Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Questions I would like to pose to athiests
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442915 is a reply to message #442908] |
Tue, 18 January 2011 04:50   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442918 is a reply to message #442915] |
Tue, 18 January 2011 05:27 |
 |
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
|
Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442923 is a reply to message #442918] |
Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
|
Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
|
Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442939 is a reply to message #442923] |
Tue, 18 January 2011 13:07 |
 |
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Toggle Spoiler| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
|
Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
|
Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know.
|
And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442954 is a reply to message #442939] |
Wed, 19 January 2011 04:19 |
|
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 21:07 |
Toggle Spoiler| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
|
Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
|
Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know.
|
And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel.
|
Since the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum), and the oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years, it cannot be older than that, unless you can speed up/slow down the speed of light. Einstein relativety theorem suggests that this is impossible, since it would get an infinite mass.
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442956 is a reply to message #442568] |
Wed, 19 January 2011 07:09 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
This might just be me being stupid, but wouldn't it be double that?
From a source, light will travel in all directions. If the furthest source of light (star) we know of is 13 billion light years away, then we know that light from that star took 13 billion years to travel from that star to our planet. But what about on the opposite side of the star? Wouldn't light travel that way too? The star should be like a mid point in the calculation rather than an endpoint. (making a total of 26 billion light years from Earth all the way to the farthest reaches of light from a star 13 billion light years away.)
In the following diagram, the blue dot is Earth and the yellow dot is a star 13 billion light years away:
Granted there is no way to confirm this. The universe could very well have an edge just beyond that star at the 13 billion light year mark. But logically, the space between any star and our planet could also be considered a radius of which we know space resides in. (The distance from Earth to a star is 10 billion light years for example, therefore, there is a radius of 10 billion light years all around that particular star that the universe at least extends to.)
-
Attachment: lyrs.jpg
(Size: 11.53KB, Downloaded 390 times)
[Updated on: Wed, 19 January 2011 07:16] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442962 is a reply to message #442954] |
Wed, 19 January 2011 09:41 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 19 January 2011 03:19 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 21:07 |
Toggle Spoiler| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 06:15 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 04:27 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 |
| EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 18 January 2011 03:00 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 04:05 |
| Dover wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 19:29 |
| jnz wrote on Fri, 14 January 2011 15:32 |
Outside our universe the laws of physics we are bound to do not exist! If a cosmos really exists (which unfortunately we cannot prove) then it is totally reasonable for very strange things to happen. Such as:- an infinitely dense, infinitely hot soup of particles and energy appearing out of no where!
|
True. In a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen. In fact, in a truly infinite universe, anything that can happen must happen.
|
Hey! Dover just stumbled onto another paradox!
If the universe truly is infinite then anything and everything must happen at one point in time. However, it is also true that one day the universe must end... But if infinity is the never ending expansion of something, how can the execution of everything possible happen but at the same time manage to end some day? You can't end when you are counting to infinity!
|
The universe isn't infinite, it's still growing. We know how big it is (13 billion lightyears afaik), so ...
|
We were discussing the universe being infinite in regards to time. At least I was, I can't speak for R3.
|
Well, since it's expanding, and the furthest bits are now 13 billion lightyears away, one can conclude the universe started 13 billion years ago. Now the question is, does indeed everything have an end? Since everything needs energy (or mass) and there is a law of physics saying that energy never disappears, one has to conclude that the universe will not end. This is, unless somehow there will be a lot more anti-matter, this would adsorb the matter and thus energy (or transform it to an unknown type of mass/energy).
|
Can we really conclude that? If we can see bits 13 billion light years away, that's light that's 13 billion years old that we're picking up, which means that those bits were at the location we see 13 billion years ago. Where are those bits now? If the universe actually is 13 billion years old, then we can assume that the laws of physics as we know them don't always (or at least haven't always) applied. Is this some sort of side-effect of the big bang? I'd say the universe coming into existence is a reasonable enough reason to give the laws of physics pause. Or is it a property at of the expanding-edge of the universe? There's so little we actually know.
|
And thats assuming constant motion, there are likely gravitational forces that are at work that will have changed the acceleration of stuff over the billions of years, things likely started moving much faster than what they are now so the universe could be even older then the 13 billion years+13billion years for light to travel.
|
Since the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum), and the oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years, it cannot be older than that, unless you can speed up/slow down the speed of light. Einstein relativety theorem suggests that this is impossible, since it would get an infinite mass.
|
The oldest light we've seen is 13 billion years old, which means whatever created that light was 13 billion light years away 13 billion years ago. It doesn't tell us how large the universe is -right now-.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #442964 is a reply to message #442568] |
Wed, 19 January 2011 11:51 |
 |
Spyder
Messages: 1070
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
We live in a vicious circle. The sun will destroy itself in another 4.5 billion years. With this explosion a lot of material, gases, fluids etc. will be released into the universe. Then with these materials new planets start forming and a new system such as ours will probably start to exist. Then this will destroy itself again and rebuilt itself again.
