Liverpool FC Forum

by **Big Niall** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:38 am

We both posted at the same time so my burden of proof argument is the post above yours.

I don't believe it chance either, just stuff we don't understand yet.

In the past when somebody had an epilectic fit, they thought it must be posession by the devil because they didn't understand it. Now we know all about the chemicals etc in us that cause these things. With time comes more knowledge.

Faith is just a word for believing in something that has no reason to be believed in. I realise I won't convert you though.

But - If I'm wrong, put a good word in for me with the big fella

by **dawson99** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:54 am

Well with my hedonistic ways i'll be up there before you, so don't worry, i'll have a word

by **Sabre** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:59 am

JoeTerp wrote:
Sabre wrote:
andy_g wrote:
kalos wrote:Big Niall asked : I am curious though why you believe in god?

The evidence in the world /Universe of an awesome intellect. The mathematics, physics and engineering precision in the physical world is only just being understood by the greatest minds on the planet.

That to me shows someone with an infinitely greater intellect than theirs started it all off.

or does it show that we still don't understand it yet and there is still lots of work to be done?

There's no doubt that there's a lot to be done and if I was Obama I'd increase the scientific research money.

However, science has frontieres, and there will be things that it's safe to say that science will never respond.

Science will one day explain, and not only describe, how a mass attracts another. Science will probably imitate with success the chemical reactions the sun does in order to provide energy and that currently are only achieved in certain environments.

But science will crash when you ask it why the universe exists. It will explain how and when started but not why. And if something exists, why has it so beautiful rules. Why not it be just a mess with no rules. If you remove a God out of the equation, then we can count ourselves infinitely and ridiculously lucky. What a marvelous universe luck has given us!.

It's impossible to prove the existance of God, but so is to prove the opposite. If someone disagrees, I'm happy to read why.

link

The teapot one is often explained and linked as something valid to say, but it's utter bóllocks.

Regardless I give 50% of possibilities to a tea pot orbiting the planet, I can tell for sure how the tea pot was cooked and why. In the case of the universe I can't.

I'm more close to the one than to the nine, without that meaning I live thinking God will take care of me because I'm especial. I just think there's a creator, because my scientific mind breaks down when I try to think that such a complex system as the universe was created randomly, and out of nothing. Things do not happen normally out of nothing. It would be easier to dump a lorry of sand and expect that a castle of sand will come out without the hands of an artist, than expecting the universe was generated out of nothing. With rules, that can be measured and modeled by our limited maths (partly), but without a creator.

I believe in science more than the next fella, but I won't be as arrogant to say our science with our maths will explain everything one day.

by **Big Niall** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:21 am

I don't know how there was nothing one second and the next their was a big bang, or a single cell organism.

but likewise, how was god (or multiple gods) created?

Neither one of the above is likely to be explained in our lifetime.

by **andy_g** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:55 am

Emerald Red wrote:Einstein - probably the most brilliant mind there was. A great advocate of faith and God. He found something that was thought impossible or otherwise didn't exist: the discovery of atoms, and other subatomic matter like neons, leptons, femeons and quarks. Not only did he know they were there, but he also knew of their properties and what would happen should you split one of the f*ckers. He did go too far, however, when he tried to figure out God's sh*t with his Theory Of Everything, which eventually ran him into the ground and subsequently made him a laughing stock. God doesn't play dice.

it wasn't einstein that discovered the atom and its subparticles. theories about atoms - or the basic units of matter - had been developing since the 6th century. in the late 17th century there were great leaps forward in what these things might be and how they might function, but it was i the early 19th century (100 years before einstein) that dalton came up with the first theory of atoms and how they combined to form other compounds.

einstein was one of many scientists including bohr, perrin and rutherford, who began to work on proving and developing atomic theory.

as far as his thoughts about god are concerned he as in a constant struggle to make sense of his beliefs. he constantly stated that he did not believe in a personal god, or a god as described by any established religion. for him 'god' was a more philosophical concept, maybe and embodiment of nature, maybe an abstract term to cover all the things that he and noone else really understood.

as far as being a laughing stock - thats a new one. his work on the unified field theory never really got anywhere due to its opposition from the mainstream physicists who were a pretty powerful lobby. he worked more isolated from the physics 'community' but was revered for his work all the same.

