Big Bang minus 1 nano second

[HogTrash]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


*

[Noir]

What about the creation of God minus 1 nano second?

[HogTrash]

What about the creation of God minus 1 nano second?The beginning occured at Big Bang minus 1 nano second.

There was no Big Bang minus 2 nano seconds.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[Noir]

The beginning occured at Big Bang minus 1 nano second.

There was no Big Bang minus 2 nano seconds.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


So therefore you believe god came into existence and caused the big bang a nano second later?

[PostmodernProphet]

What about the creation of God minus 1 nano second?

it's interesting that the only thing atheists believe was created was God......

[Sweetchuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

[Noir]

it's interesting that the only thing atheists believe was created was God......

Yes, all gods have been created, by man. And it's not the only thing, bicycles, pancakes, human rights, football...all man made.

Edit; Ofcourse I jest, but I really don't think (or atleast hope) you were making a serious comment. Just incase you were, the atheist questioning on the creation of a god obviously only arises when you have the presuposition that there is a god, while atheists obviously do not believe that to be the case, in situations like this hypothectical discussions which do question how a god could be created are a good way to hold up a mirror to the idea that tge simple explination for the universe is a creator, when a moments glance will tell you otherwise.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, all gods have been created, by man.

prove it.....



Yes, all gods have been created, by man. And it's not the only thing, bicycles, pancakes, human rights, football...all man made.

Edit; Ofcourse I jest, but I really don't think (or atleast hope) you were making a serious comment. Just incase you were, the atheist questioning on the creation of a god obviously only arises when you have the presuposition that there is a god, while atheists obviously do not believe that to be the case, in situations like this hypothectical discussions which do question how a god could be created are a good way to hold up a mirror to the idea that tge simple explination for the universe is a creator, when a moments glance will tell you otherwise.

but don't you see that it's a really stupid argument?.....there is no need to presume a God had an origin or a creator.....and a "moment's glance" does NOT tell me that the universe did not have a creator......those are all invalid assumptions of the atheist.......

[HogTrash]

So therefore you believe god came into existence and caused the big bang a nano second later?It's not about me...I have simply explained John 1:1 and creation.

The riddle is easy to figure out...The trick is to recognize it's simplicity.

The key is the three words in bold print and avoiding profound complications.

You did good Noir...Keep your mind open, question everything and don't get locked in.

[Sweetchuck]

This is why I think religion is all bullshit. I'm not saying I don't believe in God, I'm saying the record, recorded by man is all bullshit.

Everything is in fucking riddles. Or, we create what we want to believe by solving non-existent riddles. Or, a bunch of crackpots not much unlike radical Islam basically are making it up as they go along to keep the masses in check.

It's all Santa Claus shit as far as I'm concerned. I don't trust mankind's ability to take something like the record of Gods word and convey it over the centuries in the manner it was intended.

[Noir]

prove it.....

You believe that too, we both believe that countless thousands of Gods are man made. I just go one god further.


but don't you see that it's a really stupid argument?.....there is no need to presume a God had an origin or a creator.....and a "moment's glance" does NOT tell me that the universe did not have a creator......those are all invalid assumptions of the atheist.......

If there is no need to presume that god had a creator, why is there a need to presume the universe had a creator?

[Mr. P]

Whatever happened to:



Aphrodite (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/aphrodite/)
Apollo (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/)
Ares (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/ares/)
Artemis (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/artemis/)
Athena (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/athena/)
Demeter (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/demeter/)
Dionysus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/dionysus/)
Hades (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hades/)
Hephaestus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hephaestus/)
Hera (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hera/)
Hermes (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hermes/)
Hestia (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hestia/)
Poseidon (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/poseidon/)
Zeus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/zeus/)

[Missileman]

It takes an ultimately wrong-headed thought process to conclude the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hindis, Celts, Norse, etc were all a bunch of hicks whose theology was totally wrong yet their contemporary Jews got it totally right.

[KarlMarx]

<sup id="en-NKJV-30170" class="versenum">1</sup> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. <sup id="en-NKJV-30171" class="versenum">2</sup> For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
<sup id="en-NKJV-30172" class="versenum">3</sup> By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visiblehttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:1-6&version=NKJV


That's why it's called faith boys and girls. You either believe or you don't.

By the way, can you prove that you exist? Can you prove that your mother exists? Your father? Can you prove that George Washington existed? How about atoms? Quarks? Superstrings?

Belief is the essence to most of what we do.

[Noir]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:1-6&version=NKJV


That's why it's called faith boys and girls. You either believe or you don't.

By the way, can you prove that you exist? Can you prove that your mother exists? Your father? Can you prove that George Washington existed? How about atoms? Quarks? Superstrings?

Belief is the essence to most of what we do.




And why do you choice to believe in faith over science? Ofcourse *nothing* can ever be proven ask fact, it can only be made more or less likly. Some things are so likly as to be considered fact, none of those things relate to gods (and ofcourse, ironicly, religions revel in that, 'tge harder it is to believe then the more faith that's required' or 'the more we find out about the universe the more amazing we realize our god(s) is/are')
The interesting thing about this is that while it apears to answer everything, it really answers nothing. If we'd just accepted that disease was punishment from the gods, and so no point in exploring then think of the world we'd have today, but ofcourse disease is not caused by gods, but rather virues ect that we can counter-act and kill.

Now maybe you beliveve that a god creates the biological virus so the human gets infected, but all we then need do is apply Occam's razor and snip that nonsense away. You can do the same with the creation of the universe. (I think it was Hitchens who said 'Isn't it amazing that every time we find something new in the fleid of Biology, Chemisty or Physics it always works fine without the assumption of a god. If there is a god, he has gone out of his way to design the one system possible that wouldn't require him at all.')

[KarlMarx]

And why do you choice to believe in faith over science? ....
Because people of faith tend to do good while people of non-faith tend not to.

Much of the charitable work that goes on in the world has a faith based element to it. For instance, the Church does a great deal of good in third world countries.

Whether God exists or not is really as important as whether I believe He does. If I do, the chances of me doing good things increases.

[PostmodernProphet]

You believe that too, we both believe that countless thousands of Gods are man made. I just go one god further.

another meaningless atheist cut and paste argument......so I have made a choice regarding which god I believe in.....that doesn't make me a partial atheist.....



If there is no need to presume that god had a creator, why is there a need to presume the universe had a creator?

because we know the universe had a beginning.....if it had a beginning, it needs a cause......if a deity does not have a beginning, it does not need a cause.....we do not know a deity had a beginning


Whatever happened to:



Aphrodite (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/aphrodite/)
Apollo (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/)
Ares (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/ares/)
Artemis (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/artemis/)
Athena (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/athena/)
Demeter (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/demeter/)
Dionysus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/dionysus/)
Hades (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hades/)
Hephaestus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hephaestus/)
Hera (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hera/)
Hermes (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hermes/)
Hestia (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/hestia/)
Poseidon (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/poseidon/)
Zeus (http://www.greek-gods.info/greek-gods/zeus/)


people stopped believing in them, obviously......


It takes an ultimately wrong-headed thought process to conclude the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hindis, Celts, Norse, etc were all a bunch of hicks whose theology was totally wrong yet their contemporary Jews got it totally right.

????...why.....you think you have it right and everyone has it wrong.....and you've got less to go on than the ancient Greeks.....


And why do you choice to believe in faith over science? Ofcourse *nothing* can ever be proven ask fact, it can only be made more or less likly. Some things are so likly as to be considered fact, none of those things relate to gods (and ofcourse, ironicly, religions revel in that, 'tge harder it is to believe then the more faith that's required' or 'the more we find out about the universe the more amazing we realize our god(s) is/are')
The interesting thing about this is that while it apears to answer everything, it really answers nothing. If we'd just accepted that disease was punishment from the gods, and so no point in exploring then think of the world we'd have today, but ofcourse disease is not caused by gods, but rather virues ect that we can counter-act and kill.

Now maybe you beliveve that a god creates the biological virus so the human gets infected, but all we then need do is apply Occam's razor and snip that nonsense away. You can do the same with the creation of the universe. (I think it was Hitchens who said 'Isn't it amazing that every time we find something new in the fleid of Biology, Chemisty or Physics it always works fine without the assumption of a god. If there is a god, he has gone out of his way to design the one system possible that wouldn't require him at all.')

lol, I believe in God AND science......you believe in science and your own assumptions about science......when I snip away the nonsense, you aren't anywhere around........there's one question the atheist will never be able to answer.......why is there a universe?......

