iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

Lets have a big arguem...debate about religion.

I think it's all a load of old nonsense. god is created by man because we are ultimately afraid of dying and can't accept that we are here for no reason. There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of god.

Religion is also responsible for more death and misery than anything else in the world.

I also am prepared to accept the existence of some higher power but am sceptical even about that.

bonza.

Albert Einstein believed in God.

Stephen Hawkins believes that science proves rather than denies the existence of God.

I'm not much bothered either way. (I suspect this may change as i near the grave)

Oh and Money is responsible for more death and misery than anything else in the world.

i am with ilbm, ir is nonsense rubbish.

Does Stephen Hawking not say that science makes god more likely? As people understand the nature of the enormous coincidence that is our existence alot tend to feel a bit agnostic about the whole thing.

Money and religion are linked though. Organised religion wields massive economic power. As an idea religion is wondeful but human nature has perverted it to such a degree that it has become something sinister.

I am a firm believer. God, Jesus, Adam - believe in it all.

religion is pants

I believe in God.

Its not religion that starts the wars, its the people who use religion as an excuse for hate.

I don't go to church or preach to other people. My faith is personal. And its not about trying to make myself feel better about dying!

"I am a firm believer. God, Jesus, Adam - believe in it all."

:D

I agree Rosie that religionis used as an excuse but it is still intregal in many conflicts. Why would people believe in an afterlife if it wasn't connected to fear of death? How would it arise?

Does there always have to be a reason for everything? Can't something just be?

Its human nature to question everything... if we didnt question our existance then we wouldnt have religion in the first place.. so.. er, no. although you're perfectly entitled to your opinions and beliefs, don't let anyone diss you cos they're worse than those people who go out on the street preaching..

I wasn't disrespecting any beliefs. As it has been said, 'I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend with my life your right to say it' , well maybe not my life.

I believe there does have to be a reason for everything. Everything we experience has reason behind it. When people believe without challenging that belief then thats when they get manipulated.

that may be.

So why are we here then?

consider the lilly..

?

Alright take the birds then.

We are here because we have to be. Even if it's a trillion to one shot that the conditions are right to produce life then it must have happaned a billion times due to the scale of the universe. We're a fluke.

If the universe is infinite, then God must exist.

Why?

If it's infinite, then everything exists, no matter how small the probability, it would get it's chance somewhere.
I don't think it is infinite though, or we wouldn't have black gaps between stars at night time.

Maybe it's not infinite. We just don't know how or why it wouldn't be and what can come after it.

our entire universe could be like some little snowglobe on a shelf in another universe.. yeah..

Whats that word i'm looking for? eight letters, rhymes with Trollocs.

or inside a ball on a cats neck a la men in black

I'm getting a brain-ache!

Current scientific thinking actually holds too the seven universe theory, similar to the one in Red Dwarf. MAybe lister is god!

this statement makes no sense...

consider the lilly..

hahahhahah :D

aaaaaaaah, (no its not aaaaah is it jesus? this is not an aaaaaaaah situation)

i agree with Cal on that one

Me too.

"We just don't know how or why it wouldn't be and what can come after it."

Very few scientists think that the universe is infinite. OK so its big, really big but its not infinite

I agree but we don'y have any answers for what comes beyong or how it can stop. So it is essentially infinite. I think super string theory looks into twhat came before etc but thats as far as i go.

Expanding and contracting would make the most sense in terms of energy.

what comes beyond!??

It's the universe! there is nothing beyond it cos the universe literally means everything!

It's like saying what came before the big bang. there was no concept of 'before' cos time and space were created in the big bang. There wasnt a before for anything to happen in!

(in the opinion of some people)

string theory is a way of presenting particles in terms of elasticated string rather than little round balls, as an attempt to combine Newtonian physics with Quantum Mechanics and allow for the effect of gravity in quantum equations.

Yeah and it's used to expalin what might have been before the big bang.

If nothing is beyond the universe then it is infinite is it not?

"Expanding and contracting would make the most sense in terms of energy"

this only makes sense if there is enough mass in the universe to counteract the forces pushing the universe outwards. the theory goes something like if there isnt enough mass then it will continue expanding outwards indifinately, if there is enough then it will pull it all back together again. hence all these hunts for Dark matter to make up the missing 90% of the universe.

or something
:)

no. Chay's simply saying that the universe is finite and there is nothing beyond where it ends. Thats doesnt make it infinite.

You forget the theory that it will eventually stabalise and not contract at all.

And i also saw 'The theory of everything' last sunday.

"might have been before the big bang."
The term "before" can't apply in this situation. There was no before cos time and space are two sides of the same coin.

"If nothing is beyond the universe then it is infinite is it not?"

nope. just cos there is nothing outside it doesnt make it infinate. I can't give an example closer to home cos there isnt one!

I didnt see it :(

I recommend John Gribbon's book Almost Everyone's Guide to Science.
also on the quantum side: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat and the sequel: Schrodinger's Kittens

I realise there is still something else beyond 'space' but if that something is nothing then as far as we are concerned the universe is infinite if everything after it is nothing.

