superchunk said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Wait, so does any male nudity remind you of homosexuality? How about this? Wasn't Michealangelo homosexual? Then yes, this reminds me of the gay. :)

Yups he was gay =p.

I'm off to bed, to anyone who argues my points.
See ya in 9 (+-1) hours.

Why does Science have to disprove/prove God?
Why does Science and God have to contradict each other?
Why can't they support each other?

True Science is built on the foundation that you have to be able to observe something in order for it to be accepted and since you can't observe the physicality of God you can't create a theory of God. However, Instead of trying to use Science to prove God what if you use God to prove Science and accept that Science is simply showing us Gods blueprints. Essentially, through Science we are recreating God's manual for everything.

I have never felt God and Science are at odds. Just that many of the common ideas within religions are at odds with Science. Example. Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation stories are very similar. God created all in 6 days. However, in both Arabic and Hebrew the word that is typically translated as days actually means a span of time. Let's take this a step further. A day is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to rotate 360 degrees. However, different planets have different actual time amounts that would equal a day. Day one and two happen prior to any planets, Earth included, it can't be possible that the 'day' referred to in any religious literature's creation story is the same time frame as Earth's day. I would surmise that the 'day' is actually some greatly longer time frame. There for the 6 time frames of creation do not contradict the most popular theory of Big Bang. I'm sure you could easily divide the creation of all and then the specifics of this planet in 6 different phases, that don't even need to be equal. After all, one of the two creation stories in Genesis doesn't even mention days at all. (Yes, carefully read your Bible there are two distinct creation stories)

Then if you actually read the Qur'ans specifics about creation it actually maps nearly perfectly with a imagery description of the Big Bang theory.

Examples:

""Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.' So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge."" (The Noble Quran, 41:11-12)

The Arabic word for "sky" in Verse 41:11 above is "samaa", which is the same word used for "heaven" and "Universe". Since the 7 heavens didn't exist yet (because the seven firmaments or heavens were mentioned in the next Verse 41:12), then this CLEARLY MAKES the "samaa" be referring to the Universe, since the heaven was the entire Universe when GOD Almighty "comprehended in His design the sky". He then later divided it into seven firmaments or heavens.

Anyway, as we clearly see above in the Noble Verses, Allah Almighty initially created the Universe or the "samaa" with smoke (Dukhan). Dukhan in Arabic refers to the smoke coming from fire, which is always HOT GAS. From that He made the 7 'heavens' with lights, i.e. stars, and even pulled together Earth and everything else, a concept matching the idea of how all stars and planets were formed.

Also....

""Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"" (The Noble Quran, 21:30)

Now as to Verse 21:30 above, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe experienced an unbelievable explosion from the hot gases that were forming it, which caused the Universe (which consisted of the ball of gases) to split and expand. The Earth was separated then from the gaseous mass that was forming the Universe. The gases according to the scientific articles below in this article made "the universe be consisted of compact ball of hydrogen -- protons, neutrons, electrons, and their anti-particles -- plus radiation. There were not differentiated planets, stars, suns, galaxies. Five billion years ago, the compact hydrogen soup blasted apart with huge force, matter was hurled in all directions, and the universe doubled in size. This expansion of the universe is still going on.

Plus the last part of that verse specifically mentions the idea of evolution from the oceans.

Now I could go on about the actual parts of religious texts that prove other Science theories way before we as a species even thought of these things, but I think you get my point by now.

Basically, to me the notion that either God or Science is right is just wrong. I think both are right and actually help explain each other.

Actually I wanted to add one more tidbit. Some theories say that as the universe expands it will one day retract and possibly return to the single mass where a new big bang will occur and in fact that may be a continuous pattern forever.

"The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it. (The Noble Quran, 21:104)"

This verse describes this idea and also demonstrates the idea that this is not the only creation of God and in fact there are more and will be more, forever.

Now, I am not using these quotes to prove/disprove the Qur'an or Islam. I could care less what religion, if any you specifically follow. This is simply used to demonstrate that God and Science don't have to be enemies.

EDIT: AGain the word translated above as heavens could also be Universe. Same word in Arabic.

Well nobody should ever believe absolutley that there is no good as that position is completely impossible to prove under any circumstances. Weak athiesm and strong athiesm are two really quite different things and strong athiesm is a logically untenable position.

I didn't follow the previous pages but I don't think there is a god. Not in a traditional sense anyway. I do believe in the inter-connetiveness of the universe though and he expanding universe. In that context, God would be the spawning moment and place of the universe!

Because they don't seem to dissapear. The rules are only observed fact and they seem to have stayed around for billions of years, the only reason we have all the laws and constants is because that is what we have seen and they seem to hold true for every situation. By that I mean we don't actually have any definite and undeniable proof that the speed of light won't change suddenly or that the laws of thermodynamics cannot suddenly stop working in the same way, it just hasn't happened and there is no reason to assume it will. Boy that would piss the physicists off though, imagine!

Not quite...

The first law of thermodynamics assumes a closed system, we do not know if the universe is a closed sysytem (and actually have indications it isn't) and if it isn't we don't necessarily know that what is external to the universe operates under the same laws. 

In fact we know that particles (and even micro-black holes) pop into existance all the time, they are allowed to do so so long as they repay their cost shortly after, typically a given particle will be anilihated by its anti-particle paying for both of them but there are some circumstances that can lead to particles avoiding the cost and yet still existing.  The only logical scenarios this agrees with are that the universe is NOT a closed system or there is some method by which the energy cost is being paid that we are entirely unaware of.  The more likely scenario is that the univsere is not a closed system.

"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, if you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment."

Note: The 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially that the entropy in a system will always increase. Also the links in this quote were added by me.

"nope, sorry. I just want facts and maybe then."

The Ghost of RubangB said:

GOD i love myself