Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#102 Apr 24 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilitai wrote:
Why do you not understand that a singularity is not "nothing"? This is the same wilful ignorance of current understanding of Physics as you have in Biology.

Here when you say "something from nothing", you're either referring to 1) The big bang theory, or 2) abiogenesis. I'd like you to clarify which one, if you'd be so kind.


Whichever means that there once was nothing and then under some circumstances, something happened. Look, we've had this argument before. People have sourced "particles that come from nothing" and even in their source it states there must be certain conditions. There is no way around it. Something had to come from nothing, period. If you don't want to accept it, fine that's you, just don't come attacking me like I'm saying something wrong


You're going wrong by assuming something had to come from nothing. That's where you're saying something wrong.


In the beginning there was a singularity. Due to quantum fluctuations within this singularity it started to expand. As it expanded space expanded with it and entropy began to take effect. Entropy is what makes the arrow of time flow forwards. This is why time began when expansion started.

There's a lot of information about this now. Continually saying "something can't come from nothing" is an argument from ignorance, when the only person saying there was nothing is you. The only thing that had to come from nothing, was your notion of a supreme being. Why is it okay for that being to come from nothing?

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 8:30pm by Nilatai


So clear my ignorance by further explaining this "singularity" and how it isn't something that came from nothing. Where did this "singularity" come from and how was it able to expand?

Bsphil wrote:
What are the other reasons?

I'm not proposing answers, I'm proposing questions.


Why are you so concerned on my reason of believing?

1. It's the most logical explanation for me
2. It creates a better life style and better environment if followed as intended.

The second one can be broken down into further sub categories, but that is the overall theme.

DSD wrote:
Nope! You defended yourself by using this mentality. Im just pointing it out in case you were ignorant on how you come across to others. Kind of like how we originally started this whole discussion ;)


Serious question? Are you trolling or being serious? If you are trolling, I'll concede that you got me.

I have a personal opinion that the belief of a higher being is more logical than "something came from nothing but it really didn't come from nothing". I kept that opinion to myself. I was asked why I believe and do what I do, I gave the above statement as my answer.

I did not create a "us vs them" environment, other posters did by asking my why I believe what I believe instead of just accepting it and moving on. Till now, I haven't asked anyone why the believe what they believe, because I don't care. That's their beliefs. These posters are merely questioning me in an attempt to show how "I'm wrong for not believing their beliefs". Yet, you continuously attack me for creating this environment. How come you haven't said anything to them?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#103 Apr 24 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilitai wrote:
Why do you not understand that a singularity is not "nothing"? This is the same wilful ignorance of current understanding of Physics as you have in Biology.

Here when you say "something from nothing", you're either referring to 1) The big bang theory, or 2) abiogenesis. I'd like you to clarify which one, if you'd be so kind.


Whichever means that there once was nothing and then under some circumstances, something happened. Look, we've had this argument before. People have sourced "particles that come from nothing" and even in their source it states there must be certain conditions. There is no way around it. Something had to come from nothing, period. If you don't want to accept it, fine that's you, just don't come attacking me like I'm saying something wrong


You're going wrong by assuming something had to come from nothing. That's where you're saying something wrong.


In the beginning there was a singularity. Due to quantum fluctuations within this singularity it started to expand. As it expanded space expanded with it and entropy began to take effect. Entropy is what makes the arrow of time flow forwards. This is why time began when expansion started.

There's a lot of information about this now. Continually saying "something can't come from nothing" is an argument from ignorance, when the only person saying there was nothing is you. The only thing that had to come from nothing, was your notion of a supreme being. Why is it okay for that being to come from nothing?

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 8:30pm by Nilatai


So clear my ignorance by further explaining this "singularity" and how it isn't something that came from nothing. Where did this "singularity" come from and how was it able to expand?


Why did it have to come from any where? (I could also ask "Where did god come from", but I won't because you won't answer me any way. You'll ramble on about how that's not the same question. Or about how god is timeless. Then you'll fail to see the irony in such statements). Did you ignore everything I just said about time?

I also told you how we think it started to expand. Am I being dense or are you just completely ignoring everything I'm saying so you can ask the same questions over and over?


