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

Forums - General - Do you think Darwin is right

The_vagabond7 on 15 February 2009
Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:
Slimebeast said:

You've read Dawkins too much. He doesn't address the problem of the first cause (as much as he should for a person that attacks theism as much as he does). The fallacy of tribe religions throughout history in this world doesn't disqualify God.

It boils down to something very simple though - the first cause. Stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason. I'm sure you as a former zealot has asked many times - where did we come from? Why and how is there anything - there shouldn't be any stuff! And by all logic there must be a reason.

Multiverse is a horrible invention to address that problem. It's insulting. But it's the only explanation if you can't accept a God as an explanation. (because just like the guy in the article argued, multiverse is the only plausible natural mechanistic cause to explain why the universe came to being 13.5 billion years ago and not 13.500000000000000000000001 years ago or any other number you can come up with)

 

 

You are making a big assumption there.  You claim that scientists are making huge assumptions, but then you go and make one yourself.  I'll throw it right back at you then.  What created God?  You said it yourself that "stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason."  You are limiting yourself to thinking in terms of strict causation.  Eventually, something would have to come out of nothing, whether it be God or the universe.  So believing in God means that you believe that there can be something without a form of causation.  So thus, you have disproved your own argument.

 

 

 You know what I'm going to reply here.

God is the cause, he didn't came out of something because he's always been there.

I'm not saying it's easy to grasp, and there might even be hints of contradiction in the concept of a God. But it's still a lot easier to accept an eternal God as a cause, than "Universe started with the Big bang which came out of a singularity, which came out of nothing without reason."

 

That is ridiculously subjective. An eteranal pre-time space man isn't somehow inherently easier to swallow than an eternal singularity. It's fine if you believe in the eternal man, but it's not somehow a better theory than anything else.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
im_sneaky on 15 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Slimebeast said:
akuma587 said:
Slimebeast said:

You've read Dawkins too much. He doesn't address the problem of the first cause (as much as he should for a person that attacks theism as much as he does). The fallacy of tribe religions throughout history in this world doesn't disqualify God.

It boils down to something very simple though - the first cause. Stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason. I'm sure you as a former zealot has asked many times - where did we come from? Why and how is there anything - there shouldn't be any stuff! And by all logic there must be a reason.

Multiverse is a horrible invention to address that problem. It's insulting. But it's the only explanation if you can't accept a God as an explanation. (because just like the guy in the article argued, multiverse is the only plausible natural mechanistic cause to explain why the universe came to being 13.5 billion years ago and not 13.500000000000000000000001 years ago or any other number you can come up with)

 

 

You are making a big assumption there.  You claim that scientists are making huge assumptions, but then you go and make one yourself.  I'll throw it right back at you then.  What created God?  You said it yourself that "stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason."  You are limiting yourself to thinking in terms of strict causation.  Eventually, something would have to come out of nothing, whether it be God or the universe.  So believing in God means that you believe that there can be something without a form of causation.  So thus, you have disproved your own argument.

 

 

 You know what I'm going to reply here.

God is the cause, he didn't came out of something because he's always been there.

I'm not saying it's easy to grasp, and there might even be hints of contradiction in the concept of a God. But it's still a lot easier to accept an eternal God as a cause, than "Universe started with the Big bang which came out of a singularity, which came out of nothing without reason."

 

That is ridiculously subjective. An eteranal pre-time space man isn't somehow inherently easier to swallow than an eternal singularity. It's fine if you believe in the eternal man, but it's not somehow a better theory than anything else.

 

I agree. God doesn't simplify anything. What created god?... You say he's eternal? Ridiculous.

Scientific evidence of God: Zero Scientific evidence of any of the multitude of theories about the creation of existence: Small.

 



 

 

Slimebeast on 15 February 2009

@akuma587
@The_vagabond7

Yes, it's a better theory.



The_vagabond7 on 15 February 2009
Slimebeast said:
@akuma587
@The_vagabond7

Yes, it's a better theory.

Damn, you got me. I mean...hell, I never thought of it that way. It's just that, well when you put it like that.

You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Avalach21 on 15 February 2009
akuma587 said:
Slimebeast said:

You've read Dawkins too much. He doesn't address the problem of the first cause (as much as he should for a person that attacks theism as much as he does). The fallacy of tribe religions throughout history in this world doesn't disqualify God.

It boils down to something very simple though - the first cause. Stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason. I'm sure you as a former zealot has asked many times - where did we come from? Why and how is there anything - there shouldn't be any stuff! And by all logic there must be a reason.

Multiverse is a horrible invention to address that problem. It's insulting. But it's the only explanation if you can't accept a God as an explanation. (because just like the guy in the article argued, multiverse is the only plausible natural mechanistic cause to explain why the universe came to being 13.5 billion years ago and not 13.500000000000000000000001 years ago or any other number you can come up with)

 

 

You are making a big assumption there.  You claim that scientists are making huge assumptions, but then you go and make one yourself.  I'll throw it right back at you then.  What created God?  You said it yourself that "stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason."  You are limiting yourself to thinking in terms of strict causation.  Eventually, something would have to come out of nothing, whether it be God or the universe.  So believing in God means that you believe that there can be something without a form of causation.  So thus, you have disproved your own argument.