[Noir]

Because people of faith tend to do good while people of non-faith tend not to.

Much of the charitable work that goes on in the world has a faith based element to it. For instance, the Church does a great deal of good in third world countries.

Whether God exists or not is really as important as whether I believe He does. If I do, the chances of me doing good things increases.

I think the phrase 'AIDS in Africa' will rather quickly cast doubt on your claim, who know how many millions have lived short, painful, disease ridden lives because the chruch puts it's doctrine above science.

As for the rest, I know that many religious people are good, honest decent people and ofcourse they will give to religious charities. In the same way that many atheists give to secular charitites like tge International Red Cross. But if you reduce religion to social work you come up against some pretty interestig questions.

Firstly I don't believe it for a second, take countries with 40ish % atheist popluations, Sweeden, Norway, Britian, Denmark ect, do you think those countries give less and the reason is because of their large faithless population?

And ofcourse, the final point, if you were not a person of faith, would you then chose not to do good works?


another meaningless atheist cut and paste argument......so I have made a choice regarding which god I believe in.....that doesn't make me a partial atheist.....

Yes it does. To be an athiest is to not believe in the existence of a god. You ar an atheist with respect to the ancient Greeks, Muslims and Hindus ect. Only pantheists can truly be said to not be athiests.


because we know the universe had a beginning.....if it had a beginning, it needs a cause......if a deity does not have a beginning, it does not need a cause.....we do not know a deity had a beginning

Well firstly we do not know the universe had a beginging, we know there was an event, the big bang, beyond which we can not see, are you certain that is the beginging of the universe rather than say a big crunch from the previous life of tge universe?

And, that says nothing for the countless billions of potentional universes which we hope to find evidence of at CERN. Once we thought there was one galaxy, now we know there are about 2x10^20 (200,000,000,000,000,000,000) We have thus far assumed there is only one universe, but physics is now telling us otherwise.

You believe in an eternal god, but not an eternal universe. Odd no?


lol, I believe in God AND science......you believe in science and your own assumptions about science......when I snip away the nonsense, you aren't anywhere around........there's one question the atheist will never be able to answer.......why is there a universe?......

You can not truly believe in both, as the idea of gods are used to answer scientific questions purly on the basis of faith. That is, at it's heart, anti-scientific.

Why dies the universe have to have a reason?

And if you want to ask that, you have no doubt already asked yourself 'Why is there a god?'

[HogTrash]

This is why I think religion is all bullshit. I'm not saying I don't believe in God, I'm saying the record, recorded by man is all bullshit.

Everything is in fucking riddles. Or, we create what we want to believe by solving non-existent riddles. Or, a bunch of crackpots not much unlike radical Islam basically are making it up as they go along to keep the masses in check.

It's all Santa Claus shit as far as I'm concerned. I don't trust mankind's ability to take something like the record of Gods word and convey it over the centuries in the manner it was intended.I've often imagined that if God was asked what his greatest dissappointment was, he would say 'religion'.

Throughout the history of humankind, people have attempted to define God and his expectations of them.

Many of these definitions were the result of fear of human mortality while others played on those fears to amass wealth and power.

'Religion' would be the primary tool created by those who were most successful at using God for personal gain...History has proven it to be very successful.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes it does. To be an athiest is to not believe in the existence of a god. You ar an atheist with respect to the ancient Greeks, Muslims and Hindus ect. Only pantheists can truly be said to not be athiests.

....sophism.....to be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of deity.....any deity......if I DO believe in the existence of a deity, any deity, I am by definition, NOT an atheist.....



Well firstly we do not know the universe had a beginging, we know there was an event, the big bang, beyond which we can not see, are you certain that is the beginging of the universe rather than say a big crunch from the previous life of tge universe?
lol....the only way the secular humanists can pretend that the universe didn't have a beginning is to claim that there was something external to the natural universe a nanosecond before the Big Bang.....oh wait, you DO have a god, don't you......



And, that says nothing for the countless billions of potentional universes which we hope to find evidence of at CERN. Once we thought there was one galaxy, now we know there are about 2x10^20 (200,000,000,000,000,000,000) We have thus far assumed there is only one universe, but physics is now telling us otherwise.

You believe in an eternal god, but not an eternal universe. Odd no?

lol.....what's odd is your denial of your own faith.....if you would simply admit it we wouldn't need to argue....


You can not truly believe in both, as the idea of gods are used to answer scientific questions purly on the basis of faith. That is, at it's heart, anti-scientific.

Why dies the universe have to have a reason?

And if you want to ask that, you have no doubt already asked yourself 'Why is there a god?'

I can truly believe in both so long as I don't, as you have, pretend that "Science" is some anthropomorphic being with the powers of a deity......

why does a universe have to have a reason?....because it demonstrates much more "aforethought" than it does "shit happens"......and inanimate matter isn't really strong on "aforethought".......


assumed there is only one universe, but physics is now telling us otherwise.

and this from someone who insists that deity only exists because mankind wished he did......it would appear that alternative universes only exist because?...........

[Mr. P]

people stopped believing in them, obviously......
Why did they stop???

[HogTrash]

Yes, all gods have been created, by man. And it's not the only thing, bicycles, pancakes, human rights, football...all man made.

Edit; Ofcourse I jest, but I really don't think (or atleast hope) you were making a serious comment. Just incase you were, the atheist questioning on the creation of a god obviously only arises when you have the presuposition that there is a god, while atheists obviously do not believe that to be the case, in situations like this hypothectical discussions which do question how a god could be created are a good way to hold up a mirror to the idea that tge simple explination for the universe is a creator, when a moments glance will tell you otherwise.I have this mental picture of you and a couple hundred other eager young minds sitting in a college lecture hall with high ceilings, tall windows and completely finished in rich beautiful stained woodwork with Professor Herbert Marcuse casually leaning against a podium at the front of the class nonchalantly discussing the institution of god and religion so delicately that you will come to believe your atheist views are the result of your own conclusions.

[PostmodernProphet]

Why did they stop???

I don't know....maybe when they died and found out it wasn't true, they got pissed off and left.....

[HogTrash]

And why do you choice to believe in faith over science? Ofcourse *nothing* can ever be proven ask fact, it can only be made more or less likly. Some things are so likly as to be considered fact, none of those things relate to gods (and ofcourse, ironicly, religions revel in that, 'tge harder it is to believe then the more faith that's required' or 'the more we find out about the universe the more amazing we realize our god(s) is/are')
The interesting thing about this is that while it apears to answer everything, it really answers nothing. If we'd just accepted that disease was punishment from the gods, and so no point in exploring then think of the world we'd have today, but ofcourse disease is not caused by gods, but rather virues ect that we can counter-act and kill.

Now maybe you beliveve that a god creates the biological virus so the human gets infected, but all we then need do is apply Occam's razor and snip that nonsense away. You can do the same with the creation of the universe. (I think it was Hitchens who said 'Isn't it amazing that every time we find something new in the fleid of Biology, Chemisty or Physics it always works fine without the assumption of a god. If there is a god, he has gone out of his way to design the one system possible that wouldn't require him at all.')Why do atheist assume that God and Science cannot exist in harmony?

If we are truely God's creations, then it was God that gave us the brain that is responsible for the science.

I believe your resistance to God stems from what you consider to be the irrational reasoning of supernatural beliefs.

Maybe a more rational way of thinking for you would be to reclassify God as a powerful universal lifeform, rather than a Diety.

A creature composed of pure energy and intellect that the laws of physics do not apply, who can manipulate matter and travel at the speed of thought.

And then think of religion as humankinds vain attempts to explain something totally uncomprehensible and beyond their realm of imagination and conscienceness.

Given enough time, I'm sure the human race will figure things out, in the mean time the nonbelievers should end their campaign of hate for religion and allow the believer's to pray in peace.

[darin]

I was driving by a Ford dealership. I observed a 2011 Mustang GT and concluded it must have evolved from a Ford Focus, because there's just no evidence there was a designer....