Also, there are some things where we (physicists) have to say "we don't know". As phil said earlier, though. This does not mean you get to just say "god/gods did it" and expect that to be a reasonable answer.
____________________________
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
#104 Apr 24 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,430 posts
I am deadpan serious. Or as serious as I can be when posting here. And after the suggestions of others who know you better, since I havent had as much time to be on here as I used to, I realize I need to lower my expectation on your ability to understand certain aspects of this discussion. The saddest part is, I really dont think you are trolling, nor do I think you realize the implications on how you present yourself to the rest of us here. I think you are genuinely unable to comprehend why it is that this discussion, and others that dabble within religion, happen as they do in regards to your posts.

That troubles me.

Quote:
These posters are merely questioning me in an attempt to show how "I'm wrong for not believing their beliefs".


No, they are not. They are questioning you for 2 reasons:

1. People are genuinely curious to understand *why* you believe as you do, since you originally put yourself out there, claiming that we attack you anytime religion crops up in a discussion. What made you choose as you do? Thats not an attack, thats genuine curiousity.

However your responses are what is continuing the discussion. For one thing, you dont know when to quit for your own benefit. You need to have the last word. And your responses are lacking in intellectual substance. To actually post that you feel it is more logical to believe in a divine being than to believe in science and that is why you are religious is absolutely fantastically ludicrus. But you cant comprehend why that is.

Here is a definition of science, to hopefully explain to you why this comment makes no logical sense to the majority of us:

Quote:
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]


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


So when people question you on this line of thinking, trying to understand, you find that as an attack.

2. A side effect of asking you these questions is ( or at least it was for me) in the hopes of having you actually take a moment to stop and think about your answers, and see why we are questioning. Maybe, just maybe, you might gain some knowledge here that is beneficial to your own personal needs. Maybe you might learn something. Im not trying to change your mind on your religion. I dont think anyone else here is. But your responses to the questions are lacking in depth. Maybe you can look deeper. And thats not a bad thing to do. you should always strive to better yourself.

Quote:
Yet, you continuously attack me for creating this environment. How come you haven't said anything to them?


1. They did not create with their comments a feeling of broad generalization, thus hurting others who share your faith. Their questions are very specific and directed only at you.

2. You seem *quite* willing to continue the discussion. You have the power to stop it at any time. Thats in your hands, not theirs. By you continuing to respond to their questions, and mine, it shows me that you really do not feel attacked. You may wish to claim it and feel validated that religious folks get attacked when they bring up their religion.Or if you really do feel like you are being attacked, you are willing to be attacked for reasons of your own. But you can not call foul when you yourself allow it to continue. Thats not how it works.

3. I dont think you are beng attacked. If you were, with it being here in the Asylum, this discussion would be a hell of a lot harsher. As it goes, this is a fairly tame thread. I dont think you have a clue as to what an Asylum attack truly is. =)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#105 Apr 24 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Nilatai wrote:

Why did it have to come from any where? (I could also ask "Where did god come from", but I won't because you won't answer me any way. You'll ramble on about how that's not the same question. Or about how god is timeless. Then you'll fail to see the irony in such statements). Did you ignore everything I just said about time?


Actually, I believe that they are the SAME exact thing and are no different in sense of origin. That's what exactly what I argued in the last Evolution thread. That's exactly why I chose religion. In any case, something had to come from nothing. So I can either A) believe in an all being who gave existence a "push" or b) everything was a huge coincidence. The former makes much more sense to me whether than waiting for answer that somehow contradicts not coming from nothing.

So, no explanation on how this "singularity" didn't come from nothing? Ok, thanks. Just making sure that nothing new came about since the last debate.

Nilatai wrote:
I also told you how we think it started to expand. Am I being dense or are you just completely ignoring everything I'm saying so you can ask the same questions over and over?



Maybe it was bad wording on my part, I didn't mean the same answer you provided. You gave an answer on quantum fluctuations, but I meantt "how". Wouldn't there need to be some change in conditions? I don't know, I'm just asking.

DSD wrote:
I am deadpan serious.


I'll respond to you tomorrow. My typing gets much worse at night.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#106 Apr 24 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,430 posts
Almalieque wrote:
[
DSD wrote:
I am deadpan serious.


I'll respond to you tomorrow. My typing gets much worse at night.


Please, dont feel like you have to. It might be better if you just let it go.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#107 Apr 24 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Alma wrote:
In any case, something had to come from nothing.


