[Controversial Discussion] GOD

[Nusselt]

Xipos is the determining factor in the creation of the universe.

[JonnyBGood]

Who says the universe was created? Isn't this all just pointless mental masturbation? "Hay guys x may have done y causing everything (where all clauses are poorly defined) a long time ago!" "So?"

Unless you wish to join me in my expedition beyond the edge of the universe that is.

[Nusselt]

Well mr hawking did i think or was that black holes?, i can never remember. You think the anthropic principle is just mental masturbation?

[JonnyBGood]

Personally, I hold to the Feline Centric Strong Anthropomorphic Principle: The Universe exists so that I can feed my cat. My cat exists anyway.

[Embroglio]

i didn't know you had a cat! what's s/he called?

[Nusselt]

Anthropomorphic? what your cat can talk? thats just silly.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Embroglio

i didn't know you had a cat! what's s/he called?

xipos.


Apparently.




PS Of course my cat can talk. Why else would I keep it around? So I could be amused by the amount of fur it sheds on my ****ing seat?

[Nusselt]

dunno i hate cats, and you're seemingly forming a theology based around your cat and using science to try and back it up, damn you!

[JonnyBGood]

Right now my cat is writing you out of existence. However due to the unique nature of biological mental pathways and their singular connection with the fundamental fabric of the universe we have to replace you with something. You can either kill 8 billion people or get raped 8 billion times. You will have no other attributes. Choose now!

[Nusselt]

there are only 6 billion people

floating point error

[JonnyBGood]

O rly?

I think I've trolled this thread to the point where nobody will consider it worthwhile resurrecting it. I declare victory for rationality!

[Nusselt]

We were talking in billions, i rounded down. Your hopes to avoid resurrection will fail irish man, never underestimate the strength of GD idiots.

Edit: its sat night i didn't go out time for my bedtime

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I'll summarise: there was this bloke who was God called Jesus. He changed things.

You know what they had in Leviticus? Laws, that's what!

Originally Posted by Jesus

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(Mt 5:17)

Of course, the inferences there are questionable; there are other such NT verses.

However, that's beside the point, as Leviticus was introduced to show that the possibility of God being anti-homosexual was more than just Satanic Propaganda.

Originally Posted by Boogster

Don't stop at Leviticus. Go on to read the New Testament, please.

I think you meant to boldify the 'New' part.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Evolution has not been proved. Neither has God.

Evolution has been proved*. God hasn't.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Boogster

I could give accounts of things that cannot be explained by science, and that seem to be evidence of a God. Why is this any less evidence than scientific hypothesise, especially considering the supernatural nature of the enquiry?

I don't understand the 2nd sentence. That aside, please name these occurances, and either a way to repeat them, or proof that they weren't statistical anomolies.

Because that's what you have to get to prove things in science!

*The existance of the process, it happening in the 'real world', and it happening historically.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It seems like a cheap copout - if you don't believe in God, just say you're an atheist.

Oh, I am an atheist. I said that I didn't believe that there existed a god earlier in this very thread. However, doubt should be the basis of all rational decisions. I do not believe that the universe was created 10 minutes ago, and our memories falsified; however, should evidence for such an event come to light, I would not stay dogmatically with my previous view.

From what I have experienced, and what evidence I know to exist, I know, empirically, that there is no god. This can change, however, because science is not dogmatic.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

There is little difference between the two, if you reword it:

All that is to be known.

All that can be known.

'All that is to be known' is substantially different from 'All that is known', you know. The former includes potential knowledge, the latter does not, which was the difference between the two statements in the first place. In essence, you're changing one thing to be identical to another thing then commenting on how there's no difference between them.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Inferno

People can be generous and good but most cant be without God. If God doesnt exist then most people would drop their morals and there cant be good life and thus God would still be needed.

That's a fairly universal statement; non-anecdotal evidence, please.

Originally Posted by Inferno

As such, having no God -> shitty life.