[HogTrash]

I was driving by a Ford dealership. I observed a 2011 Mustang GT and concluded it must have evolved from a Ford Focus, because there's just no evidence there was a designer....The evidence my son, is in it's perfection... :bow2:

[PostmodernProphet]

I was driving by a Ford dealership. I observed a 2011 Mustang GT and concluded it must have evolved from a Ford Focus, because there's just no evidence there was a designer....

vestigial artifacts make the conclusion obvious......examination of a fossilized glove compartment fragment, too small to serve any true function, shows that it is the genetic remains of a true Model T toolbox, once essential for continued survival in the primordial gravel roads of ancient aeons......

[darin]

The evidence my son, is in it's perfection... :bow2:

While the 2011 Mustang GT is lightyears ahead of previous fords..."perfection" is still found mostly in Germany.... :) Or Italy.

[HogTrash]

While the 2011 Mustang GT is lightyears ahead of previous fords..."perfection" is still found mostly in Germany.... :) Or Italy.Sacrilege!...Say 3 Hail Marys and flog yourself for 10 minutes.

[Noir]

I have this mental picture of you and a couple hundred other eager young minds sitting in a college lecture hall with high ceilings, tall windows and completely finished in rich beautiful stained woodwork with Professor Herbert Marcuse casually leaning against a podium at the front of the class nonchalantly discussing the institution of god and religion so delicately that you will come to believe your atheist views are the result of your own conclusions.


Dilightful as the image may be, I've never been in a religious lecture other that at primary school were I was taught to be a Protestant Christian, and at high school where one RE teacher had the upfrontery to tell me that evolution was stupid and that *obviously* god created the universe, only being 11 at the time I did not have the knowlegde I now have to challenge his assertion, but I do hope I bump into him sometime soon.

[Noir]

....sophism.....to be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of deity.....any deity......if I DO believe in the existence of a deity, any deity, I am by definition, NOT an atheist.....

Indeed, well no matter, it's just window dressing.


lol....the only way the secular humanists can pretend that the universe didn't have a beginning is to claim that there was something external to the natural universe a nanosecond before the Big Bang.....oh wait, you DO have a god, don't you......

Why are parellel universes supernatural? If they exist, which seems increasingly so, then they are just a new part of nature that we've discovered.
The fact still stands, you say the universe can't be eternal, yet your god can.


lol.....what's odd is your denial of your own faith.....if you would simply admit it we wouldn't need to argue....

What faith? Science removes faith and privae prejudice (as much as it can be removed) In a way that you must admit non-sciences can not.


I can truly believe in both so long as I don't, as you have, pretend that "Science" is some anthropomorphic being with the powers of a deity......

But you can't. Fir example you believe a god made tge universe and the planets and animals ect. That is a scientific claim, and as soon as that science runs counter to your religion then one must be compromised. In most felids the religous have had to give up ground to science (such as plauges are caused by a wrathful god ect)


why does a universe have to have a reason?....because it demonstrates much more "aforethought" than it does "shit happens"......and inanimate matter isn't really strong on "aforethought".......

So it has to have a reason because you think it looks like it should =/
and you didn't say what reason a god exists for.


and this from someone who insists that deity only exists because mankind wished he did......it would appear that alternative universes only exist because?...........

Parrellel universes will have just tge same reason to exist as ours. Tge fact is they fit the scientific models we have, so we are now running experiments to see if they do. That's how science works you see, yoi have to be able to prove what you think, and then subject it to peer review and pubish your findings publicly so *anyone* can look through your reserch and do the numbers for themsleves.

[darin]

Sacrilege!...Say 3 Hail Marys and flog yourself for 10 minutes.

Anything built under the supervision of United Auto Workers is suspect. :salute:

Solid rear axle??? Cheap/nasty dash and interior bits?

Performance? Sure - I love how Evolution has turned the Focus into the Mustang. See the focus knew it didn't want to exist in a state of "fail", so thru natural selection, the focus developed the traits which eventually lead to the Mustange GT. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

Why are parellel universes supernatural? If they exist, which seems increasingly so, then they are just a new part of nature that we've discovered.
that which science can observe and test is the natural world.....if something exists beyond that which we can observe and test, it is supernatural....thus, "parallel" universes must be considered supernatural...



The fact still stands, you say the universe can't be eternal, yet your god can.
yes.....that fact still stands.....what is your point...



What faith? Science removes faith and privae prejudice (as much as it can be removed) In a way that you must admit non-sciences can not.
I will agree that science is not faith.....but I also must assert that parallel universes have nothing to do with science.....what you BELIEVE about science and about parallel universes is a matter of faith....



But you can't. Fir example you believe a god made tge universe and the planets and animals ect. That is a scientific claim, and as soon as that science runs counter to your religion then one must be compromised.
if you run across any scientific facts that run counter to my religion you be sure to let me know....



So it has to have a reason because you think it looks like it should =/
and you didn't say what reason a god exists for.
again, god is not 'created', has no origin, is not 'made'.....



Parrellel universes will have just tge same reason to exist as ours.
and that is?......




Tge fact is they fit the scientific models we have, so we are now running experiments to see if they do. .
lol.....are you claiming someone is "running experiments" to see if parallel universes exist?......

[Noir]

that which science can observe and test is the natural world.....if something exists beyond that which we can observe and test, it is supernatural....thus, "parallel" universes must be considered supernatural...

So black holes are super-natural? After all we have no idea what goes on inside them...
Ofcourse they are part of nature, just as parrellel universes may well be.


yes.....that fact still stands.....what is your point...

The point is why do you think one is obvious and the other impossible?


I will agree that science is not faith.....but I also must assert that parallel universes have nothing to do with science.....what you BELIEVE about science and about parallel universes is a matter of faith....

I don't have faith that there are parallel universes, either there is or isn't, I have no desire fir the to exist or not. If the science says they do I'll accept that, if the science says they don't I'll accept that. However, I will not just assume one way or the other before the science is done, or in spite of the science if it could give an answer that I wouldn't like.


if you run across any scientific facts that run counter to my religion you be sure to let me know....

Well it depends specificly on your beliefs, I know do not believe in cross-species evolution, despite the fact that we have MtDNA, RetroViral DNA, Chromasomal fusion and the independant summation of thousands of biological fields. Yet despite this scientific information you let your religion secure your private prejudice that there has never been interspecies evolution.



again, god is not 'created', has no origin, is not 'made'.....

So if everything does not need a creator why would the universe?



and that is?......

No reason. It exists because it exists.

You still haven't said what the reason for your (or any) god existing is.


lol.....are you claiming someone is "running experiments" to see if parallel universes exist?......

Yes I am. I am not sure how interested in the feild you are, but I am fasinated by Physics, most specificly at the quantum level, but by way of a brief summery (I'll go into more detail if you like) one of the two main projects being carried out at CERN at present is to see if Gravatons are 'stuck' on our 'plain' like all of tge other matter or (as is believed) they can slip seemlessly through inbetween parrelell universes. It will likly be many years until we know, as there will be litterally millions of numbers to go through, but somewhere in there is the answer.

[HogTrash]

Anything built under the supervision of United Auto Workers is suspect. :salute:Considering that American union workers are, for the most part, the laziest most spoiled, pampered and unproductive labor force in the world, I will have to agree with you.


Solid rear axle??? Cheap/nasty dash and interior bits?You can't really compare a $30,000 car to a +$60,000 car, regardless of where it's made.


Performance? Sure - I love how Evolution has turned the Focus into the Mustang. See the focus knew it didn't want to exist in a state of "fail", so thru natural selection, the focus developed the traits which eventually lead to the Mustange GT. :)I once owned a 1969 428 Cobra Jet Mach 1 Mustang.

I still get aroused every time I think about it.

Down Boy!...False Alarm! :mm:

[PostmodernProphet]

So black holes are super-natural? After all we have no idea what goes on inside them...
Ofcourse they are part of nature, just as parrellel universes may well be.

are you going to argue that science is unable to examine and observe black holes?...



The point is why do you think one is obvious and the other impossible?

an eternal universe is impossible because science is aware of it's beginning......



I know do not believe in cross-species evolution, despite the fact that we have MtDNA, RetroViral DNA, Chromasomal fusion and the independant summation of thousands of biological fields.
please, I've already spanked your ass soundly on all four of those issues.....if you feel insecure about the results simply go back and reread that thread.....




So if everything does not need a creator why would the universe?
see, this is what happens when you don't keep track of the arguments......

the universe had a beginning.....it gives evidence of design as opposed to evidence of shit happens......

