Lets be serious:THERE IS NO GOD

Originally posted by MRoberts
There are three main arguments that point towards the existance of God.

The Cosmological Argument
The Anthropic Principle
The Argument from Religious Experience.

It is quite ignorant to say that you state that God does not exist when you clearly have not undertaken research, if you look at these principles and you still do not believe in God then fa ...[text shortened]... ey are Dr. Peter Vardy (Vice-Principal of Heythorpe College) and The Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.

I need to rant about the Anthropic Principal for a minute.

Overall the Anthropic Pricipal is just intellectually lazy. I and many other people I know find it disturbing. People, even some physicists are willing to basically say that they don't know how something works, so the Universe must therefore have been prepared for us by something, possibly a God although they are careful never to explicitly say that. It is like the Intelligent Design of Cosmology. It is a complete cop-out.

Many physicists believe that we will eventually be able to derive the masses of protons and neutrons from some basic principals instead of having to just call them random. The main support for the kind of thinking involved with it is that ridiculous calculation of how probable it is to get a universe capable of supporting life. Once again, we get to the problem of pure probability making things look less likely than they really are. We have very little to 0 understanding of things like universe formation and how constants like that would be determined. We don't even have a quantum theory of gravity or a good understanding of dark energy.

Plus, if you look at the string theory idea of infinite universes, one with the conditions to support life would be inevitable anyway.

Basically we shouldn't start attributing things to divine intervention until we understand things very well and still can't explain them. Many things we understand now seemed impossible to understand a long time ago, I am confident we will eventually understand the universe much better and look back at the Anthropic Principal like we do with things like LaMarkian Evolution.

Sorry for the rant, I am tired.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I need to rant about the Anthropic Principal for a minute.

Overall the Anthropic Pricipal is just intellectually lazy. I and many other people I know find it disturbing. People, even some physicists are willing to basically say that they don't know how something works, so the Universe must therefore have been prepared for us by something, possibl ...[text shortened]... ic Principal like we do with things like LaMarkian Evolution.

Sorry for the rant, I am tired.

Quite alright. In fact multiple universes aren't even necessary. There are millions of planets in the known universe, and up until now we only know of life on this one rock. Why then, were all the rest created, or is it just probability that in all those millions, one (or a small few) have the correct conditions for the support of life?
Basically, there are no intellegent organisms on dead planets saying to themselves 'well, we just missed out there'. If there truely is a creator, all those planets without life represent failure, and if not, the Anthropic principle is just us trying to prop up our egos about how important we are because we can't get over the fact that life can be explained using probability.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Facts, what facts? I accept there are fossils, what you claim is true
about those fossils are not necessarily facts as it fits in reality, but
instead what you say about those fossils are simply your views about
them nothing more. To be honest you must even say that if you get
new data, something else to add to the equation, you must adjust
your 'fact ...[text shortened]...
solid ground, but instead are all simply what people think about
certain things, today.
Kelly

I was tired last night, but now I'm not.

My point about medical science was not an attack on you or your family, it was merely to point out that the entire fabric of our society is based well and truely in science, from the food we eat (selective breeding, pesticides, herbicides) through to the fuel in our cars, the water in our taps (treated to destroy the micro-organisms we only know about through the work of Louis Pastuer and others), and even the air that we breath (both in terms of industrial pollution and it's clean up). Science is everywhere. It's a proven method of understanding the real world.

You talk about the maleability of our facts. It is true that were the laws of physics changed then many of the assumptions that we make in science would also not be true. Fortunately for us, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for any changes in physics or any other scientific principles over the duration of the universe. In fact, since many of our ideas come from multiple data sources it's exceedingly unlikely that any such changes have occurred.

Ultimately, your 'what if' scenario have got no basis in fact, although they are an interesting little sideline. GIVE US SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS I HAVE STATED ARE WRONG OR CONCEED THAT I HAVE A POINT. Simple huh?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Quite alright. In fact multiple universes aren't even necessary. There are millions of planets in the known universe, and up until now we only know of life on this one rock. Why then, were all the rest created, or is it just probability that in all those millions, one (or a small few) have the correct conditions for the support of life?
Basically ...[text shortened]... portant we are because we can't get over the fact that life can be explained using probability.

Your statement is completely correct as far as it goes, but the issue where people tend to invoke the Anthropic pricipal is for things like the mass of the proton and neutron being what they are. If the proton were heavier, neutrons would decay into protons instead of the other way around, thus stars would not be able to form and we would not have a universe capable of supporting life. It is true that given our universe, with all the planets there must be life on one (and this leads to a strong suspicion that we are not alone in the universe) but the Anthropic pricipal more applies to the idea that the universe itself might have been different and not have been able to form planets which then support life.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Your statement is completely correct as far as it goes, but the issue where people tend to invoke the Anthropic pricipal is for things like the mass of the proton and neutron being what they are. If the proton were heavier, neutrons would decay into protons instead of the other way around, thus stars would not be able to form and we would not have a u ...[text shortened]... itself might have been different and not have been able to form planets which then support life.