I have no god, and I'm finding joy in life.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Faith. It's like faith in evolution.

Not really. You don't need to have any faith in evolution to see it to be true; that's what all the evidence is for. Faith is belief without proof or evidence; as evolution has both, you're factually incorrect.

[Alessio]

I believe could kill some1 without my concience or anything getting in the way..
And I would have done that if I was certain that their is no god, so religion isnt a bad thing..
as it keeps people like me to behave decently if they think they can get away with bad things

But I dont know what their was b4 the bigbang... I mean.. their had to be something..
And I think the creation of life.. is kinda.. weird.. and how we think..
So I behave just in case their is an afterlife.. you never know..
those are my only reasons why I dont know if I have 2 believe or not..

I can't be arsed to bother myself with religion tho.. as a gd person is gd in every religion...
but their "could be" a god

Maybe "god" is just something like the force and doesnt care about peeps or have emotions and let things just be.. and no afterlife.. dunno.. I just dont mess with the unknown.. even if their is 1% chance that their is an entity that could let u burn in hell for all eternity as many religions claim... then I dont wanna risk it.. eternity is a long time

[MrL_JaKiri]

A few questions for Inferno and Boogster. Anyone else can answer too.

1. What do you know of the Big Bang Model? What flaws do you think it has?

2. How much evidence do you think there is for evolution, both as a concept and in practice?

3. Assuming Christian faith, why do you not believe in the God of the Jews, or the Muslims, vice versa?

4. How many possessions do you have? When are you planning to give them away?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've read Descartes' Meditations. He was not right. At least try and keep up to date on arguments for god's existence.
I have no faith in evolution. I believe in myself and that's about where it ends.

Also are you claiming that god really does exist and this can be shown to be necessarily true or that "believing in evolution" and "believing in god" are not really any different and you have just chosen the first one?

My quote wasn't an attempt to prove you wrong, or to persuade you that Descartes was right - simply an expansion on the argument you posted earlier.
I am not claiming that God exists on the basis of any evidence I have. I am claiming that scientists have faith in the theory of evolution, and no definite proof. Similarly, I have faith in God, with no proof - but my faith is in no way completely groundless, and nor is it absurd.

Might I refer you to a recent column in the Daily Telegraph, in which Prof Richard Dawkins, "the scourge of those who maintain their belief in a god", declares:

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

[Blastoderm]

Gee. What a thread. It delivers.

[Alessio]

I believe the evolution theorie is right.. and if their is a god then its trough evolution that he created humans.. or humans are accidents as the scientists claim

[Boogster]

Having read through MrL_JaKiri's repeated insistances that Darwin's evolutionary theory has in fact been proven, and is not a matter of faith in any way, might I also refer him to the aforementioned article.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Might I refer you to a recent column in the Daily Telegraph, in which Prof Richard Dawkins, "the scourge of those who maintain their belief in a god", declares:

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

That's perfectly true. As I said before in this thread, you cannot empirically prove how things happened in the past. Dawkins is a scientist, and uses very precise language.

However, you can show that mechanisms which we can prove to exist are supported and not contradicted by the historical evidence which we do have. Which is the case with evolution.

There is more than enough evidence for the layman to pronounce historical evolution 'true', however, you cannot do that in science, and Dawkins knows this, and said as much.

There have been many problems with language between scientists and non-scientists ('it's just a theory', for example), and this is just another instance.

[Boogster]

You managed to completely evade the subject? Or, at least, ignore the point I am making.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Having read through MrL_JaKiri's repeated insistances that Darwin's evolutionary theory has in fact been proven, and is not a matter of faith in any way, might I also refer him to the aforementioned article.

For one thing, it's not 'Darwin's'. It's 'Darwinian', but it's not 'Darwins'. It is several steps above unadulterated Darwinism, an evolution if you will.

