In a universe where creationists defend how nothing comes from nothing

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Well I'm not going to continue if you can't reason. You just repeat the same thing when I've clearly shown you otherwise.

Cheers though

a reply to: drevill

We are both repeating it seems. Fair enough. Agree to disagree on whether Genesis is contrary to science. I won't however agree you refuted my arguments. Cheers.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


Ha ha well ok. See you on another thread. Thanks though cos I learnt some stuff doing it.

Regards

Nice to see the tail chasing end in peace and respect

"in a universe where creationists defend how nothing came from nothing"

another may exist as a reasonable alternative to nothing from nothing cannot come from nothing unless is something and there is perfect proof; witness yourself existing NOW

I'm not fully convinced that black holes do not exist. There are many factors we don't understand yet. Mathematics don't prove this. Mathematical theories are highly speculative (ie string theory, information theory, m theory, etc). Yes, the math adds up, but the real question is, "what does it mean?" M theory is pure mathematics, but it's possible they didn't include the full picture or that there are unknown variables that could easily change the equations. Keep in mind that scientific theories are far greater than mathematical ones as far as validity goes and if not black holes, then what are they? I feel we need to advance science to the capability of inter dimensional physics before we'll really know that answer for sure. I applaud the guys for trying, though. Very interesting stuff. Give it another 50 years, and we'll probably know for sure one way or another whether other dimensions exist and can influence our reality.

a reply to: andre18

So what we have here, is a universe that atheists pointed to over a hundred years ago that had no beginning or end, were actually right all along. Who were thought to be wrong later, due to the findings of a universe with a big bang which implied a beginning. But now we've found that the big bang wasn't at all the beginning, but that the universe was around forever, where until very recently - 14 billion years ago, when it collapsed.

Where did this self creation collapse into or did it also create the stuff that it collapsed into? Whet is it expanding into? That is if the science hasn't changed their minds this week. It's quite a job keeping track of which guy is the head honcho in science any more. Guess it depends on the money trail doesn't it? I guess you would call that free grants from the spooks who order their own imaginations to become facts.

The self creating universe is expanding according to the brains of mankind so that means it is growing to our little minds. But then it has to have something to grow into doesn't it? Does it simply create the very space that it requires to expand? And then as it grows (expands) it greats a void of emptiness of something that we don't really understand. Is that right? So then this emptiness is filled with more stuff that is already self created. And you talk about a God being a dumb belief??? I would rather believe in a God then that fairy story.

originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: [post=19014134]vethumanbeing

mOjOm: Phi is one of my favorite if not the favorite value that I know of actually. I was kinda obsessed with it for a while.

Function assigns to integer and such? Can you tell me how you may think this animates matter. Eulers Phi Function? I am interested in what actually animates the human, is it strong/weak force/radiation?

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: stosh64

Oh i concur most agreeably that using science to defend a persons faith is stupid, but that's what a lot of religious people do. And for those many, this is a giant well placed slap in the face.

Oi! We can't win for trying. Either we go without science and get bashed for that. Or we try to reconcile faith with science and then we get bashed for that.

Why not just admit it - You don't want to just live and let live with the faithful.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

That's a pretty heavy question and may not be something I have an answer for but I'll see what I can come up with. It will take some serious thought and time though and that's even if I completely understand what it is your asking. Let me roll it around for a bit and see what I can come up with...

a reply to: ketsuko

Why not just admit it - You don't want to just live and let live with the faithful

Religion impacts the lives of non-believers. And no I don't mean The Crusades. If religion was benign I would live and let live. That however is not the World we live in.

I know that post wasn't towards me but I felt it might as well have been.

Or we try to reconcile faith with science and then we get bashed for that.

What are some of the Biblical things you think are agreeable to science? If we have reason to argue it's actually a reconciliation why take it as 'bashing'? Surely that depends on how it's delivered from said poster.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: vethumanbeing

That's a pretty heavy question and may not be something I have an answer for but I'll see what I can come up with. It will take some serious thought and time though and that's even if I completely understand what it is your asking. Let me roll it around for a bit and see what I can come up with...

