# All right, here is an unofficial Religion vs. Science Thread



## themocaw (Apr 18, 2007)

So that the therians and spirit-talkers can discuss their own beliefs, I propose we talk science vs. religion here.

Here are my thoughts.

1. Reading "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan does not give you the right to act like a douche-bitch.

2. Religious beliefs have no scientific basis.  That's a simple fact.  There is NO scientific basis for the soul, for afterlife, for god, for any of that.  Science is a study of empirical evidence by observation, and science has not been able to prove anything that religion claims.  

3. The fact that science cannot prove a religious fact does not mean that it does not exist.  First, because one of science's major strengths is that it always acknowledges that it could be wrong: perhaps tomorrow, a scientist will discover God in an atom, or out in space.  Secondly, because religious beliefs do not require proof: religion is based on faith, or belief even in the face of doubt.

4. Problems occur when the two start to overlap.  So when Christians oppose the teaching of evolution on the basis that it contradicts Genesis 1, or when scientists try to force an atheistic world view on the basis that there is no experimental evidence for the soul, friction occurs because science and religion find themselves out of their area of expertise.  It's like trying to screw in a nail or hammer a screw. 

5. No belief, religious or scientific, is worth a pile of shit unless you test it.  In religion, you look for inconsistencies and the possibility of empirical explanations.  In science, you look at the evidence, test your theory.  If you refuse to consider a contrary opinion, you are hopelessly ignorant.

6. Even a false belief is still useful.  To paraphrase Terry Pratchet: there are lies we tell ourselves, lies like justice and love and truth.  On a scientific front, consider the greenhouse effect: people say that carbon dioxide acts like a blanket and traps heat in.  It doesn't.  The truth is at least ten times more complicated and involves a crapload of more physics.  However: you'll never be able to explain it to someone without a crapload of degrees.  So instead, we say, "CO2 traps in heat like a greenhouse" and focus not on the mechanism, but how to stop that mechanism from continuing.

7. Evolution may be a theory, but it's a damn good one: tried and tested, supported by the evidence.  In short, the best we've got.

My personal philosphy is Christian agnostic: I consider myself a Christian by religion, but I believe that the truth is as far beyond that as the sun is from a firefly.  I believe that Genesis 1 is not a literal account of the world's beginnings.  I believe that the Garden of Eden story is an allegory for the beginnings of sentience in humanity: the fall from the innocence of the wild and a rising horror with the understanding of our own selves.  I believe the devil lives in us all.  I believe in something greater than us, something we can strive towards in leaving behind our animal pasts: something called God.  And I believe that something greater, that Word, made itself flesh and dwelt among us in the form of a man about two thousand years ago, died, and was resurrected as a living example of the fact that some things can't be explained by science.  I acknowledge that I could be wrong.  I take it upon faith that I am not.  But even if it's just a fairy tale, it's MY fairy tale.  

Tell me yours.


----------



## kyubi_youma (Apr 18, 2007)

oprahism! ftw!!
not really blame futurama!


----------



## DPAK (Apr 18, 2007)

Personally, I'm a Christian, but not the Bible-thumpin', science rejecting type.  

I am a firm believer in intelligent design, meaning I believe in Creationism with a mild seasoning of Evolution. IMO, I believe that God laid out the blue prints for life and organisms and from there, organisms began to make adaptions to best suit their environments. I also REFUSE to believe the Big Bang Theory. It completely contradicts the established laws of Science (The law of conservation of matter). I, too, believe that science cannot (and probably never will) explain everything and religion can fill in the gaps.

I believe in God and souls and such, but I also believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The way I figure it, we'll find out who's right and who wasn't when we die.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 18, 2007)

I'm not sure quite how the Big Bang violates conservation of matter: if you look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity, energy is the same as matter.  The Big Bang is basically the result of shitloads of energy exploding at once and then slowly turning into matter.  How?  Where did the energy come from?  Finding out is why quantum physicists get paid the big bucks.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 18, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> I'm not sure quite how the Big Bang violates conservation of matter: if you look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity, energy is the same as matter.Â Â The Big Bang is basically the result of shitloads of energy exploding at once and then slowly turning into matter.Â Â How?Â Â Where did the energy come from?Â Â Finding out is why quantum physicists get paid the big bucks.



The law of conservation of matter states that matter is niether created nor destroyed. The Big Bang Theory has that major flaw, amongst others inluding, as you mentioned, the Law of conservation of energy. If you would like to know more ways the BBT is questionable by scinece, I can give more examples.


----------



## Hakumei Ookami (Apr 18, 2007)

I have no single belief about anything - my mind considers all the possibilities.  I am somewhat in between the two ideas of "religion" and "science", I guess...

To be honest, religion does support some ideas of science - take the idea of the start of the world.  As long as you don't take it literally, you find out that the last thing that God created was humans, and he created everything else before.  Which is what has happened in nature - we have evolved from apes only a million years ago or so, and the earth has been around for a lot longer than that (which has been proven).  So, the only way you can actually say the bible disagrees with this is if you take it literally - that God did indeed create the world in 6 literal days, and rested on the fourth.

Then the big bang theory.  Which is very hard to understand.  And ruins the bond between religion and science.
Quantum Physics apparently states that the universe was merely the result of a random spontaneous appearance of energy which never existed before, causing the appearance (and explosion) of space time.  the bible states "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" although technically, the beginning was when the big bang started.  And the earth wasn't formed until much, much later.

It's tough understanding both concepts.  I prefer to just ignore them both.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 18, 2007)

I just have one isty problem...you keep saying "prove"..science can't "prove" anything at all, it can only "disprove" things...it can "disprove" to the point were it seems only logical at is it proof, but it can't actually "prove" anything (something I learned in class from my Profs, argue all you like, but thats where I stand on "proof") At anyrate, I am a Christian, I maybe an Otherkin( I just don't know yet) and I have also dabbled in science (was going to be a scientist, but that didn't pan out so well) Just enough to learn a thing or to.  I believe in God, just as much as I beleive in the theory of Evolution (infact Darwin is as much an idol to me as Jesus), and I truly believe religion and science can go hand in hand, theres no reason for them not to. If you are a steadfast scientist and will rip yourself apart to disprove the thought of a soul, thats fine, good on you, if you are a steadfast <insert religion here> and will fight to the death agaisnt anything science has to say, good on you to.


----------



## kyubi_youma (Apr 18, 2007)

in truth i believe there is atleast one almighty being who runs things.....though how well they/it are doing it is another thing...


----------



## themocaw (Apr 18, 2007)

DPAK said:
			
		

> The law of conservation of matter states that matter is niether created nor destroyed. The Big Bang Theory has that major flaw, amongst others inluding, as you mentioned, the Law of conservation of energy. If you would like to know more ways the BBT is easily dissproved by scinece, I can give more examples.



I think I see what you're arguing.  Let me know if I got it right.

Conservation of Matter has a single major flaw: Relativity.  Einstein and the atom bomb showed that matter can be converted into energy and back.  So the question of Conservation of Matter isn't a huge issue with the Big Bang: all we have to do is account for the energy.  And THAT's the kicker: Conservation of Energy states that you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in.  So where the heck did all that energy come from?  If the Universe is a closed system, then there's nowhere the energy could have come from.  Conservation of Energy is violated.

This is where things get awesome and Cosmology meets Dungeons and Dragons and people start talking about parallel universes and multiversal soup and vacuum imbalances and universes tipping over and exploding and shit.  It's great stuff, although it gives you headaches after a while.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 18, 2007)

hakumeiookami said:
			
		

> So, the only way you can actually say the bible disagrees with this is if you take it literally - that God did indeed create the world in 6 literal days, and rested on the fourth.



You have a typo: God reasted on the seventh.

And time is merely a concept created by man in order to keep track of how life progresses. There have been so many changes to "time" that its not funny. My Bible teacher offered us her opinion on the matter once and I fully agree: "For all we know, God's day could be different from ours; it could actually be hundreds, even thousands, of years long according to our standards."


----------



## Canard (Apr 18, 2007)

In my fox's old Lutheran church, to be a member you had to sign a contract that explicitly stated that the world was created in six 24-hour periods, not six periods of time. GG not seeing the forest for the trees.

I take the Buddhist stance on this whole creationism/existence of God/problem of evil/etc stuff: it's irrelevant in the search for happiness or bettering your, and others', world. It's interesting like good books or music, but nothing to hang myself up on and especially start wars or fight with people about.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 18, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> I just have one isty problem...you keep saying "prove"..science can't "prove" anything at all, it can only "disprove" things...it can "disprove" to the point were it seems only logical at is it proof, but it can't actually "prove" anything



What the hell? You (or your professor) got that exactly backwards.


----------



## kyubi_youma (Apr 18, 2007)

Canard said:
			
		

> In my fox's old Lutheran church, to be a member you had to sign a contract that explicitly stated that the world was created in six 24-hour periods, not six periods of time. GG not seeing the forest for the trees.
> 
> I take the Buddhist stance on this whole creationism/existence of God/problem of evil/etc stuff: it's irrelevant in the search for happiness or bettering your, and others', world. It's interesting like good books or music, but nothing to hang myself up on and especially start wars or fight with people about.


hmm interesting wonder why people fight over such menial things anyway...


----------



## Xeni (Apr 18, 2007)

Religion = created by humans

Science = essentially created by nature

WIN


----------



## capthavoc123 (Apr 18, 2007)

DPAK said:
			
		

> themocaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I always understood the Big Bang theory to be that all matter was compressed into a very small point and it exploded outward. That doesn't imply that matter was created, it was just compressed very tightly.


----------



## Xeni (Apr 18, 2007)

I think it's funny how a bunch of people who think that they are some spiritual magical foxcheetahwolfthing and are constantly thinking about yiffing each other are honestly trying to have an in-depth conversation about science and the meaning and nature of all things on earth.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 18, 2007)

capthavoc123 said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How am I/we wrong exactly? stating I'm wrong and not following up with a convincing statement dosn't really disprove my statement now does it? Okay let me restate this, and follow with an example: hypothesis are based on the assuption that something will happen. You write your hypothesis : "when I do this, then such and such will happen" (basic "if..then" statemnt, learned in like 12th grade biololgy if I correctly recall, if you were paying attention in class that is). You carry through an experiment, and see if your hypothesis is disproven or not, while writing papers, you have to state "such and such was not proven" or "such and such was not disproven by our experiments" and it wasn't just one professor, it was all of them. 

If say, you hypothosis (not theorise, theories are hypothesis that have gone through rigourus testing by many scientist and have yet to be disproven) that enzyme A will react with enzyme B to create protein C. 

Hypothesis: " I propose that when I add protien A to protein B, then it will create enzyme C" 

testing proceedes, at the end of the testing you find that enzyme C was infact created. Then you write your paper:"I conclude that my hypothesis that if protein A is added to protein B then enzyme C will occur was not disproven." blah blah blah etc etc. Methods materials etc etc... Another scientist comes along, and another and another.... more papers arise "we conclude that protein A and protien B combine to create enzyme C, and that this hypothesis was not disproven" eventually all have decided, yes, protein C does arise from enzyme A and B, and now we have a theory.

Theory: When Protein A is added to Protein B, enzyme C arises.

But now another scientist comes along with more advanced eqipment, and discovers that protein A is actually made up of proteins X and Y, and that it is actually protien X reacting with protein B to create enzyme C.Â Â Now that original hypothesis had been disproven, as it was never really proven in the first place, just not disproven. Now as far as we know, protein X is reacting to protein B to create enzyme C. More rigorus teesting by more scientist and they decide this must be the correct hypopthesis.

And now a new theory:  When Protein X is added to Protein B, enzyme C arises.

But what if it is other chemical reactions occuring that are causing this reaction? What if Protein B is made up of more proteins? We can't prove that now, we can only disprove previouse hypothesis.

See what I mean now? We can disprove things to within an inch of their lives, but we can't actually prove anything. Someone or something with better more advanced equipment can come along and disprove our original hypothesis or theories.


----------



## kyubi_youma (Apr 18, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> I think it's funny how a bunch of people who think that they are some spiritual magical foxcheetahwolfthing and are constantly thinking about yiffing each other are honestly trying to have an in-depth conversation about science and the meaning and nature of all things on earth.


um....no...just..no..are you honestly trying to get banned?


----------



## BigBuda (Apr 18, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> capthavoc123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TL, but did read, i just didnt want all that in my post

Orlith is correct as far as my professors are concerned as well. Experementation is not so much proving something, as gathering data and *supporting* theroies with said data and results.
Kinda like a weather man shouldent ever say, there is a 100% chance of rain tommorow, a scientist doesn't prove therories, just provides reasons they should be accepted.

kyubi_youma, just hit the report button and ignore it.


----------



## Xeni (Apr 18, 2007)

Every time someone tries to have a debate like this on the internet, a kitten is eaten by an alligator.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 18, 2007)

This is just asking for drama.
On sides of Spirtuality v. Science,
I tend more towards Spirtuality.
I have a religion and I believe that a spirit exists beause I think it gives me more meaning in everyday things.
Short, sweet, to the point.


----------



## kyubi_youma (Apr 18, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> Every time someone tries to have a debate like this on the internet, a kitten is eaten by an alligator.


your a frelling idiot!


----------



## Icarus (Apr 18, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> I think it's funny how a bunch of people who think that they are some spiritual magical foxcheetahwolfthing and are constantly thinking about yiffing each other are honestly trying to have an in-depth conversation about science and the meaning and nature of all things on earth.



omgwtfbbq.
I smell b&cakes.
Please at least TRY and pitch a part to a debate or just keep your hands off the keyboard.  TY.


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 18, 2007)

Science never really proves OR disproves anything. Orlith's argument of why his hypothesis of A + B = C can just as easily be used in the other direction. Something science proves/disproves today could just as easily be disproven/proven a hundred years from now, or even next week.

Like remember when for a few years, Eggs would be healthy for you one week and unhealthy the next? So many silly little sidebars on the news "this study shows eggs make you live longer!" a week later, "this newer study shows eggs make you die!" and then in a few years it'll be "this newer new study shows that eggs give you telepathy!"

The key problem with arguments of science and religion are when the people arguing are ignoring the teachings of the side they are advocating. People who act like religion is a solid fact ignore that, at least in christianity, god said "I will never provide proof for proof denies faith." People arguing that science means god is impossible ignore that science is CONSTANTLY disproving stuff that it "proved" quite convincingly a few decades or centuries previously, and one of the basic concepts of science is that nothing can be 100% proven OR disproved..


----------



## Surgat (Apr 18, 2007)

The fact that science cannot disprove of the existence of things like gods or spirits doesn't mean that there is _no_ way to disprove theories which include these things. Given fact that no scientific theories use no gods or spirits in their explanations of the natural world, Ockham's razor gives us a reason to not believe in gods or spirits. 

This is just common sense. Take a stock example: let's say you hear a knock on the door, and come up with two possible explanations for this: 
1.)Someone [a human] knocked on the door.
2.)A ghost knocked on the door. 

If you open the door and see a human, you don't conclude "wow, a ghost knocked on the door _at the exact same time and place as the human knocked on the door_," do you? No, because the ghost isn't needed to explain the event, and it's simpler to just assume 1.  



			
				DPAK said:
			
		

> The law of conservation of matter states that matter is niether created nor destroyed. The Big Bang Theory has that major flaw, amongst others inluding, as you mentioned, the Law of conservation of energy. If you would like to know more ways the BBT is questionable by scinece, I can give more examples.



No, it doesn't necessarily have that problem.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html



			
				Xeni said:
			
		

> Religion = created by humans
> 
> Science = essentially created by nature
> 
> WIN



You've got it backwards. Religion is natural and science is a human social activity (essentially created by humans). 



			
				Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> How am I/we wrong exactly? stating I'm wrong and not following up with a convincing statement dosn't really disprove my statement now does it? Okay let me restate this, and follow with an example: hypothesis are based on the assuption that something will happen. You write your hypothesis : "when I do this, then such and such will happen" (basic "if..then" statemnt, learned in like 12th grade biololgy if I correctly recall, if you were paying attention in class that is). You carry through an experiment, and see if your hypothesis is disproven or not, while writing papers, you have to state "such and such was not proven" or "such and such was not disproven by our experiments" and it wasn't just one professor, it was all of them.
> 
> If say, you hypothosis (not theorise, theories are hypothesis that have gone through rigourus testing by many scientist and have yet to be disproven) that enzyme A will react with enzyme B to create protein C.
> 
> ...



If science can't prove anything, then how can it _disprove_ anything with any greater certainty than supported/tested and unfalsified theories? Aren't the observations taken as disproving one theory simply corroboration for another, which isn't really going to be proven either? 



			
				kyubi_youma said:
			
		

> your [sic] a frelling idiot!



You can't spell, you have terrible grammar, and you say "frelling."


----------



## Damaratus (Apr 18, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> Every time someone tries to have a debate like this on the internet, a kitten is eaten by an alligator.



Enough Xeni.

If you have nothing to positive to add to this discussion than please leave it alone.  Consider yourself warned, any further disruptions of this kind will lead to suspension.


----------



## Xeni (Apr 18, 2007)

The furries are getting serious now.

They used the "frelling" word.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 18, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> This is where things get awesome and Cosmology meets Dungeons and Dragons and people start talking about parallel universes and multiversal soup and vacuum imbalances and universes tipping over and exploding and shit.  It's great stuff, although it gives you headaches after a while.



LOL.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> The fact that science cannot disprove of the existence of things like gods or spirits doesn't mean that there is _no_ way to disprove theories which include these things. Given fact that no scientific theories use no gods or spirits in their explanations of the natural world, Ockham's razor gives us a reason to not believe in gods or spirits.
> 
> This is just common sense. Take a stock example: let's say you hear a knock on the door, and come up with two possible explanations for this:
> 1.)Someone [a human] knocked on the door.
> ...



>.>; I honestly read this, but I find myself confused as to how this applies to the relationship between Science and Religion. I know that gravity holds us down to earth, its scientific law, but who says that God didn't specifically place our planet where its at so that it were possible to exist? @.@ I just confused myself.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't necessarily have that problem.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html



Well, then the question becomes where did the matter and energy originate?


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 18, 2007)

BigBuda said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks BigBuda  Thought for sure I'd get insta-flamed for that one.  nice to know I'm not the only one who pays attention in class XD




			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, as in my example, the first theory was disproven by a second hypothesis, and this can go on indeffinentally, something new discovered, something else disproven.  

Of course I'd have to be some kind of idiot to not realize there are exeptions to every rule, and I realize there are many things that as far as our most modern conventional science tells up must be true. ex: the sun is hot, the moon is not made of cheese, there are 8 planets in our solar system (yes 8, remember? Pluto's not technically a planet anymore, its a "dwarf planet") Speaking of Pluto, thats actually a good example, for thousands of years it was beleived to be a true planet, now, due to new knowledge and new classification, it's only a "dwarf planet" and no longer a "real planet". Things change, things are disproven, many things stay the same aswell. (I find it highly unlikely for the moons comopsition to change to cheese, but as I am a Christian and I do beleive in God...He can work in mysteriouse ways XD)


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

Could the earth (or Terra) itself have some sort of "life force" that keeps it and all of the creatures and species of the planet together?


----------



## Surgat (Apr 19, 2007)

DPAK said:
			
		

> Surgat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was trying to show that Ockham's razor, or that the explanation that involves the least amount of entities and/or different types of entities is best, is common sense.  

Adding a god to our theories about the origins of our planet is like believing that a ghost knocked on the door at the exact same time and place as the person did, in my example. 



			
				DPAK said:
			
		

> Surgat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In a cyclic cosmological model, they've simply always been there. 



			
				Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> Speaking of Pluto, thats actually a good example, for thousands of years it was beleived to be a true planet


Pluto was discovered in 1930.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 19, 2007)

Surgat said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oppsy! my bad


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

yknow, is it odd that im like the ONLY person in the entire flipping world that believes that science and spirituality can one day bond? 

an example of my vision was in the film "final fantasy, the spirits within". in the film all of man's technology was essentially powered via spiritual means, they litterally leached the spiritual energies off bacteria and powered machinery with it . talk about clean energy....

also guys, be carefull about using "common sense" too much.... using common sense is what caused western doctors to bleed the sick to get rid of deseases till the 1800's(the practice didnt realy fully stopp till the late 1800's). i remember reading a book on the evolution of medicine that disscussed how one "healer" in the 1700's used simple comman sense logic to "prove" that colds could be cured by bleeding because of some strange line he drew from the flushing of the skin....


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> yknow, is it odd that im like the ONLY person in the entire flipping world that believes that science and spirituality can one day bond?



It just seems like the two are completely opposite.
I know that the old saying, "opposites attract" is old but, I just can't see it.
I mean some people have seen how fast Intelligent Design gets kicked out of evolutionary talks, I mean technically that's on of the only theories of life that I know of that is a mix.  
[sarcasm]But, because only one side can be right, ya'know...[/sarcasm]


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 19, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> yknow, is it odd that im like the ONLY person in the entire flipping world that believes that science and spirituality can one day bond?



*raises paw* i do too! I have strong beleifes both ways, science and religion


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> ceacar99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 science is the study of anything and everything through a certian method. as our tools inprove we will be able to study more things. before we had electron microscopes we couldnt study viruses but we do now. just wait a while, the secrets will be unlocked and we will begin to understand so much more of how things actually work...

edited: at first i thought you were saying that intellegent design and evolution dont mix.... well anyway i deleted my lil talk about that...