Why?
#108 Apr 24 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

Why did it have to come from any where? (I could also ask "Where did god come from", but I won't because you won't answer me any way. You'll ramble on about how that's not the same question. Or about how god is timeless. Then you'll fail to see the irony in such statements). Did you ignore everything I just said about time?


Actually, I believe that they are the SAME exact thing and are no different in sense of origin. That's what exactly what I argued in the last Evolution thread. That's exactly why I chose religion. In any case, something had to come from nothing. So I can either A) believe in an all being who gave existence a "push" or b) everything was a huge coincidence. The former makes much more sense to me whether than waiting for answer that somehow contradicts not coming from nothing.

So, no explanation on how this "singularity" didn't come from nothing? Ok, thanks. Just making sure that nothing new came about since the last debate.
I told you, we don't know. That doesn't mean you get to fill in the gap with your particular god. Why do you not understand this?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I also told you how we think it started to expand. Am I being dense or are you just completely ignoring everything I'm saying so you can ask the same questions over and over?



Maybe it was bad wording on my part, I didn't mean the same answer you provided. You gave an answer on quantum fluctuations, but I meantt "how". Wouldn't there need to be some change in conditions? I don't know, I'm just asking.
All I'm reading here is "I don't understand what you're telling me". That's not my problem. Go and read a Physics book. But know this, just because you don't understand what is written therein, does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

I'll say this, you are clearly not an intelligent person Alma. You can not follow any kind of argument put before you. You do not hold the idea of "god" by the same scrutiny you demand of scientists and this makes you hypocrite.

Again, just because we do not know everything, does not mean you can fill the gaps in our knowledge with god.

You demand answers, yet you offer none. If you were trolling, I could forgive you, but you're not. You're being deliberately and wilfully ignorant of everything that disagrees with your book of fairy tales. And better still, you demand these fairy tales be given equal weight as peer reviewed papers and hundreds of years worth of scientific knowledge in the Science class room.

If you honestly knew any better, I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself.
____________________________
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
#109Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 9:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok, I lied.. I have to respond to this nonsense now while it's fresh on my mind.
#110 Apr 24 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ok, I lied.. I have to respond to this nonsense now while it's fresh on my mind.

I wasn't going to mention it before, because it was just one occurrence, but you seriously need to stop with the announcements that you're done posting, regardless of how often you break them. No one cares. When I'm done posting, I just stop posting. I don't pretend the forum is hanging on my every word. You've got this thing where you believe you're the center of attention and that people's thoughts and motives are either positively or negatively related to you, but always related to you. You need to get over yourself.
#111 Apr 24 2011 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,430 posts
Quote:
but of course I'm wrong and you're right.. Interesting on how that works.


Now you're making progress! Good For You! Oh but wait... you continued....

Quote:
I don't need to be a nonbeliever to have a good idea on why people don't believe in a religion. Nor do you or anyone else have to be a believer to have a good idea on why a religious person is religious

So are you implying that anyone who is religious is religious for the same reasons you are? Because its more logical to believe in God than in science? Do you stand by that statement? And since you have a good idea as to why nonbelievers don't believe, can you tell me why I dont believe in religion? Does everyone else here who is a nonbeliever not believe because of the same reasons I dont?

Do you see what Im getting at or is it flying above your head?

Quote:
Of course I think being religious makes more sense or I wouldn't be religious now would I?


That wasnt what you were asked. You were asked why.

Quote:
The second you asked that type of question, you have created the "us vs them" environment.


Nope. Ur doing it wrong.

Quote:
Any intellectual level headed person already knows why the opposition believes what they believe.


because everyone who is religious is religious for the very same reasons? So if I took a poll today and aksed every person in this forum if they are religious and why theyd all have the same reasons as you? And conversely, if you took a poll right now to ask everyone who is not religious why, they would have the same answer as me? Is that what you mean?

Well gosh darn it why didnt you say so! Fuck, why the hell are we using you as religions spokespearson????

Quote:
I could have sworn that I was actually talking to someone and that someone responded as well. As long as you continue to respond to me, the same words apply to you.



Ummm... hmmm. I dont remember saying that I personally felt like I was being attacked. Actually, Im quite comfortable in this discussion! I merely pointed out to you that you have a tendency to post in a way that is over sweeping and harmful on a whole to a mature discussion when regarding a sensitive topic. But I hope you can sleep better tonight knowing that you have not once hurt my feelings =)

Quote:
You basically said that I'm an idiot for believing what I believe.