[Noir]

are you going to argue that science is unable to examine and observe black holes?...

We can to an extent observe them. But we have no idea what's going on inside them. Ofcourse that does not make them supernatural, just part if nature we don't yet understand.

If parellel universes exist the same can be said of those until we learn how to understand them.


an eternal universe is impossible because science is aware of it's beginning......

No, we know an event happened. Like I said before how do you know that was not the rebirth of the universe after a big crunch, which could well be a process that has been repeating itself for eternity? And even if our universe had a begining with the big bang event, that does not mean that the membrane (which is the current model used to describe how the different plains of the multiverse are connected) had a begining.


please, I've already spanked your ass soundly on all four of those issues.....if you feel insecure about the results simply go back and reread that thread.....

If you could prove RetroViral DNA does not prove evolution you'd be on a tour of the worlds greatest biological universities explaining it to them and winning countless awards along the way.




see, this is what happens when you don't keep track of the arguments......

the universe had a beginning.....it gives evidence of design as opposed to evidence of shit happens......

You are stating as fact that which is unknown, that the universe had a begingin. (ie not just our universe, but the possible multiverse membrane too)

Design is only there if you want it to be there.

One question I have asked a few times now, and you keep missing is what is the reason for god existing? I meaning I know theists are found of exceptions to the rule...'Everything must have a creator, except god.' 'Everything must have a begining, except god.' Is this another one to add to the exceptional list? 'Everything must have a reason to exist, except god.'

[darin]

I just gotta say - it seems as if Noir isn't even trying to read and understand...Dude - Noir - seems you're simply ignoring PMP's points and asking more questions.

[PostmodernProphet]

If parellel universes exist the same can be said of those until we learn how to understand them.

the very fact that you had to add "if parallel universes exist" proves that the same canNOT be said about them.....



Like I said before how do you know that was not the rebirth of the universe after a big crunch, which could well be a process that has been repeating itself for eternity? And even if our universe had a begining with the big bang event, that does not mean that the membrane (which is the current model used to describe how the different plains of the multiverse are connected) had a begining.

again, those would simply be alternate supernatural origins.....science is incapable of explaining the supernatural, therefore belief in those alternatives are as much a matter of faith as the existence of a creator....



If you could prove RetroViral DNA does not prove evolution you'd be on a tour of the worlds greatest biological universities explaining it to them and winning countless awards along the way.
no one is talking about evolution...the development of different species of butterflies isn't the issue...we are talking about origins....




You are stating as fact that which is unknown, that the universe had a begingin. (ie not just our universe, but the possible multiverse membrane too)


the universe had a beginning.....perhaps this multiverse that you have chosen to believe in didn't......neither did the God that I have chosen to believe in.....



Design is only there if you want it to be there.
and only absent if you want it not to be.....



One question I have asked a few times now, and you keep missing is what is the reason for god existing? I meaning I know theists are found of exceptions to the rule...'Everything must have a creator, except god.' 'Everything must have a begining, except god.' Is this another one to add to the exceptional list? 'Everything must have a reason to exist, except god.'
I agree that the three questions have the same answer......if something has a beginning, it has a cause......if there is a cause there is a reason for the cause.....if there is a reason, there is a purpose.....

it is logical that if there is no beginning, the rest do not follow.....

note: I will be out of town for the next three days....


I just gotta say - it seems as if Noir isn't even trying to read and understand...Dude - Noir - seems you're simply ignoring PMP's points and asking more questions.

that's fine with me......most atheists I have argued with have started screaming insults by now....Noir at least let's me have a rational argument.....

[Noir]

I just gotta say - it seems as if Noir isn't even trying to read and understand...Dude - Noir - seems you're simply ignoring PMP's points and asking more questions.

I am Reading & understanding to the best of my ability. Sorry if that's not enough for you, but I'm am idiot like that :thumb:


the very fact that you had to add "if parallel universes exist" proves that the same canNOT be said about them.....[/quite]

Before we proved that blackholes existed we had a good idea of what they were, and how they came about. Does that mean that before we confined their existance through science they were super-natural? Or just a part of nature we had yet to understand?

[quote]again, those would simply be alternate supernatural origins.....science is incapable of explaining the supernatural, therefore belief in those alternatives are as much a matter of faith as the existence of a creator....

I will wait to see your response to the above point before I make one on this one.



o one is talking about evolution...the development of different species of butterflies isn't the issue...we are talking about origins....

Well I specificly remember you saying that you don't believe in species to species evolution.


the universe had a beginning.....perhaps this multiverse that you have chosen to believe in didn't......neither did the God that I have chosen to believe in.....

Good, we're making progress, you're considering that the multi-verse *may* be eternal. That is a totally reasonable and logical understanding. In the same way that a god *may* be eternal.



and only absent if you want it not to be.....

While I don't want to go down this path too much, as it is an epic discussion in itself, if this universe is the design of something, it was a shoddy designer.



I agree that the three questions have the same answer......if something has a beginning, it has a cause......if there is a cause there is a reason for the cause.....if there is a reason, there is a purpose.....

it is logical that if there is no beginning, the rest do not follow.....

and as you said eariler, the multiverse may well be eternal if it exists. Inwhich case this universe is a result of 'shit happens'


note: I will be out of town for the next three days....

Mkay, have fun ^_^

[PostmodernProphet]

Before we proved that blackholes existed we had a good idea of what they were, and how they came about. Does that mean that before we confined their existance through science they were super-natural? Or just a part of nature we had yet to understand?

before we knew what black holes were we could observe the impact they had on the universe......if you observe a parallel universe, let me know....



Well I specificly remember you saying that you don't believe in species to species evolution.
I believe that different species of beetles evolve from beetles...I do not believe that man and redwoods had a common ancestor....



Good, we're making progress, you're considering that the multi-verse *may* be eternal. That is a totally reasonable and logical understanding. In the same way that a god *may* be eternal.
wrong....I am saying that you can make a faith choice about something of which there is no scientific evidence, just as I have.....the problem is that you refuse to admit it's a faith choice....



While I don't want to go down this path too much, as it is an epic discussion in itself, if this universe is the design of something, it was a shoddy designer.

yet, despite the fact that mankind has been around for either hundreds of thousands of years we have only been able to decipher the blueprint for DNA in the last ten years and duplicate it in the last two....the ability to recreate an alternative DNA is how many thousands of lifetimes away?.....



and as you said eariler, the multiverse may well be eternal if it exists. Inwhich case this universe is a result of 'shit happens'
but I have said no such thing....I have merely said you are free to believe it does.....in no manner do I acknowledge such belief has merit....

[HogTrash]

Dilightful as the image may be, I've never been in a religious lecture other that at primary school were I was taught to be a Protestant Christian, and at high school where one RE teacher had the upfrontery to tell me that evolution was stupid and that *obviously* god created the universe, only being 11 at the time I did not have the knowlegde I now have to challenge his assertion, but I do hope I bump into him sometime soon.That shot right over your head at mach speed, just as I suspected it would.

Not only are the young the most impressionable, but the most predictable as well.


im·pres·sion·a·ble (m-prsh-n-bl)
adj.
1. Readily or easily influenced; suggestible: impressionable young people.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impressionable

[Noir]

That shot right over your head at mach speed, just as I suspected it would.

Not only are the young the most impressionable, but the most predictable as well.

Not only are the old the most stubborn they are also the most patronizing as well.

[pete311]

There is a highly speculative new theory that states we might be living in a black hole:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/we-might-be-living-black-hole-scientist-says

There is also a theory that the most probable explanation is we live in a simulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality


I don't at the moment support either theory, but they are compelling and interesting. It at least shows we have the desire to find out and prove our surrounding instead of accepting a stagnant brainwash for 2000 years. I've also been accepting that there may be an abstract god. But all the current religions just seem too silly to be taken seriously. It's like reading canterbury tales. The truth is likely either much more complex or much more boring, the current is too conveniently fantasy like.

[Agnapostate]

Did you know that the Gospel of John is a corrupted document that has been altered since it was originally written? The starkest example of this is the passage of John 7:53-8:11, which contains the famous story of Jesus forgiving an adulteress and rebuking Pharisees. It is not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and was probably added by a later scribe.

[HogTrash]

There is a highly speculative new theory that states we might be living in a black hole:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/we-might-be-living-black-hole-scientist-saysI believe this to be a viable theory that I have considered myself.


