rhys 0
Recommended Posts
jakee 1,256
QuoteWhat I consider the creator of everything is not in the form of human being nor a organic life form, but if the big bag or some other form of process is what created everything, then that would be by definition the god we should respect,
Not by any definition of 'god' that I'm aware of.
And I'm not sure how one would go about 'respecting' a cosmological fact...
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
quade 3
QuoteWow, what a confusing statement, are you trying to say the known is more comprehensive than the unknown?
You do seem to be confused. I didn't say more is known than unknown. What I said was the chain of events from the first moment the universe came into creation until the point you're sitting at your computer "chatting" with me is accounted for by physics and chemistry. With the exception of a period of time far shorter than the blink of an eye. In fact, the period of time is so short, the time it took the light from your computer screen to reach your eyes is orders of magnitude greater than what I'm talking about. Every other moment that enabled you to read what I'm currently typing is explainable by physical and chemical processes.
That's not to say there aren't wonderful and horrible things to be discovered in other parts of the universe that we can't possibly know about, but our existence here is accounted for without any need for any interaction by "god."
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteBut to go from the M-Theory to "God is unnecessary" is pure arrogant blind faith.
can a piece of irony that big fit on one server ?
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I am all about the scientific method. It is an excellent way to uncover the truth.
Agreed.
>But to go from the M-Theory to "God is unnecessary" is pure arrogant blind faith.
Nope, it's just stating a fact. It is not necessary to have a God to have the universe unfold the way it has. It is not necessary that God be absent for the universe to unfold the way it has.
It's another way of saying "you gotta have faith" because there's no proof either way.
Agreed.
>But to go from the M-Theory to "God is unnecessary" is pure arrogant blind faith.
Nope, it's just stating a fact. It is not necessary to have a God to have the universe unfold the way it has. It is not necessary that God be absent for the universe to unfold the way it has.
It's another way of saying "you gotta have faith" because there's no proof either way.
maadmax 0
Nope, it's just stating a fact. It is not necessary to have a God to have the universe unfold the way it has. It is not necessary that God be absent for the universe to unfold the way it has.
It's another way of saying "you gotta have faith" because there's no proof either way.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me in you typical unagreeable way.
I guess we can attribute that to God's quantum nature, He can exist and not exist at the same time, it just depends if we are looking for Him. ...
wolfriverjoe 1,341
Quote
Nope, it's just stating a fact. It is not necessary to have a God to have the universe unfold the way it has. It is not necessary that God be absent for the universe to unfold the way it has.
It's another way of saying "you gotta have faith" because there's no proof either way.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me in you typical unagreeable way.
I guess we can attribute that to God's quantum nature, He can exist and not exist at the same time, it just depends if we are looking for Him. ...
Or perhaps it depends on whether or not we believe in him.
I've always believed that God needs us to have faith in him. That's why he provides absolutely no proof of his existence, or lack of, whatsoever (Check out the "Hitchhiker's Guide" Babel fish story).
So he exists for those who believe and doesn't exist for those who don't.
At the same time.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
quade 3
QuoteI've always believed that God needs us to have faith in him.
Why would God need anything?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
wolfriverjoe 1,341
QuoteQuoteI've always believed that God needs us to have faith in him.
Why would God need anything?
Because without faith he is nothing?
He seems to have had a need to create the universe, and us. Or at least create the universe from which we resulted.
I dunno, I can't explain all my beliefs. I won't even try to explain God.
I just have a small understanding of what I choose to call God, and I try to understand and carry out his will as best I can.
Which is a long way from perfectly.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
billvon 2,400
>It sounds like you are agreeing with me in you typical unagreeable way.
I agreed with most of what you said, just not the idea that "God is unnecessary" is pure arrogant blind faith. It's not.
>I guess we can attribute that to God's quantum nature, He can exist and
>not exist at the same time, it just depends if we are looking for Him.
And like that famous cat, will condense into one state or the other once discovered.
I agreed with most of what you said, just not the idea that "God is unnecessary" is pure arrogant blind faith. It's not.
>I guess we can attribute that to God's quantum nature, He can exist and
>not exist at the same time, it just depends if we are looking for Him.
And like that famous cat, will condense into one state or the other once discovered.
maadmax 0
And like that famous cat, will condense into one state or the other once discovered.