For another thing, Evolutionary Theory has been proven to be correct. We can prove that evolution occurs using computer modelling, we see things predicted by evolutionary theory that have no other existing explanation, we have watched creatures evolve.

The article says NOTHING about that.

Nothing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

You managed to completely evade the subject? Or, at least, ignore the point I am making.

Tell me the point you are making. If it's not the one I just argued against in two posts, then you've misinterpreted Dawkins.

I can be fairly sure that I have not misinterpreted Dawkins, because my interpretation goes with everything else he's said, and what appears to be yours goes against it.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Boogster

My quote wasn't an attempt to prove you wrong, or to persuade you that Descartes was right - simply an expansion on the argument you posted earlier.
I am not claiming that God exists on the basis of any evidence I have. I am claiming that scientists have faith in the theory of evolution, and no definite proof. Similarly, I have faith in God, with no proof - but my faith is in no way completely groundless, and nor is it absurd.

Might I refer you to a recent column in the Daily Telegraph, in which Prof Richard Dawkins, "the scourge of those who maintain their belief in a god", declares:

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

His "faith" about evolution seems to be that it applies to areas outside of evolution (e.g., the origin of life).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

His "faith" about evolution seems to be that it applies to areas outside of evolution (e.g., the origin of life).

Ding ding ding.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A few questions for Inferno and Boogster. Anyone else can answer too.

1. What do you know of the Big Bang Model? What flaws do you think it has?

2. How much evidence do you think there is for evolution, both as a concept and in practice?

3. Assuming Christian faith, why do you not believe in the God of the Jews, or the Muslims, vice versa?

4. How many possessions do you have? When are you planning to give them away?

1. Not a great deal - I am no physicist. What has always puzzled me, is the fact that the Big Bang theory seems to presuppose a definite creation of the universe (and therefore everything in it); but if this is so, what caused the Big Bang itself?
If nothing existed before the Big Bang, how did it come to pass? Anti-matter? Sounds fishy and definately not proven.

2. I know there have been specimens unearthed that resemble both a primate and a homosapien. I also know that recent theory suggests that these specimens are merely subsections of the human race, and represent no link between two distinct species. I know that no such bridge has as of yet been found. I know that even the most atheist of scientists still describe their belief in evolution as dependant upon faith. I also know that Darwin himself rejected his own theory and became a Christian late in life.

3. I believe what the Bible says to be true is true.

4. Not many. If I were perfect, I would do exactly what God wanted. I am not, and therefore I am certain not to.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Alessio

I believe the evolution theorie is right.. and if their is a god then its trough evolution that he created humans.. or humans are accidents as the scientists claim

It's merely a theory.

Meaning of theory from Dictionary.com:

-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


So it can't be right. Facts are right. Theories aren't.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

His "faith" about evolution seems to be that it applies to areas outside of evolution (e.g., the origin of life).

I cannot see your point.

He has faith in evolution, yes?
But no proof, yes?

More importantly, while he is of course not merely referring to the origin of humanity, he is not excluding it, as far as I can see.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Ding ding ding.

Round's not over 'till the fat mod sings, chum.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

It's merely a theory.

Meaning of theory from Dictionary.com:

-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


So it can't be right. Facts are right. Theories aren't.

I said that I "believe" that its that way.. if I believe a theorie is right then I can..

EDIT: I believe in it because its most logical.. When fat people do it with fat people then their kid is likely to become fat easier.. etc.. and if that kinda stuff happends for millions of years then I think their could some change in the human race.. (I know my english sux)

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

1. Not a great deal - I am no physicist. What has always puzzled me, is the fact that the Big Bang theory seems to presuppose a definite creation of the universe (and therefore everything in it); but if this is so, what caused the Big Bang itself?
If nothing existed before the Big Bang, how did it come to pass? Anti-matter? Sounds fishy and definately not proven.

