Only if God is proven to exist beyond questionable doubt.

Who knows, maybe the very first primeval atom that set off the event of the Big Bang was created by a super-intelligent alien race, and the universe is their experiment, we are but a miniature zoo for their entertainment. Or perhaps we are but one small universe inside a huge Multiverse. Though that would probably challenge the theory of the Big Bang. Maybe we are in only one of many alternative realities, and anytime someone makes a conscious decision a quantum flux in the universe splits off into a seperate reality that is the result of the alternate decision that may have existed.


Ultimately, the existence of everything came from nothing, to put it in simple terms. Now, it's going to require something amazingly incomprehensible to explain exactly how that could happen, a scientific explanation just can't cut it.

Ngati Grim mentioned the Large Hadron Collider, which seeks to recreate the conditions, sometime in the next 1000 years or so, that lead to the Big Bang. The funny thing is, it's goal is only to study the conditions of the Big Bang, not how the 'primeval atom' came to exist, or where it even came from, there's just no way of explaining that. An interesting thing, after watching a documentary about the Big Bang, about how in the first few of moments from the creation of the atom, and I quote: 'light burts out from within the darkness', which when you think about fits in well with the book of Genesis:

1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Coincidence? Maybe. I find that pretty powerful though. Remembering the Bible was written a long time ago when we knew nothing about the creation of the universe, a lot of people thought the universe had just always existed back then. It's things like this that are probably one of the reasons a lot of modern scientists are beginning to believe in God, or already do, even if some of them won't openly admit it, otherwise risking their reputation and career. And of course some of the very pioneers of science were deeply religious, or had their own beliefs about God themselves.


I think this person pretty much summed up my feelings:

Mara Alexander, Alexandria, Virginia
With a Ph.D. in the social sciences, I'd find it more surprising that scientists don't believe in a God or organizing principle of some sort. What we pursue is "truth," with the underlying belief that there is order in the universe if only we can discover it. I don't know that I especially believe in a berobed deity sitting up in Heaven, or in a literal version of the Bible, but I certainly do believe in a higher power of some sort.


and although i'm not a Christian or religious in any way, and I have yet to read the Bible and learn all about this Jesus character, I have to admit I am interested to, from what i've seen there are lots of amazing, influential, thought-provoking scriptures and stories beneficial to mankind in there that are well worth reading, a lot of it backed up by historical evidence (of course there will always be debates about inconsistencies, literal interpretations ect. ect.)

/long post is long

No you don't. Shut up. Idiot.

/ignore list'd

They're actually different forms of the same thing. I don't know where they came from, if indeed they came from anywhere.

Well, we actually do know where they came from. They came from a point of singularity of the Big Bang (theoretically)

Where did whatever your creator is made out of come from?

Dunno, give me a moment while I ask him...

I'm still trying to figure out why your creator is exempt from all the questions we ask about this universe.

What do you mean? It's probably the sole reason we ask questions about the universe in the first place.

You've presented no argument at any point to give your ideas of "truth" any greater weighting than any other idea someone can come up with.

That's why it is just a DISCUSSION

Why should I believe your truth? Why not the truth of the Roman Gods, or the truth of L Ron Hubbard, or Buddha, or Dawkins?  You scoff when anyone suggests you're wrong, but you don't apply the same criteria you apply to the arguments you disagree with, to your own position.

Believe whoever you want, whoever you believe to be the most credible, I could not care less...

You're not very good at this, why would a omniscient and omnipotent being need to test anything?

What you're saying even contradicts the book of Genesis. 'God' did not test anything, it simply was.

Genesis can probably be interpreted in different ways, it's very difficult to believe that God would just snap his fingers and things start appearing, it is more believable that God would have used the principles and laws of nature and the universe that it has carefully created to put things into motion and make sure it's creation worked correctly.. if you see what I mean...

Thefleastylers, I think you would find I have been trolled and harrassed by several people in this thread merely for sharing my ideas and opinions, so I have kinda lost my patience a bit but I have taken note of what you said. When it comes down to it, these are just my ideas and speculations based on the evidence that I have been learning about, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything I am mainly just interested in the discussion

so god could create Everything - the universe and complicated laws of physics and chemistry but when it comes chucking together a lump of chemicals to make earth he finds it difficult?

You're asking me to try and understand the mind of God...?  :/ that was just an idea really, I wasn't basing it on anything solid, it's more likely due to the Earth still going through it's early formation according to the laws of nature, I mean... if everything in the universe is a very complex set of well-defined working laws, it's going to take a while for everything to start working harmoniously from the moment of creation, for the laws of nature to establish and start working effectively, things like that take time they don't just happen instantly.