+1
rhys 0
QuoteWhat I said was the chain of events from the first moment the universe came into creation until the point you're sitting at your computer "chatting" with me is accounted for by physics and chemistry. With the exception of a period of time far shorter than the blink of an eye.
That is if the hypothesis that accounts for those 'facts' is actually correct.
One can have as many theories as one wants, but one small factor can render them all incorrect.
These are just theories and none can be so sure that they are correct as there is nothing that can prove beyond resonable doubt that they are.
QuoteWith the exception of a period of time far shorter than the blink of an eye. In fact, the period of time is so short, the time it took the light from your computer screen to reach your eyes is orders of magnitude greater than what I'm talking about. Every other moment that enabled you to read what I'm currently typing is explainable by physical and chemical processes.
The processes are explainable, but not necessarily explained.
You seem to be confusing theory with fact.
Like it used to be fact that the earth was flat...
We only know what we know, and there is plenty of unknown that can render these theories useless, but how are we ever to know...
Some need to have an explanation, I do not.
It only takes one thing to make something that makes sense, not make sense anymore.
Especially when we delve into the origins of the universe.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
rhys 0
QuoteNot by any definition of 'god' that I'm aware of.
And I'm not sure how one would go about 'respecting' a cosmological fact...
Quote
GOD
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
The definition of God is ambiguous.
I don't like using the term when explaing my beliefs as the stigma around the word has some sort of human influence which to me is uttery rediculous and selfish.
It does encompass anybodies definition as long as they beleive the origin of life comes from that entity."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
quade 3
QuoteYou seem to be confusing theory with fact.
Not at all.
Just the other night a tree branch fell in my backyard. There wasn't any discernible wind. I went out to the backyard, saw the branch, looked up and saw a piece of the trunk where the brach would fit. By previous observations I knew this branch laying in my backyard used to be connected to the tree. Further, I know the tree was old, ill and gravity is a relative constant, so it was in danger of dropping branches.
Now, I wasn't in my backyard at the precise moment the tree branch dropped off. I didn't actually see it happen. However, I'm fairly certain a herd of wild buffalo hadn't been hooked up to it via rope and pulled it down. It's simply was not required to get the branch from the tree to the ground.
Tree branch laying in my backyard = fact.
Tree branch had previous been attached to tree = fact.
Sufficient evidence to assume herd of wild buffalo had not pulled it down = theory, true, but also probably correct within several thousand decimal places.
Need to include herd of wild buffalo in discussions with tree surgeon with regards to removal of branch = nil.
BTW, this IS a true story.
If you don't think the story applies, then you've probably missed some significant portions of a science class.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 3
Btw, let's not get too caught up in the pedantic difference between theory and hypothesis. I used "theory" because he did and it's the "common" usage when most people say it in conjunction with the Big Bang.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
nigel99 144
QuoteQuoteI don't need or want religion -
As an agnostic, I beleive there my be some kind of source of life be it physical or spiritual.
With this view, it seems to me anyone that can say there definately is not a source of life, so the speak, is just as wrong as one that says there defintely is.
Nobody can be that sure, as it is, (contrary to what many in here think) impossible to know everything.
I disagree.
Just because I don't want it - if God quit hiding in the shadows and requiring "blind faith" then sure, same as if Santa Claus actually bothered to drink the milk and cookies instead of leaving my dad to do it
. Happythoughts summed up my views on religion best.
QuotePeople are comforted by these tenets.
The grand plan gives them a set of "master rules".
It gives them an Omnipotent Servant, a genii that one can use to control their future with some psychic words.
No afterlife is scary for them. All beings endeavor to exist. Humans just have a good idea how long that will be and they can't deal with it. Religion is the solution.
Complex questions that people do not wish to confront.
Religion is a simple answer. Invisible people with superpowers.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
rhys 0
QuoteBTW, this IS a true story.
If you don't think the story applies, then you've probably missed some significant portions of a science class.
that is logic and can be proven, the big bang and the origin of the universe can only be explained by guess work.
The origin of the universe and the falling branch are quite different.
we can put wood in various forms under a microscope and we can tet the gravity of the earth, we cannot explain the beginning or the end of the universe, we can guess, whe can make assertions but we cannot ever be sure.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
billvon 2,400
>that is logic and can be proven
No, it can't be - that's his point. No one observed the branch falling. It COULD have been a herd of wild buffalo. Logic says it most likely was not.