It is impossible to prove what happened before the Big Bang because we haven't develoed time travel.
However -We have proved that everything in the universe is moving away from each other and is speeding up. From this we find that there is a definite point where everything originated (it's relatively close to us actually). We can also work out the age of the Universe.

2. I know there have been specimens unearthed that resemble both a primate and a homosapien. I also know that recent theory suggests that these specimens are merely subsections of the human race, and represent no link between two distinct species. I know that no such bridge has as of yet been found. I know that even the most atheist of scientists still describe their belief in evolution as dependant upon faith. I also know that Darwin himself rejected his own theory and became a Christian late in life.

Darwin was actually Christian all his life.
Here lies the problem though. You know so little about Evolution but you feel able to dismiss it completely!
Try reading some books on the subject - I'm sure other users would be more than happy to suggest some.
I can only think of one reason why you wouldn't though - because you don't feel your faith is strong enough to face evidence of the bible not being literal. It's scary I guess. Like I've said before - I know plenty of Christians that believe in God and Evolution at the same time - they aren't Mutually Exclusive.
Oh and the link Idimmu posted earlier is great for showing why your argument is fundamentally flawed.

EDIT - try this - http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolutio...beginners.html

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Round's not over 'till the fat mod sings, chum.

Woaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh meeeeeeeeeee seeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeiiii yyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeee hooooooooooooo meeeeeeeeeee Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mee see looooood oooooooo haaaaaaaaiuiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee. Wooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaahhhhh. Phwoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!*




























* Translation: Oh why must this debate continue/It ended years ago, for all the wide world to see/My heart is as bloodied as a new born child, I am torn by strife/ I yearn for sleep and the release of death/Let's all go for a curry.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Ste

It is impossible to prove what happened before the Big Bang because we haven't develoed time travel.
However -We have proved that everything in the universe is moving away from each other and is speeding up. From this we find that there is a definite point where everything originated (it's relatively close to us actually). We can also work out the age of the Universe.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but you have answered nothing.

Darwin was actually Christian all his life.
Here lies the problem though. You know so little about Evolution but you feel able to dismiss it completely!
Try reading some books on the subject - I'm sure other users would be more than happy to suggest some.
I can only think of one reason why you wouldn't though - because you don't feel your faith is strong enough to face evidence of the bible not being literal. It's scary I guess. Like I've said before - I know plenty of Christians that believe in God and Evolution at the same time - they aren't Mutually Exclusive.
Oh and the link Idimmu posted earlier is great for showing why your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Ok. Let's get one thing straight.

Being a Christian does not make me narrow-minded, or stupid, or adverse to reading on difficult subjects.

You have not read C.S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity', right? Are you too scared too? I imagine not.

At least accord me some respect.

[Stew]

Unfortunately Boogster, you are arguing against the majority with many science related people and religion is often counteracted with science.

Also, MM is right, we're now on page 6 and noone is saying anything new.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Stew

Unfortunately Boogster, you are arguing against the majority with many science related people and religion is often counteracted with science.

Also, MM is right, we're now on page 6 and noone is saying anything new.

The olsen twins are getting hotter every day

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Ste

EDIT - try this - http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolutio...beginners.html

So, according to the author, evolution is simply the obvious, inescapable asnwer to a difficult question.

I don't buy it. I want proof. I do not yet have it.
He does not explain macroevolution fully, or give sufficient evidence for such a process occuring between apes and man.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Being a Christian does not make me narrow-minded, or stupid, or adverse to reading on difficult subjects.

CS Lewis came up with "liar, lord or lunatic" yeah?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Alessio

The olsen twins are getting hotter every day

Seeking some common ground between everyone, eh?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Stew

Unfortunately Boogster, you are arguing against the majority with many science related people and religion is often counteracted with science.

Also, MM is right, we're now on page 6 and noone is saying anything new.

Well, yeah. I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive though, and neither did the fathers of modern science (eg. Newton).

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by queball

CS Lewis came up with "liar, lord or lunatic" yeah?