When you own a pet, whether it be a Dog, a Mouse or a freaking Giraffe, you don't take it home then put it in a ring of dirt, rocks, snow or in a 5foot pond and say "survive". You give it the best options available to keep it alive.

Kinda like we already have many extraordinary options and conditions on Earth to survive? Animals have been surviving on Earth long before we domesticated them into pets, btw..

Be careful now, suggesting we "developed" is entering into the realms of evolution.

For your information, the concepts of God and evolution can logically co-exist.

And that's a real good move telling me to grow up. You're trying to announce your self the winner of this argument by replying with "I'm ignoring you because i don't like your outlook"...

One last thing.

Fuck up Psyche. Don't spit out slurs and offensive one liners when someone tries to combat what you believe.

You're the one calling me a troll and having an immature rant about nothing. I'm not "declaring myself as the winner" - what the hell gives you that idea? I was merely saying that if Dr_Woohoo has personally come to the conclusion that everything is just 'matter reacting with energy'... and he has had an epiphany about life and apparently knows that there is no purpose to anything.. well then I  have no interest in continuing arguing with him - someone else might, but I don't

Stop the press!

I'm convinced you are a troll. WooHoo has a lot more answers than you.

He does...? Answers about what...?

You and your "i believe this and i think that, therefor it is true".

Lol. Grow up.

So basically, you think God should have just given us paradise to live on? He should have just handed everything to us on a silver fucking platter, that's what you are saying? So we would have no need to develop, become our own people, solve our own problems, discover and respect nature's immense power or any of those things?

I believe (yes BELIEVE, motherf*cker) there is a reason why our existence is not a perfect one, and that it was intended to be that way. I don't know why of course, I can only guess and contemplate.. I also think it is quite possible Earth was meant to be a "paradise" type place, but for whatever reason it could not be..

Of course if you are a follower of the bible, you already have the explanation of why we don't live in a paradise and why our existence is not perfect.

So where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell as whatever created The Big Bang.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

You, and others have some specific ideas about answers to the questions we don't know the answers to. I don't know the right answers, but I am pretty comfortable that they aren't the ones you're proposing, because they contradict much of what we've managed to learn to date.

Like what? examples please.

As I've said previously, I have no issues with this universe having been made by an entity of some sort, but it's an interesting idea, not the "truth".

Oh really. So how exactly do you know it's not the "truth"? Enlighten me oh knowledgable one. The fact is, some of the greatest thinking minds in our history have concluded that the only way everything like this can really exist, can only really be explained by some supremely intelligent and higher being having purposefully designed it all.

we're talking Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, aswell as numerous other geniuses...so what do you say to that? Are you a greater and more knowledgable mind than Copernicus, Newton Darwin and Einstein?

I'm not the saying it's the truth either, but it's the most plausible explanation whether YOU like it or not.

As for the coincidences angle, every day mind numbingly unlikely coincidences happen.

Yes, but every day is a planet born, with water, mountains, trees and plant-life and an oxygen rich atmosphere, a planet within a galactic habitable zone in the universe? Protected by gas giant planets? Orbiting a life-giving sun in a nearly perfect circular motion, at not too far not too close but the perfect distance? A planet with the perfect amounts of gravity and mass, with a magnetic field, plate tectonics, ratio of liquid water and continents? A planet inside the perfect solar system, in the perfect location inside the Milky Way - it has been said that our planet is in an absolutely perfect spot in the universe for scientific discovery. If we had been just about anywhere else in the universe, we would not have had the chance to learn about and discover the universe as we do.

There's also the AMAZING "coincidence" of a full solar eclipse, which I am going to mention later on...

Just to put this into perspective, a mathematical calculation has been done to calculate how probable the "chance" of a planet like this existing outside our solar system is: it's something like 1/1000000000000 (one in a trillion)  considering there are quite likely only in the "billions" of planets in the universe, it's basically impossible.

In fact, if it indeed was all random coincidence, we would probably be in a dangerous part of the universe, our solar system and planetary conditions would be fucked, we would either be weird creatures with four eyes and six arms or we would be DEAD, but we're not - we're intelligent, complex, thinking, contemplating, discovering, consciously aware beings with the ability to discover the workings of nature and the universe itself.

but I've never seen any evidence at all that we're any more than biological sacks of meat.

I have, I have seen plenty of evidence.

but I think I'm going to ignore you from now, you seem to have formed some kind of conclusion on life, and believe that you have the answers to everything so I don't see any need to continue discussing/arguing any of these subjects with you. Not sure why you are even bothering to look at this thread in the first place tbh..

