Wow. Glad someone finally gets it. Anyway, after they say the above, they more than likely fall back into their own preconceived notions that science (the pursuit of truth) should be completely naturalistic and be shackled and thus regard religion as a big man-made conspiracy rather than take some time out of their short lives to reconsider and take that evidence seriously.
you have evidence that will free me from my shackled experience?
i find what you have said pretty offencive tbh. mainly by the use of shackled by a naturalistic pursuit of truth. where are the shackles? i only see the freedom to learn, explore and investigate this beautiful world around us, knowing that i can only ever be see a tiny glimpse of it, but through investigation i can uncover more of it to show others. maybe even contribute to a better life and future for the less advantaged in the world and my children and future generations through advancing technology.
i have no iterest in telling people it will be ok when they die. i want it to be good while they live.
I actually liked this one better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSw8Gh-PPA0&NR=1 Just about sums up my thoughts and feelings on the matter... it all depends on the context. Talk about hypocrisy; ranting on Christians for their poor morals and illogic while having a preconceived individual sense of morality not based on logic at the same time.
a clear example of a nice logic trap.
you get him to state and what he believes is an absolute truth "killing babies is wrong" and then tear him apart. well done, he deserved it.
a proper atheistic view of morality has to take a relativistic aproach, morals are generated and maintained by a community so they must be taken in the context of that community, there is no absolute right or wrong, no absolute good or evil. the problem is our own individual upbringing, we can never get rid of it, we can try to consider anothers point of view given what we know about their culture, but we can never actually have had their upbringing so will always have a flawed understanding.
this idea of flawed understanding is the key, an atheist must admit they are unable to know the truth. an agnostic throws up his hands at this point and say's "I admit that i am unable to know the truth, so there may or may not be a god". An Atheist however says "I admit that i am unable to know the truth, but people tell stories, that is a certainty as there is heaps of evidence, and what you have faith in sounds like a really good story. therefore it seems likely that it is just a story. if it is more than just a story please show me some evidence."
this is not to say that an atheist must accept every other morality if it has a context in another community. Morallity can change, has changed and needs to keep changing. As time passes things must change and we have the oportunity to build a better world. We must have the courage to use on our own creativity to solve these problems.
Wow. Glad someone finally gets it. Anyway, after they say the above, they more than likely fall back into their own preconceived notions that science (the pursuit of truth) should be completely naturalistic and be shackled and thus regard religion as a big man-made conspiracy rather than take some time out of their short lives to reconsider and take that evidence seriously.
The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
A law which means it has been accpected as truth.
Big Bang theory- All matter was contained in a ball which collasped in on itself then spread out and created the universe.
The most widely accpected theory on the creation of the universe.
The problem is the LAW which to science at least is truth contradicts the big bang becuase for their to have been a big bang then matter had to poof its self there.
Now im not a literalist, im not saying the big bang theory is wrong. The bible says he created the heavens and the stars, it doesnt go into great detali on it. He could have used the big bang to shape the universe.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
A law which means it has been accpected as truth. Big Bang theory- All matter was contained in a ball which collasped in on itself then spread out and created the universe. The most widely accpected theory on the creation of the universe. The problem is the LAW which to science at least is truth contradicts the big bang becuase for their to have been a big bang then matter had to poof its self there. Now im not a literalist, im not saying the big bang theory is wrong. The bible says he created the heavens and the stars, it doesnt go into great detali on it. He could have used the big bang to shape the universe.
nope, there are couple of details you are missing in respect to the big bang. first is that while it is readilly agreed that the universe seemed to come from one 'point', it is hotly debated what was happening at that point.
the next is that no-one acepts that all of the matter arrived 'poof'.
we know that matter can turn into energy and energy can turn into matter. that the conditions in the early stages of the universe are very different from how they are now. Experiments that will be happening soon at the large hadron collider should give us some more information about what it was like then. How? well, take some matter (massive nuclei) accellerate them until they are going substantial percentages of the speed of light, then collide them into each other. this will make a very hot an dense event, that will be closer to what was happening in the early stages of the big bang.
This is totally off topic but.... Nurgles, how did you embed that YouTube video in your post? I've been trying to do that forever!!! And now back to your pointless, philosophical dick waving contest.
Its just a screenshot, look better
Back on topic, the video is about as logically flawed as the old "If God is omnipotent, let him make such a stone that he cannot lift."
And also, logic is not such a black and white spectrum as being presented.
Subscribtions: EVE, SWTOR WOW, WAR, DDO, VG, AOC, COV, FFXI, GW, RFO, Aion +plenty of F2P, betas, trials
Female Dwarf player: WOW, VG, WAR, DDO . Due to the recent economic crisis and spending cuts the light at the end of the tunnel was turned off. Sincerely, God.
The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
A law which means it has been accpected as truth. Big Bang theory- All matter was contained in a ball which collasped in on itself then spread out and created the universe. The most widely accpected theory on the creation of the universe. The problem is the LAW which to science at least is truth contradicts the big bang becuase for their to have been a big bang then matter had to poof its self there. Now im not a literalist, im not saying the big bang theory is wrong. The bible says he created the heavens and the stars, it doesnt go into great detali on it. He could have used the big bang to shape the universe.
nope, there are couple of details you are missing in respect to the big bang. first is that while it is readilly agreed that the universe seemed to come from one 'point', it is hotly debated what was happening at that point.
the next is that no-one acepts that all of the matter arrived 'poof'.
we know that matter can turn into energy and energy can turn into matter. that the conditions in the early stages of the universe are very different from how they are now. Experiments that will be happening soon at the large hadron collider should give us some more information about what it was like then. How? well, take some matter (massive nuclei) accellerate them until they are going substantial percentages of the speed of light, then collide them into each other. this will make a very hot an dense event, that will be closer to what was happening in the early stages of the big bang.
You just talked around my point of saying that how did it get created in the first place. Ok so the expermients will show us what the big bang was like, but are we just gonna sit there with a empty vacum waiting for something to happen. No they will provide the matter/energy to get it going.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
As Rene Descartes put it Now, if I were independent of all other existence, and were myself the author of my being... I should have given myself all those perfections of which I have some idea, and I should thus be God."
You have individuals who are anthropocentric and seem to insulate them from having to give an account for their own belief system.
Any belief system should have a foundation that is coherent and consistent. There are four questions any belief system has to answer, origin, condition, salvation and destiny. Every belief system has to answer these questions and remain consistent when the answer is finished. Where do I come from (origin), why am I the way I am (condition), how do I change myself (salvation) and where do I ultimately go (destiny)?
Lets look at an atheist point of view when they say there is no God. A person to say that there is no possible way beyond his limited knowledge of reality that there is no God is illogical and self defeating.