I know, it would be as you would call 'my own obsession' with finding this answer to what initiates 'animation'. Thank you for your interest!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

And the lives and beliefs of non-believers impact the lives of the religious. If not having belief was benign I would live and let live. That however is not the world we live in.

You see? It works both ways. And think about it this way - You can claim that a life and public square from which all beliefs of any type have been expunged is the only fair one to all, but the only people who are truly happy with it are the ones without any belief as they have nothing to lose from it. In short, you are the only ones who win. Explain the fairness in that. At least the other way, we can all be equally offended together by everybody else.



And when I work to reconcile my faith with science and say so and someone without says it's impossible, I take it as bashing. It's spawned out of the belief that the two are completely incompatible which seems to me to have sprung from a militant atheist desire to mark out science as their own sort of "religious" discipline that supports and underpins their belief set and is not to be infringed upon by people of faith whom they regard as irrational and uneducated.

Not all atheists do this of course, but I've run into those who hold this attitude. I've had people tell me my husband can't actually be both Christian and a scientist which to me is ignorance on magnitudes of order as great as any which would think that the Earth was a literal 6,000 years old.

a reply to: ketsuko

And the lives and beliefs of non-believers impact the lives of the religious

Of course.

That doesn't negate the understanding there are negative ramifications from religious belief. There is room to be concerned about the actions of both the religious and the non-religious. Religious people have a centralized set of doctrine, obviously atheists do not. So if we said the non-religious have beliefs that negatively impact the World we couldn't point to one source as being the culprit... whereas it's much more likely we could do so with a religious person. We should be concerned about beliefs in general as actions are made manifest from them. Whether it's from the religious or not.

If I said Genesis is incompatible with science and then pointed out why, would this qualify as bashing your viewpoint? I feel I demonstrated their incompatibility in this thread earlier.

a reply to: andre18

I'm not religious and I'm agnostic , but you are making a big jump and might be firing to quick of the hips.

Even on some of your links:

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity.

While this is an interesting model, it should be noted that it’s very basic. More of a proof of concept than anything else.

In addition, as I haven't read through it all, does it consider the possibility of other universes or a reaction without an action?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If not having belief was benign I would live and let live. That however is not the world we live in.

In an overall (sociological) sense, there doesn't seem to be any area where religious beleif benefits any 1st world society. Quite the opposite. It's absence seems to correlate to societal health.


www.epjournal.net...

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If not having belief was benign I would live and let live. That however is not the world we live in.

In an overall (sociological) sense, there doesn't seem to be any area where religious beleif benefits any 1st world society. Quite the opposite. It's absence seems to correlate to societal health.


www.epjournal.net...

Is a very similar ancestor to ours in your avatar... reading the bible or string theory? I don't have my ideological glasses on enough to care.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If not having belief was benign I would live and let live. That however is not the world we live in.

In an overall (sociological) sense, there doesn't seem to be any area where religious beleif benefits any 1st world society. Quite the opposite. It's absence seems to correlate to societal health.


www.epjournal.net...

Is a very similar ancestor to ours in your avatar... reading the bible or string theory? I don't have my ideological glasses on enough to care.

"The Origin of Man".

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Even a clever mouse gets caught in a trap.

So to you I put forth an old question, doth a dog have Buddha nature? The 3rd patriarch is already rocking on his cushion.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

So to you I put forth an old question, doth a dog have Buddha nature?

Difficult to know that one, though I can't see why not. Very likely dogs also have there own god, they think of her as a hoary locked old spaniel in the sky.

Though it might be more relevant to wonder if humans have a "Buddha nature"?

The 3rd patriarch is already rocking on his cushion.

Tell him to calm down and try to relax. A tranquil mind will ease the fidgeting.