So where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell as whatever created The Big Bang.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

Science and religion don't use the same language, they rely on different parts of the brain, and serve completely different purposes.

Possibly. Doesn't make them completely incompatible though.

Science is an attempt to understand the objective reality we can perceive and measure. If it isn't perceivable or measurable then science has no comment on it.

Fair enough.

I personally have no need to add an unseeable, unmeasurable level of reality to my life. If you, or anyone wants or needs some sort of god to help your life make sense, that's fine. Lots of people do it, and if it gives their lives a structure and meaning that allows them a happy life, then I am all for it

Good for you, I don't think it's just about finding a meaning and structure to our lives though, it's about finding the reason of the existence of everything (as futile as it might seem sometimes) If everything we know is merely an astounding coincidence, or if there is something considerably more to it. At this point in time, I think, God has the best explanations to these mysteries (that's how I see it anyway)

I don't like to dwell on these things too much though, because quite simply there is no way we will ever know how or why everything exists - but it is still interesting to think about.

My problem with your method of belief is, if science clearly doesn't and most likely will never have the answers to the (most significant) questions of life, why would you choose to believe as if you do have the answers? (ie. there is no God, everything's an extraordinary coincidence, we are all just biological sacks of meat ect.)

there is a quote i'm looking for about atheism that would have fitted in perfectly right here, but alas I cannot find it at the moment..


You make some good points aswell for once kill3r (and blackheart), i'll respond later tonight maybe..

You have a really dumb outlook on life to be honest. Just because you've got problems with religion and don't want to have anything to do with God doesn't mean other scientists don't or refuse the idea of God. The above article I linked to about abiogenesis was written by an extremely intelligent scientist that studies and teaches in biology, microbiology, psychology and human anatomy and he believes in God. (he also provides very informitive, unbiased information about his work) In fact many scientists around the world do, you would be suprised. Even Darwin at one point conceded that his theories were extremely improbable and that the possibility of a Creator being the reason for our existence and the existence of nature is the most likely explanation. So for you to claim that the very essence of science is completely incompatible with the concept of God or a Creator, is BULLSHIT.

Science is NOT the be all and end all of everything. If you are trying to claim it is, you need to tell us exactly where science and all it's principles and laws came from and exactly why or how it just all happens to 'work' so effectively. Exactly how and why something as infinitely complex like DNA came to exist.

Good luck explaining that. (see Dawkins' failed attempt to propose a plausible evolutionary accounting of the origin of genetic information, here)

also see why this scientist believes in God.

It is truly pathetic that you continue to follow science blindly so determinedly when clearly it does not, and will not ever have the answers to the truth of our unique existence in the universe. Learn to start thinking outside the box, and learn to appreciate the unbelievably amazing complexity of everything around us, and you will begin to appreciate life in a new way.

It is not the case that science and religion address distinct domains in a general sense. Since religion is about God and God is the source of everything, everything is in religion’s domain. However, it is the case that science can only address a specific (and incredibly important) realm of everything, namely systems. It is in the goals of the addressing of this domain that the ‘nonoverlap’ of NOMA comes in: science’s goal is to discover, describe and explain the properties of these systems. Religion’s goal is to ask what these systems might tell us about the nature of creation, God, and human purpose. This is why I believe religion must take scientific findings seriously – we cannot properly consider God’s purposes without knowing the nature of his creation in concrete ways.

When it comes to non-systematic events, however, the goals of science cannot be accomplished. Science must therefore be satisfied with merely identifying the unexplainable. The general goals of religion, however, can still be accomplished for a singularity may still point to truth and purpose.

Are faith and science compatible? Clearly the answer is ‘yes.’ It is no surprise, then, to find that those who answer ‘no’ often have non-scientific reasons for their conviction. Creationists cannot condemn evolution without speaking of the evil moral implications of a Darwinist worldview; Dawkinsians cannot condemn religion without talking about the moral evils that religious zealots have wreaked on society over the millennia. While social questions are perfectly valid for choosing one conviction over another, they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not science and faith are compatible in an intellectual sense. I suspect that neither party really cares about whether science and faith can really get along, rather that they just don’t want them to.

More

Some interesting reading material about abiogenesis and the origin of life, shows just how unlikely the probability of life existing elsewhere in our universe actually is. I've taken some key excerpts from the article as it's really long.


as much as I hate to quote Dawkins...

The problem of the early evolution of life and the unfounded optimism of scientists was well put by Dawkins.  He concluded that Earth’s chemistry was different on our early, lifeless, planet, and that at this time there existed

...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different.  Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea.  Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator.  This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe.  Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years.  So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year.  If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).