----------



## Aikon (Apr 19, 2007)

Faith is like a cough drop, it feels good on your throat but it doesn't cure shit.

They say knowledge is power, but religion is common sense.  Really.  How can you believe in someone that doesn't exist?  How can I prove god doesn't eixst?, look him up in the phone book, Jesus Christ ain't listed. Yearbook?, MIA.  Birth Certificate, nope.  

A car salesman offers you a car that you haven't seen, don't know the make, year or model, or even the shape its in.  Yet, he gives you his word that it will last 100,000 miles... and you buy it anyway.  

God, I have a question for you... millions of people (that once believed in you) died at the hands, over *ahem* some 2007 odd years of human existance, by other human beings (that you created).... innconcent people.  Why does this continue to happen, even moreso rapidly as the years march on?  

Furthermore, millions have died because of their faith or lack thereof, in you.  Yeah we know you were busy watching the Super Bowl, and yeah American Idol is really something but couldn't you have at least held a press conferance explaining why you were MIA afterward?

Bah, people will believe in what they want regardless for what I say.  That's fine, but I for one think it's silly.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> Could the earth (or Terra) itself have some sort of "life force" that keeps it and all of the creatures and species of the planet together?



Read up on James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

DPAK said:
			
		

> Well, then the question becomes where did the matter and energy originate?



P1. At all times, time exist - tautologically true.
P2. If time exist, then space exist. - Appear to be true based on what we know about time and space.
P3. If time and space exist then vacuum exist. Also, appear to be true by definition.
P4. If vacuum exist then energy exist. Appear to be empirically true. I.e. experiments show it is true.
P5. If time exist, then space and energy also exist. (From 2, 3 and 4).
P6. If time, space and energy exist then the universe exist. True by definition.
P7. If time exist then the universe exist. (From 5 and 6).
C1. At all times, the universe exists. (From 1 and 7).


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

aikon, you should revise that saying about faith being like a cough drop... to help you understand here is a quote from the "do you believe spirits exist thread"



			
				me said:
			
		

> now lets talk about my spirituality. i believe in ki, the energy flows within every living thing. this energy when full and radiant helps make a full and radiant body and so on. in terms of the martial arts its the primary force of the best artists. a "kihap"(the hiyah!!! thing) is a spiritual strike drawing from the will chakra in the stomach. its more of a sharp gutteral yell that gives a burst of spiritual energy, or at least that is what WE beleive. another form of strike is drawing from the will chakra and pulling the energy into a limb via willfull meditative exersises. people who have learned to do this report a tingleing sensation in the limb of choice before the energy is exerted.
> 
> now lets talk about what skeptics have commanly said... 1: "that feeling in your arm is because your focusing on it so much and not some magical energy". my simple responce is that it is that focusing on my arm that allows me to break through several bricks with my bare hands without even a scratch on myself. 2: "that ki hap is only a placebo effect, it doenst actually inpart any spiritual energy". simple answer, power is power. if im more powerfull because of it then it does not matter what is causing the power in truth only that i receave the power.
> 
> ...



ALL of my spirituality in some way is effective, part of it is that the faith i have in it negates the need for it to actually be true, placebo effect. i believe so strongly that i dont hold back, in the martial arts world i hit harder and move faster, the rest of the world my spirituality is what guides me, directs me and leads me to great things. once again, it doesnt matter if its true or not, it inparts power and thats all that matters.

foxy, lets face it. the scientific community currently believes in one inpossiblity, the universe allways existed. nothing can simply allways exist, there is a process to create that something, 90% of science has been studying that. unfortunately we are still tackleing with the conversion of matter and are not anywhere near the gates of understanding how things started. if you want evedence that science doesnt know enough to discount spirituality just look at the sillyness of "the universe allways existed" as thier explination of creation.


----------



## Edge (Apr 19, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> Every time someone tries to have a debate like this on the internet, a kitten is eaten by an alligator.



Science wins.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> if you want evedence that science doesnt know enough to discount spirituality just look at the sillyness of "the universe allways existed" as thier explination of creation.


God had no time to create time.


----------



## Epsereth (Apr 19, 2007)

So apparently, foxes haven't evolved the ability to learn ... >_>


----------



## Epsereth (Apr 19, 2007)

I like Confucius' idea - that trying to force the world to fit into your mindset invariable makes everything awkward, uncomfortable, and unnatural. Why not just ... leave it all alone and quit worrying about it?

Hahahah, makes things a looooot easier.


----------



## Xeni (Apr 19, 2007)

Science created the internet with which all you asshats are using to debate this topic which will just continue to spiral further and further downward and not resolve anything.

NOW TIME FOR HUGS AND MAKE UP


----------



## Epsereth (Apr 19, 2007)

Xeni said:
			
		

> Science created the internet with which all you asshats are using to debate this topic which will just continue to spiral further and further downward and not resolve anything.
> 
> NOW TIME FOR HUGS AND MAKE UP



NO U

NAO SHUT UP SULFUR ASS AND GO BACK TO LJ DANGIT


----------



## Damaratus (Apr 19, 2007)

Xeni, Espereth, you both get time outs.  This is not the place for this kind of behavior.  24 hours for the both of you until you can manage to behave on the forums properly.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

Aikon said:
			
		

> God, I have a question for you... millions of people (that once believed in you) died at the hands, over *ahem* some 2007 odd years of human existance, by other human beings (that you created).... innconcent people.  Why does this continue to happen, even moreso rapidly as the years march on?
> 
> Furthermore, millions have died because of their faith or lack thereof, in you.  Yeah we know you were busy watching the Super Bowl, and yeah American Idol is really something but couldn't you have at least held a press conferance explaining why you were MIA afterward?



Aikon, I have a question for You. By the time You were writing this, some innocent children in the less developed parts of the world probably starved to death. Why didn't You donate half of Your posessions and saved their lives? Why did You let those innocent people die? 

Yah, free will is a bitch sometimes. 

Furthermore: If You don't know something, You look for answers. If You don't know whether God exists or not, You look for hints whether he does or not. Did You? I mean, really? I highly doubt it. I'm not condemning You for that - to be frank, I didn't, either - , just making a point. There may be reasons for lack of belief in a god ( meaning: being unsure whether there is one or not; DISbelieveing there's no good reason for ), but the ones You stated are not very good ones, in my opinion. 

Anyway. 

 Science and Religion - or, better, belief - do not cancel each other out. Since most people who believe in science do not automatically say there is no God - mostly, it's the other way around - I'll skip them and get to the religious fanatics. 
 If a theoretical God created the universe, that God also created the rules by which the universe works. Stands to reason. What is science, if not attempts to understand how the universe works, and making use of that knowledge? Ergo, exploring the world a God created, as we perceive it. Say, I believe in God. I also can definitely see that things tend to fall down when dropped. Conclusion: God created the Earth in a fashion that makes things move toward it's centrepoint. Now, if I observe that there's this thing called evolution going on, what's the next logical step ( still assuming a God created the world )? Right. God also created the driving powers of evolution. 
 Hence, belief and science do not cancel each other out. I can research on a myriad of things while believing a God created them. No problem there. On the contrary - I think if God exists, the most suited way to hypothetize about his nature and intentions is by the means of logic. But that is probably too off topic, so unless someone asks - or the question arises otherwise - I won't indulge into that here. 

~Sylv


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> [*]P1. At all times, time exist - tautologically true.
> [*]P2. If time exist, then space exist. - Appear to be true based on what we know about time and space.
> [*]P3. If time and space exist then vacuum exist. Also, appear to be true by definition.
> [*]P4. If vacuum exist then energy exist. Appear to be empirically true. I.e. experiments show it is true.
> ...



Three quick observations/questions.

1. Your logic does not discount the possibility of time having a beginning and possibly and end.Â Â I could model it as such.
[*] At all points along Main Street, Main Street exists.
[*] If the Main Street exists, asphalt exists (given what we know of roads).
[*] If asphalt exists, sidewalk exists.
[*] Sidewalk exists at all points on Main Street based on Points 1 and 2.

And so on and so forth: great if you're talking about Main Street, but not answering the question of "Where did the road come from?"Â Â 



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> foxy, lets face it. the scientific community currently believes in one inpossiblity, the universe allways existed. nothing can simply allways exist, there is a process to create that something, 90% of science has been studying that. unfortunately we are still tackleing with the conversion of matter and are not anywhere near the gates of understanding how things started. if you want evedence that science doesnt know enough to discount spirituality just look at the sillyness of "the universe allways existed" as thier explination of creation.



Caecar, please don't toss around figures like "90% of science is looking for the beginning of creation," without backup.Â Â After all, 100% of all made-up statistics are useless for rhetorical purposes.



			
				Sylvine said:
			
		

> If a theoretical God created the universe, that God also created the rules by which the universe works. Stands to reason. What is science, if not attempts to understand how the universe works, and making use of that knowledge? Ergo, exploring the world a God created, as we perceive it. Say, I believe in God. I also can definitely see that things tend to fall down when dropped. Conclusion: God created the Earth in a fashion that makes things move toward it's centrepoint. Now, if I observe that there's this thing called evolution going on, what's the next logical step ( still assuming a God created the world )? Right. God also created the driving powers of evolution.



Sylv: Please read up more on your Darwin.  Darwinian Evolution was controversial not because it proposed evolution over time, but because it explained it through natural selection.  It's sometimes called "survival of the fittest," but a better way to explain it would be "whoever has the most kids what survive to adulthood and have kids themselves win."


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

Eh. I'm not sure how that relates to my statement, themocaw... 

Edit: Oh, right. Ceacar.... if nothing can "simply exist" and there is a process of creation for everything, the question is, as always: What whas this creation process created by? Here's a similarity between religion and science: Religion says: God was there in the beginning. Science says: X was there at the beginning (I'm not sure what they exactly say at the exact moment, energy, or antimass or whatever it may be ). Both are not able to prove anything. It's just that science _sounds_ rational, and, well, is useful when explaining the everyday stuff like molecules, chemical reactions, mechanics, biological processes etc etc. 

~Sylv


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Eh. I'm not sure how that relates to my statement, themocaw...
> 
> ~Sylv



Simply this: that an empirical materialist would say that your statement falls flat because there are no driving forces of evolution.  Evolution is not a force, but a process that takes place over time.  There is no goal towards which it is reaching, it's just that creatures that are better at adapting to their environment live longer, have more kids, pass down their traits to the next generation.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 19, 2007)

Surgat said:
			
		

> The fact that science cannot disprove of the existence of things like gods or spirits doesn't mean that there is _no_ way to disprove theories which include these things. Given fact that no scientific theories use no gods or spirits in their explanations of the natural world, Ockham's razor gives us a reason to not believe in gods or spirits. ..



I've probably used it in the past myself, but Occum's razor has some serious flaws.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> God had no time to create time.



Funny but true.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> 1. Your logic does not discount the possibility of time having a beginning and possibly and end...



Time could have a beginning and end only if nothing exists before or after. Since energy and matter remains constant in the universe, this is not possible.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> Simply this: that an empirical materialist would say that your statement falls flat because there are no driving forces of evolution.  Evolution is not a force, but a process that takes place over time.  There is no goal towards which it is reaching, it's just that creatures that are better at adapting to their environment live longer, have more kids, pass down their traits to the next generation.



Maybe my wording was a bit unclear. In such a case, the driving force of evolution would be the individual's struggle to reproduce and pass it's genes on. I never said that the driving force has to be sentient. The way I meant it, gravitation would be the driving force of matter that draws one piece of matter to the other one. 

Rostam: I'd differ. Time could also have a beginning if something _other than Time_ existed before or after. The fact that humans define something as true, or that they fail to imagine something, does not mean that things too complex or alien for us to understand don't, didn't, or won't exist...  

~Sylv


----------



## Aikon (Apr 19, 2007)

I can't delete it, I can't see what's wrong either, I'll fix it later.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> Three quick observations/questions.
> 
> 1. Your logic does not discount the possibility of time having a beginning and possibly and end.  I could model it as such.
> [*] At all points along Main Street, Main Street exists.
> ...


P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
P2. There is only one [nothing].
C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes [something].
C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot come from [nothing].
C5. Either there was never [nothing] or [nothing] is the 1st cause.

Either the universe always existed or God is [nothing].


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

Argh, don't drink and "quote" Just like your mother tells you about your shirts, please fix your tags! XD


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> themocaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, your logic winds up coming very close to the Hindu concept of Brahman, which I heard explained as: When you look at absolutely everything that has existed and say, "God is not this," what is left over is God.  So yes: that which we percieve as [nothing] is what God is.

Secondly, I'm wondering how your line of logic applies to Occam's maxim that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily," or "All things considered, the simplest explanation is the best."


----------



## Wakboth (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> So that the therians and spirit-talkers can discuss their own beliefs, I propose we talk science vs. religion here.
> 
> Here are my thoughts.
> 
> [snip]


You're being much too reasonable for the Internet. Well done!


----------



## Aikon (Apr 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Argh, don't drink and "quote" Just like your mother tells you about your shirts, please fix your tags! XD



D'oh, actually I deleted the whole post and was going to redo it, but it didn't delete??  WTF.  I'll try deleting it again if it doesn't work I'll have to fix it when I get home from work, I'm running behind as usual.  

A mod can delete it too, I have it saved.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> Actually, your logic winds up coming very close to the Hindu concept of Brahman, which I heard explained as: When you look at absolutely everything that has existed and say, "God is not this," what is left over is God.  So yes: that which we percieve as [nothing] is what God is.


We've never observed that something was "created" from nothing. The conclusion that supernatural entities create something natural is therefore unwarrented. To the contrary:
Every creator we observed so far shares his natural existence with that what he created.
Every creator we observed so far is bound to the same laws as his creation.
Every creator we observed so far rearranges existing matter or information in a new shape.
Every creator we observed so far has finite existence in time and space.
------------------------------------------------
Every creator we know of is natural, bound to the physical laws and logic, and rearranges existing material or information, and is finite in time and space.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy... um, everything you just said is wrong... you actually need to read the bible at least....


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Time could also have a beginning if something _other than Time_ existed before or after. The fact that humans define something as true, or that they fail to imagine something, does not mean that things too complex or alien for us to understand don't, didn't, or won't exist...
> 
> ~Sylv



I am intrigued by youtr idea that maybe there was/is/will be something other than time, its an interesting concept. *ponders*



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> Every creator we observed so far rearranges existing matter or information in a new shape.




well, shes partially right: 

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Genesis 2:22

(King James Version www.bible.com)

But thats pretty much it as far as God goes for matter rearrangement. 



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> Every creator we observed so far is bound to the same laws as his creation.



Of couse at the same time...we can't exactly breath into dirt and make something living out of it


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

Occam's Razor is an invalid argument:

_In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). *While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.*_

_Considering that the razor is often wielded as an argument against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself was a theist. He considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data, equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997). In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid._

You used Occam's Razor incorrectly. It can merely implies that disbelief *should* be preferred.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

Something good happens it was gods will...something bad happens the only answer is he moves in mysterious ways. 

I'm agnostic. I haven't found a god I can say I believe in. I think if your being true to yourself you connect the hinge points in every religion. In every religion there is unmistakably a ritual or belief that is also used by another religion. I think they all stemed from one central unified religion that branched out and chanbged over time.


----------



## illus1 (Apr 19, 2007)

matter is neither created nor destroyed, no? and nothing exists forever, no? if both are true, then the first atom ever did not simply pop out of nowhere. SOMEONE had to have created that first atom ever.

thus, God exists.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> *Every creator we know of is natural*, bound to the physical laws and logic, and rearranges existing material or information, and is finite in time and space.



Yes.

That we know of.

Science can do a lot of things, foxy.  It can do a lot of really awesome things.  It can take a look at the fundamental building blocks of the universe.  It can stare trillions of light years into space, gazing back in time to the milliseconds after the Universe exploded into existence.  It can map the workings of the human brain and pinpoint the exact locations where memory and sensory perception exist.  

But past a certain point, it breaks down.  We have an idea of what happened the tiniest fraction of a millisecond after the Big Bang, but we're lost to describe where it all came from.  We can take a look down at the tiniest building blocks of matter, even describe the relationship between matter and energy, but you ask "What is energy?" and the best we can come up is with a vague "Well. . . it's something."  Ask a neurologist about what consciousness really is sometime too.

I've figured out what's been bothering me about you this whole time, Foxy: you're arrogant.  First, your condescending tone towards the other people on this forum is absolutely infuriating.  you never address your opponent's views directly.  What you do is you spout out a series of maxims vaguely related to the subject.  It would be as if someone told me, "Rome was the greatest civilization in existence at its time because of its architectural, military, and political accomplishments," and I replied by saying "Rome lined its aqueducts with lead," and never explained how I reached the conclusion that because Rome poisoned itself slowly with lead, it somehow negates the civilization's prior accomplishments.  You're not arguing with us.  You're condescending to us.

Secondly, all your arguments have proceeded from an assumption that human knowledge is somehow capable of understanding cosmic truths.  It's like an ant crawling across a square inch of granite studiously examining erosion and rain patterns and never understanding the big picture.  Worse, humans can't understand the big picture.  Like that ant, even if we could get far enough away to see the entire mountain, our vision isn't clear enough to get a decent view of the whole thing.  We can't see if we're crawling across Mount Everest or Mount Rushmore.  The best we can do is try and figure something out based on the tiny patch of stone we can see.  You say that no creator we know blah blah blah and think this somehow means that no such creator can exist.  It's like a child claiming that because he's never been to France, France must not exist.  Of course, that's another story.

Once again, we're crossing the line between science and philosophy, and the results are not good.  Science is like studying a watch and how it works.  Philosophy and religion focuses on whether there is a watchmaker, and if so, what that watchmaker is like.  Trying to use science to prove the existence of God is like trying to find out about the watchmaker by staring at the gears and springs and saying, "None of these gears can create another gear, therefore this watch must have always existed."


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> foxy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, since I'm becoming a broken record. You're referring to a Straw Man argument. This is what I've repeatedly said through threads, that she's not addressing the point she's arguing around it, and manipulating the subject to make herself feel she's the clear winner in the debate.



			
				themocaw said:
			
		

> Once again, we're crossing the line between science and philosophy, and the results are not good.  Science is like studying a watch and how it works.  Philosophy and religion focuses on whether there is a watchmaker, and if so, what that watchmaker is like.  Trying to use science to prove the existence of God is like trying to find out about the watchmaker by staring at the gears and springs and saying, "None of these gears can create another gear, therefore this watch must have always existed."



In short, it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Sometimes the pieces fit, and sometimes they don't. Not everything is explained with science, nor is religion.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
> C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
> C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.



Failed already. 

Instead, I suggest a 
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not alterable.
C2. Therefore [nothing] cannot change.

How is my conclusion any less valid than Yours? *rolleyes* 
(edit: Yes, I completely copied the fashion of argumentation as a form of satire.)

Orlith Nemeth: Well, since I do not overrule the possibility that a God might exist - I even tend to think it's rather probable - , and I also cannot claim to understand God - even if I have my own theories and ideas, like everyone - , it's also plausible for me to assume that there are other things , interactions, reactions, dimensions, or things we do not have a name for, the nature of which I cannot guess or comprehend. Hell, I have a difficult time understanding some of the complex theories ( and also what is called "facts" ) other people understand with ease; why shouldn't I think there might be things beyound human comprehension? 

To explore the thought a bit more: As far as I know, energy and matter were the two known components of the universe some time ago; therefore, some people leapt into the conclusion that there is nothing other than that. Now, if I remember correctly, some people a lot smarter than me ( heh ) managed to create antimateria in the meantime, even if that concept was too bizarre to be aknowledged in the past. Why not also have anti-time? I'm not saying such a thing exists, or existed, and frankly, I don't think it's of much relevance to my short life, but I tend to be careful with absoulte statements. 

Of course, from time to time, I still make them. Well, noone's perfect. ( Eh, according to the bible, there was this one guy, but we kind of killed him, so... )

~Sylv


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

Well the simple facts are...we don't have all the facts. Science works for some, religion for others. Some people just need to feel that everything happens for a reason, and that there is a guiding force behind everything. Others a perfectly happy with thinking that they themselves are the only one who can control their fate. 

If you look a free wil and the bibles teaching that god creates and controls all of time then it would be preset and we have no free will. Thats what gets me, if we have free will then god is not infallible. So in order for god to be the end all do all, we would not be given free will and thus would be slaves to destiny. However the bible cleary states we have free will so that renders gods ultimate plan theory null and void. 

As far as I see it most of religion is blind faith and hoping your right. I just can't do that. I need an answer some small shred to go on. Don't even get me started on dinosaurs and time lines.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

tigermist said:
			
		

> If you look a free wil and the bibles teaching that god creates and controls all of time then it would be preset and we have no free will. Thats what gets me, if we have free will then god is not infallible. So in order for god to be the end all do all, we would not be given free will and thus would be slaves to destiny. [bi]However the bible cleary states we have free will so that renders gods ultimate plan theory null and void. [/b]



Well, what if God's "Ultimate Plan" was really, "I'm letting you do whatever the hell (lol) you want and I'm gonna watch". I don't think that would nullify it at all.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

tigermist said:
			
		

> Well the simple facts are...we don't have all the facts. Science works for some, religion for others. Some people just need to feel that everything happens for a reason, and that there is a guiding force behind everything. Others a perfectly happy with thinking that they themselves are the only one who can control their fate.
> 
> If you look a free wil and the bibles teaching that god creates and controls all of time then it would be preset and we have no free will. Thats what gets me, if we have free will then god is not infallible. So in order for god to be the end all do all, we would not be given free will and thus would be slaves to destiny. However the bible cleary states we have free will so that renders gods ultimate plan theory null and void.
> 
> As far as I see it most of religion is blind faith and hoping your right. I just can't do that. I need an answer some small shred to go on. Don't even get me started on dinosaurs and time lines.