Yes. And you are implying what exactly? That he's stupid? That's just stupid.

C.S Lewis is an incredibly lucid writer. But I don't suppose you've read his work either.

[queball]

I don't think anyone mentally healthy is stupid. His argument however seems to particularly rely on narrow-mindedness, stupidity, and lack of history (well, unless you say other prophets aren't nearly as good, which is fair enough). As does Descartes. Even if Descartes is my fave philosopher, it's still a stupid argument, relying on, nay, assuming a lack of imagination.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Seeking some common ground between everyone, eh?

nah God told me to post something intellectual about 2 fine pieces of studymaterial in this stagnating discussion..:crazyxmas:

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I don't mean to nit-pick, but you have answered nothing.

Ok, The fact that there is a definite start to the universe, and a definite centre of the universe, and energy can't be made, there must have been an event billions of years ago that gave energy to everything at a single point in space and time in order for this universe to exist as it does.
It's called the big bang. Maybe it was God. Who knows.
All I'm doing is giving you evidence that there was a Big Bang.
I'm not sure whether you believe in this or not, but it's not usually the Christian belief.

k. Let's get one thing straight.

Being a Christian does not make me narrow-minded, or stupid, or adverse to reading on difficult subjects.

You have not read C.S Lewis' 'Mere Christianity', right? Are you too scared too? I imagine not.

At least accord me some respect.

I apologise - I didn't mean to patronise you. All I'm trying to say is it seems like you know very little about Evolution and hence should read up about it if you want to successfully defend Christian belief.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Boogster

So, according to the author, evolution is simply the obvious, inescapable asnwer to a difficult question.

I don't buy it. I want proof. I do not yet have it.
He does not explain macroevolution fully, or give sufficient evidence for such a process occuring between apes and man.

You read it that quickly did you? hmm.
Did you scroll down at all? There's a whole section on Macroevolution (and a nice link for extra info)
And a nice link called Evidence of Evolution


However - the BEST bit is this link. It should actually help you argue in this thread. Evolution doesn't contradict Religion.
It does however contradict the literal interpretation.
So backing up my point
It might actually be worth everyone reading...

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A few questions for Inferno and Boogster. Anyone else can answer too.

1. What do you know of the Big Bang Model? What flaws do you think it has?

2. How much evidence do you think there is for evolution, both as a concept and in practice?

3. Assuming Christian faith, why do you not believe in the God of the Jews, or the Muslims, vice versa?

4. How many possessions do you have? When are you planning to give them away?

1. I know how it happened and the theories about how it was caused. The main one, I was told, was about negative and positive energies unbalancing causing the explosion and creating matter. But the flaw is what causes the shift in the unbalanced energies? It cant just happen by itself. Another one being an endless cycle of universes being exploded, expanding, contracting and exploding again. But how did it start?

2. There is sufficient evidence for evolution in lower species. Darwin, as a Christian, stated that his thoery cannot be applied to humans only in lower species. This thoery was only taken up and spread by scientists and atheists who decided to add humans to the thoery of evolution because there was no need of a God. They find homosapiens and other fossils of half-man half-ape creatures and say they are the ancestors of man. But most of the fossils discovered were fakes and rejected and there were no links between these fossils. They could very well be just variations of apes or humans and nothing in between.

3. What you fail to understand that the same God who sent down Moses with the Torah sent down Jesus with the Bible and Muhammad with the Quran. These holy books were not written by man, they originate from God. How reliable these books are now is doubtful to most since the Bible has clearly been interfered with.

4. Why do you keep using this example? Name me one verse that in the Quran, Torah or Bible that says give all your possesions away. Not one and I guarantee you that. The verses tell you to give what you have so that you may avoid greediness. And no-one likes a stingy bastard, not just God.

And since you keep pulling this issue of giving my possesions, I would have you know that the people who know me say that I have a big heart, have no love for money and that I am the first to help those i need of it.