Yet you seem to think the Big Bang explains everything.Pfft, you're as much of a joke as kill3r. Out of my intellectual depth? You can't even spell 'concepts' mate.
That's all you know how to do is insult people, you can't come up with any intelligent arguments at all just like kill3r, it's unbelievably pathetic.
This thread is a waste of my time, i'll let you guys get back to the usual boring old religion bashing since that's all you know how to do.
l2quantum physics
I'll admit, i'm as confused what anyone else is, but I find it a bit disconcerting that some people seem to be relying only scientific knowledge to try and explain the existence of the universe, you have to admit that.. science came from somewhere, and I think the ultimate goal of science to try and explain the existence of everything using soley the rules of science... just isn't going to happen, I think it's a futile effort in all honesty and I hope the scientific community will some day realise this and start admitting that there are some things we can't realistically explain using the method of science... I have no problem with them trying of course, my problem is more with the saps like Kill3r and Cobra who are blinded and mislead by these modern neo-darwinist fanatical atheists who are preaching their own biased, miscontrued views that there is no purpose to anything, we exist by accident, "science will explain everything", and encouraged to express hatred towards religious people, anyone who believes in God or anyone who even mentions anything about the universe being designed or created, supposedly because it's 'holding back science', which is a crock of shit.
The implications of a Darwinism-type belief on society, would mean we can wipe out entire races of "inferior" people and animals, and think nothing of it. Mass genocide? Sweet as. Sounds like a world run by Hitler, sounds like a world I would not want to live in.
I only hope that people like kill3r, Cobra, ect. will realise that there is more to life than science, if you seek answers to our existence.. I would say science is quite probably the wrong place to look. But who knows, we all have our own beliefs and ideas, maybe one day one of them will be proven. Until then I am going to keep expanding my knowledge, and will continue to believe that life was created with some kind of purpose, mostly because it is the most plausible explanation in my mind and based on what I am learning, and because I have nothing to lose by leading a good life and believing in God, i'd take eternal bliss over non-existence any day thankyouverymuch.
Yet you seem to think the Big Bang explains everything.Pfft, you're as much of a joke as kill3r. Out of my intellectual depth? You can't even spell 'concepts' mate. That's all you know how to do is insult people, you can't come up with any intelligent arguments at all just like kill3r, it's unbelievably pathetic. This thread is a waste of my time, i'll let you guys get back to the usual boring old religion bashing since that's all you know how to do.
THis coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between Darwin and Dawkins.
I have honestly lost count the amount of times you said you have given up on this thread due to that everyone here seems to be dumber than you.
Just shove off already and give it up for good.
If it doesn't come from rational thought, but rather from a 'gutly' intuition that a God makes thigns easier, it's pretty much a pointless exercise in giving up onthe effort of finding out what happened and redirecting all your energies in trying to prove your baseless point. The issue we hold is not against your conclusion, but the way you intellectually sell out and introduce a God because it's simpler.
I'm sorry, but hwo did we make the jump from evolution to genocide? And in either case, isn't that more typically done in the name of one of the thousands of 'one true God's? You've made the mistake (once again) of saying 'I don't like the conclusions, so I don't accept your answer - something you accuse others of, and deny you do. Answer me this, do you like the fact that you're going to die, and if not, does your reaction to the fact make it any less true Psyche?
There is a special place for rational thought and reasoning, about logical and even illogical emotive things. The issue is when you place your intuitions and wishes in the same place as them. Have them, by all means, we all do, but don't try and say that they are worthy of belief, or trump true reasoning, would you accept it if anyone did the same?
P.S. called you on being religious - which you've denied science knows how many times. Snap.
The big bang explains a lot, especially when married with someone who has "l2quantum physics".
Also, IMO when Cobra makes arguments they are typically very intelligent and well formed . Typos don't indercate aa lack of untelligance.
lol.. pathetic.Your entire belief is in the Big Bang, but you don't even care to think what came before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or why? :sly:Like I said, if you restrict yourself only to the limited contraints of science, you're never going to discover anything deeper than how certain things in the universe work. And that is, I think, a sad thing.
So where does this 'gutly intuition' even come from? Why do humans have such a connection to "God", even before we discovered the universe was created instead of infinite as some atheists of the time believed? Let me guess, you'll just say it's because of evolution, and it all just happened through the process of evolution and sheer coincidence. Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds have described God as the cause of existence, did they all come to that conclusion just because it "makes it simple" aswell?
It's not that it makes things "simple", as i've already explained it is the most plausible explanation in my mind, based on what I have learnt so far. I don't care if you disagree, I probably disagree with a lot of your Nietschze-inspired beliefs, and probably so do a lot of other people. But that's because no-one has the answers we seek, so we can only really go by our "gut instinct", and i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just enjoy discussing these things, but the discussion always seems to go downhill become someone has to bitch about instead of contributing to the discussion :disappoin
To say that any of the biblical accounts justify killing other people is wrong. You know this, I know this, yet you choose to bring it up anyway. You should know the bible teaches to love and respect your fellow man, no matter what skin color or race they are. I don't know about other religions though, from what I know the Koran is a rather violence-inspired piece of literature, but not suprising considering their "prophet" Muhammed was a violent warlord.
"Answer me this, do you like the fact that you're going to die, and if not, does your reaction to the fact make it any less true Psyche?To answer your question: no, I do not look forward to dying. Why would I? I am enjoying life on earth thus far, but I think as I get older I will probably accept death without being afraid. Death is a natural part of life. I know something happens after you die, I don't know what... but I'm pretty sure you don't just "cease to exist"
Why should we accept what ANYONE says? Why do you accept what Dawkins says? Why do you accept what the government says? Am I not as entitled to an opinion as everyone else? FFS...
Why would it matter if I was religious or not? Would that somehow make me inferior to you? Would it make me less worthy of participating in a discussion? I don't get it..
The Big Bang theory doesn't say what banged, why it banged, or what was before it banged. How does quantum physics supposedly explain these mysteries? I know you can't explain what came before the Big Bang, so don't say you can. I could go and learn quantum physics, but it's not going do anything to solve the mysteries of the universe that we all seek..
You call his arguments intelligent? Meh, whatever. I don't see him actually discussing anything, just stuck with the usual, repetitive notion that somehow science explains everything, and not willing to think about anything outside that very limited frame of mind. Maybe he should l2philosophy?
Interesting video anyway. WATCH IT FOOLS.
Without the physical laws and constants that govern the universe, we would not exist. If any one of those well-defined laws had been even 1% different from their current values, we would not exist.
Einstein said "God doesn't play dice." and Newton said that he was "..doing no more than explaining how God ordered the universe." These great scientific minds had no problem incorporating philosophy into their studies, why should anyone else? Should we stop referring to anything Newton or Einstein said, simply because they dared to think outside the box, and think outside the contraints of science?
Dawkins himself lives his life by an almost 'religious-type' belief, and that is Darwinism. He has taken the ideas of Darwin, someone just as confused about the world as most other people, and spun them into an almost 'doctrine' set of beliefs.
I'm not religious.
and because I have nothing to lose by leading a good life and believing in God, i'd take eternal bliss over non-existence any day thankyouverymuch.
It's possible that when the brain dies, the mind shuts down. But it's also equally possible that it does not, and something else happens. We can only speculate.
Your entire belief is in the Big Bang, but you don't even care to think what came before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or why?
Quantum physics says that the big bang could bang due to uncertainty in the exact state of the universe prior to banding. In the same way you can't be exactly sure of the energy of a particle at any given time, the universe was 'unsure' about the exact energy in itself prior to the big bang. Result? A Big Bang. Yes this does explain how the big bang could have occured.
Otherwise no-one in the world would even believe in God, would they?
Ask any scientist in the world today how the existence of everything could have come from nothing, and I guarantee they will say "I don't know." or they might give some kind of theory, but it's just that, a theory, based on speculation and guesswork.
I guess the point i'm trying to make is, you shouldn't do yourself the injustice of limiting yourself soley to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, when there are so many other sources of limitless knowledge available to us, including your own advanced, thinking, contemplating mind.
but still, when I look at things more closely I can't help but come back to the whole 'God' thing, it does make a lot of sense and makes the puzzle of our existence fit together almost perfectly.
I only hope that people like kill3r, Cobra, ect. will realise that there is more to life than science
If I wanted a moral code that implied you should wipe out lesser or unfavoured peoples wholesale, I'd start with the Bible.
Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds have described God as the cause of existence, did they all come to that conclusion just because it "makes it simple" aswell?
This is commonly 'spouted' by the intelligent design advocates, but in fact it is fundamentally wrong. Sounds like you're parroting Hugh Ross, who is an intelligent design lecturer and astronomer. Now, I've included astronomer because it's very important when one investigates what he says:"If the Earth were one half of one percent closer to the sun, water on Earth would boil off. If the Earth were one half of one percent further from the sun, all the water would freeze." (on The John Ankerberg Show) However, the distance of Earth to the sun varies by more than one half of one percent throughout the year.
"Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."Isaac Asimov "On Religiosity" in Free Inquiry.
The Big Bang is just one moment in the cycle of the Universe. Through extrapolation, science can successfully describe an elemental pre-Big Bang universe.It long-winded and involves conservation of Mass-Energy which essentially illustrates that it doesn't arise ex nihilo.Mass and Energy can both change their forms, but when all factors are considered and combined, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed: the total amount of mass-energy in the universe remains constant. Careful empirical observations have completely confirmed this Law. Thus, the conclusion that the universe always existed, even in the singularity which became the Big Bang. Therefore the notion that the universe was created out of nothing is theological rather than scientific. The universe always existed, but as we see it today it had a 'beginning' in the Big Bang. Comprende?
Isn't it a net zero energy system in a non quantum sense? Just trying to get a proper grip on it.
I believe that is so....I'm having a hard time getting my head around the minutiae...there are some big minds out there!oh, wait...Woohoo is good at rendering it down...nice one bro
I'm just wondering then how conservation of mass-energy implies a state prior to the big bang?
Thing of an infinite n-dimensional sheet...brain hurts.....Because of the way the big bang is described, we think of it in terms of an explosion, i.e a rapid expansion of energy from a single point. a point = 0 dimensions. That's how our brains work. A more accurate way of looking at it is to think of the universe being all the energy there is. Visualise it as a sheet if it helps. The sheet is disturbed somehow, or perhaps always in a state of flux. the ripples and distortions of the sheet are what we are able to measure as mass/energy. The implication of the law of conservation is that the universe i.e the totality of mass/energy neither starts nor ends, the big bang was an event in the mass/energy totality (I am sure someone has a good name for it, but I don't know what it is) that we can't measure beyond. That's still muddy I know, but is not easy to explain.I still think the best description is that we're eddies in the timespace continuum
Don't forget we're talking concepts here. Trying to find human ways to describe a reality that goes far deeper than we can see.
The waterwheel idea is kinda right, as long as you factor in that the waterwheel itself is made from differences in energy.Don't forget we're talking concepts here. Trying to find human ways to describe a reality that goes far deeper than we can see.
