that unicorns bend light around them, in which case, they would definitely have a color, it would just be hidden.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 2, 2010 13:35:03 GMT
I suppose that is one thing. But if said unicorns bend light around them, wouldn't that be proof that God exists for some strange reason?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jun 6, 2010 16:23:34 GMT
[OFF TOPIC] Dayum! I created the longest thread ever on the old forum and its gone! [/OFF TOPIC]
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 8, 2010 19:25:32 GMT
I think that if you just take a look at bio-chemistry, it becomes pretty obvious that evolution could not have created it. So I believe in intelligent design and can argue for that scientifically. but my belief in the judeo-christian God is more philosophical and personal. Basically, I can prove there is a God, but no-one can prove anything about him. just that he/she/it exists.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 8, 2010 22:48:47 GMT
No, you cannot prove there is a God. You merely said that in your opinion biochemistry could not have evolved. Clearly you have more research to do about the primordial soup: It could very easily have come about without the need for God.
Also, you clearly do not understand the concepts of evolution. Evolution is about life forms, not molecules. Saying that is like saying "These particles cannot be created by man, therefore obviously God designed them". We're talking two different processes here.
Thus your logic is flawed and you have proven nothing.
However, if you regard the bible, many things in it are completely and obviously far-fetched. What's more likely: Over billions of years a few compounds that happened to work came about (Hint: Over infinite universes, it would happen at some point, and we see it that way because we have to live in a universe where life is possibly), or the Earth was created in seven days about 6000 years ago, back when people regularly lived to the 300s and people could part water? Not to mention the fact that, if life came from two people, we would die of inbreeding in very few generations. Not to mention the rest of the animals, they would also die of inbreeding.
I think that if you just take a look at bio-chemistry, it becomes pretty obvious that evolution had nothing to do with it. I also think that if you just take a look at the bible, it becomes pretty obvious that it simply isn't true. I also think that if you just take a look at logic, you can't call some of the bible true and some false.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 8, 2010 23:39:04 GMT
mmkay. My main point about Bio-Chemistry is that it is statistically ridiculous to claime that even the simplest eukaryote was built by chance. Yes a primordial soup has what it takes to create organic compunds, but many of those very compounds are prohibitive to the formation of life. You are not only looking for the right chemicals to form, but for the wrong chemicals to NOT form! and that's just proteins. Don't even get me started on complex enzymes and protein formation within the cell. As for macro-evolution, I refer you to the complexities of, say, blood clotting. Irreducible complexity. Nuff said.
Now I'm not going to defend the bible because its authenticity has no effect on the debate. Indeed, I simply prove that an intelligent agent created this universe. for all we know, said agent could simply have made this worlds and then promptly forgot about this. I do not intend to make this a religious debate. it is purely scientific and the results do not hinge on which, if any, religion is correct.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 14, 2010 14:10:46 GMT
So? In an infinite number of universes, they would form in at least one of them. We happen to live in that one because without that complexity we obviously wouldn't exist. What you think is proof of God, I see as proof of a parallel universe.
Plus, if he does exist, the old testament sure portrays him as kind of a major jerk. No way would I worship that guy. Of course, he doesn't, so there's no point not-worshiping him.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 14, 2010 19:38:25 GMT
... If you pull out parallel universes, I can't say anything to that. I would, however like some proofs. I mean, what if I said that all these universes have parallel gods and that some versions of god interfere with their universes while other versions barely touch them. You could have a universe where divine interaction is taken for granted, and another universe where the inhabitants are completely unaware of the existence of their god. Obviously I don't believe this, mostly because I don't believe in parallel universes. But with parallel universes as a premise, you have no way of disproving this multi-god hypothesis. But regardless of the implications of parallel universes, what exactly is the evidence of these universes? How can there be evidence? Basically, parallel universes provides an explanation, but it has no proof. how could it possibly be scientific? and therefore how can it possible be a worthwhile argument in a scientific debate?