We are finite creatures; that means we have limited amounts of knowledge; we don't know everything. If there are areas of knowledge outside our limited range then it is a possibility that outside our limited range there is knowledge of God's existence.
In order for us to say absolutely that there is no true knowledge of God's existence we would have to have all knowledge. If we had all knowledge we would have one of the attributes that only God could have therefore we would be God.
So we find ourselves in the strange predicament of being God and yet denying God's existence? But if we are limited and therefore are not God we must admit that there is at least the possibility that there is a God outside of our knowledge; it might be a likely possibility or it might be a very long-shot possibility but nonetheless it is a possibility.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
First, the Jesus Christ didn`t create a book because he himself is an invention by those who wanted to spread Christianity. They took some texts, including some written by "his" disciples, made up some stuff to fill some blanks and voila - the Bible. That`s why the Christian church didn`t exist at that time.
Ok. I`m gonna stop viewing that video right now - how can the laws of abstract logic exist???
Jaysis f***ing Christ - just to be emphatic.
I`m kidding, I`m gonna keep watching that $%#& just to see what that moron who created it thought of.
I think if you believe in something, it`s ok - it`s your head, it`s the world through YOUR eyes. Not through someone else`s. So why do these religious people want everybody to get into THEIR bandwagon of blind faith, easy and quick forgiveness and life controlled by some mystical figure? It`s mind control and you want to restrain other people so they`re as narrow minded as you are? In case this is too difficult for you to understand, it is slavery! It`s putting your life, your decisions in the hands of a (holy) ghost and wishing (or praying if you will) that things work out - what happened to free will???
First, the Jesus Christ didn`t create a book because he himself is an invention by those who wanted to spread Christianity. They took some texts, including some written by "his" disciples, made up some stuff to fill some blanks and voila - the Bible. That`s why the Christian church didn`t exist at that time. Ok. I`m gonna stop viewing that video right now - how can the laws of abstract logic exist??? Jaysis f***ing Christ - just to be emphatic. I`m kidding, I`m gonna keep watching that $%#& just to see what that moron who created it thought of. I think if you believe in something, it`s ok - it`s your head, it`s the world through YOUR eyes. Not through someone else`s. So why do these religious people want everybody to get into THEIR bandwagon of blind faith, easy and quick forgiveness and life controlled by some mystical figure? It`s mind control and you want to restrain other people so they`re as narrow minded as you are? In case this is too difficult for you to understand, it is slavery! It`s putting your life, your decisions in the hands of a (holy) ghost and wishing (or praying if you will) that things work out - what happened to free will???
IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication. In my opinion, probably about 85% BS
P.S. The New testament portion of the Bible was collaborated under the instructions of the (pagan) Emperor Constantine of Rome a few centuries after the fact. The members of the council of Nicea chose which of the books they believed to tell truth, or would serve their purpose best depending on which story you believe, it probably, as usual, was a mixture of both. The Old Testament is well named, no one is quite sure where the hell it came from. In my opinion, it was likely another of the thousands of folklore fables handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until finally written down.
P.P.S. As to why a religious man wishes others to join him, see through another's eyes for a moment. If you truly believed that others were going down a path of self destruction, would you stand idly by? Watch a man walk into a bonfire? Or another wasting his life getting high on drugs? Sure some do it for other reasons, including in the selfish category, but the primary reason for the honest Christian is simply the desire to help.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
"IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication."
Actually, there wasn't. The best record of the figure of Jesus Christ as a miracle performer was proved a forgery.
The word 'Christ' is an adaptation of a hieroglyph that means "The annointed one" - thus it is a title, not even a name.
And records of a person name Jesus, who was convicted and executed, and who was a motivational speaker? How many thousands of individuals could have shared all those characteristics? What about records of a miracle performer? I'm sorry but Jesus is a creation of mortals. Thus my facts are still straight and you might want to think over whatever you hear.
Originally posted by Aelfinn "IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication."
Actually, there wasn't. The best record of the figure of Jesus Christ as a miracle performer was proved a forgery.
I'm not talking about that
The word 'Christ' is an adaptation of a hieroglyph that means "The annointed one" - thus it is a title, not even a name.
Nope, not that either.
And records of a person name Jesus, who was convicted and executed, and who was a motivational speaker? How many thousands of individuals could have shared all those characteristics? What about records of a miracle performer? I'm sorry but Jesus is a creation of mortals. Thus my facts are still straight and you might want to think over whatever you hear.
Not all that many, not that were in almost exactly the right place and the right time at any rate. Plus, the only thing I suggested was that the mortal man MAY have existed, the legend of the godborn miracle worker is an entirely different matter. Take your own advice and try to think over whatever you heard from me. I happen to agree with and support your viewpoint in general, I'm trying to get you to rethink your arguments before you get torn apart.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." --Prof. Stephen Hawking, quoted in Ian Barbour,
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer & atheist) (1982)
"The simultaneous occurrence of many independent improbable features appears wildly improbable. … [T]his fine-tuning could be taken as an argument for the existence of a designer, perhaps a God with an interest in conscious life." --Prof. Ian Barbour, (emphasis original)
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." --Prof. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979) p. 250
“My claim would be that theism has a more profound and comprehensive understanding to offer than that afforded by atheism. Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less.” -- Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, AND then their is this
Is "any universe" possible? If some of nature's physical constants were different, would we still have a universe? Perhaps not... Many researchers have concluded that the existence of complex systems -- especially biological systems -- is remarkably sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, and that in some cases the most minute changes to those laws is sufficient to wreck the chance of life (as we know it) arising. As Davies (1992) notes:
If we could play God, and select values for these (physical constants) at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: "The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves."
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe.
Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...)
What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed.
The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen.
But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets...
The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium...
The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning...
Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it.
It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...]
But there's still more fine tuning...
Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans.
Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions.
All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...]
There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
First, the Jesus Christ didn`t create a book because he himself is an invention by those who wanted to spread Christianity. They took some texts, including some written by "his" disciples, made up some stuff to fill some blanks and voila - the Bible. That`s why the Christian church didn`t exist at that time. Ok. I`m gonna stop viewing that video right now - how can the laws of abstract logic exist??? Jaysis f***ing Christ - just to be emphatic. I`m kidding, I`m gonna keep watching that $%#& just to see what that moron who created it thought of. I think if you believe in something, it`s ok - it`s your head, it`s the world through YOUR eyes. Not through someone else`s. So why do these religious people want everybody to get into THEIR bandwagon of blind faith, easy and quick forgiveness and life controlled by some mystical figure? It`s mind control and you want to restrain other people so they`re as narrow minded as you are? In case this is too difficult for you to understand, it is slavery! It`s putting your life, your decisions in the hands of a (holy) ghost and wishing (or praying if you will) that things work out - what happened to free will???
IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication. In my opinion, probably about 85% BS
P.S. The New testament portion of the Bible was collaborated under the instructions of the (pagan) Emperor Constantine of Rome a few centuries after the fact. The members of the council of Nicea chose which of the books they believed to tell truth, or would serve their purpose best depending on which story you believe, it probably, as usual, was a mixture of both. The Old Testament is well named, no one is quite sure where the hell it came from. In my opinion, it was likely another of the thousands of folklore fables handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until finally written down.
P.P.S. As to why a religious man wishes others to join him, see through another's eyes for a moment. If you truly believed that others were going down a path of self destruction, would you stand idly by? Watch a man walk into a bonfire? Or another wasting his life getting high on drugs? Sure some do it for other reasons, including in the selfish category, but the primary reason for the honest Christian is simply the desire to help.
Aelfinn many historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real person wether or not he was the son of God though is for people to choose.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." --Prof. Stephen Hawking, quoted in Ian Barbour,
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer & atheist) (1982)
"The simultaneous occurrence of many independent improbable features appears wildly improbable. … [T]his fine-tuning could be taken as an argument for the existence of a designer, perhaps a God with an interest in conscious life." --Prof. Ian Barbour, (emphasis original)
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." --Prof. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979) p. 250
“My claim would be that theism has a more profound and comprehensive understanding to offer than that afforded by atheism. Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less.” -- Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, AND then their is this
Is "any universe" possible? If some of nature's physical constants were different, would we still have a universe? Perhaps not... Many researchers have concluded that the existence of complex systems -- especially biological systems -- is remarkably sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, and that in some cases the most minute changes to those laws is sufficient to wreck the chance of life (as we know it) arising. As Davies (1992) notes: If we could play God, and select values for these (physical constants) at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: "The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves."
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe.
Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...)
What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed.
The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen.
But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets...
The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium...
The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning...
Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it.
It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...]
But there's still more fine tuning...
Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans.
Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions.
All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...]
There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
wow this has got to be the most well written post ive ever seen on this site.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
You just talked around my point of saying that how did it get created in the first place. Ok so the expermients will show us what the big bang was like, but are we just gonna sit there with a empty vacum waiting for something to happen. No they will provide the matter/energy to get it going.
your point is that the big bang says the universe appeared at some point so violate conservation of mass/energy, my point is the big bang is not well enough understood to make this statement.
take for example another fairly simple and provable observation, gravitational time dilation.
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds."
so we can observe that time goes slower the greater the gravitational field. now take all the matter in the universe and put it in a very small place, the gravity would be very very high, this means that time would pass very very slowly, so slow that to all intesive purposes it isn't passing at all, so the universe always was even though time started.
you are justifieing your faith that god created the universe by saying that scientific models are inconsistant, so you too can be inconsistant. however every scientific model is only correct while we observe it to be true. all scientific models are assumed to be incomplete and inacurate. for example, what is gravity, we still don't understand it, it is expectected to be quantum in nature, but we have not yet observed a graviton. The big bang models contradictions with the contservation of energy is an oportunity to explore where those models are inacurate, as we assume they are.
anyone who tell you that science generates truths is a fool. all it does is give us an inaccurate model that seems to work from our observations.
you can not use the statement the truths of of science are inconsistant to proove any point as it relies on a misunderstanding of the nature of science.
you want to validate your faith that the universe was created, fine, well and good, just please don't try to use your ignorance of science to do it to others.
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." --Prof. Stephen Hawking, quoted in Ian Barbour, a statement of faith from a respected scientist, proves nothing, is untestable.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer & atheist) (1982) again a statement of faith from a respected scientist, proves nothing, is untestable. this one relying on common sense.
"The simultaneous occurrence of many independent improbable features appears wildly improbable. … [T]his fine-tuning could be taken as an argument for the existence of a designer, perhaps a God with an interest in conscious life." --Prof. Ian Barbour, (emphasis original) this argument goes, there are so many unlikely things, so there must be a god. it is hollow in that i can make anything unlikely, by misrepresenting a statistical argument. what is the chance that you have the change that you have in your pocket, seems pretty increadible, huh, that exact combination, with those exact years that you have stamped on them. so many other possible combinations do exist, yes? infinite, wow there must be a god then. The actual the chance you have that exact change is 100% because you have that change and you can have none other.
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." --Prof. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979) p. 250 what evidence?
“My claim would be that theism has a more profound and comprehensive understanding to offer than that afforded by atheism. Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less.” -- Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, sorry what? atheists explain less? thats usually because they are not trying to sell the snake oil that is the 'truth'. an atheist is asking questions not explaining through mythology.
AND then their is this
Is "any universe" possible? If some of nature's physical constants were different, would we still have a universe? Perhaps not... Many researchers have concluded that the existence of complex systems -- especially biological systems -- is remarkably sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, and that in some cases the most minute changes to those laws is sufficient to wreck the chance of life (as we know it) arising. As Davies (1992) notes:
If we could play God, and select values for these (physical constants) at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: "The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves."
this is a terribly illogical argument. the same as the coin structure above. we start with the untestable premise of "if the laws opf the universe were different" and conclude the universe was designed. lets put it another way, if the universe was different, lets say for example that it didn't have matter, then we wouldn't exist, therefore there must be a designer because there is matter and that means the matter must have been planned for.
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe. Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...) What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed. The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen. But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets... The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium... The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning... Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it. It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...] But there's still more fine tuning... Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans. Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions. All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...] There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
the rest of the argument relies on same point that i made about the coins. none of that is a logical argument as it creates an infinite untestable set of conditions that don't exist, holds that set up against the identity of the universe, the one thing that we can explore, and says it is so unlikely to be so there must be a creator.
in other words, infinite not real things divided by a real thing equals a creator.
it uses a semblance of science and some scientific language to hide a illogical argument and convince the ignorant that it comes from an authority.
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." --Prof. Stephen Hawking, quoted in Ian Barbour, a statement of faith from a respected scientist, proves nothing, is untestable.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer & atheist) (1982) again a statement of faith from a respected scientist, proves nothing, is untestable. this one relying on common sense.
"The simultaneous occurrence of many independent improbable features appears wildly improbable. … [T]his fine-tuning could be taken as an argument for the existence of a designer, perhaps a God with an interest in conscious life." --Prof. Ian Barbour, (emphasis original) this argument goes, there are so many unlikely things, so there must be a god. it is hollow in that i can make anything unlikely, by misrepresenting a statistical argument. what is the chance that you have the change that you have in your pocket, seems pretty increadible, huh, that exact combination, with those exact years that you have stamped on them. so many other possible combinations do exist, yes? infinite, wow there must be a god then. The actual the chance you have that exact change is 100% because you have that change and you can have none other.