I'm a big fan of Saint Thomas the Apostle.  I dunno if you know the story, but he was the disciple who wasn't there when Jesus came back, so when the others ran up to him going, "JESUS IS ALIVE OMG WTF BBQ LOL!" Thomas basically said, "STFU, PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN," and then the next day Jesus showed up and was all, "OMG PWNED," and Thomas was all, "LOL, DISREGARD THAT I SUCK CAWKS," and then all the disciples and Jesus started yelling, "IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND (desu)!"

I might have made up that last part.

But yeah, having faith doesn't mean closing up your ears and covering your eyes and going "LA LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

As for Free Will: there's a movement going on called process theology that kind of tries to address that.  One of its more controversial aspects is that God may not be omnipotent in the truest sense of the term: He can do more than we can, but He can't do EVERYTHING.  Including influence our free will.  It's complicated.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> DPAK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still doesn't answer the question.



			
				themocaw said:
			
		

> I'm a big fan of Saint Thomas the Apostle.  I dunno if you know the story, but he was the disciple who wasn't there when Jesus came back, so when the others ran up to him going, "JESUS IS ALIVE OMG WTF BBQ LOL!" Thomas basically said, "STFU, PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN," and then the next day Jesus showed up and was all, "OMG PWNED," and Thomas was all, "LOL, DISREGARD THAT I SUCK CAWKS," and then all the disciples and Jesus started yelling, "IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND (desu)!"
> 
> I might have made up that last part.



This is made of LULZ and win.

Back on topic, I find it very depressing that people insist that Science and Religion cannot get along. Sheesh. ><;


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 19, 2007)

I haven't read this thread, so please forgive me if I seem to merely repeat what others have said :F. 

I've never really been comfortable with the whole religion vs science thing, since the two things have entirely different intentions. Science is aimed at discovery of new things and the harnessing of knowledge to practical ends. Religion, on the other hand, is not at all about progression. Religion is about staying where you are and holding a set of beliefs that do not change; it's about having faith and finding a set of beliefs tailored to your needs. Religion and science have nothing in common, so they shouldn't be classed as opponents; not simply because they are different, which wouldn't make sense, but because they don't aspire to a common goal. 

I see a use for science because of what it does for society; technology is a very exciting and liberating thing, the persuit of knowledge is truly a fine cause. The use for religion is to keep the simple-minded content with simple explanations for unsolvable problems. That, too, is fine. What pisses me off is when people try to make out that religion has anything to do with facts or morality or anything outside itself. Religion is always being pushed into everything that surrounds it, it is a concept of domination rather than intergration. I have no personal use for religion, for I don't feel I need to gain comfort from believing in fate or destiny, the afterlife or otherworldly omnipresent father figures. It's just too primitive to me for me to find it adequate. I'd rather place my belief, faith and love in the things I can see and that I know to be there. 

However, neither am I a scientist. I have no personal interest in the discovery of new things about this world, I leave that to the people who do have that interest. When I come across their peer-reviewed findings I take that information in as reliable. If it is contradicted in the future then it is. What matters most about science is that it does concede to stronger arguments; if you can produce the evidence that something is wrong then the information is changed according to new findings. It's an accumulation working towards a greater whole, and that I see as a very wholesome thing. I couldn't give a toss about people trying to incorporate religion into science, because anyone with half a brain can see that it doesn't belong there.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Failed already.
> 
> Instead, I suggest a
> C1. Therefore [nothing] is not alterable.
> C2. Therefore [nothing] cannot change.



Circular Logic:

alterable = change

C1. Therefore [nothing] is not changeable. <--- ???
C2. Therefore [nothing] cannot change.

--------------------------------------------------
http://www.answers.com/constrain&r=67
_To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force_

_To cause (a person or thing) to act or move in spite of resistance: coerce, compel, force, make, obligate, oblige, pressure. See attack/defend._

In the eastern philosophical/mystical sense, something and nothing are the same thing. They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing, on the macro scale that is.
--------------------------------------------------
If "nothing" has no properties, how can you assert that "nothing cannot change"? Wouldn't that be a property? I am talking about something that cannot change, known as "nothing"???? See how contradictory this concept of "nothinng" really is? Of course, the flaw is that you treate it as if it was something when it really is denoting the absence of any thing. Thus, we can safely say that this "nothing" has never existed, it never was. I believe one reason why people find this hard to grasp is that they think they can "conceive" of this nothing when in fact they cannot. It is - literally speaking - inconceivable.


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

My view, which will probably upset some people (but then again it is this type of thread), is the world would be a better place without religion.

In the entire existence of the human race what has religion done for us? Religion has never brought peace, cured a disease, broken down barriers between cultures or even given us a better understanding of the world. Religion has brought us nothing but fear and control; fear to get you to join the religion and control the restraints that make you do anything they say lest suffer the fear that put you under their control in the first place. I see religion as nothing more than the corruption of faith to the benefit of those in power, there is no one more obedient and loyal than a nation with a religious call, and I imagine many millennia ago leaders realised this and exploited it to the fullest. The affects of that exploitation can even be felt now as people still fight to upheld the religious laws of old in the modern day.

Science on the other hand has brought us much much more than religion ever has; it hasn't solved all of our problems but it is doing a hell of a lot of a better job at it than religion has. Never in any point in history has the average person been as well off as they are now, hell they can even choose what religion to follow as opposed to â€œbelieve or dieâ€, looking at history that 'is' saying something. We can socialise with anyone we want, trade with anyone we want, be lovers with anyone we want without being crucified for it by some archaic religious law created to encourage segmentation with others on a national level to help dehumanise their enemy nations.

Even now I am demonstrating the merits of science over religion; I am typing on the technological wonder (abomination) that is a computer, speaking my true honest (sinful) opinion to people (ungodly heathens) I would normally never be able to speak to. Other than being impossible for religious methods just the act itself would be death worthy, how dare I hold views outside what is deemed acceptable by religious texts? How dare I 'think' the wrong things?

But I am rambling on now. My main point? Science has a better good vs bad ratio than religion, it has done more good for humanity than religion has. The best part of science is there are no absolutes, we will hold something to be true through scientific methods and not the ignorant dogma guess work of religion, should any new evidence be brought up that it is actually wrong the theory/law will be changed accordingly. Religion on the other hand holds what it says to be always true, the word of god cannot be wrong, humans 2000 years ago didn't know anywhere near as much about the universe as we do now but it doesn't stop people holding their words to be correct. Ask a priest for the secrets to the universe if you want, just don't be surprised if it involves you twisting your faith to their own and becoming subservient to their religion.

For everyone who took offence from my post remember this, Religion is not the same as Faith and I don't consider the two to be the same. If you know anything on that subject you should hopefully understand why I hold organised religion to blame and not the faith it exploits. For the rest of you consider this; even if god floated down from the clouds, poked me on the nose and said he was the one true god I still wouldn't follow him.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> [unrelated stuff]
> Now give me an arguemnt that prove that:
> 
> Nothing is not changeable.



( by the way, an argument that proves something?  ) 
No. YOU give me an Argument that



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.



Wasn't Your initial argument something along the lines of "[nothing] has no attributes."? Being alterable IS an attribute. Hence, [nothing] is not alterable. Of course, being unalterabel is an attribute, too, so [nothing] would be _not unalterable_, as well, thus it would be changeable. And, obviously, it can't be both, so it probably is simply none of it. That's why it's called nothing, I'd fathom. 

And, for heaven's sake, of course I was using circular logic. I even stated that I used it as a parody of Your points. Because You used it too. No attributes = not constrained. Not constrained = free of constrain. Free = an attribute. Your argumentation would be as faulty as mine. [ given I'm not victim of some langage comprehension mistake. But I doubt it, actually. ]

~Sylv


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 19, 2007)

You say God had no time to create time.. but you forget "time" is a man made concept. There really is no "time" like we perceive it. It is just that: a concept.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> My view, which will probably upset some people (but then again it is this type of thread), is the world would be a better place without religion.
> 
> In the entire existence of the human race what has religion done for us? Religion has never brought peace, cured a disease, broken down barriers between cultures or even given us a better understanding of the world. Religion has brought us nothing but fear and control; fear to get you to join the religion and control the restraints that make you do anything they say lest suffer the fear that put you under their control in the first place. I see religion as nothing more than the corruption of faith to the benefit of those in power, there is no one more obedient and loyal than a nation with a religious call, and I imagine many millennia ago leaders realised this and exploited it to the fullest. The affects of that exploitation can even be felt now as people still fight to upheld the religious laws of old in the modern day.
> 
> ...



[sarcasm]LIEK ZOMG!!!!1111!!!  U R T3H WRONG & FAIL @ LIEF!!!!!!![/sarcasm]

Seriosuly, it's good to see people who voice their honest opinion and aren't afraid if people reject it and also aren't force-feeding their beliefs down other's throats. 

I will say, however, that Religion is not entirely bad. It gives people hope and something to believe in, has founded some very helpful foundations for the needy, and *can* (key word) help bring people together.

And Science isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Science brought us nuclear weapons, war machines, and a plethora of highly debatable theories that tear the science community apart.

Come to think of it, Science and Religion really AREN'T that different.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> You say God had no time to create time.. but you forget "time" is a man made concept. There really is no "time" like we perceive it. It is just that: a concept.



The point is that time isn't "just is". Time is closely connected with matter. Time in a gravity field is changed by that gravity field and if you remove all gravity fields, you remove time and space. It simply isn't true that time "just is". No matter, no universe implies no time and no space either. Thus, all we can say is that time has existed as long as the universe has existed and the universe has existed as long as time has existed. This also means that time is approx 13.7 billion years old if we are to trust the most recent measurements and so there is no valid point in time that is 15 billion years back.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Sylvine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All right, if we want to take a look at logic, let's break down your argument point by point.

P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
- If [nothing] has no attributes, its very attributelessness is an attribute in and of itself.  In the interests of continuing the argument, assume that we can ignore this contradiction.

C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
- If nothing has no attributes, it is constrained to having no attributes.  

C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
- Mutability is an attribute, as well as immutability.  Therefore, [nothing] must, like Schroedinger's cat, be both mutable and immutable at the same time.

P2. There is only one [nothing].
- Explain your reasoning.

C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes [something].
- If nothing has no attributes, then assume that for an infinite and all-encompassing set of attributes (whereby each attribute has two states: yes and no) that all the attributes = no.  The only way change becomes possible is if one of those attributes changes istates from "no" to "yes."  At which point, [nothing] gains an attribute and ceases to be nothing.  Point accepted.

C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot come from [nothing].
- Explain your reasoning.

C5. Either there was never [nothing] or [nothing] is the 1st cause.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

Erm yeah Mocaw, that's exactly why I posted earlier her application of Occam's Razor was a complete failure and stated why XD


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

It is faith that gives people hope, not religion. Religion is the standardising of faith; someone can say they have faith in a god and he is looking out for them, but it is religion that gives shape and requirements to that faith. So I am not questioning that faith is needed and brings people hope; it is whether we need religion that is in question considering all the wrong that is has done. 

Faith can exist without religion.

Like I said in my main post I also realise that science has brought many bad things to this world, but I consider the good that science brings to outweigh the bad unlike religion.

As for science being like religion I strongly disagree. Science encourages free thought, religion discourages it. Science encourages learning, religion encourages ignorance. Science promotes growth, religion stunts it. Science promotes tolerance, religion promotes intolerance.

I could go on and on; I am sorry but I have only heard the â€œthey are the sameâ€ argument from pro creationists who are trying to make dogma a part of science in an attempt to turn the schools into recruitment factories.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> You say God had no time to create time.. but you forget "time" is a man made concept. There really is no "time" like we perceive it. It is just that: a concept.



I think time was created just so we could be organized.

Can we cut it down just a bit on the TL;DR?
...Please? 
If you're gone for, like an hour, you miss almost a book-load of information.
@.=.@


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> It is faith that gives people hope, not religion. Religion is the standardising of faith; someone can say they have faith in a god and he is looking out for them, but it is religion that gives shape and requirements to that faith. So I am not questioning that faith is needed and brings people hope; it is whether we need religion that is in question considering all the wrong that is has done.
> 
> Faith can exist without religion.
> 
> ...



Never said they were the same, just that they weren't that different. 

And we could argue about it all night long so I'll get to the point:
Science and Religion are similar in that they will both contain contradicting teachings, both have pros and cons, and both will also have arrogant people. The arrogant types are the ones who create the limited creativity, ignorance, and intolerance, not the topic's themselves (See Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, compare to Jesus and you'll see what I mean.)


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 19, 2007)

You say time can be altered by a gravity field.. yet you forget again that these observations are also.. our _perceptions_. Time is a man made idea, therefor to try and find any proofs or disproofs is not possible, because these actions are based on our own perceptions. _The eyes deceive..._


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

That being the case then I apologies for the outburst; I have just had people who argued science can be compared to religion as a stealth tactic to get the bible taut in science class, seeing you say â€œarn't that differentâ€ probably stirred up that memory.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Erm yeah Mocaw, that's exactly why I posted earlier her application of Occam's Razor was a complete failure and stated why XD



Let's say Mocaw and my own counterpoints were a bit more... direct. =) 

ADF: Then, well, Faith and Science are similar, at least in some ways. Faith can lead to hope, morality, generally a good life and so on, and so forth. It can also cause someone to start a religion  In turn, with science, one person looks at an equation and says "wow, we could utilize that energy to generate more electric power! great!" , while the other looks at it and says "wow. This could wipe out a whole town in the blink of an eye".  
 It's a bit off topic, but I have a really weird chemistry teacher. A few days ago, he told us how to synthetise Napalm. Explained, how it works. Then, he looked into the distance with an innocent smile on his face and said "it would be cool to make a bigger ammount of it and then spray it into the air outside. That would make for a neat fire mist!". And I think he really meant it; I can't picture a guy like him intending any harm. 
 So it's in this aspect where faith and science are a bit similar. Plus, science is based on belief a lot more than some people feel comfortable with. 

Edit: Damn, I'm getting slow  Time to go to bed... as soon as I finish that report for my english class x_X I wonder if I'll be excused if I don't do it and instead claim that I couldn't, because I spent too much time on debating an extremely dificult topic on an english-speaking forum... ^^'

~Sylv


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL more like ...LONG winded, or tl;dr in the sense that I had one sentence that said:

*While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.*


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> tigermist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually do know the story of doubting Thomas. Believe it or not the reason I don't have faith in the christian religion is because I was a member for so long. Read the bible cover to cover, been confirmed into a church, and went to parochial school for four years. Ever since I have disliked organized religion strongly, and struck out on my own to try and find truth for myself. It's the contradictions and hypocricy in the followers that make me dislike christianity. Now thats not to say I think all christians are the same. I know a few who are just generally awesome people.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> That being the case then I apologies for the outburst; I have just had people who argued science can be compared to religion as a stealth tactic to get the bible taut in science class, seeing you say â€œarn't that differentâ€ probably stirred up that memory.



It's all right. I understand that people can become frustrated with Religious people. I'm a Christian, but I often find myself angered by the extreme, Bible-thumpin' kinds. But as a promoter of tolerance and learning, I think it is only fair that SOME religion is taught in science, IE Creation and/or Intelligent Design.



			
				Sylvine said:
			
		

> It's a bit off topic, but I have a really weird chemistry teacher.



Speaking of beliefs, I believe that most Chem teachers are weird and/or crazy.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

But thats just it, if you want your child to know the creationist point of view take them to a church. Creation story, and intelligent design are religion based and not universal. If you gave intelligent design it should at the very least be an elected class and not required. An even better way of doing it would be giving it in a total religious studies class. Give the kids an open forum to learn about not just one but many religions and let them decide which they believe.


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> [snip]


Sorry but I just cannot compare faith with science; when I start a chemical reaction I don't believe I know what the result will be, I know what it will be. For something else to happen something must have gone wrong with the components, perhaps the wrong amounts or a foreign substance was put in, but if done correctly the reaction should always be the same.

When dropping a ball it will always fall toward the centre of gravity, for that to change something in the equations must change. You don't have to believe the ball will fall down.

Someone with a scientific theory may have faith that it is true, but faith will never make it true, it has to be right to begin with to ever be true. He didn't just believe it was true either, some logical reasoning led him to this end. Faith may have led him to set out and prove something to be true, but it played no part in its discovery or demonstration. Hard science requires no faith, if faith is involved in something then it is more about probability and the hope of a outcome than belief.



			
				DPAK said:
			
		

> I think it is only fair that SOME religion is taught in science, IE Creation and/or Intelligent Design.
> 
> [snip]


There is a place for religion in school, it is called RE â€“ â€œReligious Educationâ€ where pupils will be taut about all religions without bias. 

Science has nothing to do with what is and is not fair, it is about truth and nothing but the truth. Should the truth prove flawed then it will be changed to be true, a process of continuous improvement.

Religion has no place within science as it cannot be proven on any level; Religion is faith, not fact. Religion has already caused so much harm in this world as they fight amongst themselves for dominance; creationists don't care about whether religion is considered scientific enough to be taut in science class, what they care about is having 'their' religion and only 'their' religion taut as a fact so they can control the next generation to increase their numbers. What other explanation is there? Why else would they put so much emphasis on getting the bible 'specifically' and not every religion taut in science?

There is already a class on religion, that teaches all religions without discrimination, that should be good enough for them unless they are willing to admit they only want their religion taut.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.  Let religion keep its hands out of science.  In return, let science keep itself out of ethics.  Science can tell us a lot about how the world works, but it can't tell us whether doing something is right or wrong.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF:  
What's the difference between
Believing something will work
and
Knowing something will work.

I mean, if it took Thomas Edison 1,000 tries to create a light bulb, did he Believe that the 1,000th bulb would light, or did he Know the other 999 bulbs were just flaws?


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> *snip, too*



Ah, I thought that sentence may cause a misunderstanding. 

     Yes, science is about facts - mostly "estabilished facts". Yet there are some things that are "common knowledge" in the world of science that were more or less agreed upon. The phrase "all evidence points toward X" should be well known; the problem is, the further science progresses, the more questions arise. And at some point, You can only say "It just does" or "It has to". 
     How large is the universe? It's infinite. (Or at least was a few Years ago - possibly it is not anymore). How do You know? It sounds plausible, given some other facts You know. It has to be. You believe it is, because what else could it be? 

To sum it up, science is about theories, not facts. Granted, there are things that are simply plausible and become estabilished facts, like that things fall down when You drop them, or that Natrium and H2O together result in a big boom. Others, like the Big Bang and Evolution of Life and the Greenhouse Effect - mostly things that happened in the distant past or that will happen in the future - are to an extent based on belief. ( based on the statement: You can't be sure it happens unless You experience it happen ). Even if You calculate the outcome of an experiment that was made a billion times before with the same effect every time, even if You take every possible factor into consideration and think the outcome is X and X only, there's always some bloody quantum or whatnot that could, in theory, maybe, someday, result in outcome Y. 

    Of course, it would be totally stupid to assume that the ball You are about to drop will _not_ fall to the ground. But before it does, You only believe it will, You believe it so strongly that You take it for a fact. Whcih it only becomes after You dropped it. 

    Okay, sorry for getting talkative again. And should I have completely missed the point, I'll fix that tomorrow. G'night!

~Sylv


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> ADF:
> What's the difference between
> Believing something will work
> and
> ...


You speak as if he knew how many tries it would take till he got it right. Like I said faith may drive someone to keep trying to prove something works, but it needs to be wedged between science to work at all. He didn't just have faith a light bulb would work, he did the math/science and used it to come to the conclusion that it could be done.

I may have faith that I can make a cure to cancer, but without science whatever the chances were they become nothing.


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> [snip]


People may associate faith with theories on the surface, but when you look at them they are not the same. 

Faith requires no evidence at all, theories require evidence. While we may not have enough evidence to say for a fact that the big bang is true (I mean it is not like we was there to see/study it), the sheer amount of evidence leads to the conclusion that it happened. In science there is laws and theories; laws are pretty much proven and can be demonstrated at any time, theories are highly accepted explanations but cannot entirely be proven. Hence why they are called theories (maybe) and not laws (true), but even maybes need something to back them up.

The point is theories at least require a good amount of evidence to be even considered while faith requires none at all.

[edit]
Dang, sorry for double posting.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> ADF
> 
> I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.Â Â Let religion keep its hands out of science.Â Â In return, let science keep itself out of ethics.Â Â Science can tell us a lot about how the world works, but it can't tell us whether doing something is right or wrong.




Ethics and moral are key point in society and have no bearing to religion. Are you suggesting the religion is controls the basis of all moral and ethical action. If so then why is it that countries who have very little organized religion also have the lowest crime rates.


----------



## foxy (Apr 19, 2007)

The cutting edge physics of nothing argues that nothingness is unstable, hence it phase shifts into a more structured nothing, i.e. our cosmos, similar to water freezing into ice. Interestingly, the symmetries which underly our current laws of physics are the symmetries of the vacuum...