Ok, if not before then they are working on what preceeded the big bang. They covered a bit of it in geochemistry at uni but i wasn't paying much attention as per usual.

I think it must have sufficient mass. Dark matter has to exist cause anything else is confusing and scary ;)

superstringtheory.com/

not a great site but it has some stuff about the String Bang which may have preceeded the Big Bang, if the Big Bang occured at all.

"far as we are concerned the universe is infinite if everything after it is nothing."

no, cos its not 'nothing' in the way we thing that there is 'nothing' in the gaps between the stars. its not that there is a vacuum beyond it. There is Nothing, No time, No Space, Nothing.

well that killed that then

Going back to the 'black between the stars' comment, if the universe was infinite then there'd be enough stars to fill the entire sky.

um, thats so wrong its amazing.
:D

you are forgetting that we can only see a few stars even with a telescope.

(and our galaxy is only one of millions)

mmmmm..galaxy :D

lovely chocolate treat.

I'm really happy that the Religion thread turned into a Science thread :D

Didnt the last one do that too?

Chay - somewhere there'd be a star powerful enough for us to see with our telescope, and if the universe was infinite, there'd be one, somewhere, where-ever we looked.

right

well i think i agreed with you on the fact that the universe isnt infinite anyway. So lets leave it at that :D

this is so wrong it hurts

most stars we know about are too far away to be seen. size of stars vs size of space in between them means they can't pysically output enough photons to have any kind of decent density above a certain distance away. "a certain desity" being enough photons to be distingishable from background radiation.

this is so wrong it hurts
yup
but i was deciding just to leave it and not get worked up about it!

I don't have a problem with people believeing in religion but I get rather annoyed with the institution of religion. I have a burning hatred for the Catholic church.

yup, there are some serious issues with the church.

i believe that the "faith is personal, so i don't go to church" statement can lack a bit of... conviction, because faith should be an integral part of one's life, in my opinion. If you believe it, you should live it. <- sorry, that statement was pretty pooly worded... maybe later i'm come back to it and fix it up a little.

However, if we look at how the church should be:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
(Acts 4)

...we can see how far wrong the church has gone...

Remember, a God is for life, not just for Christmas.

if only it was the same for santa

we'd get presents all year round

I believe in God, but have a greater belief in energy

I believe in reincarnation, well lets say I do not think it is impossible

I also believe that we are here for a reason, but we forgot to read the manual beforehand

Chay/Cal - read this, he explains it much better than I do.

"Religion does not cause war..."

Correct - belief does

Grim - your argument is flawed. If the universe is infinate, then everything that CAN happen WILL happen, but that doesn't say anything about the probability of a god existing, be it 0 or above.

Either there is a Judeo-Christian god or there isn't. If there isn't, it doesn't mean to say that one of the other (polytheismic even!) religions isn't right and there aren't different god(s).

Out of interest, why do you people here who say you believe in god choose to believe in the Jedeo-Christian god? (The only 1 supreme creator) As an aethist, I've never seen anything to make be believe in a single J-C god more than a collection of gods, or any other creation mythology. Do you have any more reason for choosing this faith, other than it being the strongest religious influence in your culture? Because to me, that's the same as picking something because it's nearby, not because there's any more argument for it being more vaild.

I have had that argument with my girlfriend so many times (she is a christian) and i always ask her why she believes in the god she does and immediately says that other gods do not exist, when there is as much proof of another god than the J-C god ell so eloquently mentioned.

The situation is: exactly as much evidence for a J-C god as for our ancestors dreaming the world into existance (Australian aboriginal(sp?) creation mythology) and as for reincarnation under a collection of gods.. so why accept a one creator just because he's more popular in your culture?

i suppose that's where that whole annoying christian circular arguing comes into play.... We believe there is one God because the bible, the word of God, says so. (hear, o israel, the lord your god, the lord is one)

why do we believe the bible? well, because it's the word of God. Why do we believe that this God is the only one true God? Well, the bible says so....

Seriously though, when I consider what the nature of who I believe to be God is, I just can't see room for any other god in the picture.

If God is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and creator and sustainer the galaxy, how could there be more than one? What if two, all powerful gods, disagreed on a point (like whether or not to preserve this miserable human race)? The only outcome i can see from a battle between to infinite powers is absolute destruction.

But then, i suppose, one could argue the case for a number of gods with limited power - such as the roman gods of mythology. one for war, one for love, one for weather.... i shudder to think of our existence being one administered to by a committee.

But, i suppose the final answer to ell's question of why to accept one creator would be something like this:

because our faith compels us to.

It may sound like a cop-out, illogical answer, but at the end of the day, once you've investigated the myriad explanations for mankind's existence, weighed up all the biased and anecdotal evidence from all sides, and gone on personal journeys of discovery to come to a personal knowlege of the truth, your end decision will have to be based on a gut feeling.

Surely the biased and anecdotal evidence is heavily skewed to the 'god' side of the arguement. There is not even one single hypothesis or theory that can be tested or measured to back up the existence of a divine creator. There is however libraries of information on the 'scientific' origins of the universe. Until some, or any, religous evidence pops up then this makes the scientific route the most likely by default. There is the same evidence for god as there is for leprachauns and unicorns.