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." --Prof. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979) p. 250 what evidence?
“My claim would be that theism has a more profound and comprehensive understanding to offer than that afforded by atheism. Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less.” -- Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, sorry what? atheists explain less? thats usually because they are not trying to sell the snake oil that is the 'truth'. an atheist is asking questions not explaining through mythology.
AND then their is this
Is "any universe" possible? If some of nature's physical constants were different, would we still have a universe? Perhaps not... Many researchers have concluded that the existence of complex systems -- especially biological systems -- is remarkably sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, and that in some cases the most minute changes to those laws is sufficient to wreck the chance of life (as we know it) arising. As Davies (1992) notes: If we could play God, and select values for these (physical constants) at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbin and Martin Rees conclude: "The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves."
this is a terribly illogical argument. the same as the coin structure above. we start with the untestable premise of "if the laws opf the universe were different" and conclude the universe was designed. lets put it another way, if the universe was different, lets say for example that it didn't have matter, then we wouldn't exist, therefore there must be a designer because there is matter and that means the matter must have been planned for.
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe. Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...) What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed. The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen. But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets... The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium... The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning... Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it. It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...] But there's still more fine tuning... Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans. Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions. All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...] There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
the rest of the argument relies on same point that i made about the coins. none of that is a logical argument as it creates an infinite untestable set of conditions that don't exist, holds that set up against the identity of the universe, the one thing that we can explore, and says it is so unlikely to be so there must be a creator.
in other words, infinite not real things divided by a real thing equals a creator.
it uses a semblance of science and some scientific language to hide a illogical argument and convince the ignorant that it comes from an authority.
yeah your right!!! and if there is no creator all the things around us will not be created..
Aelfinn many historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real person wether or not he was the son of God though is for people to choose.
Geez, did I write in Mandarin Chinese and not realize it?
That was almost the entire point of my post Arndur.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
There were many different "messiahs" documented during that same period and only three of them even come close to the myth of Jesus. None of them were executed in the same way or in the same place as Jesus.
First, the Bible was written by man. Several men, in fact. So expecting some people to believe that the words written by men are Gods' words takes more than a little faith to accomplish.
Second, at the end of the Bible, it states "Let no man addeth or taketh away".
Well, men wrote it, so men "addeth". And with the butcher job the Roman Catholics have commited by removing sections and keeping them hidden in the Vatican kinda falls under "taketh away".
So the book is meaningless in its' current state as any kind of point of reference.
this is the argument from the first video. abstract logical absolutes prove the existance of god as there is no naturalistic way they can be conceptualised. that is stunningly flawed. i have no idea why they used 'the laws of logic' as there are much simpler abstract truths out ther like, the cuircumference of any circle divded by its diameter is alway pi. or an even simpler one, 1 + 1 = 2. the funny thing is that a logical abstracts only exist as a thought exercise. there is no perfect circle except as an abstract. even 1 + 1 = 2 can never be. hold up two fingers, you can point to each and say "one plus one equals two" but if you are honest wioth yourself you will know that those two fingers are different from each other. you have not added one identical finger to another to have two. what you have is a new object which is the two non identical fingers. however you approximate to allow yourself the utility of the functional relationship of 1 + 1 = 2. An abstract is that, a structure of thought, the abstract itself only exists due to the person conceptualising it. Abstracts exist because we are social creatures, we comunicate abstracts through language, "can you please scratch my back because it is itchy?" for you the idea that my back is itchy is only an abstract, you do not know, but we have a well established model of what an itch is. the youtube argument is that the abstracts exist without people, so they must be a god to conceptualise them. there is no proof that the abstacts exist without people and it cannot be tested. a hollow argument.
I normally no longer prefer to engage in long debates. As of late I work too much to even consider this. But since I have a 3 day weekend I will give you something to think about.
First, lets look at it from this perspective. A given true law that regardless of thought will always be. All things that exist when measured at its minute value come to a value of 1 and 0 or 1 and nil. There is no greater or lower value for this. Now how far our limitations of measurement are is on us. But currently there is nothing negative or positive to that set value. Which is what we call binary.
Now some things to think about. Since everything that "exists has this value what does it tell you about the universe? Is everything interconnected? Is there something out there that shows something differently?In most cases all you have to do is look at the box that is holding your computer. Or better yet look at the words you type. Hmm, were they there a minute ago? Did it go from a "nil" category to 1? Even the code to create such uses this source of math?
The irony that the most simple of value can be so complicated due to both sides making it that is almost complete idiocy. So the burden of proof and or just the burden lays on the beholder.As such I will contest based sole off of known science and observable phenomena and or hypothesis. That the following is true.
There are no things that exist that do not have a minimal value of 1 and or nil. That through that value that all things regardless of our personal belief system are interconnected. That all things are energy regardless of its physical state.
That life on this planet or life as we know it are direct DNA lifeforms. That no RNA life has been observed. That even the base of all DNA/RNA are byproducts of the binary system. That 1 and nil co-exist in all things.
That there is no spontaneous event due to the disassembly of all that exists. That there is no altered or different coding other than what is based above. That what we call evolution or change is nothing more than a natural occurrence of energy patterns and that the cyclic nature of this makes it non spontaneous. Thus mutation and or by products of mutation are nothing more than natural flow change in this world and or universe.
That the "beginning and end" are actually one and the same. As is the Alpha and Omega.That any pattern we try to conceive is nothing more than a expression based off of the binary system. That all stated above is in complete logic and flawless in its conception. That the burden of proof is no longer needed since it is given and these "FACTS" cannot be changed.
Communist leader of the Soviet Union, admitted publicly for the first time on Wednesday that he is a Christian.
(Photo: AP Images / Bela Szandelszky, File)
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev talks during a press conference at the World Political Forum's conference "European Dreams: Promises and Reality" at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, Hungary, Wednesday Nov. 28, 2007.
Rumors had circulated for decades that Gorbachev was a “closet Christian,” but it was only confirmed yesterday when he made a surprise visit with his daughter Irina to pray at the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy. The former communist leader spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.
"It was through St. Francis that I arrived at the church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb," said Gorbachev, according to U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper.
"I feel very emotional to be here at such an important place not only for the Catholic faith, but for all humanity."
Until now, Gorbachev had only expressed pantheistic views such as “nature is my god,” according to the U.K. newspaper.
Gorbachev, 77, was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church and his parents are Christians. Moreover, the parents of his wife, Raisa, were devout Christians who died during World War II for having religious icons in their home.