The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds.  No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA.  Nor has anyone been able to create one in a laboratory or even on paper.  The hypothetical weak “primeval soup” was not like soups experienced by humans but was highly diluted, likely close to pure water.

The process is described as life having originated spontaneously from organic compounds in the oceans of the primitive Earth.  The proposal assumes that primitive oceans contained large quantities of simple organic compounds that reacted to form structures of greater and greater complexity, until there arose a structure that we would call living.  In other words, the first living organism developed by means of a series of nonbiological steps, none of which would be highly improbably on the basis of what is know today.  This theory, [was] first set forth clearly by A.I. Oparin (1938) ... (Newman, 1967, p. 662).

An astounding number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem (Lahav 1999).  Although some early scientists proposed that “organic life ... is eternal,” most realized it must have come “into existence at a certain period in the past” (Haeckel, 1905, p. 339).  It now is acknowledged that the first living organism could not have arisen directly from inorganic matter (water, carbon dioxide, and other inorganic nutrients) even as a result of some extraordinary event.  Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that “the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously.” (Newman, 1967, p. 662).  Most major discoveries about cell biology and molecular biology have been made since then.

For the close followers of Darwin..

Darwin evidentially recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” (1900, p. 316).  But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many or even thousands!  If God made one animal type, He also could have made two or many thousands of different types.  No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means.  The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals

More

lots more interesting info in this article for those that card to read

I had to type this shit all over again,  so it's not as well thought out as my original post but whatever..


You probably shouldn't have bothered going to the effort of explaining the carbon dating thing, I'm not all that in it interested to be honest, I was just trying to use it as an example (probably a bad one) But working in the field of Geology, of course you are going to be adamant that the tools you use are completely accurate, or maintain that appearance when I've heard lots of evidence to the contrary (credible or not, hard to say) Mind you I don't doubt that Earth is millions of years old, the thing that gets me is how some scientists claim to know exactly how the planet was back then, exactly what the landscape/climate was and exactly how everything happened, and ALL of this information from some friggin' rocks and a few other scraps of evidence?! :eek: Come on, we all know that a lot of it is guesswork, estimation and speculation... that's the kind of thing that pisses me off is some scientists trying to force their biased beliefs and explanations on people when in reality they have very little knowledge of how everything happened.

I'm curious, you say you know of a few scientists who are also religious. Do you know any personally, in your field of work? If you do - what's your view on that? Do you think people can logically believe in God and respect science aswell? If not, why?

That is, of course, only if we are basing our understanding of Life on our knowledge of carbon-based life forms. There may well be other, alien life forms that are unrecognisable, or live outside the habitable zone for carbon-based life.

If that's the case why hasn't life developed on any of the many planets around us? Some of them have somewhat habitable landscapes for life to develop, yet they are completely barren. I suppose they haven't been fully explored, but still you'd think we would have found something by now. Also it still leaves the question of exactly how any life would even develop in the first place on one of these other planets, that life would still need to have been developed from some kind of cell consisting of DNA/RNA wouldn't it? Otherwise how the hell would it develop from anything? So where would that cell come from, how would it get there and how would it develop into life?

It's difficult to say. Again, this is based on our perception of Life, yet there...oh, see my reply above.

Our perception of life is the only perception of life. Do we not already have non-carbon based lifeforms on Earth?

 

It wouldn't prove god, either. All it would prove is that Life exists elsewhere in the Multiverse. There doesn't need to be a purpose. chance is a good enough reason for existence. It is for us!

Well, it wouldn't disprove or prove God. Nothing can really, that's what faith is for I guess.

Don't you mean the universe? I didn't realise you had knowledge of universes outside of our own. Amazing.

And chance is why everything exists? I see. So in your mind everything is just one huge random set of coincidences? So the first cell that provided all life just HAPPENED to come to be on Earth, a planet with perfectly adapted conditions for live to survive that just HAPPENS to have a moon and sun that provides a period of night (vital for developement of species) and day (photosynthesis, vital for all plant life to thrive), that cell of DNA/RNA just HAPPENED to know exactly how to develop into life, the Big Bang just HAPPENED to be a random event that shat out an explosion of stars and planets, dark energy and matter for some completely random reason.

Yup, I can definately see how it is believable that the existence of everything comes down to chance.

 

Generally speaking, peer-reviewed Scientific research is credible. Knee-jerk, revisionist research with an agenda to derail the Scientific approach is NOT credible.
Yes, Scientists sometimes make mistakes, but they admit them , or carry out more research to find out the cause of the mistake. (This is the basic reply, but it is a good idea to have an understanding of the scientific approach, and the nomenclature/ terminology, especially about terms such as 'Theory'.