It's an odd world we live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #443436 is a reply to message #442568] |
Mon, 31 January 2011 00:33 |
 |
snpr1101
Messages: 425
Registered: June 2007
Location: Australia
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
For me; I think the reasoning we make in relation to everything having a purpose is a little odd.
We seem to make rational statements about simpler lifeforms until we get to ourselves. For example:
If you asked 100 people (Half of which believe the Universe was created by a God; and half of which did not) - "What is the purpose of this tree? (common tree species)"
I would presume that the answers would be a combination of the following:
1. To grow and to die.
2. To photosynthesize and provide oxygen.
3. To stabilize the soil beneath.
Etc
All practical and rational answers.
Yet, when you pose the question, "What is the purpose of a human being?" The answers would vary wildly.
Is it likely that Human Beings are that much more special than simpler lifeforms in terms of having a purpose? Is it irrational to believe that we might have a similar purpose to these less complex lifeforms? Do we not grow and die as they do? Does the fish suddenly have a destiny because it is a more evolved or complex lifeform than algae?
I think not.
The main problem I see with this entire issue begins in the earliest of days. The days where Man first started to ask and investigate why things worked the way they did. The first scientific endeavors and thirst for knowledge.
You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all.
Can you see the problem?
Worlds worst graph, I know. It's a quick way of demonstrating how behind Science is in comparison to the weight of conclusions due to the need to have actual scientific evidence to support claims, which takes alot of effort, understanding which all come with the most important aspect - Time. Conversely, the only requirement to acknowledge that a certain God exists is "faith".
If we knew back then what we know now, I wonder how religion and the claims that a God exists would be perceived today?
Apologies for the rant / incoherent sentences and ideas. Incredibly tired, yet the thread title sparked a what little energy I have left atm to say something.
[Updated on: Mon, 31 January 2011 05:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445832 is a reply to message #442568] |
Fri, 15 April 2011 21:37 |
blunts
Messages: 10
Registered: August 2010
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
[quote title=reborn wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 04:33]If there is no deity that created the universe, how did the universe come to be? Specifically I am talking about the creation of something from nothing. If we are to belive the "Big Bang Theory" then where did the Two giant gas clouds come from? How do you get something from nothing? Where does all matter come from?
Why do so many people feel the need to worship?
If there is no signifigance to life, no meaning to it, you must reflect that life is nothing more than an experiance that will end, and therefor be a waste of time?
Are we as humans different to other animals? We have more intelligence and we have higher reasoning. Why are we the only ones?
If God does not exist, then can someone still hope for better times when in despair? Is hope just a random chance of roulette? There is no universal force of fairness and equality, no Karma?[/quote
Quantum physics can explain most of this. Kinda like how things can indeed be in more than one place at one time, or how atoms can exist and then just not exist for no reason at all. Or how the impossible (ie a dinosaur wearing a pink tutu singing lady gaga can appear infront of you then vanish)
people feel the need to worship because w/o this where would many of the week minded people morals end up. If it werent for worship then people would just do whatever fearing no consequences. And way back when, when worship started they were worshiping stars.
We are not the only ones. Its called evolution. And im sure in the next million years or so we will see a higher evolutionary product of ourselves.
As for the final question in your statement. Hope is for the weak. Realize that things are bad and like any other action that gets its opposite yet equal reaction that it will change. Of course there is no fairness or equality. Look at our world, or civilazation for this matter. Why is it that there are people starving and people eating like theres no tomorrow. Why did the tsunami hit japan and only fuck their shit up. If the world were fair and equal then events like this would bone the entire world in the same fashion it did japan. However this does not exist. As for karma, its an extreme set of coincidence that is the same as the law i stated earlier for every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction.
Now if you made it this far you deserve to read this from me.
Religion and worship is a much needed part of life. Without this process the world would be a much more violent and full of dispair because we would not have the people that beleive if they do something wrong or unjust that they are going to burn in hell forever because of this. If in the beggining of days nothing ever happened for people to want to worship (weather it was actually a god, some person making shit up, or for the realists out there an extra-terrestrial being) then we would be in a far worse off place. Im only glad that I live in a day in age where the majority of things can be proven or disproven, because I dislike and find things that there are no physical evidence for extremly rediculious. If I cant see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or have rational explination for then it more than likely doesnt exist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,looks like a duck, smells like a duck, chances are pretty good its a duck.
