Atheism or agnosticism? :: World of Warcraft

#127 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 9:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.

Quote Reply

#128 Apr 25 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Ugly wrote:

What has me not giving up completely on Religion is that the universe "had" to start somewhere, so why not with God. But then I raise this question to myself and those that are religious and they come back with because God just is. How can God just be, but the universe can't?

My personal response is that science supposed to have an answer. You're not supposed to say "just because or it just is" in science. Trust me, I've tried that on a few tests in college, it didn't work. So, if something had to come from nothing, then you just accepted the reality of not being able to explain a supernatural occurrence and making it logically possible for God (or any other higher being) being existent.

Now this doesn't discredit the thought that a supernatural occurrence happened with no higher being influence, but now you're accepting the belief that all existence was a coincidence KNOWING that it is possible that it was designed. Given that scenario, I would rather favor that it was designed through science as opposed to it was all a coincidence.

Locke wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but... Alma, why do you think religion makes more sense than science? I didn't see you answer it before, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Read above.

Ok, thanks. That's pretty much the answer a religious friend of mine gave, in particular the part about favoring a divine presence as opposed to everything being random chance.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#129 Apr 25 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Ugly wrote:

What has me not giving up completely on Religion is that the universe "had" to start somewhere, so why not with God. But then I raise this question to myself and those that are religious and they come back with because God just is. How can God just be, but the universe can't?

My personal response is that science supposed to have an answer. You're not supposed to say "just because or it just is" in science. Trust me, I've tried that on a few tests in college, it didn't work. So, if something had to come from nothing, then you just accepted the reality of not being able to explain a supernatural occurrence and making it logically possible for God (or any other higher being) being existent.

Now this doesn't discredit the thought that a supernatural occurrence happened with no higher being influence, but now you're accepting the belief that all existence was a coincidence KNOWING that it is possible that it was designed. Given that scenario, I would rather favor that it was designed through science as opposed to it was all a coincidence.

Locke wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but... Alma, why do you think religion makes more sense than science? I didn't see you answer it before, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Read above.

Ok, thanks. That's pretty much the answer a religious friend of mine gave, in particular the part about favoring a divine presence as opposed to everything being random chance.

Except, it still doesn't answer the question.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#130 Apr 25 2011 at 9:33 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Just in from Yahoo.. not sure on the relevance, but news is news I guess..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110425/sc_livescience/scientistsabuzzovercontroversialrumorthatgodparticlehasbeendetected

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#131 Apr 25 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Except, it still doesn't answer the question.

I guess not. I suppose the answer, as I read it, was "It might not make more sense, but it feels right to me."

As my friend said when I talked to him about this topic,

Quote:

I don't know? i know it's not evidence that the world will accept, but it's more than real enough for me... I don't know how else to explain it

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#132 Apr 25 2011 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

I guess not. I suppose the answer, as I read it, was "It might not make more sense, but it feels right to me."

I'm fine with that, so long as the individual doesn't rule out the possibility that the universe simply, just exists. I can't see how one can accept that God just exists, but the universe can't just exist as a possible alternative. To support one and consider the other less likely is understandable to me. However, to accept one and simply refuse the possibility of the other is ridiculous. I suppose Alma, assuming I understood his garbles, actually did the former.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#133 Apr 25 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Except, it still doesn't answer the question.

I guess not. I suppose the answer, as I read it, was "It might not make more sense, but it feels right to me."

As my friend said when I talked to him about this topic,

Quote:

I don't know? i know it's not evidence that the world will accept, but it's more than real enough for me... I don't know how else to explain it

It's a personal opinion. To me, it's more logical, makes more sense and it feels right. It might not be for anyone else and that's why I'm not projecting my beliefs unto others. If you don't agree with my opinion, then we're just at a disagreement.

In college, I used to buy my books the week before school started to avoid the long lines. The majority of the campus would wait until they started classes first to prevent from buying the wrong books. To me, it was more logical to buy the books first to avoid the lines and just return them if necessary for a 100% refund. In that case, you would be waiting in line anyway.