Many had suspected that Gorbachev was forced to hide his faith because of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)’s official stance as an atheist state.
Former President Ronald Reagan had allegedly told close aides that he suspected that his opponent during the Cold War was a “closet believer,” according to the Telegraph.
The revelation of Gorbachev’s faith also sheds new light on his meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989. On the eve of his encounter with the late pontiff, Gorbachev said the Soviet Union had erred in long rejecting religion and needed its moral force to help make his plans for a restructured society work.
Besides praying at the tomb, Gorbachev during his Assisi visit also toured the Basilica of St. Francis and asked the monks there for theological books to help him understand the life of St. Francis.
Father Miroslavo Anuskevic, who accompanied the former Soviet leader, said Gorbachev was not recognized by any of the worshippers in the church and had “silently meditated at the tomb for a while.”
“He seemed a man deeply inspired by charity, and told me that he was involved in a project to help children with cancer,” reflected Anuskevic.
"He talked a lot about Russia and said that even though the transition to democracy had been very important for the world, it was very painful for Russia,” the priest added. “He said it was a country which has a great history, and also a great spirituality."
Christians make up about 17 to 22 percent of Russia’s population, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Russia is considered one of the least religious countries in Europe, with only 50 percent of its people saying they are religious and only seven percent describing themselves as highly religious, according to a major study on faith, conducted by German think tank Bertelsmann Foundation, released in December.
Unexpected this was.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Well I suppose that the idea of one God or many gods across all religions could be consolidated into a single idea of God - for the purpose of argument - against the argument that relgions have so many different kinds of God or gods that only one or few can be correct. That's a nice counter-argument to "I'll believe in your God when you can tell me why you don't believe in all the others".
The problem is that people have very different ideas to what God is, and since people tend to assume that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can be everything and everyone - therefore not really a God at all, not really a being or a thing judging us, but the way the world works.
And for me that's really what God is, a way to explain the unexplainable until we have the technology or great minds to figure it out for ourselves.
I don't worship the sun, a cross, the wind, or a book written centuries ago, but I'm pretty damn stoked about Radiohead. I'm pretty sure I have a religious love of them. Therefore, Thom Yorke is God, and since this fits into the view that all religions are worshipping the same Gods just with different names and forms and number, he is a legitimate diety.
Though the Flying Spaghetti Monster has his charms as well. So what's the point in being a Christian or a Muslim or a Jedi or a Satanist or a Radiohead fan when at the end of the day we're all thinking about the same thing. I suppose if I was born and raised into a religious family I would have beliefs indoctrinated into me, and I would be one of those things.
But I was raised to think for myself, so Radiohead is God. Amen.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Comments
i find what you have said pretty offencive tbh. mainly by the use of shackled by a naturalistic pursuit of truth. where are the shackles? i only see the freedom to learn, explore and investigate this beautiful world around us, knowing that i can only ever be see a tiny glimpse of it, but through investigation i can uncover more of it to show others. maybe even contribute to a better life and future for the less advantaged in the world and my children and future generations through advancing technology.
i have no iterest in telling people it will be ok when they die. i want it to be good while they live.
you get him to state and what he believes is an absolute truth "killing babies is wrong" and then tear him apart. well done, he deserved it.
a proper atheistic view of morality has to take a relativistic aproach, morals are generated and maintained by a community so they must be taken in the context of that community, there is no absolute right or wrong, no absolute good or evil. the problem is our own individual upbringing, we can never get rid of it, we can try to consider anothers point of view given what we know about their culture, but we can never actually have had their upbringing so will always have a flawed understanding.
this idea of flawed understanding is the key, an atheist must admit they are unable to know the truth. an agnostic throws up his hands at this point and say's "I admit that i am unable to know the truth, so there may or may not be a god". An Atheist however says "I admit that i am unable to know the truth, but people tell stories, that is a certainty as there is heaps of evidence, and what you have faith in sounds like a really good story. therefore it seems likely that it is just a story. if it is more than just a story please show me some evidence."
this is not to say that an atheist must accept every other morality if it has a context in another community. Morallity can change, has changed and needs to keep changing. As time passes things must change and we have the oportunity to build a better world. We must have the courage to use on our own creativity to solve these problems.
Wow. Glad someone finally gets it. Anyway, after they say the above, they more than likely fall back into their own preconceived notions that science (the pursuit of truth) should be completely naturalistic and be shackled and thus regard religion as a big man-made conspiracy rather than take some time out of their short lives to reconsider and take that evidence seriously.
The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
A law which means it has been accpected as truth.
Big Bang theory- All matter was contained in a ball which collasped in on itself then spread out and created the universe.
The most widely accpected theory on the creation of the universe.
The problem is the LAW which to science at least is truth contradicts the big bang becuase for their to have been a big bang then matter had to poof its self there.
Now im not a literalist, im not saying the big bang theory is wrong. The bible says he created the heavens and the stars, it doesnt go into great detali on it. He could have used the big bang to shape the universe.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
nope, there are couple of details you are missing in respect to the big bang. first is that while it is readilly agreed that the universe seemed to come from one 'point', it is hotly debated what was happening at that point.
the next is that no-one acepts that all of the matter arrived 'poof'.
we know that matter can turn into energy and energy can turn into matter. that the conditions in the early stages of the universe are very different from how they are now. Experiments that will be happening soon at the large hadron collider should give us some more information about what it was like then. How? well, take some matter (massive nuclei) accellerate them until they are going substantial percentages of the speed of light, then collide them into each other. this will make a very hot an dense event, that will be closer to what was happening in the early stages of the big bang.
This is totally off topic but....
Nurgles, how did you embed that YouTube video in your post? I've been trying to do that forever!!!
And now back to your pointless, philosophical dick waving contest.
Its just a screenshot, look better
Back on topic, the video is about as logically flawed as the old "If God is omnipotent, let him make such a stone that he cannot lift."
And also, logic is not such a black and white spectrum as being presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
Subscribtions: EVE, SWTOR WOW, WAR, DDO, VG, AOC, COV, FFXI, GW, RFO, Aion
+plenty of F2P, betas, trials
Female Dwarf player: WOW, VG, WAR, DDO
.
Due to the recent economic crisis and spending cuts the light at the end of the tunnel was turned off. Sincerely, God.
nope, there are couple of details you are missing in respect to the big bang. first is that while it is readilly agreed that the universe seemed to come from one 'point', it is hotly debated what was happening at that point.
the next is that no-one acepts that all of the matter arrived 'poof'.
we know that matter can turn into energy and energy can turn into matter. that the conditions in the early stages of the universe are very different from how they are now. Experiments that will be happening soon at the large hadron collider should give us some more information about what it was like then. How? well, take some matter (massive nuclei) accellerate them until they are going substantial percentages of the speed of light, then collide them into each other. this will make a very hot an dense event, that will be closer to what was happening in the early stages of the big bang.