>the big bang and the origin of the universe can only be explained by
>guess work.
Just as the branch can only be explained by guesswork. But it's a good guess.
To use an example a bit more like the origin of the universe thing:
It's a good bet that you have never seen your great great great great grandfather. If you're like me, you've never seen a picture of him, and have never spoken to him. Indeed, there is not even any hard evidence of mine.
But it's also a good bet that he was a human being, and not a buffalo.
No, it can't be - that's his point. No one observed the branch falling. It COULD have been a herd of wild buffalo. Logic says it most likely was not.
>the big bang and the origin of the universe can only be explained by
>guess work.
Just as the branch can only be explained by guesswork. But it's a good guess.
To use an example a bit more like the origin of the universe thing:
It's a good bet that you have never seen your great great great great grandfather. If you're like me, you've never seen a picture of him, and have never spoken to him. Indeed, there is not even any hard evidence of mine.
But it's also a good bet that he was a human being, and not a buffalo.
rhys 0
QuoteNo, it can't be - that's his point. No one observed the branch falling. It COULD have been a herd of wild buffalo. Logic says it most likely was not.
Understood, but wild buffalo would probably not tiptoe across the lawn and a heard would probably leave turd or two as evidence. haha
QuoteJust as the branch can only be explained by guesswork. But it's a good guess.
To use an example a bit more like the origin of the universe thing:
It's a good bet that you have never seen your great great great great grandfather. If you're like me, you've never seen a picture of him, and have never spoken to him. Indeed, there is not even any hard evidence of mine.
But it's also a good bet that he was a human being, and not a buffalo.
We know about reproduction, but we do not know about the outer limits of the universe.
Show me one individual that claims to know how large the universe actually is where it's boarders are and what lies beyond?
Anyone that made such a claim would have to be lying as our technology is not yet capable of such observatons.
Who knows what the future holds.
That of this earth and atmosphere can be well understood as we can observe and study it directly, outside of this solar system things become a little less clear.
Hypothesies can be presented and somehow acknowledged, but never can one be certain. as too many variables remain unknown.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
quade 3
QuoteShow me one individual that claims to know how large the universe actually is where it's boarderd are and waht lies beyond?
Anyone that made such a claim would have to be lying as our tchnology is not yet capable of such observatons.
Yes and no. The technology to see within a fraction of a percent to the very edge of the universe currently exists. This makes it also fairly trivial to map out the "boundaries" which you can think of as being roughly 13.75 billion light years away in any given direction.
What lays beyond is unobservable to us because light simply can't go any faster in vacuum than it does.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rhys 0
QuoteYes and no. The technology to see within a fraction of a percent to the very edge of the universe currently exists. This makes it also fairly trivial to map out the "boundaries" which you can think of as being roughly 13.75 billion light years away in any given direction.
So bacause we cannot see anything,means there is nothing there?
who is to say there is not a void for another 13 billion ,light years and then more 'existance' for more light years...
These assertions are all from observatios made, there is more unseen than seen, people make mistakes, and we will never know a fraction of everything that exists.
QuoteWhat lays beyond is unobservable to us because light simply can't go any faster in vacuum than it does...
... according the the hypothesis that you are most inclined to beleive.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix
Wow, what a confusing statement, are you trying to say the known is more comprehensive than the unknown?
If think this is the case then you are clearly mistaken.
I don;t like to use the word GOD because of the implications, i do not worship any god s an agnostic, I simply respect what is not known.
I will repeat my standpoint, athiests are as incorrect as those that worship gods in the eyes of man.
Nobody has the information to be so definative.
It is impossible for us to know everything and the unknow dwarfs the known by a scale that is incomprehensable.
We do not even know much about our own solar system and the history of arth let alone the plethora of other solar systems in out glaxy and beyond.
Don't even pretend to believe haman beings and the Earth are the centre of the universe. Our existance is just a 'Blink' compared to the existnce of 'everything'.
What I consider the creator of everything is not in the form of human being nor a organic life form, but if the big bag or some other form of process is what created everything, then that would be by definition the god we should respect, there are flaws in every theory as before existance these would have to have been 'something' to create this from, maybe our creator be it anything, has always existed.
I am quite content knowing that we will probably never know.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites