Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[philo-sofa]

Philo-sofa, sorry mate but you just wasted your time because I'm not reading any of that, the attitude of people in this thread (excluding you I have to admit) is a disgrace and I'm not interested in being a part of a one-sided discussion anymore

Given that I have taken the time at work to read what you wrote and that I took the time to respond to your invitation to reply, it might be the decent thing to do to read the reply.

At least the part about the first few seconds of the universe anyways - it's fascinating stuff!

[spliff]

Given that I have taken the time at work to read what you wrote and that I took the time to respond to your invitation to reply, it might be the decent thing to do to read the reply.

I will, if I can be bothered, I'm just fed up with the attitude of people in this thread already and don't see any more need for me to be involved in this thread if I am just going to be a target for immature ridicule

At least the part about the first few seconds of the universe anyways - it's fascinating stuff!

Like you said, it's nothing more than a theory, whereas at first you were claiming as if you knew it was fact.

[KiLL3r]

I will, if I can be bothered, I'm just fed up with the attitude of people in this thread already and don't see any more need for me to be involved in this thread if I am just going to be a target for immature ridicule

Could you be anymore self righteous. You deserved all the neg rep so far and im not suprised your in the red already.

You came into this thread and told the majority here that they dont know what they are talking about and should listen to you instead. You just as bad as those funmentalist religions who force their beliefs on us. Your no better than them.

If you truly want to have a debate without the "immature ridicule" then drop the arrogant attitude you entered this thread with.

Though from what ive seen so far ive no doubt you will reply with more insults and self righteous jargon

[philo-sofa]

Like you said, it's nothing more than a theory, whereas at first you were claiming as if you knew it was fact.

That's really it...  

PLEASE LISTEN FOR ONCE!!!

Everything is a UNCERTAIN TO SOME EXTENT!

This is about as uncertain as how a goddamn fish breathes!  The universe looked like this at the beginning of time,  there is only a tiny amount of uncertainty about some of the specifics.  It's a bit like calling the world flat 'a theory' because we haven't measured the diameter down to the millimeter.  It is not just a theory, now please, just try and learn a bit of science.  It's good stuff, it doesn't even challenge the idea of God!

[spliff]

You came into this thread and told the majority here that they dont know what they are talking about and should listen to you instead.

Oh did I? Would you like to point out exactly where I said that?

btw most of the neg rep I've accumulated has actually been from when I called Call of Duty 4 multiplayer a piece of shit, not from this thread

Philo-sofa: So why did you say that you can describe the very first moments of time, when in fact all you can do is describe a scientific theory attempting to explain the first moments of time.

[KiLL3r]

Oh did I? Would you like to point out exactly where I said that?

here

Atheism is a load of balls.

and basically I think atheism is a ridiculous stance to take on the issue, if one lives there life by logic then the only logical position to take would be that of an agnostic

and here

Richard Dawkins is a wank.

[philo-sofa]

Philo-sofa: So why did you say that you can describe the very first moments of time, when in fact all you can do is describe a scientific theory attempting to explain the first moments of time.

*Breathes deeply*

I can describe it, because I can be certain that everything I wrote there is how it happened.  Thus I can describe the very first moments of time.  Don't just reply back with "it's just a theory", if you still believe that - explain why you disagre with soemone who understands the science that it's a fact.

[spliff]

How can you be CERTAIN  that's how it happened if it is JUST A THEORY? That makes no sense.

Were you there when it happened? Are you a scientist?

this shit is boring now. I'm done.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Theory in a scientific sense does not mean the same as theory in general use.

You often berate others for their ignorance of this and that, but you clearly have little understanding of the scientific method, and what it is and isn't trying to achieve.

[KiLL3r]

How can you be CERTAIN  that's how it happened if it is JUST A THEORY? That makes no sense.

Were you there when it happened? Are you a scientist?

this shit is boring now. I'm done.

your boring now you just repeat the same crap over and over


*adds to ignore*

[spliff]

Look, if he is able to describe how time first began with absolute certainty, then it would be called scientific FACT, not scientific THEORY. Wtf is so hard to understand about that?

your boring now you just repeat the same crap over and over


*adds to ignore*

Might wanna get yourself one of these:

[KiLL3r]

Look, if he is able to describe how time first began with absolute certainty, then it would be called scientific FACT, not scientific THEORY. Wtf is so hard to understand about that?

:disappoin

A "fact" in science is an observation.    

A "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.

despite all your post and telling us were wrong you dont know the difference between theory in general use and scientific theory

[spliff]

A "fact" in science is an observation.    

Well that's fucking retarded

[Ngati_Grim]

It seems we need to have an wee break while teacher sets the homework:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Much as I'm loath to link to wikipedia, since this is not for a formal report, it is useful as it endeavours top put things into layman's terms.

and the following quote is from the final link:
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory.""

Hope this helps to somewhat allay any uncertainties one has about the rigidity of scientific testing.

Well I'm fucking retarded

Corrected for truth.
It is, however a small t truth not a big t Truth.  :bounce:

You see, I can be clever too, like you and those delightful pictures.

[Ngati_Grim]

Well I'm fucking retarded

Corrected for truth.
It is, however a small t truth not a big t Truth.  :bounce:

You see, I can be clever too, like you and those delightful pictures.

[nick247]

Splif its much easier to argue if you have a rough plan of what you are trying to prove and an idea of what the other is trying to disprove

heres some help

1) "god"

What the hell do we all mean by god. I have learnt that the term refers to something somewhat sentient.

Now is "sentience" the way we humans with our limited capacity for knowledge refer to it or is is actually something that we cannot even comprehend?

Can we humans relate to this god or is god like an ant or protozoa with different goals and motivations? Or is it like an ant trying to relate its motivations to ours?

Now what if god is more a process. The universe is created by a process similar to molecular bonding. Well this is the exact point where science and religion diverges and if your gonna argue it you need to know this. Science saids non-sentient/process based, religion saids sentient, created with some reason.

So immediatly religion has taken the higher impetus. Science can point to examples of process based reaction - X+Y=Z. Religion does not really have the precedent.

2) "created"

What do they mean by created? Is the universe created for a reason? does this reason fullfill the wishes of a sentient being?

Creation does not neccesarily imply a thought-out "purpose". Think of all the things humans create without giving any thought to.....

It could be accidental creation, "god" did not go "you know what i am going to make the universe" rather he just might have needed to take a piss

3) the % game

So now the atheists stand up to you splif and say "seeeeee god cannot exist"

To which you reply "nah god exists because science cannot prove that he exists"

tsk tsk tsk why deal with absolutes? the atheist here is the idiot for saying that god cannot exist, he has claimed the 100% burden of proof

To win this argument all you need to say is that "there is a chance that god could exist and i believe in that chance" -----------fuck even if its just a .00001% chance (or less) it doesnt matter, people buy lotto tickets and the chances of the universe being created was much lower than that


---------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what it is all about, being able to look up in the sky and having that chance that there could be something more, something with a plan.

That is what faith is about, believing in the possibility however small that there could be something.

Of course that small possibility does not in any way give anyone the right to go bash homos, say that you need to pray, say that your prayers will be heard, say you have to go to church on sunday, say that adultery is a sin, say that anything is a sin, say there is heaven, say that any person should be treated better because of their faith, say that jesus died for our sins, say that there was some burning bush, say that the bible is real, say that miracles occur, ..............................................fuck me i could go on

[philo-sofa]

3) the % game
tsk tsk tsk why deal with absolutes? the atheist here is the idiot for saying that god cannot exist, he has claimed the 100% burden of proof

Great post Nick, except for the bit I've quoted.

As you point out yourself, nothing can ever be 100% certain.  Nothing.  That means that no RL statement about anything being the case is ever true.  Even your one, or this one.  What we all mean when we say "X + Y = Z is the case" is actually "X + Y = Z is almost absolutely certainly the case".  Within reason it's a certainty but we truncate it to 'certainty".

If there's only a 0.0001% chance that God exists then the Atheist is not an idiot, not as long as he or she understands what they're saying and have reason to think the probabilities so absurdly against God, which is what I think the majority of people here are doing.

How can you be CERTAIN  that's how it happened if it is JUST A THEORY? That makes no sense.

Were you there when it happened? Are you a scientist?

this shit is boring now. I'm done.

I was really close to flaming you, I haven't got an unlimited supply of patience you know.  FYI I have a degree in Logic, so I do have a fair idea of what constitutes certainty about an event.

[nick247]

true but i do think a few of our atheists out there have given off a bit of the impression that they 100% say no god which is the same as our religious types trying to claim somewhat oddly that the opposite is true (actually its worse for the religious types)

I think the atheists muddy the waters a bit when they dont admit the possibility of there being "something", which leaves the debate stuck in a real rut

[KiLL3r]

true but i do think a few of our atheists out there have given off a bit of the impression that they 100% say no god which is the same as our religious types trying to claim somewhat oddly that the opposite is true (actually its worse for the religious types)

I think the atheists muddy the waters a bit when they dont admit the possibility of there being "something", which leaves the debate stuck in a real rut

there always a chance of something happening.

i am a theist but i think there is a chance of being a god.

but from what i have seen there is no evidence of one exisiting and thats why i am a atheist.

[Black Heart]

A lot of this is just word play. for instance i can 100% certain that I have bread left for my breakfast. Tomorrow morning when i make my breakfast and theres no bread for my toast, i was simply wrong. But until that point I am certain. You seem to think if I am certain I can't also be wrong. This patently absurd because aetheists can be certain, theists can be certain, and agnostics are also certain (that they don't know)

Spliff, if everything is too complex and perfect to be a natural process attributed to chance, and therefore must be the work of a designer. The designer (god) must be far more complex again, how do you explain the existence of god, god must have been created by something according to your logic.

[nick247]

true

[spliff]

Spliff, if everything is too complex and perfect to be a natural process attributed to chance, and therefore must be the work of a designer. The designer (god) must be far more complex again, how do you explain the existence of god, god must have been created by something according to your logic.

I'm sick of trying to explain it tbh, so I'll just quote some paragraphs from a wiki article:

Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1]

So basically, the existence of God is infinite. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I know, just the concept of inifinity alone is difficult to comprehend. It doesn't need to have been created by something, because it is the necessary being that holds the reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being

I'm sure a philosopher or something could no doubt explain it better than I can

- The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.

- The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.

- The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[14]

- The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.

- Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.

- The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

- The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

- The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

- Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

[spliff]

on a side note; I thought the definition of an atheist was someone who denied any possibility whatsoever of the existence of a God.

I guess that's wrong?

[nick247]

no doubt there are some replies/ counter arguments on the way

i can sum them up by saying that the more people try and define god the more likely they are of being very very very very wrong

i see something about how god is jealous, that seems odd, and perfect goodness err good by whose definition

no doubt some people with more time will elaborate soon, and i will if they dont latter in the night

[winfieldsaregoo]

well its not religions the problem its the people the read the book and interprit it wrong and start wars over it, religion makes more trubble than its worth, it even pits to brothers agnest each other to the point thay whant to kill each other.

religion is bad any and all religions are bad because of people. end of argument i win