There is also a theory that the most probable explanation is we live in a simulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_realityTo me this theory sounds more in tune with a hollywood matrix fantasy.

Regardless, I will leave my mind open to all possibilities of future evidence.


I don't at the moment support either theory, but they are compelling and interesting. It at least shows we have the desire to find out and prove our surrounding instead of accepting a stagnant brainwash for 2000 years. I've also been accepting that there may be an abstract god. But all the current religions just seem too silly to be taken seriously. It's like reading canterbury tales. The truth is likely either much more complex or much more boring, the current is too conveniently fantasy like.Consider the following post that I intended for Noir:


Why do atheist assume that God and Science cannot exist in harmony?

If we are truely God's creations, then it was God that gave us the brain that is responsible for the science.

I believe your resistance to God stems from what you consider to be the irrational reasoning of supernatural beliefs.

Maybe a more rational way of thinking for you would be to reclassify God as a powerful universal lifeform, rather than a Diety.

A creature composed of pure energy and intellect that the laws of physics do not apply, who can manipulate matter and travel at the speed of thought.

And then think of religion as humankinds vain attempts to explain something totally uncomprehensible and beyond their realm of imagination and conscienceness.

Given enough time, I'm sure the human race will figure things out, in the mean time the nonbelievers should end their campaign of hate for religion and allow the believer's to pray in peace.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28980-Big-Bang-minus-1-nano-second&p=438561#post438561

[pete311]

To me this theory sounds more in tune with a hollywood matrix fantasy.

Perhaps, but there are vast models of complex mathematics that I couldn't even begin to understand that back up the theory, whether wrong or right, so it shouldn't be disregard because there was a movie about it :)


Why do atheist assume that God and Science cannot exist in harmony?
Because science is based on logic and for the moment, god has no logic.



A creature composed of pure energy and intellect that the laws of physics do not apply, who can manipulate matter and travel at the speed of thought.
People who believe in science are annoyed because of fantasy thoughts like this. It simply means nothing to me and is pure gibberish. It's something you just thought up in your head. There is no basis for it anywhere so why would I adopt the idea?



And then think of religion as humankinds vain attempts to explain something totally uncomprehensible and beyond their realm of imagination and conscienceness.
Take ten minutes and watch this and tell me what you think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo



Given enough time, I'm sure the human race will figure things out, in the mean time the nonbelievers should end their campaign of hate for religion and allow the believer's to pray in peace.
I don't have a campaign. I only respond when believers post or bring up the topic, I don't bring it up to tear them down. I have no problem with people wasting their lives talking to nothing, but when they go on missions around the world spreading their fantasy without giving other options, it really annoys me.

[PostmodernProphet]

Did you know that the Gospel of John is a corrupted document that has been altered since it was originally written? The starkest example of this is the passage of John 7:53-8:11, which contains the famous story of Jesus forgiving an adulteress and rebuking Pharisees. It is not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and was probably added by a later scribe.

It is hardly fair to call it a "corrupted document"......manuscripts discovered since the days the King James version was written have cast doubt on whether it was originally included or a later addition. However recent translations, such as the New International Version clearly state that fact in a foot note.....

in any event, whether added or not, it clearly describes an event which anyone familiar with Jesus could conclude is consistent with everything he has taught us.....thus, whether or not it actually occurred during the incarnation, it is a valuable teaching for Christianity.....




Because science is based on logic and for the moment, god has no logic.


really?....which of his arguments are you referring to?.......



I don't have a campaign. I only respond when believers post or bring up the topic, I don't bring it up to tear them down. I have no problem with people wasting their lives talking to nothing, but when they go on missions around the world spreading their fantasy without giving other options, it really annoys me.
yet I have never, to my recollection, ever participated in one of these threads that wasn't begun by an atheist....telling, isn't it....

[pete311]

really?....which of his arguments are you referring to?.......

i don't understand your question, obviously i am referring to the quoted text


yet I have never, to my recollection, ever participated in one of these threads that wasn't begun by an atheist....telling, isn't it....

i don't speak for others

[HogTrash]

Perhaps, but there are vast models of complex mathematics that I couldn't even begin to understand that back up the theory, whether wrong or right, so it shouldn't be disregard because there was a movie about it :)


Because science is based on logic and for the moment, god has no logic.


People who believe in science are annoyed because of fantasy thoughts like this. It simply means nothing to me and is pure gibberish. It's something you just thought up in your head. There is no basis for it anywhere so why would I adopt the idea?


Take ten minutes and watch this and tell me what you think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxoWhat I think:

[1] I think the video states the views and opinions of atheism very well.

[2] I think it is guilty of the same arrogance and close mindedness of those it criticizes.

[3] I think it's an indication of the amazing curiosity of humankind and the attempts to explain it's existance.

[4] I think it promotes the idea that the theories it doesn't approve of are unworthy of consideration.


I don't have a campaign. I only respond when believers post or bring up the topic, I don't bring it up to tear them down. I have no problem with people wasting their lives talking to nothing, but when they go on missions around the world spreading their fantasy without giving other options, it really annoys me.I am non-religious but am very aware that as a species, we are new to the universe and know very little about everything, and the worst mistake we can make is to close our minds to any possibility.

The video asks: "imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that 'hidden somewhere in this building is a cube' and then asks you 'what does the cube contain'"?

The only "cube" in the building that I know for certain of it's contents, is the room that I am standing in...If there is another cube in the building, the only way to discover it's contents is to go in search of it.

Untill then, I will keep my mind open and accept whatever I find, even if it turns out to be something I was hoping wasn't there...The truth is nonnegotiable.

[PostmodernProphet]

i don't understand your question, obviously i am referring to the quoted text

okay, I have re-read every post in this stupid thread four times.....what quoted text are you talking about.........

you claimed God was illogical.....doesn't that presume you've heard him argue...



i don't speak for others

yet you had no problem accusing us of "spreading our fantasy"......aren't the atheists the ones who are always starting the threads, preaching their beliefs?.....

[Noir]

before we knew what black holes were we could observe the impact they had on the universe......if you observe a parallel universe, let me know....

Exactly, and at this very moment (before we know for certian if their are parrellel universes) we believe we are observing there effect by the weakness of tge gravity force. And that we are currently running experiments to see if Gravatons can slip out of our universe into another.


I believe that different species of beetles evolve from beetles...I do not believe that man and redwoods had a common ancestor....

Even though the science says we do.
Look at diamonds and a lump of cinders, both of those are chemicaly identical, made from carbon, even though it's impossible for your brain to imagin how that is so, we know it's true because of science. Not only are we made of the same Star-stuff as everything around us (and so linked chemicaly) but there is also a paper trail in our DNA, linking us biologically.


wrong....I am saying that you can make a faith choice about something of which there is no scientific evidence, just as I have.....the problem is that you refuse to admit it's a faith choice....

It's not a faith choice, it's an idea, I don't care if it's proved wrong by science (though it would obviously be fantastic if it were proved right). If uou really wana say I have faith then that's fine, but my faith judgements alter upon the information available to us, yours is stuck in whatever mindset it is, and regards change and scientific advancement as unwanted.



yet, despite the fact that mankind has been around for either hundreds of thousands of years we have only been able to decipher the blueprint for DNA in the last ten years and duplicate it in the last two....the ability to recreate an alternative DNA is how many thousands of lifetimes away?.....

We've already made the first 'artifical life' completely from scratch.
And, when I said 'shoddy designer' I meant look at whats around us. Even at an amazingly small area the universe like our solar system. All of the other planets in it are either to hot or cold for human life, infact so is some of our planet, which can support some life, some of the time, on some of it's surface. We are built badly, eyes with blindspots, hearing that fails, knee joints that ware easy, an apendix so designed as to sit there, doing nothing, before it randomly decides to try an kill you!

We are not the best creatures that could have evolved, and by the same token, we are certainly not the best designed, and the fact that you think we were designed by an all knowing deity, means they knew they were designing us badly.



but I have said no such thing....I have merely said you are free to believe it does.....in no manner do I acknowledge such belief has merit....

You said "the universe had a beginning.....perhaps this multiverse that you have chosen to believe in didn't......neither did the God that I have chosen to believe in....."

I will happily conceed that maybe your god did create everything, or manybe it was someone elses god, but woukd you let yourself conceed that maybe you are wrong, and there are no gods?