You just talked around my point of saying that how did it get created in the first place. Ok so the expermients will show us what the big bang was like, but are we just gonna sit there with a empty vacum waiting for something to happen. No they will provide the matter/energy to get it going.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
As Rene Descartes put it Now, if I were independent of all other existence, and were myself the author of my being... I should have given myself all those perfections of which I have some idea, and I should thus be God."
You have individuals who are anthropocentric and seem to insulate them from having to give an account for their own belief system.
Any belief system should have a foundation that is coherent and consistent. There are four questions any belief system has to answer, origin, condition, salvation and destiny. Every belief system has to answer these questions and remain consistent when the answer is finished. Where do I come from (origin), why am I the way I am (condition), how do I change myself (salvation) and where do I ultimately go (destiny)?
Lets look at an atheist point of view when they say there is no God. A person to say that there is no possible way beyond his limited knowledge of reality that there is no God is illogical and self defeating.
We are finite creatures; that means we have limited amounts of knowledge; we don't know everything. If there are areas of knowledge outside our limited range then it is a possibility that outside our limited range there is knowledge of God's existence.
In order for us to say absolutely that there is no true knowledge of God's existence we would have to have all knowledge. If we had all knowledge we would have one of the attributes that only God could have therefore we would be God.
So we find ourselves in the strange predicament of being God and yet denying God's existence? But if we are limited and therefore are not God we must admit that there is at least the possibility that there is a God outside of our knowledge; it might be a likely possibility or it might be a very long-shot possibility but nonetheless it is a possibility.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
First, the Jesus Christ didn`t create a book because he himself is an invention by those who wanted to spread Christianity. They took some texts, including some written by "his" disciples, made up some stuff to fill some blanks and voila - the Bible. That`s why the Christian church didn`t exist at that time.
Ok. I`m gonna stop viewing that video right now - how can the laws of abstract logic exist???
Jaysis f***ing Christ - just to be emphatic.
I`m kidding, I`m gonna keep watching that $%#& just to see what that moron who created it thought of.
I think if you believe in something, it`s ok - it`s your head, it`s the world through YOUR eyes. Not through someone else`s. So why do these religious people want everybody to get into THEIR bandwagon of blind faith, easy and quick forgiveness and life controlled by some mystical figure? It`s mind control and you want to restrain other people so they`re as narrow minded as you are? In case this is too difficult for you to understand, it is slavery! It`s putting your life, your decisions in the hands of a (holy) ghost and wishing (or praying if you will) that things work out - what happened to free will???
IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication. In my opinion, probably about 85% BS
P.S. The New testament portion of the Bible was collaborated under the instructions of the (pagan) Emperor Constantine of Rome a few centuries after the fact. The members of the council of Nicea chose which of the books they believed to tell truth, or would serve their purpose best depending on which story you believe, it probably, as usual, was a mixture of both. The Old Testament is well named, no one is quite sure where the hell it came from. In my opinion, it was likely another of the thousands of folklore fables handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until finally written down.
P.P.S. As to why a religious man wishes others to join him, see through another's eyes for a moment. If you truly believed that others were going down a path of self destruction, would you stand idly by? Watch a man walk into a bonfire? Or another wasting his life getting high on drugs? Sure some do it for other reasons, including in the selfish category, but the primary reason for the honest Christian is simply the desire to help.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Originally posted by Aelfinn
Actually, there wasn't. The best record of the figure of Jesus Christ as a miracle performer was proved a forgery.
The word 'Christ' is an adaptation of a hieroglyph that means "The annointed one" - thus it is a title, not even a name.
And records of a person name Jesus, who was convicted and executed, and who was a motivational speaker? How many thousands of individuals could have shared all those characteristics? What about records of a miracle performer? I'm sorry but Jesus is a creation of mortals. Thus my facts are still straight and you might want to think over whatever you hear.
Actually, there wasn't. The best record of the figure of Jesus Christ as a miracle performer was proved a forgery.
I'm not talking about that
The word 'Christ' is an adaptation of a hieroglyph that means "The annointed one" - thus it is a title, not even a name.
Nope, not that either.
And records of a person name Jesus, who was convicted and executed, and who was a motivational speaker? How many thousands of individuals could have shared all those characteristics? What about records of a miracle performer? I'm sorry but Jesus is a creation of mortals. Thus my facts are still straight and you might want to think over whatever you hear.
Not all that many, not that were in almost exactly the right place and the right time at any rate. Plus, the only thing I suggested was that the mortal man MAY have existed, the legend of the godborn miracle worker is an entirely different matter. Take your own advice and try to think over whatever you heard from me. I happen to agree with and support your viewpoint in general, I'm trying to get you to rethink your arguments before you get torn apart.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." --Prof. Stephen Hawking, quoted in Ian Barbour,
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." --Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer & atheist) (1982)
"The simultaneous occurrence of many independent improbable features appears wildly improbable. … [T]his fine-tuning could be taken as an argument for the existence of a designer, perhaps a God with an interest in conscious life." --Prof. Ian Barbour, (emphasis original)
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." --Prof. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (1979) p. 250
“My claim would be that theism has a more profound and comprehensive understanding to offer than that afforded by atheism. Atheists are not stupid, but they explain less.” -- Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE,AND then their is this
Is "any universe" possible? If some of nature's physical constants were different, would we still have a universe? Perhaps not... Many researchers have concluded that the existence of complex systems -- especially biological systems -- is remarkably sensitive to the form of the laws of physics, and that in some cases the most minute changes to those laws is sufficient to wreck the chance of life (as we know it) arising. As Davies (1992) notes:
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe.Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...)
What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed.
The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen.
But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets...
The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium...
The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning...
Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it.
It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...]
But there's still more fine tuning...
Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans.
Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions.
All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...]
There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
IF you are going to argue a cause, I suggest you get your facts straight. First of all, there is plenty of evidence that a man by that name did exist, there is further evidence of him being convicted and executed, and of him being a motivational speaker. The Romans were excellent record keepers. You can most certainly argue about him being just another man of the times, and against the miracles supposedly performed, but it is generally accepted that he was not a 100% fabrication. In my opinion, probably about 85% BS
P.S. The New testament portion of the Bible was collaborated under the instructions of the (pagan) Emperor Constantine of Rome a few centuries after the fact. The members of the council of Nicea chose which of the books they believed to tell truth, or would serve their purpose best depending on which story you believe, it probably, as usual, was a mixture of both. The Old Testament is well named, no one is quite sure where the hell it came from. In my opinion, it was likely another of the thousands of folklore fables handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth until finally written down.
