Religion?

[Muesli]

There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.

The fact that the universe is expanding?
The cosmic microwave background radiation?
The fact that every galaxy is accelerating away from each other?

 

[Cube-Fu]

The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas. And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?

 

[Muesli]

The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas. And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?

I've nothing to say about virtual particles, so I won't.

As for your other point, every galaxy that has been tested conforms to this. If anything our local group goes against this because the Andromeda galaxy is eventually going to eventually collide with us. However, this is easily explained by gravity pulling the galaxies together.

Cosmic radiation is solid, quantifiable proof of a colossal expansion around 13.5 Bn years ago. Turn on your analogue TV and you can see it for yourself. It was predicted to appear in the microwave range, and it was. It was predicted to be around 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 Kelvin and it was.

 

[zmikecuber]

There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.

Though I dont agree with what you said about there being no definite proof of the big bang, you had a very good second point.

These particles MUST have a cause (if it does not have a cause, we cannot logically understand how this is true for a thing to have no cause). Either they cause themselves or something else (maybe God...?) caused them. But how can a thing such as a particle cause itself?

Unless you say that the particles are the uncaused cause of the universe. Thus you are attributing the creation of the universe, and the creation of causality to a set of conditions called "Quantum Mechanics". This set of conditions must have always existed in order for it to be the uncaused cause, and must have caused time. How can a set of conditions be self existent? How can a set of conditions cause time? If this set of conditions can do all of this which seems impossible, it must be somehow God. And thus, is not simply a "set of conditions", but a free agent, an uncaused cause, unmoved mover.

Nothing can come from nothing.

Somebody prove to me that science comes before logic and philosophy. Good luck. You're going to have to used logic and philosophy to do so. *cough cough* I think I've made my point... science derives from logic. You must use logic and philosophy in order to prove science. Science stating otherwise saying "not every effect needs a logical cause" is denying it's own cause, which is logic and philosophy, which science has derived from.

Just like the statement. "Philosophy is dead." In order to come to this conclusion, we must use philosophy before we can conclude with the philosophic statement "philosophy is dead".

An interesting idea... if an animal is starving to death and you place food in front of it, what will happen? can an animal choose to not eat this food? can an animal go against it's own instincts or self survival? can we as humans choose to not eat food if we are starving to death? can we as humans use our free will to go against our instincts for self survival?

 

[Muesli]

Either they cause themselves or something else (maybe God...?) caused them. But how can a thing such as a particle cause itself?

So what caused your God? You can't just declare him timeless and move on because that's patently absurd when nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless. It's irrational.

I do wish you'd try and answer this point, because you haven't.

 

[zmikecuber]

So what caused your God? You can't just declare him timeless and move on because that's patently absurd when nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless. It's irrational.

I do wish you'd try and answer this point, because you haven't.

Nothing caused God. If something had, then "God" wouldnt be "God".

God IS the cause. The uncaused cause. If there isn't an uncaused cause, the universe is an actual infinite, which is impossible.

I was showing you that He's timeless, because you said God is an actual infinite. Something that is timeless and changeless cannot be an actual infinite.

nothing else in the entire universe has been shown to ever have been timeless.

uhm the uncaused cause of the universe wouldnt be inside the universe. (Im not saying it couldnt go within the universe). it would be the outside CAUSE of the universe. get what I mean? everything WITHIN the universe of space time is bound to time. A thing or being outside the universe would not be bound to time, since time only exists within the universe.

I think we can both agree that we both feel like we're going in circles... and like we're banging our heads against the wall. (or against each other's heads..) I hope nobody gets a concussion.

(heh, I think your favorite line is "patently absurd. )

 

[Muesli]

Nothing caused God. If something had, then "God" wouldnt be "God".

God IS the cause. The uncaused cause. If there isn't an uncaused cause, the universe is an actual infinite, which is impossible.

I was showing you that He's timeless, because you said God is an actual infinite. Something that is timeless and changeless cannot be an actual infinite.



uhm the uncaused cause of the universe wouldnt be inside the universe. (Im not saying it couldnt go within the universe). it would be the outside CAUSE of the universe. get what I mean? everything WITHIN the universe of space time is bound to time. A thing or being outside the universe would not be bound to time, since time only exists within the universe.

I think we can both agree that we both feel like we're going in circles... and like we're banging our heads against the wall. (or against each other's heads..) I hope nobody gets a concussion.

(heh, I think your favorite line is "patently absurd. )

You just repeated exactly what you have been saying all this time. What you say, logically following the laws of causality, is that there must be an initial mover. However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible.

Now, you carry on in spite of this logical contradiction. I, on the other hand, simply stop there and say "I don't know". That is where we differ.

 

[cubersmith]

I'm surprised there isn't more christians.

 

[AgentKuo]

I'm surprised there isn't more christians.

I wonder where we all live. Maybe our geographical location says something about it.

 

[PatrickJameson]

I wonder where we all live. Maybe our geographical location says something about it.

Probably more about our general demographic.

 

[zmikecuber]

However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible.

Now, you carry on in spite of this logical contradiction. I, on the other hand, simply stop there and say "I don't know". That is where we differ.

Im sorry, but I didnt quite understand what you said. especially the "However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible." Can you reword that? (perhaps Im just stupid... sorry you dont have to.)

Do we really know anything for sure? Can we say "we really know nothing for certain"? If we say "we really know nothing for certain" we are in reality saying "we really know for certain that we know nothing for certain". Ok sorry that was a bit irrelevant to what's being said, but I just thought it was interesting..

I'm surprised there isn't more christians.

Eh... they just dont want to get into a big argument and spend lots of time... they're here...I think... but yeah.

 

[Nestor]

I'm surprised there isn't more christians.

Cubers tend to be logical, rational people....

 

[AnAverageJo]

I am a christian but i don't judge based on religion and i love to study other peoples beliefs

 

[Kirjava]

 

[RNewms27]

video

Peanut butter must have the answer

 

[AgentKuo]

"Any theory on the orange of life..."
The whole video was brilliant!

 

[Muesli]

Im sorry, but I didnt quite understand what you said. especially the "However this logical pathway needs something to have been created from nothing, which is also impossible." Can you reword that? (perhaps Im just stupid... sorry you dont have to.)

Do we really know anything for sure? Can we say "we really know nothing for certain"? If we say "we really know nothing for certain" we are in reality saying "we really know for certain that we know nothing for certain". Ok sorry that was a bit irrelevant to what's being said, but I just thought it was interesting..

What you say about your God means he must have created something from nothing, which we know is impossible. This makes it illogical. I don't know this for certain because way back at the origins of the Universe everything turns to mush.

Physics doesn't work on the micro of dimension or macro of energy. Who are you to say that causality applies back at the origin of the universe? This completely undermines both of our arguments because we simply do not know. There's no logical way to squish your God into that gap until we can show how it all began. And there's no logical way I can deny the possibility that there was an initial mover because we simply don't have the knowledge to make logical connections like this. Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.

 

[zmikecuber]

here we go again....

What you say about your God means he must have created something from nothing, which we know is impossible. This makes it illogical. I don't know this for certain because way back at the origins of the Universe everything turns to mush.

Define what you mean by "nothing".

Physics doesn't work on the micro of dimension or macro of energy. Who are you to say that causality applies back at the origin of the universe? This completely undermines both of our arguments because we simply do not know. There's no logical way to squish your God into that gap until we can show how it all began. And there's no logical way I can deny the possibility that there was an initial mover because we simply don't have the knowledge to make logical connections like this. Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.

Who are you to deny the laws of causality?

Why do you want to look for a way how it all began? Even if you dont believe in God, cant we agree that an initial mover which is a free agent is a very very possible answer? Or are you guys implying that there was no cause for the universe...?

How can there be any movement anywhere without an initial mover? Assuming there is no cause (or initial mover) for the universe ultimately denies any cause for anything and denies cause in our daily lives.

Therefore, the default position is to assume that there was no initial mover (not affirming there wasn't) until evidence is provided otherwise.

What do you define as sufficient evidence? Logical evidence or scientifical evidence?

I really dont think at this point that arguing about this is even worth it...

 

[Cuberty]

In my beliefs, I am fine with people who are religious, but when they try to talk me into being religious, I get annoyed.
I remember one day one of the more annoying people in my class tried to sonvert me into being Christian by opening a book and just feeding me phrases. Seriously, he relies on the fact that the bible just might not be a lie.

 

[Muesli]

here we go again....



Define what you mean by "nothing".

An absence of anything. Nil. Presumably this is what you agree on too. And before you say "BUT I MEAN THAT MY GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF HIS GLORIOUS ESSENCE" or something like that, you've yet to demonstrate that your God exists, let alone is necessary. So it's just all fanciful words.

Who are you to deny the laws of causality?

Nobody... try reading what I write.

Why do you want to look for a way how it all began?

Wow... Anti science much?

Even if you dont believe in God, cant we agree that an initial mover which is a free agent is a very very possible answer?

It's only possible. It's no more probable than me claiming the universe was created 15 minutes ago, when I sneezed.

Or are you guys implying that there was no cause for the universe...?

I never implied there wasn't a cause, I just argue for not jumping to, somewhat illogical, conclusions.

How can there be any movement anywhere without an initial mover? Assuming there is no cause (or initial mover) for the universe ultimately denies any cause for anything and denies cause in our daily lives.

Again, who knows what laws of physics, if any, were in motion at the origin of the universe. Just because when I prod something and it moves now, billions of years later, doesn't mean it did then in that singularity.

What do you define as sufficient evidence? Logical evidence or scientifical evidence?

Logical evidence isn't evidence. It's just fancy thoughts that lead somewhere. You need real, tangible evidence to base your premises off.

For example.

Premise one: All orange are purple,
Premise two: This is an orange,
Conclusion: This orange is purple.

Blatantly, this hypothetical orange isn't purple. However, I just proved it is logically. That's what happens when your premises are flawed, which yours are.

I really dont think at this point that arguing about this is even worth it...

That's precisely my point... It's completely fruitless us arguing this. We're two blind people arguing what the colour blue looks like. The only difference is that I'm waiting to find out and you're making statements of truth when there's no way you can know.