Nope! I implied you were an idiot not for believing, but for the REASONS you believe. And therin lies an enormous difference. I didnt say that until after you had provided said reasons. You are inferring somethign incorrectly. See whut I did thar?

Quote:
You are partly right, I am looking for an answer to better myself, how can science counter "something coming from nothing". Unless anyone can counter that statement, the learning curve is on you, not me


Thats pretty easy actually. As I said earlier, science is still learning new things every day but we have a looooong way to go before we know everything, if ever. And whiel science has made tremendous leaps in the past few decades, this question you seek to have answered NOW will most ikely not be answered in our lifetime. But that does not mean it is unanswerable without the help of a divine being. Doesnt mean there *isnt* a divine being either, but our lack of knowledge in this time and place has no bearing whatsoever to the ultimate truth, whatever that may be. Even *I* knew that when I was a Christian!

Quote:
I assure you that there is noticeable religious population who believes that religion is more logical than a scientific answer


And therin lies the issue many people here (and the world over) have with some people who are religious. Its not everyone, but those who do use their religion as a crutch to make shallow judgemental claims against the rest of humanity, deserve to be criticized. Because its not ok to use your religion to hurt other people. Ever.

Quote:
So, by "attacking" me, you are also "attacking" them.


Im ok with that! =D
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#112 Apr 24 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
Just last week, RDD, made a claim that he reads the Bible for the fictional value and went on and on how it was stupid for people to disagree because they all have the same imaginary God.


Yes the bible was a great story, so was the Qur'an. They both contain great elements of historical events, and great stories about happenings to culture, people, and the times. As someone who is not blindly devoted to religion A or religion B I have had the privilege of an unbiased look at both books, and both were great reads.

The bible and Qur'an both use literary metaphors to great extent, they both use wonderful language and descriptive text. But to fully appreciate the nuances of the text you have to understand a lot of the text is written in an old tongue (so to speak) in the sense a lot of the wordings don't literally mean what is written.

For example:

When mosses led his people from egypt the bible says he parted (or divided, split depending on the version the words change around the same principal theme of separation of the waters). When viewed literally this gives the reader the image of he parted the waters making a land bridge (as seen in many movies, and depicted in much art). What is more likely the real reason is that after the Jews left egypt the headed east across the red sea and settled there. Thus the red sea was now shared or divided between 2 nations, Egypt and Jerusalem.

Another is the story of Noah. Where the "world" was flooded. At the time the world was smaller (metaphorically speaking). There was no NA, no EU, no Russia, nothing outside of the middle east egypt and some medeteranian islands. That was the "world". Much like in the mid centuries the world was Eur-Asia and Africa, and outside that it was flat and you would fall off if you sailed to far. It is likely that the known-world did experience some type of massive flood, especially considering the location of ancient cities on major waterways such as the Nile, the Tigress, and Euphrates rivers. More likely they experienced a climate shift and had a very wet season, which would help explain the 40 days of rain. With the extra water and the known world mostly living in proximity to massive rivers, it is highly likely that these rivers spilled their banks, there was landslides as "the water swallowed the land".

I read the bible for its great historical information, and the fun that can be had thinking of rational explanations to many of its texts. Its quite possible that God did do all that, it could literally mean what it says, but it is very exciting breaking down great stories in there into more logical occurrences rather then assuming that an invisible man did it all.

Another example regarding Noah is his age 950 years, which is biologically impossible. What is likely is that he lived for 950 moon phases, as the moon played an integral part in the passage of time for millenia. This would put his yearly age at 79 years (12 moon cycles /year), which is crazy long likely for someone of that period but within reason for the life expectancy of a human. I am sure anyone would agree that 950 years is very unlikely.

This is why I like reading the bible. It makes me think about what the people who wrote it could have actually been writing about, and how they came up with certain things. Which makes it to me the greatest book ever written, not only are the stories great in their literal sense, but looking into them is a whole different adventure.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#113 Apr 24 2011 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. It's the most logical explanation for me
2. It creates a better life style and better environment if followed as intended
#1) Why?
#2) Why?
____________________________
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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#114 Apr 24 2011 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
DSD wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and says nothing about what the person actually DOES believe except perhaps by process of elimination. A popularly humorous characterization of this argument is that atheism is a religion the same way not fishing is a hobby.Edit: I could probably stand to check if bsphil has replied to something before I bother to.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2011 12:48am by Kachi


But it becomes this way to many people, a religion of sorts. Their belief in their disbelief is so overwhelming that they feel the need to push their (dis)beliefs onto anyone who broaches the topic. Some go so far as to become exactly what they loathe about religious folk, proselytizing their lack of belief to the point even other secular folk roll their eyes and take a step back. And those who go this far, can't even realize they have become the "enemy" they are so worked up over.

