By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What happened to deep conversations?

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 24 November 2012
bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
"so with that thought in mind why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator? "

I believe what the current evidence supports. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns or ghosts. Additionally, God is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, explaining the origin of God complicates things and Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one.

The question should not be "why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator" but why is it so hard to believe that there is no such creator?

well because there is nothing that can come out of nothing. isn't that what science says? did the universe create itself? can a women give birth to herself? of course not because that means she has to exist to be able to give birth to herself which in itself is not possible.

what kind of evidence would convince you of a creator?


Actually, out of the void it is possible to create both an equal part matter/energy and anti-matter/energy. From zero arises both one and negative one. If you simply combine all of the matter/energy and anti-matter/energy all of it would cease to exist along with the distortions in the space-time continuum that give rise to gravity and time. All of reality is simply like a series of waves on a pond with matter/energy as the crests and anti-matter/energy as the troughs). The origin of this distortion is still a mystery but a magic, omnipotent creator is such an absurd, inelegant explanation that I would never entertain the prospect without hard evidence. What kind of evidence would I require? Anything that is quantifiable and absolute and nothing that is ambiguous and ill-defined.

What, is then, the catalyst of such reactions? IE:0 -> -1+1



Yay!!!

Around the Network
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 24 November 2012
Majora said:
Technology is destroying conversation. Text conversation, the Internet and reality television with truly dull 'celebrities' really drag down the wider audience.


Ohh the irony. And yet you have an Iphone 4 on your avatar. 



Yay!!!

bouzane on 24 November 2012
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
"so with that thought in mind why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator? "

I believe what the current evidence supports. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns or ghosts. Additionally, God is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, explaining the origin of God complicates things and Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one.

The question should not be "why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator" but why is it so hard to believe that there is no such creator?

well because there is nothing that can come out of nothing. isn't that what science says? did the universe create itself? can a women give birth to herself? of course not because that means she has to exist to be able to give birth to herself which in itself is not possible.

what kind of evidence would convince you of a creator?


Actually, out of the void it is possible to create both an equal part matter/energy and anti-matter/energy. From zero arises both one and negative one. If you simply combine all of the matter/energy and anti-matter/energy all of it would cease to exist along with the distortions in the space-time continuum that give rise to gravity and time. All of reality is simply like a series of waves on a pond with matter/energy as the crests and anti-matter/energy as the troughs). The origin of this distortion is still a mystery but a magic, omnipotent creator is such an absurd, inelegant explanation that I would never entertain the prospect without hard evidence. What kind of evidence would I require? Anything that is quantifiable and absolute and nothing that is ambiguous and ill-defined.

What, is then, the catalyst of such reactions? IE:0 -> -1+1


To quote one Ozzy Osbourne "I don't know". This is basically the one thing for which I have no answer and I really wish I did.

@Slimebeast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

It's refreshing to see that somebody here was aware of this fact. The thing is, the Universe in which we exist is unbalanced in terms of matter vs. anti-matter but it is merely a single peice of a larger whole. If another Universe (ironically named) is comprised largely of anti-matter/energy it would serve as a counter-part to our own.



Roma on 24 November 2012
bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
"so with that thought in mind why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator? "

I believe what the current evidence supports. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns or ghosts. Additionally, God is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, explaining the origin of God complicates things and Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one.

The question should not be "why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator" but why is it so hard to believe that there is no such creator?

well because there is nothing that can come out of nothing. isn't that what science says? did the universe create itself? can a women give birth to herself? of course not because that means she has to exist to be able to give birth to herself which in itself is not possible.

what kind of evidence would convince you of a creator?


Actually, out of the void it is possible to create both an equal part matter/energy and anti-matter/energy. From zero arises both one and negative one. If you simply combine all of the matter/energy and anti-matter/energy all of it would cease to exist along with the distortions in the space-time continuum that give rise to gravity and time. All of reality is simply like a series of waves on a pond with matter/energy as the crests and anti-matter/energy as the troughs). The origin of this distortion is still a mystery but a magic, omnipotent creator is such an absurd, inelegant explanation that I would never entertain the prospect without hard evidence. What kind of evidence would I require? Anything that is quantifiable and absolute and nothing that is ambiguous and ill-defined.

sounds complex but who created the area in which the universe exists in? in order for me to create something in Maya I need a place to create something in it and in order to model something I need to start with some form of object. who created the positive and negative energies?

how do you explain evolution? if I drop a glass for three billion years will it one day brake in to two smaller perfect glasses filled with water?

I know it sounds absurd because it haven't been proven yet. electricity was something that only crazy people believed could exist yet later on it was created :P


The "area" only exists because of the distortions that exist within it. No matter, anti-matter, etc... means no space-time continuum. Why does there need to be a "somebody" to create positive and negative energy? They are simply like the highs and lows in waves, just distortions in the nothingness that is existence. That's why they attract, to approach or return to the natural state of non-existence. How do I explain evolution? Basic science already explains things rather well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

I have no idea what you're getting at with the glass analogy.