P.P.S. As to why a religious man wishes others to join him, see through another's eyes for a moment. If you truly believed that others were going down a path of self destruction, would you stand idly by? Watch a man walk into a bonfire? Or another wasting his life getting high on drugs? Sure some do it for other reasons, including in the selfish category, but the primary reason for the honest Christian is simply the desire to help.
Aelfinn many historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real person wether or not he was the son of God though is for people to choose.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...)
What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed.
The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen.
But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets...
The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium...
The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning...
Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it.
It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...]
But there's still more fine tuning...
Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans.
Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions.
All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...]
There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
wow this has got to be the most well written post ive ever seen on this site.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
take for example another fairly simple and provable observation, gravitational time dilation.
"Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the higher the local distortion of spacetime due to gravity, the slower time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds."
so we can observe that time goes slower the greater the gravitational field. now take all the matter in the universe and put it in a very small place, the gravity would be very very high, this means that time would pass very very slowly, so slow that to all intesive purposes it isn't passing at all, so the universe always was even though time started.
you are justifieing your faith that god created the universe by saying that scientific models are inconsistant, so you too can be inconsistant. however every scientific model is only correct while we observe it to be true. all scientific models are assumed to be incomplete and inacurate. for example, what is gravity, we still don't understand it, it is expectected to be quantum in nature, but we have not yet observed a graviton. The big bang models contradictions with the contservation of energy is an oportunity to explore where those models are inacurate, as we assume they are.
anyone who tell you that science generates truths is a fool. all it does is give us an inaccurate model that seems to work from our observations.
you can not use the statement the truths of of science are inconsistant to proove any point as it relies on a misunderstanding of the nature of science.
you want to validate your faith that the universe was created, fine, well and good, just please don't try to use your ignorance of science to do it to others.
the rest of the argument relies on same point that i made about the coins. none of that is a logical argument as it creates an infinite untestable set of conditions that don't exist, holds that set up against the identity of the universe, the one thing that we can explore, and says it is so unlikely to be so there must be a creator.
in other words, infinite not real things divided by a real thing equals a creator.
it uses a semblance of science and some scientific language to hide a illogical argument and convince the ignorant that it comes from an authority.
this is a terribly illogical argument. the same as the coin structure above. we start with the untestable premise of "if the laws opf the universe were different" and conclude the universe was designed. lets put it another way, if the universe was different, lets say for example that it didn't have matter, then we wouldn't exist, therefore there must be a designer because there is matter and that means the matter must have been planned for.
It appears that at the Big Bang, the number of particles created was slightly greater than the number of antiparticles -- about one part in a billion more. Had they been equal, they would have annihilated each other entirely. No universe.
Would the number of particles "left over" -- about 10 to the 80 -- be important? If the number had been a bit greater, gravitational forces would have exceeded expansion forces. Big Crunch. No universe.
On the other hand, if the number had been slightly smaller, gravitational force would have been weaker, and the universe would have expanded so rapidly that the galaxies would never have had time to form.. No universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, planets...)
What about the mass of the neutron (which, with a proton, forms the atomic nucleus)? If its mass were only 0.2 % less than its actual value, protons would have decayed into neutrons; no atoms could have formed.
The first atoms formed were hydrogen. Some "lucky coincidences" were needed, however, before helium could be fused. If the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against their electromagnetic repulsion, were a few percent weaker, deuterium (the stage hydrogen passes through as it combines to form helium) would have been very unstable. The universe would have remained pure hydrogen.
But if the nuclear force had been a few percent stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would have burnt to helium in a matter of seconds. No hydrogen means no fuel for stars. A universe without galaxies, or stars, or planets...
The heavier elements are produced in the interior of stars. Had the charge on the proton been slightly larger, the nuclei of these heavier atoms would not have been stable -- they would have decayed very rapidly. A universe composed of only hydrogen and helium...
The further evolution of matter into elements heavier than iron had to wait for the first stars to complete their life cycle and turn into supernova, which released the additional energy needed to synthesise these larger atoms. But the fact that stars reach this stage at all depends on other fine-tunings... If the force of gravity had been very slightly stronger, or the electromagnetic force very slightly weaker, or the electron slightly less heavy, convection in stars would be altered significantly. Few could evolve beyond the stage of burning helium. No supernova. No heavy elements. No possibility of life as we know it.
More fine tuning...
Life as we know it is based upon carbon; all of the proteins, amino acids, vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates that make up our bodies are molecules built upon skeletons of carbon. [Is life based upon silicon possible? Quite possibly not.] Yet carbon is not easy to synthesise... it requires the fusion of three helium atoms. Very rarely do these meet at exactly the same time; usually two helium nuclei combine to the nucleus of a beryllium atom. But this nucleus in unstable, and would decay before it had a chance of capturing a third helium nucleus, were it not for a "coincidence". Because of nuclear resonance, a beryllium nucleus can capture helium nuclei from a much larger radius, greatly increasing the chances of combining with a third helium nucleus to form carbon. If the nuclear resonance value for carbon were not exactly (meaning within 0.0001 %) the value it is, virtually no carbon would form inside stars. No life as we know it.
It gets better... A fourth helium nucleus will combine with carbon to form oxygen. If this reaction were similarly resonant -- it isn't -- carbon would rapidly be burned in oxygen formation. Lots of oxygen, no carbon. No life... [Both of the resonance values result from some very fine tuning between the strengths of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions, as well as the relative masses of electrons and protons...]
But there's still more fine tuning...
Water is one of the most unusual substances known to science, in that its solid state (ice) is less dense than its liquid state. If ice did not float on liquid water, it would sink to the ocean floor, accumulate, and gradually freeze the oceans from the bottom up. The facts that it doesn't sink, but stays on the surface, insulating the water from temperature extremes, probably allowed the evolution of life in the earth's oceans.
Water also has an unusually high specific heat (and thus can absorb a lot of heat with only a relatively small rise in its temperature). Together with high thermal conductivity, this gives water a stabilising effect on the environment. Water also has a higher surface tension than other other elements (except liquid selenium); this concentrates organic molecules at the surface of the liquid, speeding up biological reactions.
All of these unusual properties of water arise from its particular molecular shape and the strength of the forces holding the molecule together (and of course result from other finely tuned properties). Were it not for this strange stuff H-2-O, it is extremely unlikely that even single-celled life could have evolved. [Oxygen and nitrogen also have very unusual properties...]