Im not saying all do this. But with anything, some people go to the extreme in trying to convert others to their way of thinking. And then, it does become a religion of some sort.

I have a friend down here, who, over the past year or so, has become like this. She's even become part of the Free Thought Society which has essentially become her "church". They protest together, have potluck dinners, made billboards and then talk on the news about it. And while I appreciate the message, to hear her talk, shes become a fanatic in this cause, and anyone who even hints at a differing opinion than one she offers in regards to this topic is the biggest idiot to ever walk the earth. You could only be more pathetic if you were actually religious too.


This is sort of a semantic quibble, but atheism is itself not a belief of anything, and certainly not a religion; however, there are atheists who believe strongly that religions are harmful to humanity and should be fought against. Just because you lack the one belief doesn't mean that you don't fervently believe something else, possibly something related and possibly not. People who do fervently believe that religion is harmful and should be attacked are often called militant atheists. I occasionally attend atheist group meet-ups myself-- the people are all very civil and mostly discuss science and philosophy, with the rare crack at organized religion and its beliefs, but nobody is really militant. On the whole, atheists are no more likely to attack an individual over their religion than a religious person would be to attack someone for their lack of religion (I would guess less likely, if anything). We all would like to see an atheist world, sure, but that's really no more a religion than being a democrat or a republican. It's a social issue, not a matter of faith.

Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
Not shocked.

Why?


Why what? Why did I challenge my religion? Because I'm not going to follow stuff just because someone said so.

Why did I conclude that believing in God is more logical, one reason is that at one point of time something had to come from nothing and science can't get around that. We've argued this point before where people tried to prove otherwise, but it's the fact that a portion (not all) non-believers refuse to accept.


Three shamefully obvious things (with some possible redundancy):

1. Why can't the universe have always existed? As humans we tend to assume that the universe must have had a birth, just like us. Isn't that a somewhat self-indulgent notion? It actually makes more sense to many science-minded individuals that all that exists has always existed. Theories like the Big Bang only explain the current orientation of what exists, not an origin per se.

2. If the universe had to have been created, then why wouldn't a God have to be created? Turtles all the way down, anyone?

3. Even if you conclude that there must be a god, why any particular god? Why the Christian god? Why not a god who created the universe for a biology class project, failed, and threw it in some cosmic garbage can?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#115 Apr 25 2011 at 2:56 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
A few things on the thought of an intelligent designer, since the infinite regress has already started:

Since we've only ever witnessed a change of form in either matter or energy, no one is at liberty to suggest that there must be a cause of existence.

The only reason we know something qualifies as "designed" is by comparing it to something natural. To say that nature itself is designed is to throw out the very process by which we judge the process.

And to bring the argument into the realm of morality, I have a few points: Is it not immoral and unfavorable to desire a dictator who watches over you constantly, convicts you for your thoughts, and won't even let you rest once you've died? A despot who restricts what you may say, what you may right, with whom you may sleep--every aspect of your life. It's an unending totalitarian, authoritarian rule that dismisses every notion of questioning and appeal. Judgement is final. This is not a good thing, I posit, and it goes against every dearest belief I hold. I'll state it bluntly: There are no perfect or infallible leaders in this world or any other, and anyone that claims to have a direct line to any truth that no one else could possibly have should be treated with extreme skepticism.

Let's assume, though, for the sake of debate, that Jehovah does exist and the Bible is an accurate account by whatever allegorical or literal means you happen to chose. When did God enact morality? Was it an overarching moral code given to humans inherently? In that case, why did God arbitrarily reveal moral codes to a population that already knew such things? Would this not support the idea of a deistic god more than a theistic one? Perhaps God instead enacted morality in several stages. Does this mean that in the Garden, murder was not immoral? Can you honestly say that Moses led a population of people through the desert for forty years all the while thinking murder and theft were fine? Of course not--they wouldn't have made it that far. Besides, doesn't this interpretation imply that God's "set in stone" morality is merely a morality sought fit for the time? This goes against the very notion of Christian absolutism.