[PostmodernProphet]

Even though the science says we do.

wrong....some people, looking at what they observe in science BELIEVE we do......while there is scientific evidence for micro evolution, macro evolution is nothing but speculation, incapable of scientific experimentation or observation.....



but there is also a paper trail in our DNA, linking us biologically.
yet I can look at DNA and speculate it is evidence of intelligent design instead of speculate it's evidence of macro evolution.....




It's not a faith choice, it's an idea, I don't care if it's proved wrong by science (though it would obviously be fantastic if it were proved right). If uou really wana say I have faith then that's fine, but my faith judgements alter upon the information available to us, yours is stuck in whatever mindset it is, and regards change and scientific advancement as unwanted.
the fact you see a difference between us just demonstrates you're more of a fundamentalist than I am.....





We've already made the first 'artifical life' completely from scratch.
lol, no we haven't.....we've simply spliced an altered DNA into a living creature....there's no "from scratch" involved at all, either the life or the methodology.....



And, when I said 'shoddy designer' I meant look at whats around us. Even at an amazingly small area the universe like our solar system. All of the other planets in it are either to hot or cold for human life, infact so is some of our planet, which can support some life, some of the time, on some of it's surface. We are built badly, eyes with blindspots, hearing that fails, knee joints that ware easy, an apendix so designed as to sit there, doing nothing, before it randomly decides to try an kill you!

We are not the best creatures that could have evolved, and by the same token, we are certainly not the best designed, and the fact that you think we were designed by an all knowing deity, means they knew they were designing us badly.


and are you capable of carrying out any improvements?....science tells us that the range of conditions that can support life are very specific.....minor variations in a dozen different factors and life would not exist at all.....which of those factors would you "fix" and would you terminate all life in doing so?.....



I will happily conceed that maybe your god did create everything, or manybe it was someone elses god, but woukd you let yourself conceed that maybe you are wrong, and there are no gods?

?????....what is the purpose of making a choice to believe, if you harbor disbelief?.....obviously only one is right....if I am wrong, I am wrong.....but the issue is, why do you pretend science has PROVED you right, when it is obviously a faith issue?.....

the truly ignorant are those who think that they must not believe in God because they believe in science, for they have clearly lost touch with what science actually is......it is observation, not speculation.....

[Agnapostate]

It is hardly fair to call it a "corrupted document"......manuscripts discovered since the days the King James version was written have cast doubt on whether it was originally included or a later addition. However recent translations, such as the New International Version clearly state that fact in a foot note.....

The text is not present in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and is almost certainly a later addition. If there's a "debate," it's between Christian fundamentalists and actual textual scholars, pitting the informed against the uninformed in a manner akin to the creationist v. evolutionist debate.


in any event, whether added or not, it clearly describes an event which anyone familiar with Jesus could conclude is consistent with everything he has taught us.....thus, whether or not it actually occurred during the incarnation, it is a valuable teaching for Christianity.....

The first issue is that this is hardly the point, since the Gospel of John is regarded as a divinely inspired and infallible document by more stringent Christians, as is the rest of the Bible, and the presence of counterfeit texts would severely undermine that premise. Otherwise, any story that was alleged to bear some relation to Christian principles could be inserted into the Bible and claimed as "infallible." The second is that Jesus's demeanor has itself been altered by Biblical authors, even aside from the inconsistency between his various statements and actions. Why did Matthew and John remove references to Jesus's anger in their stories copied from the Gospel of Mark? Why does Jesus condone or excuse violations of Pentateuch laws in some instances and claim that not one iota of the Law or Prophets will pass away in others?


we are new to the universe and know very little about everything

That's clear enough as it applies to you, if nothing else.

[HogTrash]

That's clear enough as it applies to you, if nothing else.
It's a shame we can't all be mental giants like yourself. :dunno:

[PostmodernProphet]

The first issue is that this is hardly the point, since the Gospel of John is regarded as a divinely inspired and infallible document by more stringent Christians, as is the rest of the Bible, and the presence of counterfeit texts would severely undermine that premise.

not at all.....we believe the Bible is divinely inspired and infallible....that hardly means we believe the King James translation, or any other translation is....

[PostmodernProphet]

The second is that Jesus's demeanor has itself been altered by Biblical authors, even aside from the inconsistency between his various statements and actions. Why did Matthew and John remove references to Jesus's anger in their stories copied from the Gospel of Mark?


???...how do you know his demeanor has been altered.....were you there and witnessed something different?....


Why does Jesus condone or excuse violations of Pentateuch laws in some instances and claim that not one iota of the Law or Prophets will pass away in others?
??...because there is a difference between the Law and the levitical codes for sacrificial cleanliness......Christ's sacrifice on the cross eliminated the need for any further sacrifice and, logically, the cleanliness codes that prepared a person to make the sacrifice....the Law is the Ten Commandments...summarized by Jesus as "love the lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself".....

[Noir]

wrong....some people, looking at what they observe in science BELIEVE we do......while there is scientific evidence for micro evolution, macro evolution is nothing but speculation, incapable of scientific experimentation or observation.....

Mkay, care to explain Retro-Viral DNA? The ONLY way someone who does not believe in inter-spcies evolution can explain it is by saying that a designer went to the extent of putting R:DNA to make it look like evolution took place.


yet I can look at DNA and speculate it is evidence of intelligent design instead of speculate it's evidence of macro evolution.....

When you see gravity in action do you speculate that it is infact a god acting upon matter to make it look asif mass causes a bend in space-time? Occams razor takes care of such tosh.


the fact you see a difference between us just demonstrates you're more of a fundamentalist than I am.....

Yeah, i'm prepared to accept and reject ideas based on publicly veriafiable evidence when it is Peer tested, reviewed and published. You know what you know and couldn't care for evidence, but hey, atleast you're not a fundamentalist like me...


lol, no we haven't.....we've simply spliced an altered DNA into a living creature....there's no "from scratch" involved at all, either the life or the methodology.....

Righto, needless to say the words "from scratch" are moot, and its a moot i don't care to get into tbh.


and are you capable of carrying out any improvements?....science tells us that the range of conditions that can support life are very specific.....minor variations in a dozen different factors and life would not exist at all.....which of those factors would you "fix" and would you terminate all life in doing so?.....

Yes, many. Say on a galactic scale, i'd not of put andromada and the Milky Way on a collision course with eachother. On a Solar level, I wouldn't of created a system whereby one unpredictable Solar Flare could wipe out all life on earth before we'd know there was a problem. On an Earth Planet level i wouldn't of made so much of the earth hostil to life. On a human level I would of given us sight better than eagles, hearing better than bats, sense of smell better than dogs, and improvements to the early mentioned joints to avoid loss of mobility wouldn't of been bad either. But then i wasn't the desiger.


?????....what is the purpose of making a choice to believe, if you harbor disbelief?.....obviously only one is right....if I am wrong, I am wrong.....but the issue is, why do you pretend science has PROVED you right, when it is obviously a faith issue?.....

Its called being open minded, ofcourse only one is right, and i think one is quite a bit more likely than the other, but i would no say that the other is wrong because I don't know that it is. Like i said i'm happy to say that you may be right, are you so happy to say that i may be right? (remember, i'm the fundamentalist...)


the truly ignorant are those who think that they must not believe in God because they believe in science, for they have clearly lost touch with what science actually is......it is observation, not speculation.....

Indeed, and some people refuse to believe its observations because of their god, could there be a more ignorant postion to hold?

[PostmodernProphet]

each of these is worthy of a thread of it's own.....one at a time so none get neglected





When you see gravity in action do you speculate that it is infact a god acting upon matter to make it look asif mass causes a bend in space-time? Occams razor takes care of such tosh.


you miss the entire point.....when I see gravity in action I say, thank God for gravity, otherwise there could be no life......when you look at gravity who do you thank.....is it more, shit just happens?......gravity began at the moment of the Big Bang (obviously, if it had been there a second sooner the Big Bang would have occurred a second sooner)......where do you think gravity "came from"?......

the same is true of DNA......do you really think Occam's Razor tells you the simplest solution to something that complex is "shit just happens"?.....is that the same solution you would come to if you applied Occam's Razor to Microsoft's Vista software?......