			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Erm yeah Mocaw, that's exactly why I posted earlier her application of Occam's Razor was a complete failure and stated why XD



You have no clue what Occam's Razor is all about.

"Nothing" is not a different kind of "thing." Using it in place of a thing in a syllogism is bound to produce absurdity. "Nothing" is a word used as a placeholder in the spot within a sentence where the subject would be if there were a subject.





> - If [nothing] has no attributes, its very attributelessness is an attribute in and of itself.  In the interests of continuing the argument, assume that we can ignore this contradiction.


# It is contradiction. "nothing" cannot exist.
# It would be a "thing" that had the property that it has no property.


> - If nothing has no attributes, it is constrained to having no attributes.


# It would "exist" at no place at no time. If there were space and time, there couldn't be nothing remember.
# How can "nothing" exist in any meaningful way when "nothing" implies that there are no things that exist?
# As I said, it is a contradiction and as such it is a meaningless concept.


> - Mutability is an attribute, as well as immutability.  Therefore, [nothing] must, like Schroedinger's cat, be both mutable and immutable at the same time.


# The result is "there has always been something" is true.
# Sure enough, as long as time has existed, there has always been a universe and as long as the universe has existed, there has been time and space. 


> - Explain your reasoning.


# Thus, the only consistent result is that "X exist implies X exist in this universe". Which is what I have said all along. Some theists have tried to argue against that but so far none has succeeded. 


> - If nothing has no attributes, then assume that for an infinite and all-encompassing set of attributes (whereby each attribute has two states: yes and no) that all the attributes = no.  The only way change becomes possible is if one of those attributes changes istates from "no" to "yes."  At which point, [nothing] gains an attribute and ceases to be nothing.  Point accepted.


# Based on that statement, we can conclude that God does not exist.


> - Explain your reasoning.


# Thus, for God, it is not true that "X exist implies X exist in this universe" thus, we can conlude that God does not exist.

Where there is nothing and we see something this is an illusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
> C1. Therefore [nothing] is not alterable.
> C2. Therefore [nothing] cannot change.
> 
> ...


Much like, _This statement is false_ there is much to how you state the problem.

What you really have is three premises: -

P1 <nothing> has no attributes
P2 a <> without attributes cannot change
P3 a <> without attributes is not constrained (aka can change)

From which you conclude that nothing cannot and can change. Clearly the issue is in that you are making contradictory premises at the outset and thus any conclusion will also be contradictory.

So your question really is, *Is it reasonable to believe you can change something with no attributes by which you would recognise the change?*

When the question is so stated the answer is obvious.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Icarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey look!
I found a melding of Faith and Science 
So then, without FAITH of success in SCIENCE, SCIENCE cannot advance.  But, without SCIENCE, FAITH can go beyond the reaches of reason.

^.=.^


----------



## ADF (Apr 19, 2007)

Faith or motivated to prove something you discovered to be true, whatever you want to call it.

I'm just concerned about the motivation to prove that religion and science are related somehow. Is it just the innocent desire to show religion and science are not enemies? Or something more sinister...


----------



## Icarus (Apr 19, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Faith or motivated to prove something you discovered to be true, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> I'm just concerned about the motivation to prove that religion and science are related somehow. Is it just the innocent desire to show religion and science are not enemies? Or something more sinister...



I'm just sick of all the drama and TL;DR these threads cause.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is still not tangible proof to the existence, or lack thereof, of God. In fact, its pure gibberish.

And really, what is wrong with believing in Religion and Science anyway?


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes faith can go beyond reason into absurdity. Blind faith is without reason and no set boundaries that however does not make what you have faith in true. It only makes you have a faith in something that is unfounded and WITHOUT reason.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 19, 2007)

There is nothing wrong with believeing in anything, its when you try to hold others to your religious standards and condem all those who don't think like you, act like you, have the same race, sexuality, creed, god, as you. When you try and brainwash children at an early age to believe in the creation story just to increase your numbers. I've seen it happen it was attempted on me. The people at my former church could care less if you really believed in god as long as you could spout the apostles creed and declaration of faith. As long as you were willing to blindly follow and not question anything they loved you. They hated me with a passion.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 19, 2007)

tigermist said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with believeing in anything, its when you try to hold others to your religious standards and condem all those who don't think like you, act like you, have the same race, sexuality, creed, god, as you. When you try and brainwash children at an early age to believe in the creation story just to increase your numbers. I've seen it happen it was attempted on me. The people at my former church could care less if you really believed in god as long as you could spout the apostles creed and declaration of faith. As long as you were willing to blindly follow and not question anything they loved you. They hated me with a passion.



I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Religion. Not all of us are like that though. I try (keyword) to be understanding to all people. But the Science-types are going to have people like that too; shoving claims thatt God cannot possibly exist due to 'x' 'y' and 'z' reasons. But I understand. It's part of human nature that, no matter where you go, you're bound to meet jerks.


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 20, 2007)

The problem with any and all scientific or logical arguments against the existence of God is that if there IS an omnipotent God, he MADE all the basic functions of the universe, and if he chose for one of those basic functions to be that you can never prove his existence ('I shall never provide proof for proof denies faith'), then hey, guess what? You can't prove his existence.

No, that doesn't in any way prove that he DOES exist, or disprove the possibility that he DOESN'T exist, its just, hey, a little bit of logic to add to the growing pile of it here. IF he exists - and there's no way to conclusively prove that he doesn't - then he made the universe incapable of showing proof of his existence because he wanted it to be that way.

Kindof a mary-sue thing I guess, but its just the basic problem with the idea of trying to argue science vs religion.

The better question is why the hell people without faith feel so threatened by people having faith in something? Does it somehow hinder you from going about your life to know that somebody believes in a flying spaghetti monster? Is it offensive to you, who believe that when you die you simply cease to be, that someone else would like to believe there is something after? If you're right, great, we're all rotting meat when we die. If you're wrong, there's something after this. I personally don't know. I guess I'm agnostic. I simply find that all the beauty and good and wonderful things in this world are just too much to leave to nothing but chance alignments of bits of matter and energy over however many billions of years. Christianity in any of the specific denominations, as well as most organised religions, are so full of holes and contradictions that of course its easy for someone with a more logical mind to dismiss them. But there's so many common threads, it feels like there might be something to the general idea.

And in the end, what if there isn't anything above and beyond what science can see? What if there is no god or hereafter or anything of the sort? We die and turn to dirt, and nothing is around of us afterwards. Why is it a personal threat to you if some people live their lives with the comforting thought of having some higher point to life, and something nice waiting at the end of the often shitty road?

Religion and science aren't two absolutely irreconcilable concepts, nor are they two ideas that can go completely hand in hand. But neither one can trump the other, EVER, because of the most basic ideas of BOTH. Religion says that God will not ever give proof of his existence. Science freely admits that even what it considers LAWS, solidly proven absolutes of the universe, could be disproven at some point in the future as science advances. So Bam, science could be right, it could be wrong, and there's no damn way for anyone to say they can PROVE either way.

So everybody just respect the other person's beliefs, or lack thereof, because what someone else believes isn't hurting you, and the people on either side who act like someone is WRONG if they believe the other, need to go find something better to do with their lives than fume and rant that some random whoever out there in the world believes something you find to be silly.


----------



## Aikon (Apr 20, 2007)

Reading this thread makes my head hurt.  People make a simple concept and turn it into a huge sprawling debate.  I was going to reply to this, but someone will find some "flaw" with my thinking.  Debates aren't fun unless someone gets owned, and so far few look like they know what they heck they're talking about (at least to me).


----------



## Surgat (Apr 20, 2007)

This thread is a trainwreck, and I haven't read all of it (too long), but I'd like to point out that saying "a god created the universe" doesn't really explain anything, since you now have to explain what created the god. If you say "god has always existed," then you have to explain why the physical universe couldn't have always existed. [Someone brought this up earlier]. 

Also: Foxy, check your PM's.


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 20, 2007)

Aikon said:
			
		

> Debates aren't fun unless someone gets owned,



There's a difference between debates for fun and lulz and to see who can 'own' the other, and debates that are meant to be people discussing one another's viewpoints maturely and respectfully.

Not everyone debates to see who will 'win', some people just like exchanging ideas with other people, testing the strength of others' positions, and seeing how well they can defend their own ideas.

Its usually the people chiming in "just for fun" that reduce a mature exchange of views into back and forth "nu-uh! YOU'RE wrong!"

In this particular debate there is NO WAY for either side to "win" or "own" the other. So it can either be two viewpoints being exchanged, discussed, clarified, etc, as some people have been doing rather admirably here, or it can be people seeing who can be the bigger ass... of which there are powerful efforts in that direction as well.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> This thread is a trainwreck,



Not really, despite efforts to the contrary.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> and I haven't read all of it (too long)



Yet you feel qualified to diagnose it as a train wreck.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> but I'd like to point out that saying "a god created the universe" doesn't really explain anything,



Yes it does. "created the universe" kinda covers pretty much everything.



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> since you now have to explain what created the god.



I do? Ok, well God has always.. oh wait, you heard this one.. 



			
				Surgat said:
			
		

> If you say "god has always existed," then you have to explain why the physical universe couldn't have always existed.



Because he hadn't made it yet, silly. ;D

*end sarcasm/post-dissecting*

For the record, no I'm not meaning to be an ass, just trying to point out that in the argument of science vs religion, this is why there can be no winner. Science demands proof to be satisfied, and Religion states that the lack of proof is because God willed it to be so, and that means that as far as Science can ever hope to prove, they are exactly as likely to be right as they are to be wrong.

You can't disprove a proposition which has as a fundamental part of it "this proposition can not be proven." If you demand proof of a God to believe in it, then you are by default never going to have such proof, and so you don't believe in it. Good for you, have a nice life. If you choose to believe something knowing that you will never have solid proof of its existence, that is your choice to do so. If it brings comfort or strength or confidence or whatever, then that belief is a good thing despite being such a threatening concept to people who think you're dumb for believing it.

So how about the people who are here expecting to somehow do what humanity as a whole has never accomplished, and finally prove once and for all on this furry art community forum that God does/doesn't exist, just move along elsewhere and let the people who are here to simply discuss their different opinions (and not trying to 'win' the argument) continue their discussion unhindered?


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

Wolfbone:
I'm understanding where Surgat is coming from.
[thank you, Surgat, for the short K.I.S.S. post  ]

and now for other things:
I'd like to point out the part in Job was it? Where the Creatures Behemoth and Leviathan are stated.
Now, some bible scholars say that this could be used as written evidence that dinosaurs and humans once co-existed.
The thing is that some say that behemoth was a hippopotamus, but it is described as having a tail like a cedar tree.  I don't think that the hippo's tail is that long.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 20, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> I'd like to point out the part in Job was it? Where the Creatures Behemoth and Leviathan are stated.
> Now, some bible scholars say that this could be used as written evidence that dinosaurs and humans once co-existed.
> The thing is that some say that behemoth was a hippopotamus, but it is described as having a tail like a cedar tree.Â Â I don't think that the hippo's tail is that long.




or if you really want to stretch the envelope, dragons


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 20, 2007)

if Leviathan appeared it could destroy the entire world :x


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> Icarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ya I herd that also.
Something also said that a creature had "Flames flicking from it's mouth" or something like that.  And there was that one 7-headed one, wearing 7-crowns.  When it landed a goat came over the hill and started talking.
oi.  Someone drank waaay too much wine.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> if Leviathan appeared it could destroy the entire world :x



???


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 20, 2007)

Levithian seems to refer to whales, or atleast some sort of sea monster:

"There is an ocean, large and wide, where couness creatures live, large and small alike.Â Â The ships sail on it and in it plays Levithan that sea monster which You made" Psalms 104 :25-26

still looking for behemoth...but theres also this one, kinda freaky:

"I looked up and saw a windstorm coming from the north. Lightning was flashing from a huge cloud, and the sky around it was glowing.Â Â Where the lightning was falshing, something shone like bronze.Â Â At the center of the storm I saw what looked like four living creatures in human form,Â Â but each of them had four faces and four wings.Â Â Their legs were straight, and they had hoofs like those of a bull.Â Â They shone like polished bronze.Â Â In addition to their four faces and four wings, they each had four human hands, one under each wing.Â Â Two wings of each creature were spread out so that the creatures formed a square, with their wing tips touching.Â Â When they moved, they moved as a group without turning their bodies. Each creature had four different faces: a human face in front, a lions face at the right, a bulls face at the left and an eagles face at the back." Ezekiel 1:4-10

it goes on further, but then I'd be quotiong practically the whole chapter and its late and i don't feel like writing that much.Â Â Other versions of The Book describe them as being covered in eyes, this is a "Good News" translation if anyone cares.

now I want to find something about behemoths and dragons...


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Yes it does. "created the universe" kinda covers pretty much everything.


P01. Time is required for Change.
P02. A Decision is a Change.
P03. Decisions require Time.
P04. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
P05. Consciousness requires Time.
P06. God is Conscious.
P07. God requires Time.
P08. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
P09. God isn't the cause of Time.
P10. God isn't The First Cause.
P11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
C01. God doesn't exist.

Such a god would have less consciousness than a rock.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 20, 2007)

You still operate under the idea that the concept of time applies to anything but ourselves


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> You still operate under the idea that the concept of time applies to anything but ourselves


God is like an unframed mickey mouse:


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And what shows God needs time? or even that God is conciouse? I'm not saying He isn't but we have no support that He is.Â Â I believe God exists outside of the concept of time, that He isn't bounded by it (in anti-time perhaps?)


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> And what shows God needs time? or even that God is conciouse? I'm not saying He isn't but we have no support that He is.  I believe God exists outside of the concept of time, that He isn't bounded by it (in anti-time perhaps?)



If God Doesnâ€™t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made 

And if god is outside time, then God never had the time to create time

I say it when I am outside the Time offices.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you are outside times, why cant you create time within whatever you are in? if you are Omnipotent, that wouldnt really be an issue.  Also, i never said anything about God changing when decisions are made, or anything about decisions. When are you going to start reading the posts? less people will get mad at you when you do that,and even less when you actually adress the post that your quoting.


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> If you are outside times, why cant you create time within whatever you are in? if you are Omnipotent, that wouldnt really be an issue.  Also, i never said anything about God changing when decisions are made, or anything about decisions. When are you going to start reading the posts? less people will get mad at you when you do that,and even less when you actually adress the post that your quoting.



*Before Time God didn't have enough Time to Decide to Create Time.*

Contemplate this god existing "before" or "outside of time" and then creating time. If there is no time, how could he make the decision that he will make time? Making a decision is an act and has to take place IN TIME so without time how could you decide to make time? God "outside of time" is just bunk. Nothing can be "outside of time" or "outside of space". It is a time and a place that doesn't exist period.

Also: omnipotence have a lot of paradoxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox





			
				themocaw said:
			
		

> Science can tell us a lot about how the world works, but it can't tell us whether doing something is right or wrong.


Have you ever heard of evolution? When humans feel compassion for other humans they tend to help furthering the survival of the species.

Pretty simple.

Because sentient beings (,i.e. beings that can feel pain, and perceive through their senses) generally have an aversion to pain. And it's nothing to do with being a wimp or pussy. Pain and injury inhibit our ability to function in life. If you have a broken leg, are you as mobile as someone without any fractures?





			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> So everybody just respect the other person's beliefs, or lack thereof, because what someone else believes isn't hurting you, and the people on either side who act like someone is WRONG if they believe the other, need to go find something better to do with their lives than fume and rant that some random whoever out there in the world believes something you find to be silly.


Nobody has the right to have their beliefs go unchallenged.

When somebody elses beliefs are going to have an effect on my personal life, such as the policies that govern my country, or when they effect the world my child grows up in, or even worse, when they stagnate the progression of science and actual factual understanding...I believe it is my business. If we are talking about beliefs that ONLY take place in ones head, sure...freedom of thought. But once you become part of a device that has an agenda to effect the lives of others who do not share this thought...there should be checks, balances and challenges.

Plus I think religion is anti-education. It's unfathomable to me that people would want to force their children to literally live on and understand the world through the eyes of early civilizations. To take your concept of how the universe works, or what happens when we die from what people thought 2,000-3,000 years ago. It's really an embarassment. IMO.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> *Before Time God didn't have Time to Decide to Create Time.*



Before Time, God didn't NEED Time to create time. Your statement is amusing because of semantics, but it's as far as it goes. 

We view "Time" as something more or less pure. It's a functional unit, true, but so is an automobile from a certain perspective. Do You need a car to be able to create a car? No. You need the ressources, the tools, and the knowledge, but You don't need a car. Let's imagine that Time, in our metaphor, is a kind of machine. Then, God wouldn't need anything else than tools, ressources, and knowledge to create it. And omnipotence implies that all three elements are part of God. So, God only needs himself to create anything. 

As for omnipotence and it's paradoxes: The stone paradox is flawed, in my opinion. We use omnipotence as a word refering to OUR world. Meaning, it's the ability to achieve any single thing _in this world_. God, being the theoretical creator of the world, would stand above it's laws and rules. Omni-potent, as in able to do everything. As we already have seen in this thread before ( I won't go back to it, since we're going around in circles there ), the "everything" WE refer to isn't necessarily the objective "everything". Hence: Yes, God is omnipotent, as he is able to do anything affecting this world. How the rules are one level above, so to speak, is a bit beyound our comprehension, I'd fathom. 



> Have you ever heard of evolution? When humans feel compassion for other humans they tend to help furthering the survival of the species.
> 
> Pretty simple.


And biologically wrong. 

The estabilished biological Theory is that no animal on earth is interested in the survival of the species, at least not as top priority. An individual is, biologically speaking, only ever interested in preserving and passing down it's own genes. The survival of the species is only a side effect. 

~Sylv


----------



## yuriatayde (Apr 20, 2007)

I'm an idiot, I actually read the entire thread before deciding to post, and I must say... The arguments over what is "[nothing]" are a big example of how, you can make yourself sound right; no matter how little you're saying.

Other then that, more then half the posts were arguing over vocabulary and what different words mean and how you can bend the dictionary around to support claims. This discussion would be alot different if it were in another language. Still, I'm absolutely shocked how, despite attempts for it to become a flamewar, everyone is acting relatively maturely, and you're all awesome for that; subjects like these are never handled this well.

Now I'll get to what I want to type:
"time" is simply a method of documentation, if you want to know exactly when time was created, then you'll have to find the earliest history book known to man, and there you go. It confuses me how many people put so much passion behind trying to explain how the universe was created... It all seems like we just cannot understand "infinite", because *everything* *must* have a beginning and end. Doesn't sound much like science to me.

I would love to hear somebody try to explain "the end of the universe", seriously, this seemingly endless nothing that contains our planet; how can nothing possibly end? Is there a forcefield or something where light and matter can no longer pass threw? If so, how can we say there's "nothing" on the other side without saying that the universe is on the other side? After all, the universe is nothing. (bending words around here, which is logical in a sense but NOT science! Some of you need to realize this.)

"Scientists" sneakily explain that by saying "the universe is constantly expanding at the speed of light"... *coughs*

Meanwhile, I'll point out; I never said anything against any religion. I am NOT an Athiest. I do believe in gods and spirits and powers, however I choose not to worship any of the current gods because there's just too many inconsistencies made by closed minded, uncreative people, and the sheep that listen to everything they have to say.

The "universe" makes so much more sense if you just approach it with an open mind, and the ability to say "I don't understand" without taking a blow to your ego. I experiment with my spirituality, I'm able to focus my energy and it does improve my performance and awareness, by alot even! Science can't prove or disprove it simply because they don't have machines that can detect it. But in a play on words; I did use science to prove my own soul, I used logic and experimented with it until I found enough proof to believe it.


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 20, 2007)

I'm confused about how time and the universe have entered this discussion, to be honest XP. Then again, it's what will eventually happen in discussions like this, they drift on to a subject for which nobody has any answers. I'd much rather be satisfied that I don't know something and, more likely than not, never will know it. About the universe I know nothing, even the most well-versed of people on the subject of the universe know practically nothing. The beginning of the universe and life is just one of those things people can't explain. Substituting "I don't know" for "I DO know, and it is God" is a pretty pathetic practice. God is a fictional character created by people to act as a filler for gaps in human knowledge, and that is all. I'd never venture again to the discussion on whether or not God actually exists, because the subject is utterly pointless. Either you side with ancient dogmatic beliefs that there is one, or you let go of the idea. I've left out agnosticism, because being a middle ground it makes no decisions, so it's pretty much moot to even mention it. There never has been a God and just because you can't supply proof that something has never existed doesn't mean that it suddenly DOES exist. God is an invention of the imagination, and as such it only exists in our concious minds. 