Another philosophical moment broughten to you by blunts.
Your local area n00b
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445843 is a reply to message #443436] |
Sat, 16 April 2011 10:37 |
 |
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| snpr1101 wrote on Mon, 31 January 2011 00:33 |
You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all.
|
keeping in mind about the definittion of science
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world
I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science.
To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445846 is a reply to message #445843] |
Sat, 16 April 2011 12:22 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 10:37 |
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world
I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science.
To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks.
|
"people came from rocks"? oh dear
firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how the world began". the world is not a living thing. evolution is a process whereby living things - including humans - change over an extremely long timeframe.
as for physically tested, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the record of molecular biology. there's none at all for "God". as for "repeatable", evolution is still happening.
if you want to say that "God" created people, what a great deal more complicated you've just made the question; now the origin of life is wherever this god of yours came from.
if we instead accept the theory of evolution, humans developed over an almost incomprehensibly long period of time from lower lifeforms, so the origin of life is really primitive forms of life which can arise through abiogenesis.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445847 is a reply to message #445843] |
Sat, 16 April 2011 12:25 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 10:37 |
| snpr1101 wrote on Mon, 31 January 2011 00:33 |
You have this rational group of people; and then you have a group of people who at the same time, claimed a God of some form existed without any scientific evidence at all.
|
keeping in mind about the definittion of science
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world
I'm not sure I understand your graph. If science is the study of testable explanations, why is it being depicted or though of as a separate "theory" vs "The Theory of God"? What I mean by this is, as an example, "The Theory of Evolution" is thought of by many as being "science" and the "Theory of Creation" as "non science". Both are theories on how the world began, and since neither can be physicly tested, or are repeatable, neither can be called true science.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
| Quote: |
To me it is easier to believe that God created us and people come from people, than to believe that people came from rocks.
|
I wonder, did god come from rocks?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445860 is a reply to message #442568] |
Sun, 17 April 2011 01:23 |
Tunaman
Messages: 1189
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 2
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Why can't something come from nothing? In reality, we cannot experience "nothing", so we don't know what is possible and what is not possible with it. What if "nothing" is just a concept that we try to base arguments on, but also a concept that isn't actually real?(basically, this is an idea that we cannot experience nothing, and it may have never existed)
Why do we think all things have to begin and end? This is something that we accept without question, but what if this is not actually true? What if things have always existed, and have always been ever-changing?
Crazy.
[Updated on: Sun, 17 April 2011 01:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445869 is a reply to message #445868] |
Sun, 17 April 2011 06:24 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| shippo wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 06:19 |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 16 April 2011 12:22 |
"people came from rocks"? oh dear
firstly, evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how the world began". the world is not a living thing. evolution is a process whereby living things - including humans - change over an extremely long timeframe.
as for physically tested, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution in the fossil record and the record of molecular biology. there's none at all for "God". as for "repeatable", evolution is still happening.
|
Could you give an example of evolution?
|
look up just about any animal or plant you like - including homo sapiens - and read up on how it evolved.
but make sure it's a living thing, not a rock or a planet
| Quote: |
Abiogenesis is a theory that tries to explain how life arises form nonlife. There are 2 or 3 different theories on it which do you believe?
|
i don't really care, it's enough to believe that it's plausible.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Questions I would like to pose to athiests [message #445881 is a reply to message #445880] |
Sun, 17 April 2011 18:25 |
|
shippo
Messages: 65
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 06:24 |
but make sure it's a living thing, not a rock or a planet
|
eh i was trying to get at the point that evolutionists don't have a very good explanation of how life came from non life.
acording to evolution, each animal decends from a less complex organism this ultimatly leads however to the problem of how life originated.
food for thoght: if 4.6 billion years ago the earth is formed (made up of water and rock) and you get some moleculs that form and create amino acids, DNA and a cell, you sill have to consider that this all came form, esentially rock or mineral. 
| MUDKIPS wrote on Sun, 17 April 2011 16:59 |
I have one quesion for christians in specific.
How much of your religion do you think, is truly christian? Down to the core, like it's supposed to be designed by jesus and his apostles. Straight from god. The only real way.
|
eh depends on your deffinition of christian, originaly the term "Christian" ment folower of Christ, which was given to the early followers of Jesus. however over the 2000 someodd years there have been many cults and offshoots that claim to be "Christian" but are not really.
basicly I believe the Bible is 100% fact and that it is what we are to live our lives by. tradition or other sorces are not to be accepted in place of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 05 06:49:54 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01313 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