Others didn't see it that way. Just a matter of opinion.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#134 Apr 25 2011 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

I can get on board with this.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#135 Apr 25 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

Almalieque wrote:

Ugly wrote:

What has me not giving up completely on Religion is that the universe "had" to start somewhere, so why not with God. But then I raise this question to myself and those that are religious and they come back with because God just is. How can God just be, but the universe can't?

My personal response is that science supposed to have an answer. You're not supposed to say "just because or it just is" in science. Trust me, I've tried that on a few tests in college, it didn't work. So, if something had to come from nothing, then you just accepted the reality of not being able to explain a supernatural occurrence and making it logically possible for God (or any other higher being) being existent.

Now this doesn't discredit the thought that a supernatural occurrence happened with no higher being influence, but now you're accepting the belief that all existence was a coincidence KNOWING that it is possible that it was designed. Given that scenario, I would rather favor that it was designed through science as opposed to it was all a coincidence.

Sure. You're right. Debate over.

Now leave.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#136 Apr 25 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

DSD wrote:

research the M-Theory. I'm seriously dumbing it down right now because I dont have time to get into it and honestly its been a long time since I brushed up on it, but one hypothesis about how the universe started is that there are actually numerous universes aside from our own. There is a theory that 2 universes collided, giving birth to our universes, hence the Big Bang.

Yup. When you start understanding the concept of viewing the universe in a multi-dimensional perspective, you realize that something which appears to have a beginning and an end in 2 dimensions, might just be the edge of something much larger in 3 dimensions. Similarly, something that appears to have finite boundaries in 3 dimensions may be much large when time is taken into account. And finally (and this is the one people usually have the most difficulty grasping), an object which appears to have limited boundaries in space and time may actually be much larger in yet more dimensional angles. We just can't comprehend how that would "look", but can conceptualize it by using the easier models of lower dimensionality to prove the concept true.

A universe which appears to have a beginning and an end in time/space need not actually have either. It could be constant and endless, but just appears smaller to those limited to viewing things in three dimensions.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#137 Apr 25 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent

Allegory

Repressed Memories

21,027 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

I've never heard the Big Bang explained like that. Its always been explained as a beginning, not a current orientation.

The general idea is that the universe was in a state similar to a singularity, and because of how mathematics breaks down when handling singularities, it's impossible (at least presently) to have any idea of what the universe was like during or before that state.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 5:04pm by Allegory

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#138 Apr 29 2011 at 2:17 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

Quote:

There is a theory that 2 universes collided, giving birth to our universes, hence the Big Bang.

That's been my theory-- I had never heard that it was formalized. Can you give me some more info on that?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#139 Apr 29 2011 at 2:36 AM Rating: Decent

Nilatai

View User Forum

Drunken English Bastard

15,268 posts

Kachi wrote:

Quote:

There is a ~~theory~~ hypothesis that 2 universes collided, giving birth to our universes, hence the Big Bang.

That's been my ~~theory~~ hypothesis-- I had never heard that it was formalized. Can you give me some more info on that?

Sorry, important language correction. Carry on.

____________________________

My Movember page

Solrain wrote:

WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:

ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#140 Apr 29 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but... Alma, why do you think religion makes more sense than science? I didn't see you answer it before, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans), and decided that science can't explain where the material for the universe came from, but God gets a pass on the same question.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#141 Apr 29 2011 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

Samira wrote:

Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans)

Every Friday morning should start off with a post like this. Thanks Sam.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#142 Apr 29 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good

Ailitardif

Sage

2,069 posts

I figured it out with our good friend algebra...
If God = universe creator and universe creator = science, the God = science.

And they said math wasn't useful.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:39am by Ailitardif

____________________________

http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#143 Apr 29 2011 at 6:58 AM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Samira wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but... Alma, why do you think religion makes more sense than science? I didn't see you answer it before, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans), and decided that science can't explain where the material for the universe came from, but God gets a pass on the same question.

Your failure to understand the difference between science and faith isn't a problem of mine.

A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science. As it is impossible for science to create a logical explanation of something coming from nothing (because the very statement brings open another question mark), at one point of time, something supernatural had to occur. This makes it possible for a higher being.