by **andy_g** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:58 am

the thing that bothers me most about all the religion, god, intelligent design theories for the creation and existence of the universe is that it represents the end of thought. there are so many things we don't understand and nearly everything is hard to explain empirically. i don't see why though, that this leads so many people to say - 'oh, well - it must have been a superior being that did it then'.

we might never understand all the workings of the universe but that doesn't mean that all the scientific work done so far is meaningless.

by **dawson99** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:05 am

andy_g wrote:the thing that bothers me most about all the religion, god, intelligent design theories for the creation and existence of the universe is that it represents the end of thought. there are so many things we don't understand and nearly everything is hard to explain empirically. i don't see why though, that this leads so many people to say - 'oh, well - it must have been a superior being that did it then'.

we might never understand all the workings of the universe but that doesn't mean that all the scientific work done so far is meaningless.

To some people God represents the beginning of thought. God and science can work together

by **Big Niall** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:25 am

God worked for 6 days and then took a long holiday. I reckon he must be french.

by **mistyred** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:40 pm

He defo needed a good barber, i can prove that much

He looks like the mad Doc from back to the future.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:21 pm

Sabre wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:
Sabre wrote:
andy_g wrote:
kalos wrote:Big Niall asked : I am curious though why you believe in god?

The evidence in the world /Universe of an awesome intellect. The mathematics, physics and engineering precision in the physical world is only just being understood by the greatest minds on the planet.

That to me shows someone with an infinitely greater intellect than theirs started it all off.

or does it show that we still don't understand it yet and there is still lots of work to be done?

There's no doubt that there's a lot to be done and if I was Obama I'd increase the scientific research money.

However, science has frontieres, and there will be things that it's safe to say that science will never respond.

Science will one day explain, and not only describe, how a mass attracts another. Science will probably imitate with success the chemical reactions the sun does in order to provide energy and that currently are only achieved in certain environments.

But science will crash when you ask it why the universe exists. It will explain how and when started but not why. And if something exists, why has it so beautiful rules. Why not it be just a mess with no rules. If you remove a God out of the equation, then we can count ourselves infinitely and ridiculously lucky. What a marvelous universe luck has given us!.

It's impossible to prove the existance of God, but so is to prove the opposite. If someone disagrees, I'm happy to read why.

link

The teapot one is often explained and linked as something valid to say, but it's utter bóllocks.

Regardless I give 50% of possibilities to a tea pot orbiting the planet, I can tell for sure how the tea pot was cooked and why. In the case of the universe I can't.

I'm more close to the one than to the nine, without that meaning I live thinking God will take care of me because I'm especial. I just think there's a creator, because my scientific mind breaks down when I try to think that such a complex system as the universe was created randomly, and out of nothing. Things do not happen normally out of nothing. It would be easier to dump a lorry of sand and expect that a castle of sand will come out without the hands of an artist, than expecting the universe was generated out of nothing. With rules, that can be measured and modeled by our limited maths (partly), but without a creator.

I believe in science more than the next fella, but I won't be as arrogant to say our science with our maths will explain everything one day.

link

by **burjennio** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:53 pm

do you not think that maybe one is the answer to how, and the other is attempting to answer why?

Science and religion are two separate entities and should remain that way. Christian fundamentalists lobbying to have Intelligent Design taught in science classes across America are trying to serve no purpose other than to further thier own agenda. I do not know why we are here, regardless of what religion you follow or don't follow , you dont know why you are here either, you simply have an idea. You can embrace these ideas, and if its a particular religion and if it helps you accept your place in the universe a little easier then more power to it. However when people try to get others to bend to their will and force their religion upon those who have choosen a different path that is not the work of any God, that is the work of greedy, corruptable men who's motives are not to get you into Heaven, but to control, manipulate and get wealthy off of you.

On one hand I watch Bible Bashing street preachers ramble on about the so called lies that evolutionists are spreading to weaken the worlds belief for the soon to be here any minute I swear thats him now Anti-Christ that we've been awaiting for about two mellenia and wonder how anyone could be so totally brainwashed that they would totally ignore what is Scientific Fact and presume to enlighten the sinful that the world is only 6000 years old, monkeys are not people, and the all encompassing vastness of the universe is just a minor plot hole in their dogmatic opus.