[I will save retroviral DNA and your "improvements" on creation for discussion after you've exhausted yourself....er, satisfied me....... on this one]

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah, i'm prepared to accept and reject ideas based on publicly veriafiable evidence when it is Peer tested, reviewed and published. You know what you know and couldn't care for evidence, but hey, atleast you're not a fundamentalist like me...



Righto, needless to say the words "from scratch" are moot, and its a moot i don't care to get into tbh.


/giggle.....nah, you make claims you think you can get away with, yet when called on them you don't "care to get into it"......why would I think you're a fundamentalist......

so you want to stick with what's "peer reviewed and published".....you want to stick with "verifiable evidence".....yet your alternative to creation is alternate universes?.......come on, Noir.....admit your making a faith choice and stop hiding behind a false shield of science.....there's nothing scientific about alternate universes....

pretending you have a rational basis for what is obviously a faith choice is what MAKES you a fundamentalist......

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeed, and some people refuse to believe its observations because of their god, could there be a more ignorant postion to hold?

it would in fact be ignorant to ignore science because of a belief in God.....and it would be ignorant to ignore God because of a belief in science......thus, it would not be a "more" ignorant position.....simply an equally ignorant position.......

[Noir]

each of these is worthy of a thread of it's own.....one at a time so none get neglected




you miss the entire point.....when I see gravity in action I say, thank God for gravity, otherwise there could be no life......when you look at gravity who do you thank.....is it more, shit just happens?......gravity began at the moment of the Big Bang (obviously, if it had been there a second sooner the Big Bang would have occurred a second sooner)......where do you think gravity "came from"?......

the same is true of DNA......do you really think Occam's Razor tells you the simplest solution to something that complex is "shit just happens"?.....is that the same solution you would come to if you applied Occam's Razor to Microsoft's Vista software?......

[I will save retroviral DNA and your "improvements" on creation for discussion after you've exhausted yourself....er, satisfied me....... on this one]

And do you also thank your god for the planet killing Asteroids and so forth?

And yes, i do, much as you like to think a creator provides a simple answer, it is infact the most complex one possible, as it requires an all knowing eternal deity. Complexity comes from Simplicy, not the other way round. That is not to say that a creator is not the answer, it just makes it less likey.

Okay, i do look forward to one day hear how RDNA does not prove species to species evolution.

[Noir]

/giggle.....nah, you make claims you think you can get away with, yet when called on them you don't "care to get into it"......why would I think you're a fundamentalist......

so you want to stick with what's "peer reviewed and published".....you want to stick with "verifiable evidence".....yet your alternative to creation is alternate universes?.......come on, Noir.....admit your making a faith choice and stop hiding behind a false shield of science.....there's nothing scientific about alternate universes....

pretending you have a rational basis for what is obviously a faith choice is what MAKES you a fundamentalist......

Simply because the whole discussion about that is going to centre around the words "from scratch" (As Carl Sagan once quiped "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the univese.") If you really wana go into if we made life from "scratch" or not then by all means do, but it will be a debate of definitions, nothing more.

My alternitive is what seems to best fit the science we have at the minute. But ofcourse that is not enough, which is why research is taking place at CERN to see if they stand up to the tests required.

Like i said, if you wana call it faith, call it faith, but its faith that will change when new scientific evidence is put forward. Were you will not be subject to such inconvieniences.

[Noir]

it would in fact be ignorant to ignore science because of a belief in God.....and it would be ignorant to ignore God because of a belief in science......thus, it would not be a "more" ignorant position.....simply an equally ignorant position.......

Reminds me of when LaPlace presented his Orrary to Napolean, explaining the orbits of the planets through space, and the Emperor asked were god was in it, and he wonderfully replied "je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la" [It works without that assumption] As does...well...just about everything.

To put it another way, i do remember C Hitchens once saying (though i can not remember if he was quoting someone else or not) How odd of a creator to have created the Life, the Universe and everything else the only way that would not require a creator.'

[PostmodernProphet]

And do you also thank your god for the planet killing Asteroids and so forth?


why, did one kill you?....



And yes, i do, much as you like to think a creator provides a simple answer, it is infact the most complex one possible, as it requires an all knowing eternal deity. Complexity comes from Simplicy, not the other way round. That is not to say that a creator is not the answer, it just makes it less likey.
a million coincidences are less complex than one cause?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Simply because the whole discussion about that is going to centre around the words "from scratch"


obviously.....poor choice of words on your part....given that they simply pasted an altered DNA on a living cell....that's hardly a matter of "definitions".....



My alternitive is what seems to best fit the science we have at the minute.
don't make me laugh.....your alternative isn't science at all....

[Noir]

why, did one kill you?....

Not yet, hopefully I'll avoid that fate, but it is certain that without technological advancement a future generation won't.



a million coincidences are less complex than one cause?.....

A God is the most complex answer possible, no matter how many billions of coincidences needed they would not be any less likely than a god.

[Noir]

obviously.....poor choice of words on your part....given that they simply pasted an altered DNA on a living cell....that's hardly a matter of "definitions".....

It wasn't altered DNA, it was a mix of chemicals, mixed by humans into a desired code that was then used to 'rewrite' the 'software' of a DNA structure. Thus allowing. Us to create life that does not exist in nature at a genetic level. You won't be surprised to know that many god groups are against such developments.


don't make me laugh.....your alternative isn't science at all....

So tell me, what exactly is science?

[PostmodernProphet]

Not yet, hopefully I'll avoid that fate, but it is certain that without technological advancement a future generation won't.

really?.....so it's a certainty that God's going to kill the earth with an asteroid?.....




A God is the most complex answer possible, no matter how many billions of coincidences needed they would not be any less likely than a god.
can you demonstrate that mathematically?.....or is it just sort of an assumption that atheists make......because I'll be honest....a billion coincidences seems pretty complex to me......when I look at Windows 7, I find it a lot less complex to believe that there is a Microsoft, than that there were a billion coincidences........

[PostmodernProphet]

It wasn't altered DNA, it was a mix of chemicals, mixed by humans into a desired code that was then used to 'rewrite' the 'software' of a DNA structure. Thus allowing. Us to create life that does not exist in nature at a genetic level.
???...are we talking about the recent experiment where they inserted an altered DNA genome into a living cell and made a new type of bacteria?.....that obviously was nothing more than altered DNA......there was no "rewriting" of software, there was no creating of life.....



So tell me, what exactly is science?
it's the methodical study of the universe.....

[Dante]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


you've totally misunderstood 'time' but that's not unusual. :laugh:

[Noir]

really?.....so it's a certainty that God's going to kill the earth with an asteroid?.....

No, it's a certainty that we will get hit but another planet killer. It's already happened 6 times it the earths history, it's only a matter of time. And ofcourse, just incase we are lucky enough to escape that fate. There's always magnetic reversal, mega-solar flares, the rise of drug resistant viruses ect that will kill us off.


can you demonstrate that mathematically?.....or is it just sort of an assumption that atheists make......because I'll be honest....a billion coincidences seems pretty complex to me......when I look at Windows 7, I find it a lot less complex to believe that there is a Microsoft, than that there were a billion coincidences........

Yes, do you think your god is omnipotent? What could possibly be more complex than being omnipotent?

[Noir]

???...are we talking about the recent experiment where they inserted an altered DNA genome into a living cell and made a new type of bacteria?.....that obviously was nothing more than altered DNA......there was no "rewriting" of software, there was no creating of life.....

Here's the TEDtalk for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The genetic software was coded in a computer, chemical solutions where mixed to chemically form that code and it was then implanted in bacterium creating a new form of life. Obviously as development continues there will be no need for a host bacterium, and life will be made from the complex mixing of chemicals alone, however, that will require billions of lines of coding and will no doubt be many years away yet.



it's the methodical study of the universe.....

Exactly, and there is a methodology to it. That methodology goes Facts -> Hypothesis -> Testing -> Theory
Parrellel universes are a hypothesis that are currently being subject to tests, if the tests confirm them they will become theory. If the tests show them to nit exist they will be tossed in the trash will countless other failed hypothesise. Do you think that science is only science when it is a theory?

[PostmodernProphet]

No, it's a certainty that we will get hit but another planet killer. It's already happened 6 times it the earths history, it's only a matter of time. And ofcourse, just incase we are lucky enough to escape that fate. There's always magnetic reversal, mega-solar flares, the rise of drug resistant viruses ect that will kill us off.

good lord, why do you even bother to stick around....