There are a great many things science cannot currently provide answers for, and even more things to which science isn't even suited to answer. Those who talk of spirituality, these feelings have nothing to do with facts or science, they are simply personal manifestations of the imagination. If you think you have a spirit or a soul then you do, it just isn't material. You're not ever going to prove or disprove the existence of something that people create inside of themselves. The only problem is when people start confusing their imagination with reality, and believe that their assumptions about their own world have an external effect on everything, never mind themselves. Science is all about the examination of physical things in our surroundings, and that has sod all to do with things like religion, which are social structures for people with mutual feelings to occupy. The Bible, for instance, isn't a book of facts, it's a book of fiction, written in an age of ignorance and blind assumption about a world so vastly peculiar the prospect of examining it was a very daunting thing indeed. Lack of knowledge was substituted for incoherant stories and wild tales. That's all the teachings of religion ever are, stories. If you want to believe in those then go right ahead, but they are not, and never will be, factual. Science and religion are not suitable opponents, because, as I've said before, they don't try to do the same thing or even operate under the same conditions. Pretending that religion can battle the ideas of science is folly, because it simply cannot. The whole debate people are forcing between the two is merely an attempt for people to push their personal beliefs so far that everybody else must accept them also. It is not enough for them to have their beliefs, because alone we are to doubt ourselves. If millions of others, however, share your assumptions about the universe then you're going to feel better about those beliefs, whether they can or cannot stand up to scrutiny. The ideas of religion are still preserved today, despite how easy it is to contradict them; the ideas of science, however, have changed a great many times throughout the ages. Comparing them is utterly stupid.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Apr 20, 2007)

I am pretty sure this entire thread debate can be answered by watching the last 20 minutes of Akira.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 20, 2007)

Sulacoyote said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure this entire thread debate can be answered by watching the last 20 minutes of Akira.



all I have to say:
http://www.orlyowl.com/Bush_ORLY.jpg


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> You have no clue what Occam's Razor is all about.



Incorrect. I said you applied it incorrectly and stated why. 

This was a constant source of strife among people who feel the need to be condescending to others and tear them down. 

Had you read about it, it was stating how it should be applied and very well stated it couldn't prove the non existence of God. *Whether you chose to believe in God or not is your personal deal*. To try to apply it in any further debates is really circular because, again, it's been stated why Occam's Razor is flawed and cannot work in this instance.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> *Before Time God didn't have enough Time to Decide to Create Time.*
> 
> Contemplate this god existing "before" or "outside of time" and then creating time. If there is no time, how could he make the decision that he will make time? Making a decision is an act and has to take place IN TIME so without time how could you decide to make time? God "outside of time" is just bunk. Nothing can be "outside of time" or "outside of space". It is a time and a place that doesn't exist period.



This point of logic is a lot like someone who can't figure out how they got the fortune in the fortune cookie without breaking it.

Consider this possibility: time does not exist.  What we percieve of as time is travel along a fourth spatial axis.  To use a flatworld-style example: imagine something like an animation reel of film.  Each page is a different moment in time.  Each fractional moment in time is a transition between one "frame" and another.  To the character projected on the screen, the world is two-dimensional, and time is a force that moves inexorably in one direction.  To the man behind the booth, time is a direction of moment: the film moving through the reel.  If he wants, he can turn back the film, or move it forward.  If he wishes, he can pull the film out of the projector and lay out the frames side by side.  Scale that up to a three-dimensional universe instead of a two-dimensional film frame, and you've got a model of how someone can be "outside time."



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> themocaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about compassion.  I was talking about morality.  I fully acknowledge that there can be an evolutionary reason to act compassionately.  However, it does not create a standard of right and wrong.  If, as it seems, you're taking a Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill-ish "the avoidance of pain and the increase of pleasure is the whole of morality" type stand, you have to understand that the end result is pointless or, as said in Ecclesiastes, "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity."  If there is no higher calling, what is the point to your existence?  



> Nobody has the right to have their beliefs go unchallenged.
> 
> When somebody elses beliefs are going to have an effect on my personal life, such as the policies that govern my country, or when they effect the world my child grows up in, or even worse, when they stagnate the progression of science and actual factual understanding...I believe it is my business. If we are talking about beliefs that ONLY take place in ones head, sure...freedom of thought. But once you become part of a device that has an agenda to effect the lives of others who do not share this thought...there should be checks, balances and challenges.
> 
> Plus I think religion is anti-education. It's unfathomable to me that people would want to force their children to literally live on and understand the world through the eyes of early civilizations. To take your concept of how the universe works, or what happens when we die from what people thought 2,000-3,000 years ago. It's really an embarassment. IMO.



Finally, here is the crux of the problem.

Science feels threatened because religion is butting into their field: the study of the natural world.  However, science must also understand that they have also overstepped their boundaries into fields of ethics and morality.  To many members of the religious community, "evolution" is comparable to "Social Darwinism:" i.e. "in the wild, the fittest survive, so the powerful and strong have a right to exploit the weak."  By taking a physical fact (the fact of natural selection) and ascribing an ethical viewpoint to it (that it is right and proper for the strong to exploit the weak) it furthered an agenda itself: I won't say the most stunning example of that agenda to avoid invoking Godwin's Law.

Science is not blameless, and religion is not wholly evil, and the vice versa also holds true.  Failing to see that results in too narrow a point of view.


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 20, 2007)

> Science feels threatened because religion is butting into their field: the study of the natural world.  However, science must also understand that they have also overstepped their boundaries into fields of ethics and morality.  To many members of the religious community, "evolution" is comparable to "Social Darwinism:" i.e. "in the wild, the fittest survive, so the powerful and strong have a right to exploit the weak."  By taking a physical fact (the fact of natural selection) and ascribing an ethical viewpoint to it (that it is right and proper for the strong to exploit the weak) it furthered an agenda itself: I won't say the most stunning example of that agenda to avoid invoking Godwin's Law.



I wouldn't say threatened, because the ideas of religion do not threaten science, considering the fact that they don't operate using the same system as science. The ideas of science are threatened by other scientific ideas, not dogmatism. Science does not impose itself on morality, it attempts to explain the origin of morality in terms of what is already understood about living social beings. That is a very different thing. Religion tells you what is right and wrong, science does not.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

Roary correct. 

I think there are those too tied into the rituals of religion to understand that science is just explaining things. There will be conflicts because of beliefs and faith. To me, the Bible, and other religious scriptures were metaphors and ways of explaining great things in a time where people didn't understand how science worked. They also had stories or tales of how to treat people. As times changed so do ideas. Despite the fact commandments were written in stone  they were ways of helping more chaotic societies have some sense of order.

Now we have come upon many improvements and changes in societies, things that were meant to be taken literally because of lack of technological improvements no longer need apply. However, they can help someone when they feel lost as to how to act, since scriptures are a guide.

Occam's Razor's purpose was to look at items that needed to be examined to know their workings for scientific research and eliminate the possibility of "well if God doesn't exist, how does this work?". It's as simple as that. It can't itself disprove the concept of God itself, so trying to use it, is a very faulty tactic. I God exists, it's not like he's/she's/whatever's striking you down with lightning for doing research. That doesn't mean because God is not doing that, the entity doesn't exist...because it's entirely possible that God wants you to argue over the existence so you can question your reason for being here and explore the way things are created.


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 20, 2007)

As someone who has made a little study of the history of the Catholic church in the middle ages and the reformation and counter-reformation, I cannot help but feel that religion is a human creation.

The history of religion is the history of power struggles, wars, economics, ideology and everything *material.*

Gods have nothing to do with it, whether or not Charles V is occupying Rome has everything to do with it. Eternal truths and dogmas for all time bow in the face of political expediancy and whether or not you're being offered a heap of gold.

To be fair, I suppose isn't much scientific about that, but It's the conclusion I have reached after viewing a lot of evidence.

If a man came up to me telling me that he could turn Â£100 of my money into Â£10,000, I'd not give him a penny till he proved it to me. Likewise, I'll belive in a deity when I see some proof. The decision would have far more riding on it after all.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 20, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> If a man came up to me telling me that he could turn Â£100 of my money into Â£10,000, I'd not give him a penny till he proved it to me. Likewise, I'll belive in a deity when I see some proof. The decision would have far more riding on it after all.



Dave,

Please clarify "The decision would have far more riding on it."


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 20, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> Dave,
> 
> Please clarify "The decision would have far more riding on it."



If I don't belive in (a) certain deity/ies, I might suffer eternal torment and/or other bad things. Some representitives of deities say that, and there is nothing to prove them wrong.

Eternal torment could have a very big impact on one's life.

Therefore I need to have overwhelming evidence which proves the existence/s of these diety/ies in order that I might not make the wrong decision.

Not to mention that if there is a loving and kind benevolent god/s out there, I will be judged on the basis of my actions in life anyway, not my belief or lack thereof in it/them.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 20, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> themocaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly, my faith is that I don't care what you believe.  Faith without works is dead, and by your works we shall know them.  I think it was CS Lewis in "The Catechism of Narnia" "The Last Battle" who said something like, "All the good things you do in the name of the devil belong to God, all the bad things you do in God's name are of the devil."

So I guess, in the end, this thread was kinda pointless for me.  Proving that God exists through logic or science means nothing: if he exists, he exists.  If he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist.  If he's just an evolutionary hiccup designed to keep me from falling into suicidal despair at the thought of death, I guess I'll feel kinda stupid after I'm dead (no, I won't because I'll be dead.)  If I live a good life and find out I'm gonna burn in hell because I believed in the wrong God. . . I guess the only thing I can do is follow the example of Huckleberry Finn from Mark Twain and say, "All right, I'll GO to hell."


----------



## themocaw (Apr 20, 2007)

Roarey Raccoon said:
			
		

> > Science feels threatened because religion is butting into their field: the study of the natural world.Â Â However, science must also understand that they have also overstepped their boundaries into fields of ethics and morality.Â Â To many members of the religious community, "evolution" is comparable to "Social Darwinism:" i.e. "in the wild, the fittest survive, so the powerful and strong have a right to exploit the weak."Â Â By taking a physical fact (the fact of natural selection) and ascribing an ethical viewpoint to it (that it is right and proper for the strong to exploit the weak) it furthered an agenda itself: I won't say the most stunning example of that agenda to avoid invoking Godwin's Law.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say threatened, because the ideas of religion do not threaten science, considering the fact that they don't operate using the same system as science. The ideas of science are threatened by other scientific ideas, not dogmatism. Science does not impose itself on morality, it attempts to explain the origin of morality in terms of what is already understood about living social beings. That is a very different thing. Religion tells you what is right and wrong, science does not.



Thank you, Roary.  I wish the Creation "Scientists" and the Social Darwinists could have your insight.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do you know that "God" thinks like a human?
=3


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> How do you know that "God" thinks like a human?


If God Isnâ€™t Conscious. Why Worship Something That Canâ€™t Even Know You Exist?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Icarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Logical Fault, "thinking" is a broad term. Conscious is not relating to this term properly. The conclusion at the end, derails.


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Logical Fault, "thinking" is a broad term. Conscious is not relating to this term properly. The conclusion at the end, derails.


To thinking is an act.

P1. To act, God must go through a prior temporal process of decision
P2. God is atemporal
P3. Since God is atemporal, God cannot go through a temporal process of decision
P4. God cannot decide to do anything
C1. No creation = No creator





> Consider this possibility: time does not exist. What we percieve of as time is travel along a fourth spatial axis. To use a flatworld-style example: imagine something like an animation reel of film. Each page is a different moment in time. Each fractional moment in time is a transition between one "frame" and another. To the character projected on the screen, the world is two-dimensional, and time is a force that moves inexorably in one direction. To the man behind the booth, time is a direction of moment: the film moving through the reel. If he wants, he can turn back the film, or move it forward. If he wishes, he can pull the film out of the projector and lay out the frames side by side. Scale that up to a three-dimensional universe instead of a two-dimensional film frame, and you've got a model of how someone can be "outside time."


There's some famous physicist who is working on modelling the universe as possibly globally entangled into a single state, shifting configuration from one moment to the next (but I can't remember his name at present).

Oh yeah - Julian Barbour.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_index.html


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which goes back to what the user said, the thought process God uses may not use the same process of "thinking" as a regular human. Hence again, goes back to my point that thinking is actually a broad term in the sense we're applying terms we know as a human and how other humans think.

So again, this fails.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Icarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Noooo....
I'm asking that what if human thought isn't how all things think?
Like say, what if (and this is if for some of you out there) extraterrestial life came to earth, would they think the same as Humans?  Most likely not because they are from a different planet and have evolved differently.


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Which goes back to what the user said, the thought process God uses may not use the same process of "thinking" as a regular human. Hence again, goes back to my point that thinking is actually a broad term in the sense we're applying terms we know as a human and how other humans think.


Thoughts are located in your brain, they exist spatio-temporal. For example, thoughts that you have now are spatio-temporal patterns of firing neurons in your brain, and they can cause your muscles to act.

Even computers need time to make the initial Decision to create time thus precluding that possibility.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again with the concept of how *we* think in terms of science as *we* know it. So this goes again in circles. Computers were created by man. So again this invalidates the argument since there is a possibility of "thinking" that isn't the way we know it.

So what happened before the Big Bang, and why did it occur? We ask these questions due to our linear lines of thinking, which do of course, involves time as we currently know it.


----------



## Bloodangel (Apr 20, 2007)

Hmmm, this is all fairly deep stuff.

The thing is though, I've been an atheist for a long time not because I thought "There's no way god exists." but because I just thought religion was like the reassuring hand on your shoulder that never left. I stopped with all the religion because I feel I have friends and family I can turn to for support. I don't need religion any more.

I stand by science because I can touch it and see it and interact with it. I still wonder if some deity is gonna give me a slap in the back of the head sometimes though. If a god exists, I'd love to talk to it. It'd probably know all the best jokes.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 20, 2007)

The arguement of time in itself is flawed. Its a man made device to track the movement of the seasons, which in themselves are sporatic with changes in the jet stream and oceanic currents. What about a black hole, the gravity is thought to be so strong even time is warped. 

The bible is writen so cleverly, by man, that it leaves holes for god to get around all the man made laws of science. You will find that with almost all religious text. Now how about instead of trying to disprove the other we just learn to disagree and live together peacably. Let religion be religion and let science be science. Stop getting in each others way and let each teach its own theories, laws, and beliefs.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

Bloodangel said:
			
		

> If a god exists, I'd love to talk to it. It'd probably know all the best jokes.



Of course God has a sense of humor, that's why the platypus exists!


----------



## foxy (Apr 20, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Again with the concept of how *we* think in terms of science as *we* know it. So this goes again in circles. Computers were created by man. So again this invalidates the argument since there is a possibility of "thinking" that isn't the way we know it.
> 
> So what happened before the Big Bang, and why did it occur? We ask these questions due to our linear lines of thinking, which do of course, involves time as we currently know it.


The universe has always existed, with or without a big bang; but most religions differentiate between an animate God and the inanimate universe.

The question i would like to know is: How can there be a possibility of "thinking" without Time?

P1. Time is a measurement of motion and change.
P2. A timeless state cannot contain motion and change.
P3. God is timeless.
C1. God, being without time and motion, cannot bring about change.

Change presupposes time or time presupposes change. In fact they seem so closely related that you cannot think of one without the other. "outside of time" is an illusory place, much like santa's workshop in the north pole, the mysterious place 100 degrees north or the even more mysterious "heaven". Neither of those three places are actual places. A "place" have to be IN SPACE and therefore have to be IN the universe.

So not only do "outside of time" not exist as an actual dimensional location in time but even if it did, it wouldn't be able to change anything in it.

True, there are things or concepts that are timeless. I.e. the time dimension does not enter the equations. Mathematical truths is of this kind. 2 + 2 equals 4, it is not that it was equal to 4 yesterday but might equal 5 tomorow or that it might some day in the future equal 20. It equals 4 in a timeless fashion. Guess what? There is no "change" in mathematical truths, they remain constant - frozen. Is this how your god is like?

It is the only way we can understand "outside of time", any other way is meaningless. Especially when you start blabbering about "outside of time but still able to change". That is similar to stating that something is a circle but still identical to a square. It is pure and utter non-sense.

In fact, the lack of change in mathematics was one of the reasons why it took a very long time from mathematicians formed the concept of "limit" until they had a good grasp of how to express it in mathematical terms. The intuitive understanding of "limit" is simple enough:

Lim f(x) = L
x -> a

Means that "as x approaches a, f(x) approaches L". The problem here is that since math is "outside of time" there is no concept of "approaching" in math. So mathematicians struggled for a long time to find a way to express this idea mathematically. After centuries using only an intuitive understanding of limit they finally came up with the modern understanding:

For any epsilon > 0 there exist a delta > 0 such that |x - a| < delta => |f(x) - L| < epsilon

Note that the expression above is timeless, there is no "approaching" in it at all yet it expresses fundamentally the same as the intuitive understanding of limit. The reason why it is possible is because math is fundamentally timeless so you simply have to come up with a timeless way of something that expresses more or less "the same" as the timed expression "f(x) approaches L as x approeaches a" by removing the temporal aspect.

Of course, the fact that you do remove the temporal aspect means that they are not really the same or equivalent. However, that has to be done since math is unable to express temporal statements by itself.

Of course, you could add in a temporal aspect to math. It is possible to make statements where time is explicitly included such as "John was hungry yesterday" here the "yesterday" introduces time into the proposition. A similar thing can be done in mathematical equations also, f(x) = x*x if day = wednesday otherwise sqrt(x). On wednesdays this function is x square on other days it is square root!

Of course, such functions are difficult to handle, one way is to add the time as an extra explicit variable, so it is really f(x,d) = if d == wednesday then x * x else sqrt(x)
Of course, you can derivate such a function on x but not n d since d is here a discrete variable. However, by using t as a continuous time variable you could derivate it on t as well.

Now,with such explicit time you can use the original intuitive formulation of limit if you can express what "x approaches y" means. It turns out that that is simple enough: Regard x and y as variables that changes over time so it is x(t) and y(t) (y might be constant and so is always equal to L or a but that is ok).

Then |x(t) - y(t)| becomes less the for higher values of t or put in another way: t1 < t2 => |x(t2) - y(t2)| < |x(t1) - y(t1)|

This is what "x approeaches y" means in math, so now you can express the limit:

Limit f(x) = L
x -> a

means "f(x) approaches L as x approaches a" can then be translated to "U as V" so what does "as" means here? Well, you could say "U and V" but if U is not true, we do not say anything about V so it is rather "if U then V" or "V or not U"

so: t1 < t2 => |f(x(t2)) - L| < |f(x(t1)) - L| or not |x(t2) - a| < |x(t1) - a|

Of course, in math you don't really care about the time aspect, if it was ssuch that |x(t2) - a| >= |x(t1) - a| then you can simply reverse the other also and in seeing this you see that the time t1 really doesn't enter into it. It is irrelevant and so you can remove the time variable and you rather introduce the epsilon and deltas and so you end up with the definition that is used in math today.

The bottom line here is that "time" and "change" are closely related and talking about "change" without "time" is non-sense and that it is exactly the "outside of time" aspect of math that has historically caused problems for mathematicians since they as we all are so used to time and thinking in temporal terms that expressing these things in a timeless manner has proven difficult. Given that limit was in use centuries before the timeless epsilon/delta definition this should be obvious.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> The universe has always existed, with or without a big bang; but most religions differentiate between an animate God and the inanimate universe.
> 
> The question i would like to know is: How can there be a possibility of "thinking" without Time?
> 
> ...



Correct, most religions do. This is as I said in a previous post having to do with people trying to explain concepts with a limited experience. What people understood back then is different than what we know now, and especially since people understand things.

However, even now that understanding is limited. Think about this...if the engineers who know how to build the materials for say a car, or high end electrical equipment disappeared. How many people in current day and age ...the average Joes would be able to build a car from scratch, and the kind of cars we have now?

That's why scriptures are the way they are. It would be like trying to explain the concept of "Car" where things like "microchips" "fuel intake" "engine block" and other such concepts that would be really foreign to them. Hell, it's still foreign to me 

Now the thinking and time thing relate again to scientific discovery in current times. It doesn't explain everything unfortunately. At least not with the current scope of our knowledge. I mean think about that ..."Balloon" theory when describing the universe. The universe is everything yet it is expanding. When someone brings out a balloon to demonstrate the point we know there is SPACE around the balloon. If the universe is EVERYTHING how can it expand if we conceptualize space for the universe to fill up?

I'm not afraid of the possibility of God not existing or a God that was once one of us beings, that gained knowledge and perhaps we're the victims of "Do-Over" in terms of creation  I'm also not afraid of God being a concept we don't understand. 

But like I said before, the reason for Occam's Razor was so that you'd solve situations for scientific discovery with a disbelief of God's presence. That way you find out why cells divide, how time currently works...etc. Instead of going "Oh yeah, that's God's doing!"


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 20, 2007)

for some reason this thread reminds me of a Family Guy clip.

Pope: SMITE THEM!!!
-------*standing around*-----
Pope: Hes-a cookin' up somethin' *glaring*


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

If the "soul" is part of the brain, then why isn't personality a heritance?
I thought I saw in an earlier TL;DR that one of us here *ahem* said that the soul was just part of the brain.
So, why is it then that my parents are neat-freaks and I'm more messy?
And why is it that Dad loves airplanes and I love Biology?
And why do I love biology/herpetology/marine biology over my parent's work of choice fav's, Engineering?

Saying that the soul is part of the brain is like saying that an earthworm will one day take over the human race...it just doesn't work.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 20, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this is 
Religion/(spirituality) v Science.
Not 
Religion/(spirtuality) v Time or
Time v Science

Stop using a straw man.

[size=xx-large]I C WUT U DID THAR[/size]


----------



## tigermist (Apr 21, 2007)

I understand that time is important because it pertains to creation but your argueing is circles.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 21, 2007)

Foxy

I will say simply this: Your "God" is too small.

You insist on a "God" that thinks and acts like a human being, that can be proven by human thought and can be grasped in its entirety by human minds.  Then you ridicule that "God" for being insufficiently powerful.  That's all I have to say.