 

 

God isn't "Stuff."  God isn't in "time" or "space."  God doesn't exist in our "universe."  So therefore a hypothetical "God" doesn't fall under the laws that govern our universe.  So if there were to be a "God" it would be impossible for us to understand him, or his existance, and questions such as "how did he come to exist?" make no sense, becasue he doesn't "exist" in our sense of the word.  This is why it is hard (impossible) for science to prove or disprove God, because you can't test something that does not follow the rules of science.



Here's a video from my band's last show Check out more (bigger) videos here http://www.youtube.com/user/icemanout
Around the Network
Rath on 15 February 2009
kabhold said:
Rath said:

 

He's probably just getting annoyed. My experience as an atheist is that it often feels like banging your head against a brick wall. To be honest (once again only from an atheists point of view) all the evidence of evolution is blatant and irrefutable, so the probability of it actually being wrong is extrordinarily low.

OK. I'm not trying to start an argument. I believe in evolution. But the bolded statement...is not true. It's not fact. Honestly I believe it takes about the same amount of faith that religion does.  Keep an open mind. 

I'm agnostic, so I tend to believe that there is no proof of god, but I try to live my life as if there was.  Because there is no proof there is no god.  None. BUT the whole concept of any religion is to treat every person as good as you can.  Live your life as good as you can.  Be the greatest person you can be. Such a great notion. Such a great idea. BUT, the follow through is often pretentious/catastrophic.  Darwinism usually is as well. But that's our nature.

It comes down to:

"You don't think the way I do?"

"You're stupid" or "You're going to hell"

I wish that I could say that I live a life according to principals and morals that never waver. Never sway.  But I don't. And they do. But I try. I'm a good person, and I treat people accordingly. I don't know if there's a god, but if there is... i hope he can forgive.  And if there isn't I lived a good life. And I tried to be good.

 

No really, the evidence is all there to prove evolution is correct. There are parts of the fossil record that are in essence complete, for example we have the fossils of nearly the entire evolution of the horse. Observation and predictions have been made using the scientific method to verify it. You may believe evolution takes faith, I think it only takes knowledge of the evidence that exists.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about the existence of god, but as far as I'm concerned young earth creationism is just plain wrong. (and thats not just due to evolution either, geology, physics and chemistry all have their say as well).

 



akuma587 on 15 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
Slimebeast said:
@akuma587
@The_vagabond7

Yes, it's a better theory.

 

Damn, you got me. I mean...hell, I never thought of it that way. It's just that, well when you put it like that.

Yeah, I mean I can't think of anything to say either.  I guess we lost.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Final-Fan on 15 February 2009

I think that one of slimebeast's problems is that physics in the area being discussed sounds so weird to most laymen. I mean, a lot of that stuff TOTALLY flies in the face of 'common sense'.

Seriously, I can't know the precise momentum of something I know the exact location of? WTF is that? So slimebeast finds these explanations repellent because they are strange to him. I can see this in his arguments that basically boil down to "it sounds crazy so it can't be true".

I'm afraid, slimebeast, that they can.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

akuma587 on 15 February 2009
Avalach21 said:

 

God isn't "Stuff."  God isn't in "time" or "space."  God doesn't exist in our "universe."  So therefore a hypothetical "God" doesn't fall under the laws that govern our universe.  So if there were to be a "God" it would be impossible for us to understand him, or his existance, and questions such as "how did he come to exist?" make no sense, becasue he doesn't "exist" in our sense of the word.  This is why it is hard (impossible) for science to prove or disprove God, because you can't test something that does not follow the rules of science.

Of course, this is the point I was making a long time ago.  This is why its not a "winning" argument.  Science doesn't have a "winning" argument against God either.  And its futile to try and trump one with the other.

But frankly when people couch their argument in these terms, why are they so willing to believe in a God that they can never understand and which has no connection with our universe whatsoever?  Doesn't that mean he is completely independent from our own existence and is essentially indifferent towards it?  That he has no active interest in humans?

This argument is like cutting off your arms so that you can run faster.  Sure, you might be able to run faster because you weigh less, but you don't have any fucking arms anymore!



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Soleron on 15 February 2009
Avalach21 said:
...

 

God isn't "Stuff."  God isn't in "time" or "space."  God doesn't exist in our "universe."  So therefore a hypothetical "God" doesn't fall under the laws that govern our universe.  So if there were to be a "God" it would be impossible for us to understand him, or his existance, and questions such as "how did he come to exist?" make no sense, becasue he doesn't "exist" in our sense of the word.  This is why it is hard (impossible) for science to prove or disprove God, because you can't test something that does not follow the rules of science.

1. Our universe is deterministic (all things have a cause). If God is outside these rules, he cannot affect the universe at all. He can't talk to people or perform miracles. I assume you believe in a personal (interventionist) God? You can't have both.

2. Even if there is such a supernatural cause to the universe, your description doesn't imply any of the qualities usually assigned to "God" - a cause outside time need not be sentient, or benevolent, or intefering, or omniscient/potent/present.Suppose a lump of extradimensional cheese caused the universe. If I call that cheese "God", it fits your description but is not appropriate to worship.

Conclusion: Whether or not something supernatural created the universe has no bearing on traditions of religion or religious belief.