God only becomes the most likely explanation when you ignore the trend in belief. The church has constantly moved the goal posts for the last 2000 years. If god is infallible then why was the old testament re-written? It is supposed to be the word of god. At one time it was cold fact that god had created the earth in 7 days. Now we know for fact that he did not. At one point the great flood was fact. Now we know that it never happaned, at least not on a global scale.

The religous arguement has suffered set back after set back and yet it doesn't falter. People call this faith but seem unwilling to accept that faith works in both directions. If you have faith in the word of god then you shouldn't alter that every time science comes up with yet another measurable and demonstratable answer.

The only arguement that holds any weight these days is that god is a great physicist/chemist/geologist/botonist and that the evolution of the universe has occured along the lines of scientific belief....BUT....god started the whole thing in the first place. When the scientific explanation for the 'whole thing' is found then god will have started whatever started that and so on.....

OK, well I am God, and I do exist, so end of debate!

Reitsma's summed it up in one tho.. faith: If you don't have it, you can't understnad it, and if you have it, you can't question it. :(

The J-C God is a pretty nasty one... floods, destruction, demanding of worship; to me, that doesn't sound all good, and "all powerful" is impossible anyway.

ilbm: Agreed. Our current views of science may alter or be refined with overwhelming evidence that they're inaccurate, but religion contains many things that shouldn't be touched, because the foundation of the religion claims them as truth. Dinosaur fosils are anti-biblical evidence, because alledgedly we've only been here for a few thousand years... it took that to convince everyone except creationists that Genesis should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if that part of the bible might not be 100% accurate, then who's to say the parts about Christ being the son of God aren't totally truth? Most religions are shoehorned to fit counter-evidence (no consolation to all those heratics who depicted Christ crusified through the palms instead of wrists, and were burned by the church for centuries before they decided "it's all only symbolic anyway") or people come up with crazy ad-hoc hypothesis (Creation Scientists: Humans and Dinosaurs lived side by side!) because otherwise far fewer people would follow a religion that could be heavily disproved with every-day evidence.

The problem is, however, this sort of circular logic that christianity often uses still exists in the scientific realms.

like carbon dating.

rock a is determined to be 32 trillion years old.

rock b's carbon dating shows it to be half the age of rock a, therefore it is 16 trillion years old.

how was rock a's age determined? well, it was found, by carbon dating, to be twice as old as rock b!

From my investigations on the 'art' or carbon dating, it really is that flawed.

In fact, when you hand in an artifact to be dated, you have to supply your estimation for how old the item is.

Then, the scientists get a whole range of results from the item - 2 years, 2 decades, 2 gazzillion years - and when a couple dates pop out that are near your estimated age - presto! Scientific results.

:o)

Carbon dating is a measure of a decay constant though. It is not based on a guess. Everything has 100% of all the c-14 they ever will have in their body when they die. This reduces by 50% every 5730 years. You measure the c-14 and you have an approximate age.

What can vary is the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere and therefore in the body. Ice cores can serve as an excellent checker for this but the work is expensive.

Also dating something critical like a dinosaur fossil will not be doen with C-14 dating. C-14 is only good for, at the most, 60-70,000 years. Rubidium-strontium, Pottasium-argon and resonance dating techniques will all be used to establish the age of something older. That is also the key. All of these techniques provide a similar date, so for it to be incorrect they would all have to be wrong. They are not.

Ell: I wasn't implying that JC was not the son of god. My natural scepticism says not however. I believe 100% that he existed and had some great ideas. Doesn't mean he was gods son though. I can't dispute the idea that ultimately god created all because there is no evidance either way and never will be. Somewhere down the line it could always be the result of god.

My real problem is with old testament style creastionists. People who still believe in the great flood and that noahs ark is on mt Ararat etc. That has been disproved beyond any doubt and they should move on. Saying otherwise is just like me saying I don't believe in heart transplants. Ignorant foolishness.

And anyway, by it's very nature, shouldn't Christianity be based more on the teachings of Christ himself (i.e. the first four books of the New Testament) rather than the "hellfire and Brimstone" of the old Testament?



I find it funny how some crazy fundies actually take the "seven days" thing literally. Surely it's more of a metaphor for seven stages of creation. The Bible is full of strange metaphors (like the theory that Joseph's childhood is actually the telling of Christ's, except it's either a mishap in translation, as the Hebrew for "Jesus" is "Yeshua", similiar to the Hebrew for Joseph, or another crazy metaphorical thing). Many of the parables could be merely fairy tales written with the idea of selling a moral view, for example. Noah's Ark may fit in this category, for instance.

Back to creationism... For instance, the dinosaurs may have appeared on the sixth "day"/era. Maybe the "seventh day" has yet to happen or is taking place now? It's like Shakespeare in that not everything is there in black and white, you have to read between the lines. However, people do this and see things that aren't there, leading to trouble. On the other hand, more trouble is caused by those who take the text too literally.