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 21, 2007)

God is a human creation, so God must operate within the scope of the human imagination. His thinking in the Bible is easily grasped by human minds, as they are ready and willing to see his reasoning and follow his commands. God experiences human emotions such as jealousy, anger and love. The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, which would mean we are very much alike. However, it was really the other way around; God always agrees with the people who pretend to speak for him. What a load of old toss :F.


----------



## ADF (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm not going to touch anything new in this thread with this post; I just want peoples opinions on something. I was listening to an online radio show a while back and the host explained why he believes all religions are wrong, it went something like this.

â€œIf god is infinite, then even the smallest piece of him is also infinite. The human mind is finite, and religious texts are man made, so then how can any religion even hope to understand the entirety of god? The entirety of the infinite?â€

So in essence no religion can be correct, our limited mental capacity makes it impossible to cover the entirety that is god, since even the smallest part of him would be beyond the understanding of our finite perception and understanding. It doesn't challenge whether or not there is a god, but whether humans can possibly create a religion that is correct.

What is everyone's opinions on this?


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 21, 2007)

> So in essence no religion can be correct, our limited mental capacity makes it impossible to cover the entirety that is god, since even the smallest part of him would be beyond the understanding of our finite perception and understanding. It doesn't challenge whether or not there is a god, but whether humans can possibly create a religion that is correct.
> 
> What is everyone's opinions on this?



First there would have to be reasons to suppose that there is even a being that is entirely beyond our powers of perception or understanding. Of course, should a being such as that exist we wouldn't know about it, so basically it's completely pointless to even muse on the idea. The ideas behind religion are total shite, not because we are unable to comprehend God, because we evidently can. The ideas are shite because they claim things they can never verify, and from those outlandish claims yet more assumptions are made, and even solid rules are constructed from them. It's like building a house made of water, the foundations just aren't there.


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 21, 2007)

ADF's pretty much got it.

God or no God, the universe itself is beyond our understanding. We think we know x and y and whatever, with our concepts of physics and such, but science constantly produces new theories and disproves old ones that had been thought to be the end-all, be-all truth. Declaring that the universe functions this way or that way with no acknowledgment that we could be wrong is every single bit as ignorant and faulty as people claiming that God works this way or that way and 'x' religion is the right one.

We used to think the Universe was infinite. Recently, we've begun to say it might be finite. People try to put limitations on things because without limitations, without set parameters, we can't understand them. There is bound to be something out there beyond our understanding; in all the workings of the universe we have come to understand (or think we do) in the last century or two, it is simply _stupid_ to think that there aren't still an infinite number of things we aren't even aware of in our universe.

You can't see or feel an atom, or photons, or other subatomic particles. But we trust they are there. "But scientists HAVE seen them." Yeah, well who here on this thread has ever had access to such equipment and can say with certainty that "scientists" aren't just full of shit and lying to people, telling them things to gain the trust and following of the ignorant masses in order to try and push their agenda onto the world. Nobody. Everyone here just goes on _faith_ that what science says it has proven is actually true.

Am I saying I don't believe in atoms? No, of course not. I'm just saying that I, personally, myself, have no more reason to believe in what science says than what I have to believe in what religion says. The same goes for anyone else here on this thread who isn't some sort of professional physicist (forgive me for calling anyone who says they are a liar) with nothing better to do than _debate on a furry forum_. None of us have any proof beyond what we can see and touch other than what someone else tells us they "know" to be true. We choose to believe whatever we choose to believe on _faith_ that what we're being told is true. That applies for religion AND for all aspects of science beyond what we can observe first-hand for ourselves.

'Pssh.. you believe light is made of tiny particles? Prove it.'

'It IS proven, this guy wrote this paper, he tested with machines, and its a FACT, I know it!'

'Yeah, well this guy saw a dude turn water into wine and walk on water and come back from the dead. He wrote a paper too.'

'Pfft, I'll believe it when I see it.'

'How many protons have you seen for yourself?'

***dead silence of realization*** -or- ***futile assertion of "its not the same!!"***

None of us know shit about shit other than what we are told by other bigger, smarter, more important people than us. Some people believe people in robes, others believe people in labcoats. Then some of us are open to the idea that NONE of them have it all exactly right, and maybe both sides have merit. The people who put their _blind faith_ completely and unfalteringly that one side or the other is infallible are the most ignorant and they are the ones who are the source of conflict in the issue.


----------



## Icarus (Apr 21, 2007)

Did the climax and moral of the story finally come?


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 21, 2007)

Icarus said:
			
		

> Did the climax and moral of the story finally come?



It's come and gone a few times I think, just doesn't seem to stick.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 21, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> What is everyone's opinions on this?



Hmh. Maybe it's time to put up my theory =). 

Okay, let's start from the beginning: First of all, we assume that there is some kind of God, otherwise, all theories regarding the Nature of God would be pointless. Second, let's assume a God that created the Universe and us, being bound by that universe's rules, wants us to have a vague Idea of his/hers/it's intentions; if not, all theories would be pointless, again. If it is, however, the case, the way to understand a theoretical God's nature must be reflected in Creation. The one universal rule according to which the things around us work is arguably logic; hence, God's Nature can be identified by logic ( still assuming such an identification is possible ).

  Essentially, there are a bunch of different sorts of Nature a God could have: The Caring God, The Indifferent God, The Vengeful God and The Too-Alien-For-Us-To-Understand-God. 
  I think one can safely overrule the Vengeful God Theory. Every day we see examples of "good people" living happily as well as "bad people" living equally happily. If God was vengeful, surely certain People who have the same set of characteristic or behave similarly would sufer the same fate. 
 In case of an indifferent God, this God would not care whether we believed in him or not. Same for the TAFUTU-God: being an Entity of supreme knowledge ( created the world, after all ), such a God couldn't expect us to understand it's nature, ergo can't condemn the ones who misinterpret it. A God of such a nature would be irrelevant to us.

 What we are left with, is a God that to some degree cares about whom he/she/it ( how should we describe a God, anyways? "It" would be most appropriate, but has a negative connotation ) created. 
 Now, by definition, the Creator of the World would be ( in relative terms ) infinitely more wise than human beings. Infinite knowledge equals infinite understanding. It is right here where the concept of a hell or damnation can be easily dropped: Infinite understanding makes a Forgiving God. In a similar manner that a parent would not condemn a child for things it has done wrong because he understood why it acted the way it did, God would understand our motives, know why we act the way we do and not otherwise. So the only thing we could be truly judged for would be our intentions. 
 Furthermore, there is no reason to assume such a God would not want us to be happy. However, since he would care for each human equally, our pursuit of happiness would have one restriction: Not conciously causing any harm to our fellow humans. 
 Another conclusion: such a God would most probably not care whether people believe in him or not. As our creator, he would understand that most of us believe only what we see; such is the nature of man. Yet as we already estabilished that ( at least spiritually ) good intentions are the only thing that really matters, and those do not require belief in a particular God. On the contrary; if we assume we have been given our ability to think logically, think _for ourselves_, it would stand to reason that such a God would be more disappointed ( figuratively speaking ) in someone who blindly follows a religion ( even if it happens to be correct ) than in someone who asks questions and does not totally rely on the words of others. 

 So, as a conclusion, what would a theoretical God want? That we strive for happiness while in the same time not harm others, that we, in general, lead a good life, regardless of belief ( or non-belief ). Since this is a stance that is also acceptable to atheists ( very few of those think that we should go at each other's throats, lie, cheat, killi and rape ) and would be, logically, the best thing to do ( as long as everyone did it ), it's more or less a win-win situation. If You believe in a God, that's great for You - You are doing His will. If You don't ( or there is no God in the end, or he/she/it is an indifferent or too-alien God after all), it's okay, too - You lead a good life. 

Of course, this is just a theory, and I may be totally wrong. With the number of ( necessary ) assumptions I made, it's even probable that I'm wrong. But some assumptions just have to be made. 

This would be an example of how we can try to get a vague Idea of God's Nature. Note that I tried not to make any absolute claims; and I think that is the problem with most religions: They do. Truth is that they are trying to understand God, but can never be certain whether their interpretation is correct. If they would only remember this, noone would really have a problem with religion, I'd fathom.



			
				Roarey Raccoon said:
			
		

> God is a human creation, so God must operate within the scope of the human imagination. His thinking in the Bible is easily grasped by human minds, as they are ready and willing to see his reasoning and follow his commands. God experiences human emotions such as jealousy, anger and love. The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, which would mean we are very much alike. However, it was really the other way around; God always agrees with the people who pretend to speak for him. What a load of old toss :F.



Don't get me wrong, but how is saying "God is a human creation" any different than saying "You are an Atheist so God will make You burn in Hell"? 



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> -lots of good points-



Thank You for putting in words what I was thinking, yet felt unable to express. There's only one catch: With a lot of effort, one can earn a lab coat and see for oneself. But then again, maybe with a lot of different kind of effort, one can earn enlightment and see for oneself, too - just that, like with the lab coats, most people don't bother. 

~Sylv


----------



## foxy (Apr 21, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> What is everyone's opinions on this?



Maybe it's time to put up my ''theory'' too.

P1. Things I imagine can be made more powerful than anything existing (because, existence is limited by attributes, but my thoughts are not limited by existence).
P2. God is the most powerful being that can be imagined (by his very definition).
P3. A non existing being is much more powerful (can be thought of as much more powerful) than any existing being (from P1).
C1. God is an nonexistent, imaginary being (from P1 and P2).

Imagine I posit that a SuperGod created God, since everything must have a cause. I can then state that the existence of my SuperGod cannot be subjected to logical proof because my SuperGod transcends logic. I am thus admitting that it is logically impossible to prove my SuperGod exists. However, since my SuperGod transcends logic, I can also claim that you cannot logically prove my SuperGod doesn't exist. I am comfortable knowing you haven't disproved me. The fact that I haven't proved anything myself doesn't make that comfort any less, well, comfortable.

And because my SuperGod isn't bound by logic, the following will be true:

P1. You have to believe in Jesus (follow him, worship him etc.) to be saved.
P2. I don't believe in Jesus (don't follow him, don't worship him etc.)
-------------------------------------------
C1. Therefore I will be saved (illogical conclusion from P1 and P2)

One of the easiest ways for a believer to reassure themselves that their belief is justified is by placing their belief beyond criticism. Thus, when it becomes obvious that God's existence is logically impossible (or at least not logically provable), the only favorable recourse is to then posit that God transcends logic and thus applying logic is useless. That some ironically package this as logic is irrelevant.

We assume time began at the point the universe began. OK, so how does this prove a first cause? Why couldn't the universe just spontaneously pop into existence? After all, it is no less likely that the universe did just this than God. You can't deny infinity and then use it as an argument for first cause; think about it - if God created time, then before he created it, he must have existed infinitely since not having a concept of time, everything happens at once. But that's impossible, because without time, there is no such thing as "before". Therefore, if God created time, he must have created himself whilst doing so, which of course is absurd. Unless you admit that God existed infinitely which brings me back to the fact that you can't deny infinity when attempting to prove a first cause - why even does one need to posit a creator if one can already accept that something exists infinitely and thus just apply that same principle to the universe? The universe, in some sense existed infinitely because until the universe came about, there was no "before" (there being no time). And if the universe existed infinitely then there is no need to posit a first cause.

It's also logically impossible that everything needs a cause, and yet there be a first cause. It's a self-contradiction and therefore logically impossible.

However, I can't see why infinite regress is impossible. It is merely because the concept of infinite is hard for humans to grasp that we assume it's not possible. However, if we are to believe time began at the time of the universes birth, then, in some sense, the universe has existed infinitely.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 21, 2007)

Spirit Wolf said:
			
		

> You say God had no time to create time.. but you forget "time" is a man made concept. There really is no "time" like we perceive it. It is just that: a concept.



Time is a word used to label a real world concept. Time is real, there is no doubt about that.


----------



## ADF (Apr 21, 2007)

What does everyone think about the big crush theory then? With it in mind there is no need for a beginning or an end, it can be a continuous process.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 21, 2007)

I must have missed something but, why are we arguing about time? If God existed, then time existed because there was something in existence to measure time by. That something being God? Both science and religion leave many unanswered questions. For instance, where did God come from? And the Big Bang fails to give a reason for the existence of matter and energy. It basically just gives a theory for an explaination of the state of our current universe. Both fail miserably by only explaining things from a specific point. God did not have the time to create time, but why argue that God created time? It's pointless.


----------



## foxy (Apr 21, 2007)

There's a major weakness of nearly all proofs for good. I use the first cause proof as an example:

(P1) Everything in existence has a cause.
(P2) It is not reasonable to assume an infinite chain of causes.
(C1) So there must have been a first cause.
(C2) This first cause we call god.

Now let us pretend for a moment that we accept the proof, that is, we don't take a look at the contradictions ((P1) contradicts (P2), (C1) contradicts (P1) and (P2) and so on). So we come to think that (C1) must be true.

What has been proven? That there must be a first cause. It is not proven what kind of first cause there has been. There are a lot of possibilities. Let's list a few of them:
One god has caused the universe to exist.
Two gods have caused the universe to exist.
Three gods (and so on, until we have an infinite number of gods) have created the universe.
Every of these gods could have been a material being.
Every god could have had limited power and limited knowledge.
Every god could have died in the process.
The creation of the universe could have been a side-effect of some other purpose (e. g. an accident), so no god cares for the universe.
One or more gods could have transformed themselves to the universe, this could even been an act of god-suicide.
A natural force could have been the first cause (e. g. a quantum fluctuation).
Everything of the above in some combination.
The universe could have been its own first cause.
Another universe could have been the cause of this universe.
A superior civilization in another universe could have created this universe.
In the future, a civilization could build a time machine and create the universe, simply because this is necessary.
At the end of time the universe could create a god that will be able to exist out of time and this god will create the universe, just because this god would otherwise destroy its own existence.
There could be a time-loop - at the end of time the universe will recreate itself and start all over, just because that will be necessary.
And so on ... (listing all possibilities would make this posting one of the longest postings on this board)
Going from (C1) to (C2) is just a non sequitur. It does not follow that the first cause has to be a god or something like that.

So far this proves only one thing: a lack of creativity on behalf of the theists. Because they believe that there is a god, they can't think of other first causes. There is simply no reason to assume that one special god has created the universe. Seems that believing in something harms your creativity.

In nearly every case (except for ontological arguments which have problems of their own) these proofs prove too little. This is true for the design argument - there is no reason to suppose that the designer is a personal, non-material being, on the contrary, this could have been an impersonal force (and we have every reason to suppose this - e. g. evolution). If we take the theistic anthropic principle, there is no reason to assume that a god has fine-tuned the universe,anything could have done that instead.

Going from (C1) to (C2) in every "proof" is just a big, big leap in faith, not supported by anything. The sheer number of possibilities is just a sign of how unlikely a god is. Only a lack of creativity makes it possible to suppose that there is a god.

So even if this proof is perfect, I still see no reason to believe that the Christian god has created the universe. I find it always astonishing to see that theists overlook this major weakness in their kind of reasoning.

So I conclude that the proof even fails if we take its logic for granted. The proof tells us more about how erroneously theistic reasoning is. God is no explanation for the existence of the universe.


----------



## Epsereth (Apr 21, 2007)

Has anyone yet realized that arguing about the existence of a god is going to go nowhere? Either you believe in one or you don't believe in one, and because it's an unprovable matter there are infinite arguments for either side. It's not like this hasn't been debated nonstop forever. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing the God Threads bumped. 

Seriously. It's UNPROVABLE. No logic or un-logic will work. Spirituality? Sure. Talk away. God? Homg stoppit already, unless it's actual discussion about your own religion rather than this cyclical "Yuh huh!", "Nuh uh!" bullhockey.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 21, 2007)

Umm...why? It's intriguing, to say the least. Plus, since the threads pop up, there's obviously a need to talk about it. 

~Sylv


----------



## Epsereth (Apr 21, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Umm...why? It's intriguing, to say the least. Plus, since the threads pop up, there's obviously a need to talk about it.
> 
> ~Sylv




It's redundant and cyclical, and never goes anywhere; and no matter how many times the wheels go round and round, it just incites drama once certain themes are touched upon. I just don't see any point because I have yet to see a forum thread where anyone actually convinces anyone else that they're right ... no matter how TL;DR it gets. If there were such a "need to talk about it," I doubt it would only ever be a place where people just state their opinions and never move away from them. 

It's like standing on a dirt field and throwing dirt at each other - it's a bottomless source of ammunition and there's never any reason to yield one way or another. You only ever get mad.

The wrong issue is being addressed. A good debate is not one with no feasible end.


----------



## ADF (Apr 21, 2007)

Err Foxy, it is hard to say with the length of your post, but I don't think that addresses the question.

The question was what do people think about the big crush theory, in relation to the passing of time, and how it is a continuous process rather than something with a beginning and a end. Not really about proof for/against creationism and how religion is wrong *shrug*

Unless I misread your point, in that case please clarify.


----------



## tigermist (Apr 21, 2007)

See I love debate and learning others opinions. 

This is just one of those things were I'm going to plead stupid. I don't much care fore religion and I don't have a problem with that. I'm going to live my life the best way I know how and if that isn't enough....oh well at least hell will be warm.


----------



## Kittiara (Apr 22, 2007)

I don't believe organized religion is true at all.Â Â I prefer to call them 'man-made' religions.Â Â I think the concept of a God or gods is entirely created by humans, as are books such as the Bible, Torah, and Qu'ran.

However, I believe that the Universe is unknowable and we comprehend very little.Â Â I trust science a lot, because it explains how the world/our galaxy works, at least a little.Â Â But I'm still pretty spiritual.Â Â I mean, I think that if any 'powers' are 'out there', all it is is the Universe doing it's normal thing.Â Â To us it's amazing because we're dumb little humans, but it's all a matter of course for something as astounding as the Universe in its entirety.

And I just... well, I don't *care.*Â Â We'll either find out everything once we die, or we won't.Â Â Either way, what does it matter?Â Â We can't know, and people are killing each other over this stuff.Â Â Pretty insane.

P.S. What the hell IS the Universe.  Turn your gaze away from this world and its religions, so obsessed with their earthly troubles, and you can just seek solace in the enormity of everything.  To become so absorbed in the Earth and its peoples seems very unhealthy to me, and organized religion seems to value itself very highly.


----------



## foxy (Apr 22, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> The question was what do people think about the big crush theory, in relation to the passing of time, and how it is a continuous process rather than something with a beginning and a end.


I thought the big crush theory was already dismissed because the dark matter effect was past critical, so the universe is generally accepted to be perpetually expanding.


----------



## ADF (Apr 22, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> I thought the big crush theory was already dismissed because the dark matter effect was past critical, so the universe is generally accepted to be perpetually expanding.


Well I don't really know much about dark matter, so cannot really comment on that.


----------



## foxy (Apr 22, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Well I don't really know much about dark matter, so cannot really comment on that.


Here ya go:

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

Astronomic evidence suggests the universe is actually _accelerating_ away from itself. Accelerating! A big crush theory would at least require the universe to decelerate under its own gravity once the initial push of the big bang was removed.

It's actually _dark energy_ that's postulated to explain the observational evidence for accelerating expansion:

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

Dark matter, like ordinary matter, would be a "braking" force on expansion.

The quintessence theory suggests that the amount of dark energy could actually change over time, as opposed to the cosmological constant theory which suggests it would be constant. Since there isn't any good evidence favoring either one the long-term fate of the universe is still pretty up in the air. The cosmological constant version would suggest no big crunch (it's 'crunch' rather than 'crush' BTW), and I think most variations of the quintessence theory would also not include the possibility of a big crunch, but this article says that if the potential energy of the quintessence field eventually went negative, then there could be a crunch after all:





			
				everything2.com said:
			
		

> The most general possibility is a scalar field (like the Higgs boson) which evolves (changes its value) gradually over the course of cosmological time. If this happens slowly enough, it mimics the equation of state of vacuum energy, but with a slowly-varying value. One can imagine a ball rolling down a very gentle hill, the height above sea level being the effective value of the cosmological constant. This goes under the name quintessence and can also explain the observations. The idea was popularized by Paul Steinhardt, one of the pioneers of inflation - not surprisingly, since quintessence is essentially the same thing as inflation, except much, much slower (and we don't know how it ends). The advantage of quintessence is that it can explain why the accelerated expansion only started fairly recently. Now, the fate of the Universe depends on what happens to the quintessence field in the far future. If the potential energy is always positive then again the Universe accelerates away forever.
> 
> But, it is conceivable that the value of the potential will become negative at some point - analogous to the ball rolling down the beach into the sea. (This of course depends on the overall shape of the potential energy.) Then, the Universe is doomed to recollapse into a Big Crunch. Andrei Linde and collaborators have recently emphasized such a possibility and shown that it can come out of some simple (but somewhat unrealistic) supergravity models. See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301087 .
> 
> ...


Both dark energy and dark matter must be taken into account when determining the critical value for the average energy density of the universe which determines the curvature of space (not spacetime)--see this page for more. If the ratio between the actual density and the critical density (denoted by the symbol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) is less than 1, then space has negative curvature, a "hyperbolic" universe; if the density is equal to the critical density, then space has zero curvature, a "flat" universe; and if the density is greater than the critical density, space has positive curvature, a "closed" universe. Here's a diagram from this article:






Now, in the simplest cosmological model where there's no cosmological constant or negative-pressure fields like quintessence, there's a simple relationship between spatial curvature and the univere's long-term fate: if it's positively curved, it will eventually stop expanding and recollapse into a big crunch; if it has zero curvature, the universe expands forever, but the rate of expansion is approaching zero in the limit as time goes to infinity; and if it has negative curvature, the universe expands forever without the rate approaching zero, although the rate is still always decreasing or staying constant (the rate only stays constant if the density of the universe is zero, and it turns out that this is just a weird way of defining a coordinate system on the flat spacetime of special relativity--see the section on "special case cosmological models" on this MIT course page). So this is probably what you're thinking of when you talk about the critical mass to guarantee infinite expansion. But it turns out that if you add a cosmological constant or a quintessence field, the relationship between the energy density 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and the long-term fate of the universe isn't so simple, and you can then have cases like a flat universe whose rate of expansion doesn't approach zero, or a universe whose rate of expansion actually _increases_ over time. 

The evidence from the WMAP satellite seems to show the curvature of the universe is as close to flat as the resolution of the data allows us to determine, so the density must be very close to the critical one. But the WMAP data also allows us to estimate the percentage of the total energy that is made up of normal matter, dark matter, and dark energy, according to current models; the estimate, given on this page, is that the universe is 4% normal matter, 23% cold dark matter, and 73% dark energy. So if it wasn't for that dark energy, the universe would be far below the critical density, and would exhibit strong positive curvature. Also, as I said, it is only a universe with dark energy that can explain accelerating expansion--a universe composed entirely of normal matter and dark matter, with no cosmological constant, could never have an accelerating expansion rate according to general relativity, although it could expand forever at a decreasing or constant rate.


----------



## yuriatayde (Apr 22, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> [size=xx-small]ADF's pretty much got it.
> 
> God or no God, the universe itself is beyond our understanding. We think [snip]
> 
> ...



Post snipped for size, I did read it all, and I must argue because all it got was a short post of "you win".

What you said would be true... erh... would be... sept, you missed like, the first 5 pages of this thread or something (I don't know exact page numbers, too many of them to remember) where we kept talking about, of all things, the definition of Proof and Belief.

You're right, there is no Proof. All we have is the ability to believe, because no matter what; there's ALWAYS an error margin in everything. You cannot even touch the keyboard infront of you and say "this object is solid" and call that "Proof" simply because your finger doesn't pass threw it.

Why do we believe the people in white coats? Because of their reputation as smartguys with all the smartguy equipment. We cannot prove the atoms exist, but we cannot prove they can't. To go on a rant about that is silly, why flip your lid over their explination as to why your keyboard is solid? ... and it isn't the same as arguing about religion, because the "smart guys" in priest robes do not have reputations as being smart guys; they simply have a very popular book of unknown origin and a reputation for being knowledgeable about an abstract idea.

I'd be willing to admit that atoms are an abstract idea, sept I choose to believe the white coated ones; considering their schooling.

I'm so tired of reading dictionary bashing... Can't we keep the argument to areas that make sense?


[edit (instead of double posting)]
Second subject. The "big boom" theory or "the universe is expanding". If this was the case, it would be easily explained; all stars would be moving away from eachother. The effect of an explosion or expansion is to cause everything to move outward at varying speeds, and as matter cannot be duplicated out of nothing that would mean it would have to get more and more scarce as the universe expands. Astrology should be able to come up with some reasonable evidence supporting or disproving this.

Except for the idea of gravity, that throws a monkey wrench in the works. Gravity keeps us all together right? Right. Therefor, the stars would prefer to clump together. In which case, the edge of the universe, which continues to expand; is getting little to nothing to fill it in with. Again, astrology should be able to figure something out, but it would be very difficult to look in a telescope and say that starting [large number] lightyears away; the universe is empty.

100% unprovable, (using the definition of "proof" meaning to have enough evidence to strongly believe something) I believe this subject is a waist of effort. I just don't see how people can give the whole "universe = expanding" idea the light of day, it's at most some guy in a white coat yelling out BS because he knows it's not-un-provable and thus, he'll get payed (and famous!).


[edit] Sidecomment for my entire post: This is the fun of science though, it's not a "believe it or else" thing like religion is; everyone is encouraged to think about, and argue the points made. When people say "believe it because it's science" then their karma gives you permission to slap them.

*[final edit]* Okay, I'm going to walk away from this post now or else I'll be editing it for weeks. If you didn't see this line before, check to make sure I didn't change my opinion, because I altered/removed comments alot.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 23, 2007)

This will be my last post on this subject in this thread, because, I think, we've gotten to the point where everyone is just rehashing the same old arguments over and over again.  Let me sum things up.

Foxy: I will reiterate that your problem can be summed up by one of your statements from your complicated logical proofs: "God is the most powerful being that can be imagined."  The problem with that is that even that definition is too small.  God as I see it is not the most powerful being that can be imagined, but, in essence, a being infinitely more powerful than the most powerful being that can be imagined.  There is a classic Hindu image of a dove flying over a mountain and brushing its tip with a single wing once every thousand years: When that dove has worn the mountain down to dust, that will have been a mere blink in the eye of the timeless expanse of infinity.  Therefore, any logical proof or disproof for God that relies strictly on human definitions fails for that very simple reason: it's too small.

Using logic to prove or disprove the existence of the infinite, the ineffable, the all-powerful, and the timeless, is like using a microscope to examine the mating habits of elephants.  You don't get very far.

For me, in the end, it comes down to a modified version of Pascal's wager.  If the materialists are right, and nothing else exists outside ourselves except for the physical world which we can see and observe, the picture of the world is bleak.  Our lives have no meaning.  First of all, death will represent an immediate cessation of all existence: oblivion.  Taking solace in the impact your life has on the lives of others is also pointless: In a hundred years, everyone you know will have died.  In a two hundred, everyone who knew them will have died.  Unless you accomplish something incredible, your name will be forgotten in a thousand years.  In ten thousand, even the civilization we live in may have been forgotten.  Go far enough, and the sun explodes, the universe dies, heat death or the Big Crunch destroys everything.  That is what a truly materialistic view of the universe entails.

Seen in that light, perhaps the idea of an all-loving, all-knowing God who watches over us tiny mites is insanity. Perhaps it's just a genetic madness designed to keep me from falling into a deep despair before I have a chance to pass on my genes.  If so, I accept that madness fully.  But if it is true, then the rewards will be far greater than what I would gain from that bleak materialistic view.  

That's my faith.  Not blinding myself to the physical reality before me, but acknowledging that physical reality may not be all that exists.  For that reason, I oppose both the fundamentalist impulse to teach religion as science and the materialist impulse to dismiss the existence of God or a possible higher reality based on what we can see of the material world.  Go one side, and we blind ourselves to the real world.  Go the other, and we forget about the things Terry Pratchett called "the big lies" - things like justice, love, compassion.

I think both sides in this debate have drawn up straw man arguments and refuse to budge from them.  To a fundamentalist, giving a single inch from their hardline position that the bible is literal truth and must be taught as such leads down a slippery slope towards an amoral, Hobbesian existence: nasty, brutish, short.  To a materialist, the slightest hint of an existence of God will result in a slippery slope back towards the dark ages.  I believe, however, that most logical people will understand this: that science is our best tool for understanding and learning about our physical world, but that there is the possibility of higher realities and truths that logic and science cannot penetrate.

That is all.

That is all.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 23, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm confused? Why did God have to create time? Why can't time be infinite?

PS: I tend to think there is too much order in the world for there not to be some kind of intelligent design involved.

PSS: Yay another Fox! Great Avatar!


----------



## foxy (Apr 23, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Why did God have to create time? Why can't time be infinite?


Does the BB prove that time had a beginning ? In short: No. There are quite a few different theories how the big bang came about, and some of them involve other universes who can "spin off" another universe, some involve quantum fluctuations, and if that is true, time began with the fluctuation which turned into a big bang. Still other theories involve a big meta-universe, and our universe is just a part of it. If god created time, and time began with the big bang (or shortly before that), god had no time to create time. Time cannot be "created", because every sort of creation uses time, so time must exist before it exists - and that is clearly logically impossible. Every causation requires time, so time cannot be "caused" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Causation needs five criterias for its definition:
Time must exist (it is presupposed).
Space must exist (A can be the cause of B if and if only A and B exist in the same space-continuum, because A and B have to interact).
Existence is presupposed (both, A and B, must exist).
A transfers energy to B, so the existence of energy (and, therefore, matter) is presupposed.
Logic is presupposed, because if there are no logical rules, everything is possible, and that is not the case.
If one and only one of these criterias is not fullfilled, we cannot speak of causation.

A god that created (caused) everything to exist (including time) cannot exist. This would violate all five criterias: Time must exist, space must exist, existence must exist, and energy (and therfore matter) must exist just before he can start to create. Creation (and causation) is possible only if an already existing A is transferred into B (changing its state), or if A is used to change the state of B. Everything we observe we can only observe because something is interacting with something else, presupposing time, space, existence and energy. Every observation is based on a logical conclusion from an effect to what caused it, so logic could not have been created as well. Without that, observation is impossible, because everything would be possible.





			
				Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> PS: I tend to think there is too much order in the world for there not to be some kind of intelligent design involved.


Alot of things keep trying to kill me, or are very hostile to my life in many conditions; therefore the universe is fine tuned to kill me.

PS: I am now leaving this thread because i was warned by the admin! It seams that some members here are pissed at me.


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 23, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, but how is saying "God is a human creation" any different than saying "You are an Atheist so God will make You burn in Hell"?



How is it different? First off, one isn't assuming there are actual alternative planes of existence specifically there to receive the hypothetical construct of the human 'soul'. Nor does it assume that there is some supernatural, all-powerful being watching over people. The statement I made acknowledges that outside of the human imagination, or human mind if you will, God has absolutely no importance. Considering the fact that nobody alive has ever had any inclination to believe in a God other than superstition and assumption, it is safe to say that God is a creation of mankind rather than the reverse. It's either that or accepting that some Bronze Age people sitting in tents making up stories about the universe actually hit the nail on the head. I think not XP.



> For me, in the end, it comes down to a modified version of Pascal's wager.  If the materialists are right, and nothing else exists outside ourselves except for the physical world which we can see and observe, the picture of the world is bleak.  Our lives have no meaning.  First of all, death will represent an immediate cessation of all existence: oblivion.  Taking solace in the impact your life has on the lives of others is also pointless: In a hundred years, everyone you know will have died.  In a two hundred, everyone who knew them will have died.  Unless you accomplish something incredible, your name will be forgotten in a thousand years.  In ten thousand, even the civilization we live in may have been forgotten.  Go far enough, and the sun explodes, the universe dies, heat death or the Big Crunch destroys everything.  That is what a truly materialistic view of the universe entails.
> 
> Seen in that light, perhaps the idea of an all-loving, all-knowing God who watches over us tiny mites is insanity. Perhaps it's just a genetic madness designed to keep me from falling into a deep despair before I have a chance to pass on my genes.  If so, I accept that madness fully.  But if it is true, then the rewards will be far greater than what I would gain from that bleak materialistic view.
> 
> That's my faith.  Not blinding myself to the physical reality before me, but acknowledging that physical reality may not be all that exists.  For that reason, I oppose both the fundamentalist impulse to teach religion as science and the materialist impulse to dismiss the existence of God or a possible higher reality based on what we can see of the material world.  Go one side, and we blind ourselves to the real world.  Go the other, and we forget about the things Terry Pratchett called "the big lies" - things like justice, love, compassion.



Why should life have a meaning outside of what we assign it? It makes perfect sense that all things come to an end with no real meaning attached to it, since meaning is something we have produced. Without intelligent minds such as ours to attempt to comprehend the world, there really is nothing else. I don't have a problem accepting that I will die and everyone I know will die without consequence; I think it gives more meaning to life because then we are to use the time we have instead of thinking what we do in this life is simply a part of a life that will go on forever. There's no reason why such creatures as us should enjoy an everlasting conciousness, what makes us special?

It's certainly the case that there well may be things out there which are completely beyond our powers of perception, in fact it's pretty ignorant to assume that this isn't the case, so I agree with you there. The problem I have is how people try to justify their own assumptions about the things of which they have no actual knowledge. Sure, we don't understand everything and we never will either, but that's no excuse to substitute a lack of knowledge with complete toss about a jealous deity XP. If it was on an individual basis that people believed these things, ie they kept them to themselves, then it would be of no real consequence what people choose to believe to keep them comfort in the night. It's the congregation and encouragement of these beliefs that leads to trouble. 

I can see someone jumping on the following statement I made:

"The problem I have is how people try to justify their own assumptions about the things of which they have no actual knowledge."

That probably sounds a lot like what I've done with regards to my atheism, that I simply assume there is no God without me actually knowing for sure. What I do know is that you don't get animals in little fluffy cult groups, simply because God is only there to those who can think indipendantly to the extent that human beings can. God is a concept which has been formed and changed since the very beginnings of human history on this planet. This does not mean there is a God, or that there isn't one, but it does mean that God is conceived by people, whom have a natural thirst for understanding. Considering this along with the multitude of different stories and scriptures surrounding deities from all known cultures it is very simple to see that people do not believe in God because there is one, they believe in God because they wish there was one. Since we do not ponder over the existence somewhere of, to mention a popular character, an invisible unicorn, then we should not concern ourselves with pondering over the existence of a God either. Chances are, there isn't one, and if there is, what bloody difference does it make?


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 24, 2007)

Roarey Raccoon said:
			
		

> How is it different? First off, one isn't assuming there are actual alternative planes of existence specifically there to receive the hypothetical construct of the human 'soul'. Nor does it assume that there is some supernatural, all-powerful being watching over people. The statement I made acknowledges that outside of the human imagination, or human mind if you will, God has absolutely no importance. Considering the fact that nobody alive has ever had any inclination to believe in a God other than superstition and assumption, it is safe to say that God is a creation of mankind rather than the reverse. It's either that or accepting that some Bronze Age people sitting in tents making up stories about the universe actually hit the nail on the head. I think not XP.



 Umm... Im not sure You got me right. What I meant was saying "God doesn't exist" would be like, say, myself saying "atoms do not exist!" - because I personally never have seen one, so I have no inclination to believe in their existance other than assumption - or trust in what other people told me. Wolf already put it nicely - that doesn't mean that I think there is no such thing as atoms. But absolute claims on an uncertain subject like this one are kind of... contraproductive. Just because someone does not believe in a God and does strictly believe in science does not allow him to be as condescending as fanatics who say "You dont believe in god, so You go to hell". 

 Frankly, to finally clarify my stance on the matter, I was an atheist for a very long time indeed. Now, I'm more of an agnostic - not because someone was able to convince me, but simply based on long, personal thought processes and a bit of a feeling. Now, I'm sure that doesnt have anything to do with science, but that's also true for love, mercy, justice, and altruism. Also, I'm not trying to convince someone that a God DOES exist - hell, that would be stupid, since I don't know such a thing myself - just to point out that on a philosophical basis, God _may_ exist. I already theorized earlier about how whether You believe in God or not probably does not make a big difference; the point that I'm now trying to make is that not believing in a God does not necessarily make You ( a general You in this case ) in any way superior to people who do.

Edit: I admit I didn't read the other half of Yer post before posting myself; I did now, however. 

The discussion is, at least partially, about how belief and science are not exclusive. I agree that substituting a lack of knowledge with belief is not really the way ( even if we do that every day, as stated before ), but no serious religious scripture tells us _not_ to learn. ( and, yeah, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and banishment from paradise in the bible do not, either. It's to be understood as a metaphor - "ignorance is bliss". Or, to make a more recent example: With the knowledge of how to utilize nuclear power, there came Hieroshima and Nagasaki. Does that make science "bad"? ) We should definitely try to understand the world around us - it's just that some people happen to believe that at the end of that learning path, there will be God. As long as they invent cures for cancer and environmentally friendly and efficient energy sources, I'm pretty fine with that. 

About Your statement that organized religion may lead to trouble - I don't think anyone would argue there. 

And to adress the popular invisible unicorn gag - if the invisible unicorn would happen to have created the universe, it would be very well worth poundering about  Also, one could argue - again, philosophically speaking - that the belief in God is a godgiven attribute, hence why such beliefs are to be found all around the world. It's the enviroment that twist the beliefs into JHWH, or Allah, or a multitude of gods, or a man-like god, or a feathery-snake-like god, or a non-form-god, or a invisible-unicorn-god. But in the end, Your final statement actually applies ( at least I think it does ): It does not make much difference. 

~Sylv


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 24, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Rostam The Grey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again I say, Why did God have to create time? Time being infinite does not imply there isn't a God. It simply implies he did not create time. And none of the Big Bang theories exmplian anything, because all of them require there to be something to begin. Huge difference in your comparison there also. Your logic about the universe trying to kill you is a flawed inference. While I was simply trying to state my opinion. The creation of the modern world from a primordial soup in the time alotted is just hard to believe. But, I've been wrong before. Guess I'll find out in the next 100 years.


----------



## foxy (Apr 24, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Again I say, Why did God have to create time?


Because in order to create you must have time, so time must have existed already. If you have time you must have space already also. If you have space and time you have vacuum and therefore you must have virtual particles, i.e. you have energy and given proper conditions some of that energy must be in the form of matter. If you have matter and energy in space and time you already have a universe. It is like God sitting for himself suddenly thinking "I want to create a universe" and then he open his eyes only to find that the universe is there already - nothing left for him to create. The mere presence of time enforces that there is a universe there already. As long as time has existed, the universe has always been there. Consequently, God cannot have created the universe.

I'm sorry, i am on the edge to get banned for replying this.


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 24, 2007)

> Umm... Im not sure You got me right. What I meant was saying "God doesn't exist" would be like, say, myself saying "atoms do not exist!" - because I personally never have seen one, so I have no inclination to believe in their existance other than assumption - or trust in what other people told me. Wolf already put it nicely - that doesn't mean that I think there is no such thing as atoms. But absolute claims on an uncertain subject like this one are kind of... contraproductive. Just because someone does not believe in a God and does strictly believe in science does not allow him to be as condescending as fanatics who say "You dont believe in god, so You go to hell".



I did understand what you said XP. The difference between whether or not God exists and whether or not atoms exist is that the theoretical assumptions surrounding the concept of atoms have obvious benefits to research. If scientists are entirely correct in what they say about atoms or if they aren't, it doesn't matter so much since assumption that atoms exist is backed up by the fact that having such an assumption is beneficial to the work physicists do XP. So one is not, say, as condescending as religious fanatics when one talks of things like atoms or that God doesn't exist, because it's actually logically reasonable to believe atoms exist and that God doesn't.



> Frankly, to finally clarify my stance on the matter, I was an atheist for a very long time indeed. Now, I'm more of an agnostic - not because someone was able to convince me, but simply based on long, personal thought processes and a bit of a feeling. Now, I'm sure that doesnt have anything to do with science, but that's also true for love, mercy, justice, and altruism. Also, I'm not trying to convince someone that a God DOES exist - hell, that would be stupid, since I don't know such a thing myself - just to point out that on a philosophical basis, God may exist. I already theorized earlier about how whether You believe in God or not probably does not make a big difference; the point that I'm now trying to make is that not believing in a God does not necessarily make You ( a general You in this case ) in any way superior to people who do.



Aye, philosophically speaking, God could exist. Philosophically speaking, the world we sense with our bodies may not exist. Philosophy is fun, it's imaginative, but it's also rubbish XP. All you can ever get from it is "what if?". I suppose it's useful in that respect, to pose questions, but it will never answer them. That's the problem I have with religion, it's not philosophical, it doesn't ask questions. It has *answers*, or what people claim to be answers. All the while they have not a shred of evidence or reasoning behind their assumptions. In an obscure philosophical sense, sure, God might exist, but it's so utterly improbable and remote a chance that it's really pointless to think about. 



> The discussion is, at least partially, about how belief and science are not exclusive. I agree that substituting a lack of knowledge with belief is not really the way ( even if we do that every day, as stated before ), but no serious religious scripture tells us not to learn. ( and, yeah, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and banishment from paradise in the bible do not, either. It's to be understood as a metaphor - "ignorance is bliss". Or, to make a more recent example: With the knowledge of how to utilize nuclear power, there came Hieroshima and Nagasaki. Does that make science "bad"? ) We should definitely try to understand the world around us - it's just that some people happen to believe that at the end of that learning path, there will be God. As long as they invent cures for cancer and environmentally friendly and efficient energy sources, I'm pretty fine with that.



How do you know the stories in the Bible are intended as metaphorical? If that were the case, that scriptures merely depict metaphorical tales from which to derive moral advice, why do people take any of it seriously? When it was written, in a time when widespread beliefs were completely outrageous compared to today, it wasn't written simply as a metaphor. People really believed and trusted in this stuff. I'd like to think that the Bible is simply to be taken metaphorically, but people don't tend to massacre thousands of others over a metaphor.

Anyway, thanks for your response to my post, I appreciate it .


----------



## Be4tl3boi (Apr 24, 2007)

We have living proof of evolution, go and look at your dog breeds and some of the birds in the world. Need I say more? Or do you people want the facts and the proof? Do I really have to?.. Please don't make me.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 24, 2007)

foxy, your ENTIRE arguement is based on logic. human logic, and becuase of that it is inherently flawed. SCIENCE IS NOT LOGIC!

once again human logic is why we've had just plain cookyness for the past several thousand years. logic denoted that desease is an inballence in the body and therefore the inballence must be purged. all medicine thought that for a VERY long time, all because they used logic instead of science.

quite honestly, if your trying to debate against god with logic you defy the science held so tightly to your heart. using pure logic as an argument is just simply against all that science stands for.