To close, the notion of "if followed correctly" is absolute nonsense in its purest form. Everyone thinks they follow the correct religion the correct way, and I do mean everyone... even the ones you'd rather play off with a "No True Scotsman" defense.
#116Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 7:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As long as you accept being a hypocrite. So, we can end this "us vs them" crap.
#117 Apr 25 2011 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Kachi wrote:
Three shamefully obvious things (with some possible redundancy):

1. Why can't the universe have always existed? As humans we tend to assume that the universe must have had a birth, just like us. Isn't that a somewhat self-indulgent notion? It actually makes more sense to many science-minded individuals that all that exists has always existed. Theories like the Big Bang only explain the current orientation of what exists, not an origin per se.
I've never heard the Big Bang explained like that. Its always been explained as a beginning, not a current orientation. Quite possible i missed it when I read Hawkin's book on it though, as I was only 12.

Quote:
2. If the universe had to have been created, then why wouldn't a God have to be created? Turtles all the way down, anyone?
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?

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#118 Apr 25 2011 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I don't know, I think a lot of religious people just blindly follow without questioning their beliefs. If you manage to truly question those beliefs and end up concluding that they are truly right for you then that's great.

My religious views are constantly evolving as I read more and more.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#119 Apr 25 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#120 Apr 25 2011 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I don't know, I think a lot of religious people just blindly follow without questioning their beliefs.
What do you think qualifies as a lot in this scenario? 20%? 50%? 75%? I'd be hard pressed to see it be near 20%.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#121 Apr 25 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 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.
Already sigged and bolded. I'm ahead of you on that statement.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#122 Apr 25 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
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.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#123 Apr 25 2011 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
[quote=Ailitardif, Star Breaker]I don't know, I think a lot of religious people just blindly follow without questioning their beliefs.
I think main stream society shapes individual behavior and then the churches have to make modifications to their doctrine to keep people practicing.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#124 Apr 25 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I don't know, I think a lot of religious people just blindly follow without questioning their beliefs.
What do you think qualifies as a lot in this scenario? 20%? 50%? 75%? I'd be hard pressed to see it be near 20%.


Not sure, I was careful say "a lot" as opposed to "most". Even 1% would be a lot, but I see what you mean.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#125 Apr 25 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,430 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Three shamefully obvious things (with some possible redundancy):

1. Why can't the universe have always existed? As humans we tend to assume that the universe must have had a birth, just like us. Isn't that a somewhat self-indulgent notion? It actually makes more sense to many science-minded individuals that all that exists has always existed. Theories like the Big Bang only explain the current orientation of what exists, not an origin per se.
I've never heard the Big Bang explained like that. Its always been explained as a beginning, not a current orientation. Quite possible i missed it when I read Hawkin's book on it though, as I was only 12.

Quote:
2. If the universe had to have been created, then why wouldn't a God have to be created? Turtles all the way down, anyone?
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?



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.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#126 Apr 25 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
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.
Already sigged and bolded. I'm ahead of you on that statement.


Done.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#127Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 9:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#128 Apr 25 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 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.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#129 Apr 25 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#130 Apr 25 2011 at 9:33 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 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

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Apr 25 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 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
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#132 Apr 25 2011 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#133 Apr 25 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#134 Apr 25 2011 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#135 Apr 25 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#136 Apr 25 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 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
#137 Apr 25 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 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
#138 Apr 29 2011 at 2:17 AM Rating: Decent
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?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#139 Apr 29 2011 at 2:36 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 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
#140 Apr 29 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 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.

#141 Apr 29 2011 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Samira wrote:
Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans)
Smiley: lol Every Friday morning should start off with a post like this. Thanks Sam.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#142 Apr 29 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
***
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
#143 Apr 29 2011 at 6:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#144 Apr 29 2011 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#145 Apr 29 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Samira wrote:
Because he debated it with himself (stop and envision THAT clash of the titans)


Smiley: lol

He couldn't have. He'd be stuck in an infinite loop!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#146 Apr 29 2011 at 7:41 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#147 Apr 29 2011 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
***
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
#148 Apr 29 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,430 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.


____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#149Almalieque, 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.
#150 Apr 29 2011 at 10:52 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 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.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#151 Apr 29 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
***
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Debalic, JennockFV, Kavekk, Kuwoobie, Anonymous Guests (34)