Yes, do you think your god is omnipotent? What could possibly be more complex than being omnipotent?
a billion coincidences.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Here's the TEDtalk for it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The genetic software was coded in a computer, chemical solutions where mixed to chemically form that code and it was then implanted in bacterium creating a new form of life. Obviously as development continues there will be no need for a host bacterium, and life will be made from the complex mixing of chemicals alone, however, that will require billions of lines of coding and will no doubt be many years away yet.

yes, I'm familiar with it......they studied DNA....they did not create new "software"....they patched in coding developed by mimicking the existing "software"......you say "there will be no need for a host bacterium" as if there was some reason to suspect that were true....I say you're pulling it out of your ass, not out of science......




Exactly, and there is a methodology to it. That methodology goes Facts -> Hypothesis -> Testing -> Theory
Parrellel universes are a hypothesis that are currently being subject to tests, if the tests confirm them they will become theory. If the tests show them to nit exist they will be tossed in the trash will countless other failed hypothesise. Do you think that science is only science when it is a theory?
don't be an idiot....parallel universes are speculation....in order to be a hypothesis it needs to be capable of testing.....you threw some bullshit around the other day that you claimed was a test of parallel universes.....it didn't pass the stick to the wall test, so it was rather weak shit....

tell you what....I have this theory that rainwater turns into leeches......I have a bottle of rainwater down in the basement right now and I have been watching it carefully for nearly a year.....without a doubt if I watch it long enough it will fill up with leeches.....whadaya think?.......say, maybe if they don't show up it's because they are in a parallel universe!......I'm on to something here....in order for there to be leeches HERE I need somebody with a bottle of rainwater THERE!

[Noir]

good lord, why do you even bother to stick around....

Just to annoy you 8)
Now then, back on track, do you thank your god for the presence of these asteroids that will one day hit us?



a billion coincidences.....

Not so, your god is infinitely powerful, and thus infinitely complex, a billion coincidences doesn't even scratch the surface of infinity.

[Noir]

yes, I'm familiar with it......they studied DNA....they did not create new "software"....they patched in coding developed by mimicking the existing "software"......you say "there will be no need for a host bacterium" as if there was some reason to suspect that were true....I say you're pulling it out of your ass, not out of science......

Yes they did, they coded the DNA, infact they did so in such a way that the code contained the names of all the designers and the website the publish their research on.

The hope is in the short term they will be able to script anti-vrius codes that will then be 'booted up' inside living cells. Just as you'd code antivirus software onto a Cad before burning it to a computer.



don't be an idiot....parallel universes are speculation....in order to be a hypothesis it needs to be capable of testing.....you threw some bullshit around the other day that you claimed was a test of parallel universes.....it didn't pass the stick to the wall test, so it was rather weak shit....

tell you what....I have this theory that rainwater turns into leeches......I have a bottle of rainwater down in the basement right now and I have been watching it carefully for nearly a year.....without a doubt if I watch it long enough it will fill up with leeches.....whadaya think?.......say, maybe if they don't show up it's because they are in a parallel universe!......I'm on to something here....in order for there to be leeches HERE I need somebody with a bottle of rainwater THERE!

The tests are currently running in CERN. If you don't want to accept that then fair enough.

[PostmodernProphet]

Just to annoy you 8)
Now then, back on track, do you thank your god for the presence of these asteroids that will one day hit us?

no, I thank him that they aren't.....



Not so, your god is infinitely powerful, and thus infinitely complex, a billion coincidences doesn't even scratch the surface of infinity.
but an infinite, complex God doesn't require faith in random chance bringing about something that looks like the universe......a billion coincidences are a billion times as complex as one intelligent act......intent is far less complex than random chance......

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes they did, they coded the DNA, infact they did so in such a way that the code contained the names of all the designers and the website the publish their research on.

that's the point.....they coded DNA, after studying it and copying it.....they didn't create ZNA or ZYX or anything that wasn't DNA....so,what did they create?......







The tests are currently running in CERN. If you don't want to accept that then fair enough.
they aren't tests to "prove" some "hypothesis" of alternative universes.....

[Noir]

no, I thank him that they aren't.....

Bur they will, it's only a matter of time, unless a super-flare or something else gets us before then. No doubt some idiots will spend their last few seconds thanking their chosen god for whatever is about to wipe them and the rest of humanity out of the universe.


but an infinite, complex God doesn't require faith in random chance bringing about something that looks like the universe......a billion coincidences are a billion times as complex as one intelligent act......intent is far less complex than random chance......

If you believe in an eternal god then tere is nothing to stop you believing in an eternal multiverse. And ofcourse anything can happen given an unlimited amount of time no matter how unlikely (including te formation of a god) however, een given that, the chances that matter would develop without omnipotency ect are still more likely than matter with it. Making a god still less likey. Than other possibilities.

[Noir]

that's the point.....they coded DNA, after studying it and copying it.....they didn't create ZNA or ZYX or anything that wasn't DNA....so,what did they create?......
They created a new species, maybe you don't think that's important. If so then you're massively underestimating the achievement.


they aren't tests to "prove" some "hypothesis" of alternative universes.....

We have made predictions of what will happen if the parallel universes are there. The tests are there to see If the predictions hold. If so, then further predictions cam be made and tested, and so on. Eventually of it keeps standing up to testing and it's predictions are reliable it will be considered theory.

[PostmodernProphet]

Bur they will, it's only a matter of time, unless a super-flare or something else gets us before then. No doubt some idiots will spend their last few seconds thanking their chosen god for whatever is about to wipe them and the rest of humanity out of the universe.

so, you have your concepts of "hell" and I have mine.....



If you believe in an eternal god then tere is nothing to stop you believing in an eternal multiverse.

I believe that has been my point from the very beginning.....you may choose to believe in a creator, or you can choose to believe in multiple universes.....but it's important that you realize both are a matter of choosing to believe in the absence of evidence....they are faith choices.....

you are at risk if you somehow mistakenly think your position is a matter of reason instead of faith....

[PostmodernProphet]

They created a new species, maybe you don't think that's important. If so then you're massively underestimating the achievement.

humanity has been creating new species for thousands of years....it's just that this time they used a different method than cross-breeding......



We have made predictions of what will happen if the parallel universes are there. The tests are there to see If the predictions hold. If so, then further predictions cam be made and tested, and so on. Eventually of it keeps standing up to testing and it's predictions are reliable it will be considered theory.

only if you fail to consider other possibilities.....look at macro evolution for example.....there are some that say that is more than speculation because they ignore the possibility that God simply created the other species.....

[Noir]

so, you have your concepts of "hell" and I have mine.....

Nothing to do with concepts of hell, it's only a matter of time until the earth is subject to another one of these events.


I believe that has been my point from the very beginning.....you may choose to believe in a creator, or you can choose to believe in multiple universes.....but it's important that you realize both are a matter of choosing to believe in the absence of evidence....they are faith choices.....

And one is testable, one is not. Again if you want to say I have faith, go ahead. But it is not, like yours, blind faith.


you are at risk if you somehow mistakenly think your position is a matter of reason instead of faith....

I have 'faith' that will alter given scientific findings, your 'faith' is cast in stone in spite of the science.

[Noir]

humanity has been creating new species for thousands of years....it's just that this time they used a different method than cross-breeding......

Indeed, this time we are coding the very building blocks of life ourselves to hold specific information. That is an long shot away from getting two different types of dog to breed.


only if you fail to consider other possibilities.....look at macro evolution for example.....there are some that say that is more than speculation because they ignore the possibility that God simply created the other species.....

When we have the ability to explain a process by natural means, why then true and jam a god I to the picture? There is a well known razor that's cuts out such nonsense you know.

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeed, this time we are coding the very building blocks of life ourselves to hold specific information. That is an long shot away from getting two different types of dog to breed.



When we have the ability to explain a process by natural means, why then true and jam a god I to the picture? There is a well known razor that's cuts out such nonsense you know.

omigorsh, if you honestly applied Occam's Razor to macro evolution half the species you dreamt of would have been cut into ribbons.......by "natural means" all you refer to is "if you wait a really long time, nearly anything could happen"..........but that's the problem you're running into with your small cats argument.....if you have to cut things down so they have time to spread everywhere in the world, you don't have enough time for all the shit to happen......