But on the other hand, I read the works of Richard Dawkins (Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion) I man who's intellect makes me feel like my own child-like brain should thank its lucky stars it was planted inside a human being and not attached to a bluebottle where its 2 main functions would be deciding which piece of sh*t to land on and the pros and cons of not ploughing headfirst into the fluorescent blue light in the corner, and I see a man who, the further his work has progressed the more his total commitment to the science of evolutionary theory has merged with his increasingly rabid percecution of modern day religions in doing so has created a religion of his own, Neo-Darwinism, or Dawkinism and in doing so (especially in the God Dellusion) has mixed science and faith

by **JoeTerp** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:45 pm

burjennio wrote:I see a man who, the further his work has progressed the more his total commitment to the science of evolutionary theory has merged with his increasingly rabid percecution of modern day religions in doing so has created a religion of his own, Neo-Darwinism, or Dawkinism and in doing so (especially in the God Dellusion) has mixed science and faith

what do you mean has created a religion of his own?

If anything he has shown that science and faith do not mix. They are very much the opposite of each other. He is simply saying that religious beliefs should not get a special pass JUST BECAUSE they are someones religious beliefs. ESPECIALLY when those beliefs lead to policies that have a negative effect on people's everyday lives.

by **Sabre** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:07 am

WTF are you linking me Joe.

We accept Natural selection and Darwinism in Europe from a long ago, I'm not suggesting that something complex as an eye is designed. I don't believe in that kind of creationism. I'm not defending the existance of a God who considers us especial.

But natural selection could not explain why the whole universe was compacted, why it burst, why it expanded at such a rate with the same rules that govern the current expansion now, that complexity Joe wasn't created on trial and error, or by natural selection.

I'm sure our computer engineers will develop one day an artificial intelligence good enough to match ours. We're very far from it, our current intelligent computers are nor mote intelligent than an insect, but we will get there one day. Through science, through using atoms or even subparticles to carry 0 and 1 at a massive speed and minimum space. But we'll still won't be able to explain the universe and it's complexity. Just happening it is incredible.

And the guy in the video still hasn't addressed that question.

The end of thought? never. As a matter of fact, I'd like to know where are the Plato, the Descartes, the Witggensteins, the Kants of this antiGod era. We must keep theoritising in physics until our different theories build in one, we have to investigate and philosophy and thought must be present in our civilization.

by **JoeTerp** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:46 am

Sabre wrote:WTF are you linking me Joe.

We accept Natural selection and Darwinism in Europe from a long ago, I'm not suggesting that something complex as an eye is designed. I don't believe in that kind of creationism. I'm not defending the existance of a God who considers us especial.

But natural selection could not explain why the whole universe was compacted, why it burst, why it expanded at such a rate with the same rules that govern the current expansion now, that complexity Joe wasn't created on trial and error, or by natural selection.

I'm sure our computer engineers will develop one day an artificial intelligence good enough to match ours. We're very far from it, our current intelligent computers are nor mote intelligent than an insect, but we will get there one day. Through science, through using atoms or even subparticles to carry 0 and 1 at a massive speed and minimum space. But we'll still won't be able to explain the universe and it's complexity. Just happening it is incredible.

And the guy in the video still hasn't addressed that question.

The end of thought? never. As a matter of fact, I'd like to know where are the Plato, the Descartes, the Witggensteins, the Kants of this antiGod era. We must keep theoritising in physics until our different theories build in one, we have to investigate and philosophy and thought must be present in our civilization.

the point is that the universe started simple and has been becoming more complex ever since. To introduce something as complex and "intelligent" at the start of it all, like a god, does not make sense.

by **JoeTerp** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:51 am

as far as any idea of "end of thought" the more we learn the more we realize how little we knew. That said it is very likely that we will understand the universe better in 50 years than we do now, and some aspects that seem mysterious now will not in the future. I also do not buy into the idea that science is separate from things like philosophy or morality; these are where most scientific breakthroughs are occuring

Liverpool FC Forum

Human/ape missing link - Apparantly found

Who is online