I disagree. Some scientists have their have their heads stuck so far up their asses that they refuse to admit when there are mistakes or inconsistencies in their work unless someone proves them wrong. Some of them, mind you, not all. I'm sure the majority of scientists realise there are some mysteries to life that cannot be logically explained (the ones that don't have their heads permanently lodged in their preverbial rectums)

Sometimes it's difficult to determine which research isn't done by someone with an agenda (scientists can have agendas too you realise, not just religious people)

I don't really care what the technical jargon term for the definition of 'scientific theory' is - it's estimation and speculation based on evidence, right? BASED on evidence.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash science like some people in this thread bash religion, I'm just a bit more cautious about what I accept as fact and what I accept as purely speculation.

 

Good to hear, still waiting to see it though.

Are you kidding me? You're just being a twat now. I've offered plenty of my own ideas in this thread to be discussed, and I just get shunned and flamed for it so excuse me for not being so encouraged to share my ideas. Atleast I have the ability to think freely instead of following science blindly like some people in this thread (bah, bah kill3r baaah, bah cobra baaaahh)

 

Intellectual property rights?
Credibility?
Plagiarism?

I give a shit? This is a bloody internet forum man.

 

Quite possibly. It is the best resource we have for understanding these matters. I can't wait for the results from the Large Hadron Collider, but I know I'm going to have to wait for a long time before they arrive, and I might not even be around. This longitudinal study approach, however, shouldn't stop the inquiry, just because it takes longer than a human lifetime.

lol, so you actually genuinely really believe that scientists might eventually find the answers to the existence of the universe, life and reality? I'll be waiting to hear that one, should be a doooozy
 

I dunno, there is a bit of merit here, but I don't think it would get any better. I, for one, am enjoying this :rnr:

What's so enjoyable about it? :/

I think it has more than a bit of merit, there's too far too many different topics of discussion to cram into one big like this, and the title of the thread 'Religion VS Science: The ultimate battle'.. quite honestly, is retarded and seems to denote a sense of hostility imo

 

Dangerous. Ignorance is bliss, and too easy. I would much rather read all the shit along with the gold, as it helps me make up my mind.

Yeah well reading kill3r's posts make me feel like stabbing a rusty fork into my brain, so in this instance ignorance is preferable.

Nice quote.
Science is interpretation based on the available facts at the time, and is constantly self-regulating, updating and revising.
Religion is interpretation based on no facts and is constantly self-agrandising, obfuscating and revisionary.

For me it still comes back to science, all it's laws and everything it studies and seeks to learn, had to come from somewhere right? So I guess you could say, 'it came from the effect of the Big Bang' or something - but it's as if there is something that wanted this all to work, y'know? Or I guess it's your opinion that it's all just a huge coincidence of random events.

I just find the latter to be too unbelievable, even in comparison to the alternatives.

you need to read some books and not get all your answers from wikipedia :disappoin

You need to learn when to stop being a noobie. Obviously I have a bit more knowledge than you as evidenced by your lack of ability to respond to any arguments coherently. There's nothing really wrong with using wikipedia as a source of information either, as the articles are generally a collection of excerpts from and links to various credible sources of information.

Thank you for that extensive post Ngati. I'd given up yelling at the wall.

So what exactly are you, or anyone else for that matter, telling me that is meant to be so damn convincing? Spell it out for me because I sure as hell can't see it.

good call. Maybe one day when you grow up a bit and learn to start thinking for yourself we will be able to have a slightly more intelligent discussion.

Holy fucking shit. It's confirmed: you are an absolute pleb. Out of that entire post that I posted in reply to Inmotion, the best thing that you could respond to was the 'just another planet' comment? I guess that's your idea of intelligent discussion? Are you forgetting that I didn't even begin insulting anyone until the insulting comments that Arnifix uncessarily made, and you jumped in with your usual bullshit?

btw, I'm still waiting to hear which physics, biology and other books you have read kill3r. C'mon, let's hear them!

you're a joke.

but seriously you have totally derailed this thread spliffted with your incessant ramblings. Maybe we need to lock this thread and start anew.

I derailed it? I think you can blame Arnifix and Inmotion for that one, not me.

and negative, the entire idea of this thread is ridicuously stupid. It shouldn't be a 'battle' (seriously, how old was the kid when he came up with the idea for this thread?) it should be a discussion. A discussion of evidence, of thoughts, and ideas.

I was going to suggest this earlier, that this topic could really do with it's own subforum. It's far too broad of a subject to constrain within one massive thread, and it gets a bit confusing discussing multiple different subjects at the same time.

Would be a good idea imo, but it's possible the subforum might not get used as much then. Hard to say..