While that supernatural occurrence could have very well been from science, that leads the next belief that all of existence was a coincidence. Given that now God is possible, IMO, it makes more sense to believe that supernatural occurrence was God that utilized science to create the universe as opposed to everything just coincidentally happened.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#144 Apr 29 2011 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Kachi wrote:

Quote:

There is a theory that 2 universes collided, giving birth to our universes, hence the Big Bang.

That's been my theory-- I had never heard that it was formalized. Can you give me some more info on that?

Sounds like this, IIRC.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#145 Apr 29 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

Samira wrote:

Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans)

He couldn't have. He'd be stuck in an infinite loop!

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#146 Apr 29 2011 at 7:41 AM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science.

But your original statement was that religion/creation was MORE logical than science:

Almalieque wrote:

Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science.

Why are you now saying that science is logical and faith isn't?

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:43am by bsphil

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#147 Apr 29 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good

Ailitardif

Sage

2,069 posts

bsphil wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science.

But your original statement was that religion/creation was MORE logical than science:

Almalieque wrote:

Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science.

Why are you now saying that science is logical and faith isn't?

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:43am by bsphil

That's what happens when six idiots share an account.

____________________________

http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#148 Apr 29 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1691972205155

Guru

14,454 posts

bsphil wrote:

Kachi wrote:

Quote:

There is a theory that 2 universes collided, giving birth to our universes, hence the Big Bang.

That's been my theory-- I had never heard that it was formalized. Can you give me some more info on that?

Sounds like this, IIRC.

Yup. Watch the whole documentary. And rate up, bsphil, for finding that on youtube. I have a ton of stuff to do today but I think I might procastinate a bit and watch this again.

Almalieque wrote:

A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science

So you're not only impatient and must have an answer NOW to fill in the blanks we have yet to figure out, even if it's wrong, you're also lazy and hypocritical. Got it.

▲ Page top

#149 Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 10:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Failure of my word usage. I used the term "logical" in reference to religion in the sense that "it made sense" not "proven". When I used the word "logical" in reference to science, I meant proven where you can follow steps within an explanation.

Quote Reply

#150 Apr 29 2011 at 10:52 AM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

I should use a better word. Science has to be proven or it isn't science. Religion doesn't have to be proven because it's based off of faith.

So why isn't that a reason to accept science over religion? When comparing science as an objective, consistent track record that has exponentially improved society through technology, medicine, etc. with religion, which you admit doesn't need any actual proof... why would you take the one that openly admits having no proof? In terms of "proof" versus "no proof", what makes "no proof" of all things MORE believable/trustworthy/etc.?

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#151 Apr 29 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Samira wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Sorry if I missed it, but... Alma, why do you think religion makes more sense than science? I didn't see you answer it before, and I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans), and decided that science can't explain where the material for the universe came from, but God gets a pass on the same question.

Your failure to understand the difference between science and faith isn't a problem of mine.

A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science. As it is impossible for science to create a logical explanation of something coming from nothing (because the very statement brings open another question mark), at one point of time, something supernatural had to occur. This makes it possible for a higher being.

While that supernatural occurrence could have very well been from science, that leads the next belief that all of existence was a coincidence. Given that now God is possible, IMO, it makes more sense to believe that supernatural occurrence was God that utilized science to create the universe as opposed to everything just coincidentally happened.

Science does not prove or attempt to prove anything. It attempts to limit the chance of being wrong.

You confuse the word "why" with the word "how" here. Science explains, to the best of its ability, how the universe got here and how its parts function. Religion and philosophy explain why it is here and works the way it does. We have no reason to believe that the why is anything more than a product human conceit. Every time we've allowed ourselves this sort of arrogance, we've been shot down by reality.

"We're the center of the universe!"
No, you orbit the sun

"Oh yeah, well our sun is at the center of the universe."
No, it's not. It's part of a galaxy and is nowhere near the center.

"So! At least we're the only galaxy"
No, we're not.

"Well, we're a special creature on Earth!"
No, you evolved just like everything else

etc, etc, etc. Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify belief in a deity. Prove me wrong.

▲ Page top

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow