Armads said:
pizzahut451 said:
Armads said:
pizzahut451 said:
Armads said:
I'm sorry but I had to stop watching once I heard "Finally we will examine one of the most accurate and trusted historical records known to man: The Bible" because I started shooting milk from my nose from an outburst of laughter.
|
pizzahut451 said:
Well, i dont believe God created Earth, i believe he created the universe, so im not a creatonist i guess. But i sure as hell dont believe in a a bullshit, retarded made up theory known as Big Bang
|
Why wouldn't you believe in the big bang? It's supported by tons of evidence and it doesn't even necessarily conflict with the worldview of a god-created universe. If there can be a god in your mind, that god can start the universe with a bang I'm sure.
|
Because everything cant come out of nothing. And by nothing, i really mean nothing. No time, no natural process of any kind, no life, no ANYTHING. Or are you assuming that God created the Big Bang which created the universe?
|
I don't assume a god at all personally. But you say that existence could not have come out of nothing, but why should a god be able to?
For there to be a god to create the universe one of two things must be true 1) God came into existence from nothing and created the universe or 2) God has always existed and created the universe
If you assume the argument of (1) then the argument is self defeated because one must ask what created god? and what created that creator? and it's creators creator? It goes on forever. If in argument (1) you assign god the property of being able to spontaneously exist from nothing then the argument again is self defeating. If you can assign that property of spontaneous existnece to a god why not the universe?
For the second argument (2) you must ask the same question, if one can assume god has always existed then why can one not assign the same property of eternal existence to the universe? This is the position I hold, that the universe is eternal but has no creator. The big bang is not the beginning of time (as any physicist will tell you, it's the beginning of our universe, not of all existence) but merely a point in time from which all previous events have no meaning. Anything that happened before the big bang does not affect what happened after it, thus the beginning of our universe, our time.
|
I support the 2nd argument. Look up for the link i posted where it explains why universe cant be eternal
|
That website hardly provides a credible argument against an eternal universe. It starts off with 1) The big bang. I already detailed why the big bang is not the creation of the universe without detail, but I can go farther into detail if you'd like but the point is simple. The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it's the beginning of our universe, it's merely an event from which everything that happened before such a time has no effect on what happened afterSo it's first supporting evidence is actually a theory which undermines it's own argument. Off to a good start!
It's second piece of supporting evidence is the abudance of hydrogen...not much to be said about this one because it really doesn't prove anything. They say that because stars constantly convert hydrogen to helium and that there's no reversible process (which probably isn't a true statement anyways, it's more likely that we don't know if there is no reversible process) along with the continuing abundance of hydrogen suggests that a creator is pumping more hydrogen in our universe to keep it going. This argument really has not ground to stand on, it doesn't even have feet really. There is no more hydrogen in the universe observed now than at any time before so there is no reason to assume there is more hydrogen now than in an earlier time of the universe. So the argument itself quickly falls apart, there's just a lot of hydrogen in the universe, it's not growing by anyone's measurements though.
Then finally it says the irreversible decay of the universe in which they are using the second law of thermodynamics to try an insert the need for a creator into the universe. This is a bit of a tricky little paragraph they've put together here, not in that it's hard to decipher but in that it's meant to mislead.
"The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (God), the stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute equilibrium."
The wording deliberately implies that the second law of thermodynamics states that a supernatural agent is the only thing keeping the world running. Also there is so much wrong with this belief that I don't even know where to begin but I suggest you do some more research on the laws of thermodynamics. This website seems like it was written by someone who glosssed over scientific texts looking for things they could manipulate to their aim, a great degree of cognitive dissonance must have been required to read up on the laws of thermodynamics and deliberately ignore the parts that didn't help them. From wikipedia
"In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he stated that, "any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[25]}}"
Really you should read the whole wiki on the second law of thermodynamics at the very least. Some good books for beginners on the subject of cosmogny and phsyics I would reccommend are A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Universe: From flat earth to quasars by Isaac Asimov, and Cosmos by Carl Sagan.
After it's first three points the website goes on and shows how little it's writer understands the scientific theories it uses as evidence. They even use the underhanded tactic of taking quotes out of context such as the one from Hawking on the Anthropic principle.
Oh and anyone giving you the argument "irreducable complexity" doesn't know what they're talking about. There isn't a single shred of evidence supporting that argument and a truckload against it.
|