There are two "flavours" of the anthropic principle: strong and weak. The "Strong Anthropic Principle" suggests a "grand design", and implies a "Grand Designer". The "Weak Anthropic Principle" simply contends that, if the universe were not exactly like it is, it might still exist, but we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Does the universe exist so that it can be known? Is this science? Philosophy? Design? Or just Good Luck.
the rest of the argument relies on same point that i made about the coins. none of that is a logical argument as it creates an infinite untestable set of conditions that don't exist, holds that set up against the identity of the universe, the one thing that we can explore, and says it is so unlikely to be so there must be a creator.
in other words, infinite not real things divided by a real thing equals a creator.
it uses a semblance of science and some scientific language to hide a illogical argument and convince the ignorant that it comes from an authority.
yeah your right!!! and if there is no creator all the things around us will not be created..
That was almost the entire point of my post Arndur.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
No, there isn't any historical evidence that there was, in fact, any historical person that could be Jesus Christ.
There were many different "messiahs" documented during that same period and only three of them even come close to the myth of Jesus. None of them were executed in the same way or in the same place as Jesus.
On my good days I'm 99% athiest. On my bad days I'm 51% athiest.
However my athiest side always > thiest side.
Damnit that's good enough for me. I can live with that.
__________________________________________________________
((Are you rp'ing a douchebag or is this OOC?))
First, the Bible was written by man. Several men, in fact. So expecting some people to believe that the words written by men are Gods' words takes more than a little faith to accomplish.
Second, at the end of the Bible, it states "Let no man addeth or taketh away".
Well, men wrote it, so men "addeth". And with the butcher job the Roman Catholics have commited by removing sections and keeping them hidden in the Vatican kinda falls under "taketh away".
So the book is meaningless in its' current state as any kind of point of reference.
First, lets look at it from this perspective. A given true law that regardless of thought will always be. All things that exist when measured at its minute value come to a value of 1 and 0 or 1 and nil. There is no greater or lower value for this. Now how far our limitations of measurement are is on us. But currently there is nothing negative or positive to that set value. Which is what we call binary.
Now some things to think about. Since everything that "exists has this value what does it tell you about the universe? Is everything interconnected? Is there something out there that shows something differently?In most cases all you have to do is look at the box that is holding your computer. Or better yet look at the words you type. Hmm, were they there a minute ago? Did it go from a "nil" category to 1? Even the code to create such uses this source of math?
The irony that the most simple of value can be so complicated due to both sides making it that is almost complete idiocy. So the burden of proof and or just the burden lays on the beholder.As such I will contest based sole off of known science and observable phenomena and or hypothesis. That the following is true.
There are no things that exist that do not have a minimal value of 1 and or nil. That through that value that all things regardless of our personal belief system are interconnected. That all things are energy regardless of its physical state.
That life on this planet or life as we know it are direct DNA lifeforms. That no RNA life has been observed. That even the base of all DNA/RNA are byproducts of the binary system. That 1 and nil co-exist in all things.
That there is no spontaneous event due to the disassembly of all that exists. That there is no altered or different coding other than what is based above. That what we call evolution or change is nothing more than a natural occurrence of energy patterns and that the cyclic nature of this makes it non spontaneous. Thus mutation and or by products of mutation are nothing more than natural flow change in this world and or universe.
That the "beginning and end" are actually one and the same. As is the Alpha and Omega.That any pattern we try to conceive is nothing more than a expression based off of the binary system. That all stated above is in complete logic and flawless in its conception. That the burden of proof is no longer needed since it is given and these "FACTS" cannot be changed.
Good Luck! With this!
Communist leader of the Soviet Union, admitted publicly for the first time on Wednesday that he is a Christian.
Rumors had circulated for decades that Gorbachev was a “closet Christian,” but it was only confirmed yesterday when he made a surprise visit with his daughter Irina to pray at the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi in Italy. The former communist leader spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.
"It was through St. Francis that I arrived at the church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb," said Gorbachev, according to U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper.
"I feel very emotional to be here at such an important place not only for the Catholic faith, but for all humanity."
Until now, Gorbachev had only expressed pantheistic views such as “nature is my god,” according to the U.K. newspaper.
Gorbachev, 77, was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church and his parents are Christians. Moreover, the parents of his wife, Raisa, were devout Christians who died during World War II for having religious icons in their home.
Many had suspected that Gorbachev was forced to hide his faith because of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)’s official stance as an atheist state.
Former President Ronald Reagan had allegedly told close aides that he suspected that his opponent during the Cold War was a “closet believer,” according to the Telegraph.
The revelation of Gorbachev’s faith also sheds new light on his meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989. On the eve of his encounter with the late pontiff, Gorbachev said the Soviet Union had erred in long rejecting religion and needed its moral force to help make his plans for a restructured society work.
Besides praying at the tomb, Gorbachev during his Assisi visit also toured the Basilica of St. Francis and asked the monks there for theological books to help him understand the life of St. Francis.
Father Miroslavo Anuskevic, who accompanied the former Soviet leader, said Gorbachev was not recognized by any of the worshippers in the church and had “silently meditated at the tomb for a while.”
“He seemed a man deeply inspired by charity, and told me that he was involved in a project to help children with cancer,” reflected Anuskevic.
"He talked a lot about Russia and said that even though the transition to democracy had been very important for the world, it was very painful for Russia,” the priest added. “He said it was a country which has a great history, and also a great spirituality."
Christians make up about 17 to 22 percent of Russia’s population, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Russia is considered one of the least religious countries in Europe, with only 50 percent of its people saying they are religious and only seven percent describing themselves as highly religious, according to a major study on faith, conducted by German think tank Bertelsmann Foundation, released in December.
Unexpected this was.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Well I suppose that the idea of one God or many gods across all religions could be consolidated into a single idea of God - for the purpose of argument - against the argument that relgions have so many different kinds of God or gods that only one or few can be correct. That's a nice counter-argument to "I'll believe in your God when you can tell me why you don't believe in all the others".
The problem is that people have very different ideas to what God is, and since people tend to assume that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can be everything and everyone - therefore not really a God at all, not really a being or a thing judging us, but the way the world works.
And for me that's really what God is, a way to explain the unexplainable until we have the technology or great minds to figure it out for ourselves.
I don't worship the sun, a cross, the wind, or a book written centuries ago, but I'm pretty damn stoked about Radiohead. I'm pretty sure I have a religious love of them. Therefore, Thom Yorke is God, and since this fits into the view that all religions are worshipping the same Gods just with different names and forms and number, he is a legitimate diety.
Though the Flying Spaghetti Monster has his charms as well. So what's the point in being a Christian or a Muslim or a Jedi or a Satanist or a Radiohead fan when at the end of the day we're all thinking about the same thing. I suppose if I was born and raised into a religious family I would have beliefs indoctrinated into me, and I would be one of those things.
But I was raised to think for myself, so Radiohead is God. Amen.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...