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 14, 2010 23:03:55 GMT
I would, however, like some proofs that God exists. You have none. Therefore your evidence is nil, which was the entire point of my argument.
It may have no proof, but NOTHING has proof. The entire world could be an illusion. It has mathematical feasability and such things, which is better than some hunch that some fantastic all-loving unicorn God exists.
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Jun 15, 2010 13:47:30 GMT
Just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it's caused by God.
Not long ago, a boy and his friend were crushed under tons of ice, but somehow they survived and are now on the way to a full recovery. Did God put those rocks there, which allowed them to only be partially crushed by tons of ice? Did God send that fireman who almost randomly choose a spot to search, directly above them? Did God send that fireman who, contrary to orders, brought a chainsaw, which was used to cut through the ice? Did God help them survive under the ice for hours?
As a religious family, they say yes. As an non-religious person, I say they were really lucky.
What evidence is there that God did those things? I say, with lack of substantial evidence, we cannot assume it was God.
Just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it's caused by God.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 16, 2010 16:34:32 GMT
okay, right now we're at a standstill. Nothing can be proven or dis-proven on either side. The main conflict is one of us assumes multiple universes and the other assumes one universe. If there is no proof of either side, we'll have to agree on an assumption to take. Now, I think that assuming one universe is more logical because it can be observed. Assuming multiple universes is just as logical as assuming god.
MF, I'm inclined to agree with you. The boys were very lucky. The odds of those rocks being there and the fireman being there could have been one in a billion, but those are still feasible odds. To say that this universe was very lucky to spawn life is to laugh at incalculable odds. Again, biochemistry. Again, irreducible complexity. An intelligent force created life on earth. The evidence? 1) The odds of self-reproducing life-forms developing in the manner that we have them on earth are ridiculous 2) Said life-forms are, at their very foundation, irreducibly complex. 3) The individual parts of the life-forms serve a purpose.
Give me proof that a cell will develop spontaneously without any intelligent guidance assuming one universe. Why has science failed to replicate the phenomenon? If you wish to insist that my logic is flawed by my one-universe assumption, then how do you know your logic isn't flawed by your multi-universe assumption? Either we assume one universe, or this entire debate is utterly meaningless.
EDIT: PAGE 2! PAGE 2!
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Jun 17, 2010 0:52:18 GMT
...What is this about universes?
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 17, 2010 1:33:23 GMT
Parallel universe theory, explained via M theory, has mathematical evidence behind it. As a matter of fact, it CAN be observed. That is certainly better than Santa Claus.
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Jun 17, 2010 14:09:18 GMT
DON'T YOU BRING SANTA INTO THIS!!!
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 17, 2010 14:20:02 GMT
So if Santa has an invisibility cloak, what color would he be? I know this conversation was going this way anyway.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 17, 2010 15:23:02 GMT
wait, hold on a second. you say these parallel universes can be observed? H4X! H4X! H4X! uh, anyway, could you put some of the evidence of these parallel universes here? I know we could google, but for the purpose of the debate, we should pretend there are no search engines and therefore we should present evidence so that all we need to know to reach our conclusions is in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by QwertyuiopThePie on Jun 17, 2010 23:25:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Thoru on Jun 19, 2010 19:06:48 GMT
I don't personally believe but I find it easier to believe that this is not all some giant test. Supposing there is a God he would be too far beyond our comprehension. Like a penguin trying to understand quantum physics
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Zero on Jun 20, 2010 3:52:11 GMT
hmm... Well i am as you know a non relgious person and an evolutionist. I need to get my 2 cents in... so tell me, why do you belive in this so called "god"? Is it because you have been tought that there is this "all mighty being in the sky" and you shouldnt question what we say or you will be sent to hell and never come back. Well what proff do you have that there is a god? Other than "The Bible says so" and "Thats what was tought at church".
|
|
|
Post by Thoru on Jun 20, 2010 11:45:25 GMT
I DON'T believe in God because the only reasons that can be given for it are those last two
|
|
|