Sorry but I view a belief in God the exact same way as the Flat Earth, Geocentric Model and Intelligent Design / Creationist hypotheses. Nothing supports them so they in no way serve as proper explanations to the questions which science presents us. If we have no explanation, we don't just make something up and follow it as gospel. Theories are not hypotheses because they have consistent, internal logic that can be tested, supported by evidence and eventually proven as fact. Religion has none of these things therefore I reject them as potential explanations for the few things that we no longer understand.

Finally, using a God to explain the origin of the Universe is counter-intuitive because you are in turn presented a problem even more difficult to explain. No offense but this is the exact opposite of what makes sense and it is an affront to logic and reason. I see no reason to continue this discussion because I have said everything that I need to say. I provided all of the answers that modern science has given us and anything that remains should only be addressed by logic, not wishful thinking or what i consider to be preposterous superstition. Again, not trying to offend, but I see absolutely nothing to support your line of though.

the entire universe just "decided" to exist yeah. haha right that sounds very logical ;)

what I am trying to say with the glass is that everything has a design to work in ways to compliment one another. someone is guiding this creation! things can't randomly just become a carnivore to eat a certain animal just so that that animal can't over populate. if you do not guide a game with code then nothing will work and its the same thing that is applied to every creation. nothing happens by accident!



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 24 November 2012
Roma said:
bouzane said:


The "area" only exists because of the distortions that exist within it. No matter, anti-matter, etc... means no space-time continuum. Why does there need to be a "somebody" to create positive and negative energy? They are simply like the highs and lows in waves, just distortions in the nothingness that is existence. That's why they attract, to approach or return to the natural state of non-existence. How do I explain evolution? Basic science already explains things rather well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

I have no idea what you're getting at with the glass analogy.

Sorry but I view a belief in God the exact same way as the Flat Earth, Geocentric Model and Intelligent Design / Creationist hypotheses. Nothing supports them so they in no way serve as proper explanations to the questions which science presents us. If we have no explanation, we don't just make something up and follow it as gospel. Theories are not hypotheses because they have consistent, internal logic that can be tested, supported by evidence and eventually proven as fact. Religion has none of these things therefore I reject them as potential explanations for the few things that we no longer understand.

Finally, using a God to explain the origin of the Universe is counter-intuitive because you are in turn presented a problem even more difficult to explain. No offense but this is the exact opposite of what makes sense and it is an affront to logic and reason. I see no reason to continue this discussion because I have said everything that I need to say. I provided all of the answers that modern science has given us and anything that remains should only be addressed by logic, not wishful thinking or what i consider to be preposterous superstition. Again, not trying to offend, but I see absolutely nothing to support your line of though.

the entire universe just "decided" to exist yeah. haha right that sounds very logical ;)

what I am trying to say with the glass is that everything has a design to work in ways to compliment one another. someone is guiding this creation! things can't randomly just become a carnivore to eat a certain animal just so that that animal can't over populate. if you do not guide a game with code then nothing will work and its the same thing that is applied to every creation. nothing happens by accident!


Natural selection is neither accidental nor random.



Around the Network
Roma on 24 November 2012

I love this "deeper and wider" discussion :D



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

bouzane on 24 November 2012

@Roma

Explain mutations then. Explain extinction. Sorry but nature tries absolutely, positively every approach and 99.9% (believe it or not but this is not an exaggeration, in fact, it is an understatement) of the time they fail. The vast majority of lifeforms have gone extinct and mutations are just random rolls of the die. If a system is large enough, random chance will always give rise to success. There is no guidance required.

Your logic is disingenuous as the question of who designed the designer raises more questions than it answers. Again, if you can offer no proof I will not believe a word.



techhunter80 on 24 November 2012

|||||THE1|||||said:

What God are you talking about here? The Christian? Jewish? Islamic? Your personal view of God?

My personal view of god is that god is well everything and infinite in love, power and wisdom. So in a way yes I do believe in them because they speak the word of god. But I'm not a christian, jew, muslim or anything like that.



Dr.Grass on 24 November 2012

It's because people aren't deep anymore. They watch TV series and spend hours and hours on blogs viewing and commenting on totally meaningless junk that has no real impact on their lives. My parents used to regularly spend the day at the library simply reading. How many people today have the patience to read a book?

Smartphones are just as guilty. Totally FRYING up your brain by giving you the opportunity to 'browse' and 'just have a look' at every point in time. What happened to mental gravity? GONE. Self control? GONE.

How about spending some time gardening instead of commenting on useless things on facebook. Bah. We are devolving fast.

There is too much emphasis on quick access to information. People are becoming less knowledgeable DUE to having 'the world at their fingertips' 24/7. Better learn to plant some vegetables than spending hours and days salivating over a new phone that will be old news in a few months time.

Good topic.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 24 November 2012
techhunter80 said:

|||||THE1|||||said:

What God are you talking about here? The Christian? Jewish? Islamic? Your personal view of God?

My personal view of god is that god is well everything and infinite in love, power and wisdom. So in a way yes I do believe in them because they speak the word of god. But I'm not a christian, jew, muslim or anything like that.


That's interesting. I had a similar belief (that there is no evil or sins and that God won't punish anyone) during my last days as a Christian, before I lost my beliefs altogether.

If everyone shared your views, this world would be a much more peaceful place :)