----------



## foxy (Apr 24, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> Once again human logic is why we've had just plain cookyness for the past several thousand years. logic denoted that desease is an inballence in the body and therefore the inballence must be purged. all medicine thought that for a VERY long time, all because they used logic instead of science.
> 
> quite honestly, if your trying to debate against god with logic you defy the science held so tightly to your heart. using pure logic as an argument is just simply against all that science stands for.


I don't see how pulling shit out of one's ass, i.e. making it up, is logic. Granted, science is empirical, not a priori. If you are making the point that not much can be learned from a priori reasoning, I agree. Logic derives a conclusion from one or more premises. The way I see it, we get our best premises empirically, then make conclusions logically.

I see philosophy as the advanced scout for science. Philosophers ask the questions we can't answer, then as the light of knowledge answers those questions, pushing back the shadows of ignorance, philosophy has to move on to other questions we don't yet have the answers to. Of course, most of what philosophers say is pure gibberish. The value of philosophy is questions, not answers.

The problem is that "logic" never said that disease is an imbalance in the body. This was an assumption taken from who-knows-where. Logic does tell you what you can conclude from assumptions, but it doesn't vet the assumptions you made in the first place.

Science is just logic, supplemented with the idea that you shouldn't pull your assumptions out of your ass and trust in them for all time afterwards. To say that science is in any way contradictory, or opposite, of logic is to be confused about what logic or science actually does.

Having said that: it is true that science isn't logic; or to be specific it isn't just logic. You need more, i.e. empirical examination, and theory formation.


----------



## Muse (Apr 24, 2007)

Science versus religion?  But science _is _a religion.  

Of sorts, for most people.  Meh, whatever.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 25, 2007)

@ Roarey Raccoon: Interesting points. So basically the same thing can be said for faith, though - whether a God exists or not does not matter; if the faith leads to people doing "good" deeds ( let's skip over the debate whether good and bad are only relative terms, or whether there is some kind of absolute morality =) it's an interesting topic, but this is not the place for that ^^ ), it's benefitial as well. Again, with religion, it's like with splitting atoms - it can go either way =) 

About the bible: You're right, I have to give You that. I can't say for sure that it was meant as a heap of metaphors, but it certainly seems plausible ( on a side note, have You ever read the thing? There's some interesing stuff in there, although the scriptures can get a bit boring - reading basically the same stuff four times =P I'd say if the revelations were not meant as a metaphor, someone was smoking some very weird shit indeed... AHem. back to topic). I can clearly see problems arising when people take the whole thing (too) literally. ( and: People do stupid things over such little things like metaphors. Strange but true =) ). 

Hmh... I remember some physician calculating the probability for the existance of a God some time ago... I believe the outcome was something about 69% in favor of God's existance. I can't seem to find the link, though. Just a note on that "improbable" thing ^_~ 

Anyway: I don't think my arguments really go against Yours in the end. I just enjoy the discussion =) Like I said, since I'm rather uncertain on the topic, I can defend either position quite well. I hope I can discover just what exactly I _do_ believe in the process ^_~

Oh, and: You're welcome ^_^

~Sylv


----------



## Roarey Raccoon (Apr 25, 2007)

Muse said:
			
		

> Science versus religion?  But science _is_ a religion.



Ah yeah, I totally forgot that argument, thanks for bringing it up because it's really quite amusing. This crap came about when fundamentalists were running out of stupid things to say, so the next line or 'attack' was "well those scientists are just like us!". Welllllll no XP. Want to know the difference? Well science does have its scriptures, if you are prepared to use the term _very_ loosely. It has its preachers, ie professors. It has its followers too. So why isn't science like a religion? Easy, science makes no decisions that claim to be moral, science isn't emotional, the ideas of science change according to evidence, they are not about having faith in the same idea and never faltering; eminent scientists are given their status via discovering something new, rather than all studying the same unchanging written material. So no, science isn't a religion, it's a paradigm, a way of empirically examining the world. 



			
				 Sylvine said:
			
		

> nteresting points. So basically the same thing can be said for faith, though - whether a God exists or not does not matter; if the faith leads to people doing "good" deeds ( let's skip over the debate whether good and bad are only relative terms, or whether there is some kind of absolute morality =) it's an interesting topic, but this is not the place for that ^^ ), it's benefitial as well. Again, with religion, it's like with splitting atoms - it can go either way =)



Yeah, I wasn't particularly referring to doing good in a moral sense, rather that the assumptions that atoms exist is a logical assumption and it produces results in experiments. So the assumption is useful in the sense that using it allows one to discover new things, which are reliable. Having faith doesn't really have an effect on who does good deeds and who doesn't. I've never been religious, but I've tried to help people since I was old enough to know I wasn't the only person on Earth. Certainly, it's no ill thing when people do good things in the name of their religion, I think that's groovy. I'd just be more comforable if it was "I'm here to spread the love" without the "If you'll accept Jesus into your heart" bit at the end. 



> About the bible: You're right, I have to give You that. I can't say for sure that it was meant as a heap of metaphors, but it certainly seems plausible ( on a side note, have You ever read the thing? There's some interesing stuff in there, although the scriptures can get a bit boring - reading basically the same stuff four times =P I'd say if the revelations were not meant as a metaphor, someone was smoking some very weird shit indeed... AHem. back to topic). I can clearly see problems arising when people take the whole thing (too) literally. ( and: People do stupid things over such little things like metaphors. Strange but true =) ).



I've read quite a bit of it yes, it's a mixture of horrible things and nice things. Contradictions here, nonsense there. No different from any other religious scripture really XP. And yeah, people do stupid things over stupid ideas, but the Spanish Inquisition and suchlike were in the name of God Almighty, not a metaphor XD. I agree with you about the smoking weird shit thing, because Revelations is knackered. 



> Hmh... I remember some physician calculating the probability for the existance of a God some time ago... I believe the outcome was something about 69% in favor of God's existance. I can't seem to find the link, though. Just a note on that "improbable" thing ^_~



I'd like to know how someone could claim _that_ XP. One good book related to the whole God issue is Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. It's a  good read, and it illustrates in one chapter how God is so vastly improbable that it makes no sense to believe in him. The problem, though, isn't just thinking "hey, maybe there IS a God", it's going from that point to actually saying you know what this God wants, what he is like, what he/it has done. THAT bit is entirely rediculous. The rest is entirely philosophical, which is to say it is only useful as something to quietly ponder over, but not something to take seriously.


----------



## foxy (Apr 25, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Interesting points. So basically the same thing can be said for faith, though - whether a God exists or not does not matter; if the faith leads to people doing "good" deeds ( let's skip over the debate whether good and bad are only relative terms, or whether there is some kind of absolute morality =) it's an interesting topic, but this is not the place for that ^^ ), it's benefitial as well. Again, with religion, it's like with splitting atoms - it can go either way =)


I really believe that most people are nice simply because it is nice to be nice and not because they are afraid of punishment.

Being nice to other people has its own reward in that it makes you feel good yourself. Sharing joy makes yourself full of joy. As such you might say that they are nice of purely selfish reasons - if I do good deed X it will make me feel happy and good inside, so I do X but this is a case where selfishness is a good trait.

You can divide christians (and other theists with similar world view) into three groups:
Group A does good deeds X and avoid bad deeds Y because they are afraid of hell. They are "fear driven".
Group B does good deeds X and avoid bad deeds Y because they would like to go to heaven. They are motivated by a reward in after life or they are "reward driven".
Group C does good deeds simply because they consider it to be appropriate for them to do but not because of fear of hell or reward in heaven. They might still believe in a heaven or hell but it is not their motivating factor.
I also said that group C is the one that is most like the atheist who simply do good deeds because it makes himself feel good or because he wants to make the world a better place. I also hope that the group C is in majority among the christians.

Personally I think that the groups A and B are the ones you should be afraid of, they might do something bad if they one day thought that it wouldn't send them to hell (group A) or that they would get to heaven anyway (group B). Group C would most likely do good either way and is as such more trustworthy.

There is of course also a fourth group D which somehow manages to convince themselves that if they do a bad deed Y such as ramming a plane into a building their god will reward them in heaven. This is the really scary group which most of us hope are a tiny minority.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 25, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> Because in order to create you must have time, so time must have existed already. If you have time you must have space already also. If you have space and time you have vacuum and therefore you must have virtual particles, i.e. you have energy and given proper conditions some of that energy must be in the form of matter. If you have matter and energy in space and time you already have a universe. It is like God sitting for himself suddenly thinking "I want to create a universe" and then he open his eyes only to find that the universe is there already - nothing left for him to create. The mere presence of time enforces that there is a universe there already. As long as time has existed, the universe has always been there. Consequently, God cannot have created the universe.
> 
> I'm sorry, i am on the edge to get banned for replying this.



They'd be stupid to ban you for discussing religion vs science in a religion vs science thread.... Excellent logic though. But perhaps the current universe was created by God? Perhaps God existed in another universe or a previous one and sculpted the current one? Like I said, both concepts of creation are flawed. Both require there to be something before creation.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Apr 25, 2007)

Also, we percieve the world in 4 dimensions and with set physics. String theory says there are more dimensions and physics is not constant. Perhaps there are possibilities that do not seem feasible to us or we haven't thought of? Perhaps matter and energy are not constant?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Apr 25, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> foxy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Side note:
No, she was being rude to other members of the thread for their beliefs. That's why she was warned to keep it down. There's a difference between presenting your ideals, and tearing down someone else just because you don't like their theory.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 25, 2007)

lol foxy i guess you could put me into group "c". im VERY destiny oriented and i believe that ALL people are needed in this world, i even came up with a saying for it.

"virtue and honor can guide you, but only sin can drive you" -ceacar99

i do what i do not out of worry of punishment(i dont believe in heaven and hell, everyone is needed to do what they do so obviously they dont get punished for doing what they needed to do) but out of an effort to seek a ballence that feels right for ME. im a nice sweet guy most of the time because thats what feels right for me, and no other reason. but i also can be one of the most stubborn and ruthless son of bitches on this entire earth, both suit me and i try to find the most comfortable ballence. im usually a good guy because it feels right to me, just as taking things from others feels right to some people. 

anyway, what i was pointing out about your arguement is that its taking too much logic to explain something. i commented ancient medicines because they took a few simple observations and just concluded, nothing else. the ancient greeks saw that the human body emits heat, so they concluded logically that there must be a fire somewhere in the human body. 

your doing the same thing. you see that time and space are the same and that each would not exist without the other. so you use logic to conclude that "god could not have created this because he needed time to do that".

thats an arguement based on observation and logic, NOT science. if god created reality, thus he created time. if he is not of this plain of existance, if he doesnt even exist in the physical reality then he doesnt need time because he is not made of matter and thus his processes dont require that would be required in this reality. well at least thats the best way to look at it if your religous, that statement is logic and religion mind you and not science.

btw, an example of science would be observing, using logic to theorise whats happening and then testing it. thus currently science cannot prove or disprove god in most senses. what it has done is demonstrated god doesnt exist because it simply cannot test or study even a human soul. that doesnt mean it wont allways be that way, it just means that NOW science demonstrates with our current limited ability to test things that god and spirits dont exist.


----------



## themocaw (Apr 25, 2007)

Foxy,
Please quit with the self-persecution.

Anyone who's throwing a fit at her,
Please quit with any actual persecution.

Seriously, this is probably the first ever relatively civil discussion of religion on the internet ever, let's not ruin it by acting like drama whores.

Back on topic, kinda sorta: how many people who have serious beefs with organized religion still maintain some sort of spirituality?  That's one thing I keep noticing, the people who say, "I believe in a God/am agnostic/etc., but churches and religions bother me because of this and this and this."


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 25, 2007)

themocaw, im definately a person who HATE organised relgion. from my observations organised religion has been more concerned with gaining power from its followers and not 100% benificial to people. that is not to say that they dont help people but simply put a church government often is little different than a state government, the state controlls you because you live there and they have an army, the church controlls you through your faith.

besides, as ive said i dont believe in the concept of heaven and hell. i mean think about it, "god has a plan". even christianity actually supports my idea(in my opinion). an example is that jesus could not have died for the sins of man properly(in the most excrusiatingly painfull way that the roman empire could devise) without the betrayal of judas. in the end judas fufilled god's plan as much as jesus did, so why would judas be punished for what he did?


----------



## foxy (Apr 25, 2007)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> "virtue and honor can guide you, but only sin can drive you" -ceacar99
> 
> i do what i do not out of worry of punishment(i don't believe in heaven and hell, everyone is needed to do what they do so obviously they don't get punished for doing what they needed to do) but out of an effort to seek a balance that feels right for ME. im a nice sweet guy most of the time because thats what feels right for me, and no other reason. but i also can be one of the most stubborn and ruthless son of bitches on this entire earth, both suit me and i try to find the most comfortable balance. im usually a good guy because it feels right to me, just as taking things from others feels right to some people.


Although, the non-hell punishment isn't such a horrible punishment as a hell punishment is to the christian but as far as they are afraid of being caught by the police etc a non-christian might also be "fear driven" etc.

Similarly, the hunger for reward such as a picture in a newspaper or a monetary reward may not be as great as everlasting life in heaven but still might lead some people to be "reward driven" even if they do not believe in heaven.

I would guess though that the average atheist you meet especially one who has been thinking things through will not fall into any of those categories. I guess you can also say that a Christian, if he thinks things through, will not be "fear driven" or "reward driven" either so I guess we might be in the same boat to some extent.

There is a way to detect if people are. To make that test successfully, the test subject must not know that it is a test subject.

If you see someone do something wrong, and your test subject see this, he may respond in one of the following ways:

Aren't you afraid of heaven/police/etc?   - that would mark that person as a "fear driven" person.

Wouldn't you rather do something positive and go to heaven/get some other reward?
or: If you do this, god/other people/authorities won't give you any reward!

Such statements would mark tat person as "reward driven".

If the person instead tries to say something like:

Wouldn't you feel better inside if you had done something else instead?
or: Don't you feel sorry for the person who got harmed by your deed? (appeal to compassion).

That would mark the person as neither group A nor B but rather belonging to group C.

Of course, I will not suggest that you commit an evil act in order to provoke a response in order to test the person - that would be immoral.





			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> i commented ancient medicines because they took a few simple observations and just concluded, nothing else. the ancient Greeks saw that the human body emits heat, so they concluded logically that there must be a fire somewhere in the human body.


This would be an application of logic _if and only if_ the only thing that could produce heat in the human body was fire. As it stands, unless you interpret "fire" so liberally as to include the oxidization reactions that happens in animal cells, we can see that it is not the case that fire is the only thing that could conceivably produce heat in the human body.

The conclusion that the human body must contain a fire is not a logical inference, _unless_ we add the hypothesis that fire can be the only cause of the heat given off by the human body (or the hypothesis that only fire can give off heat of any sort, or any other set of hypotheses which eliminate all other possibilities of heat sources in the human body). If you include such assumptions, then you have a logical inference --- but one from bad assumptions. If you don't include such assumptions, you don't have even a logical inference; you just have sloppy thinking.


			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> btw, an example of science would be observing, using logic to theorize whats happening and then testing it. thus currently science cannot prove or disprove god in most senses. what it has done is demonstrated god doesn't exist because it simply cannot test or study even a human soul.


No. Science has not disproven the existence of god. It simply refuses to assume the existence of god, does not conclude the existence of god, and generally finds it unnecessary to talk about gods at all. That is the real reason why science is a threat to traditional religions, of course; it _refuses to bother_ with things which cannot be measured or objectively observed in at least some way.


			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> If god created reality, thus he created time. if he is not of this plain of existence, if he doesn't even exist in the physical reality then he doesn't need time because he is not made of matter and thus his processes don't require that would be required in this reality.


P1. If god created reality.
P2. There was a point in time when reality didn't exist.
P3. At this point in time, god didn't possess the reality necessary to create reality.
C1. Therefore, god isn't the creator of reality.

If god isn't part of reality, then god isn't real and the unreal doesn't exist.

Incidentally: you may want to consider what the phrase "plane of existence" actually means. What is a "plane of existence", and what does it mean for something to be within one?





			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> Why space = time ?


If "it" = "logic", then I would say that it didn't. They don't even quite seem to be the same kind of thing, although they do have similarities, and are not independent of one another (as in the special theory of relativity).





			
				Sylvine said:
			
		

> The estabilished biological Theory is that no animal on earth is interested in the survival of the species, at least not as top priority. An individual is, biologically speaking, only ever interested in preserving and passing down it's own genes. The survival of the species is only a side effect.


Morality = Rights = Justifications for Actions/Reactions

Rights are either granted or seized.

In the absence of gods, humans have seized the right to kill/eat/etc. other animals for the purposes of survival of the individual and his family and the human race.

No gods are needed for this.

No universal morality is needed, either.





			
				Sylvine said:
			
		

> As for omnipotence and it's paradoxes: The stone paradox is flawed, in my opinion. We use omnipotence as a word refering to OUR world. Meaning, it's the ability to achieve any single thing _in this world_. God, being the theoretical creator of the world, would stand above it's laws and rules. Omni-potent, as in able to do everything. As we already have seen in this thread before ( I won't go back to it, since we're going around in circles there ), the "everything" WE refer to isn't necessarily the objective "everything". Hence: Yes, God is omnipotent, as he is able to do anything affecting this world. How the rules are one level above, so to speak, is a bit beyound our comprehension, I'd fathom.


P1. God is above logic.
P2. Therefore he is not bound to it.
P3. Which means he can do the logically impossible.
P4. We cannot represent anything that contradicts logic.
P5. What is utterly meaningless can be ignored.
C1. Therefore we cannot represent God at all.
C2. Hence talking of god is necessarily incoherent and meaningless.
C3. God can be ignored.

Without logic god retains no control over the universe since without logic you can destroy him and assert yourself as god. God would not have this and therefore must be subject to logic. But since god illogically can't be possible, he does not exist.


----------



## DPAK (Apr 25, 2007)

themocaw said:
			
		

> Back on topic, kinda sorta: how many people who have serious beefs with organized religion still maintain some sort of spirituality?Â Â That's one thing I keep noticing, the people who say, "I believe in a God/am agnostic/etc., but churches and religions bother me because of this and this and this."



Organized religion does bother me sometimes, especially when it seems they are trying to force this "You believe this word-for-word or your wrong." stuff down your throat. Personally, I believe in interpretting the Bible in a way that I feel is correct. I know that sounds kind of weird, but I don't believe that God honestly expects us to take the Bible as being 100% literal.

On a side note: I like being able to talk about my religious/scientific beliefs openly. My mom is a uber-conservative Christian and I really can't talk to her about it.


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 26, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> *Morality = Rights = Justifications for Actions/Reactions*
> 
> Rights are either granted or seized.
> 
> ...


Asuide from the fact that I can't see how those statements relate to my words...

That's Your definition of it. Fine by me. 
However, when You speak of "no universal morality" as being necessary... I wonder, now. Would it be okay, then, if I turned up at Your place tomorrow to torch it? After all, no universal morality = only relative morality = that would be perfectly ok, right? 

Funny world it would be, indeed. 



			
				foxy said:
			
		

> P1. God is above logic.
> P2. Therefore he is not bound to it.
> P3. Which means he can do the logically impossible.
> P4. We cannot represent anything that contradicts logic.
> ...



Yes, well - if  that's what You want to believe, that's fine. I don't think I actually ever tried to convince anyone of anything here - of the possibility that there _may_ be a God, at most - , so if that suits You... 

@Themocaw: 

That doesn't really sound weird. After all, even if we would go strictly by the bible, what does that mean? "Satan" is free to influence this world as he pleases, and God won't really interfere. What would that tell us about the bible? Not to question the "holy" people who wrote it, but what about the countless people who made copies, translations, etc? Lots of mistakes to do there, and even more when they're done on purpose. Hence my belief that You cant take the thing literally. 

~Sylv


----------



## foxy (Apr 27, 2007)

Sylvine said:
			
		

> Yes, well - if  that's what You want to believe, that's fine. I don't think I actually ever tried to convince anyone of anything here - of the possibility that there _may_ be a God, at most - , so if that suits You...


Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Normally I just find the question slightly humorous, but in this case it is actually a great argument for the person who claims god is above logic/not limited by logic.

Clearly the question is absurd. If god is all powerful this doesn't mean he can operate in ways that are logically impossible. The question itself is a logical absurdity.

However, for a theist who really believes god isn't confined by logic there is no way for them to answer the question without demonstrating that god is, in fact, constrained to operating according to logic.

The fun part comes in when you watch them fumble over their words attempting to describe an incoherent concept using coherent language.





			
				Sylvine said:
			
		

> However, when You speak of "no universal morality" as being necessary... I wonder, now. Would it be okay, then, if I turned up at Your place tomorrow to torch it? After all, no universal morality = only relative morality = that would be perfectly ok, right?


Try and see if it's Ok... I don't see how you get from 'no universal morality' to 'I would be ok with you showing up tomorrow and torching my house.' Can you explain your reasoning in a bit more detail?

What is inherently wrong with seizing what you can seize providing by your actions you do not threaten the survival of the innocent individual and his family or the survival of the human race?


----------



## Sylvine (Apr 27, 2007)

foxy said:
			
		

> What is inherently wrong with seizing what you can seize providing by your actions you do not threaten the survival of the innocent individual and his family or the survival of the human race?



Nothing is wrong with that. Just that that would be a kind of an universal morality, wouldn't it? 

~Sylv


----------