I appreciate this. I was merely giving another point of view, trying to make up another little analogy in my head. Thinking out loud, if you will.

Cheers!

L

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I was tired last night, but now I'm not.

My point about medical science was not an attack on you or your family, it was merely to point out that the entire fabric of our society is based well and truely in science, from the food we eat (selective breeding, pesticides, herbicides) through to the fuel in our cars, the water in our taps (treated to des ...[text shortened]... E THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS I HAVE STATED ARE WRONG OR CONCEED THAT I HAVE A POINT. Simple huh?

Once again, I don't want to nit pick, but it wasn't all Pastuer. We should also give credit to Joseph Lister, John Snow (part of where my name comes from), and Anton van Leeuwenhoek at least.

Also, astronomy can provide us with evidence that a good portion of physics has never changed. The farther away something is, the longer ago the light we are seeing from it was emitted. So when we look at very far away things we can effectively look back in time. Spectroscopy lines look the same (given red/blue shift) no matter where you look. Hydrogen looks like hydrogen. So we can safely say that things as basic as the energy levels of atoms have not changed at all in a tremendously long time.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Once again, I don't want to nit pick, but it wasn't all Pastuer. We should also give credit to Joseph Lister, John Snow (part of where my name comes from), and Anton van Leeuwenhoek at least.

Also, astronomy can provide us with evidence that a good portion of physics has never changed. The farther away something is, the longer ago the light we a ...[text shortened]... ings as basic as the energy levels of atoms have not changed at all in a tremendously long time.

Yeah, but the germ theory and the disproval of 'spontaneous generation' was pretty much Pasteurs. Joseph Lister always struck me as a much more practical chap, what with the whole pioneering aseptic medical technique (and hand washing) and all. John Snow I know little of, but would be interested to find out more. Anton van Leeuwenhoek did pioneer the microscope (after a fashion, also so did Galileo), and did see 'animicules'... As I say, germ theory was Pasteurs though.

Good point with the red / far red shift. Didn't think of that one.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Once again, I don't want to nit pick, but it wasn't all Pastuer. We should also give credit to Joseph Lister, John Snow (part of where my name comes from), and Anton van Leeuwenhoek at least.

Also, astronomy can provide us with evidence that a good portion of physics has never changed. The farther away something is, the longer ago the light we a ...[text shortened]... ings as basic as the energy levels of atoms have not changed at all in a tremendously long time.

But there you go, I added an 'and others' because i couldn't be bothered to write them all out! Just for you Umbrage

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yeah, but the germ theory and the disproval of 'spontaneous generation' was pretty much Pasteurs. Joseph Lister always struck me as a much more practical chap, what with the whole pioneering aseptic medical technique (and hand washing) and all. John Snow I know little of, but would be interested to find out more. Anton van Leeuwenhoek did pioneer t ...[text shortened]... ory was Pasteurs though.

Good point with the red / far red shift. Didn't think of that one.

That is true, if you had said one of the others I would have pointed out Pastuer. He came up with germ theory, Leeuwenhoek found the wee animicules to begin with, and Lister came up with the idea of killling them (He was in there because you were talking about water sanitation}
Snow was the founder of epideimiology. I am going to post a thread about him in the general forum just for you in return for you adding "and others".

Thanks, I would try to cut down on the nit-picking, but I know I can't help myself🙂

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
That is true, if you had said one of the others I would have pointed out Pastuer. He came up with germ theory, Leeuwenhoek found the wee animicules to begin with, and Lister came up with the idea of killling them (He was in there because you were talking about water sanitation}
Snow was the founder of epideimiology. I am going to post a thread about ...[text shortened]... hers".

Thanks, I would try to cut down on the nit-picking, but I know I can't help myself🙂

Well, us scientists (i'm guessing you are too) we just can't help it!!!

Ok, someone help me.... i was thinking, when i was hearing arguments about stuff like this about something i was disscussing with my youth pastor. I'm a Christian, (so you know where I am coming from) and this is what it was:
all this about evolution, is about one benifit piling on top of another, while the weaker species fall away... so i thought, if you keep going back, to the beginning of life, the proccess should be happening. then i thought... now the earth.. what about the earth? so i thought about how the earth could have been made as by evolutional ideas... it moves me to think about Big Bangs and the such, and so i think... "ok, so there is a whole bunch of matter at a single point (you know what i mean) and it starts to expand rapidly. so i thought.. where does that come from... and i couldnt come to an answer. so, i applied a simple observational principle... that if something exists, it came from something. so i thought... what about nothing.. i considered what concept of nothing i would go with to see where it would lead, and i decided, by nothing, i meant complete blank, and then i even subtracted that from the equation (which is like.. hard on the brain to concieve) and then i said, now, this can either make the next logical move, and make something, or nothing will happen. like an equation, x + 0 = x, x being the state of, and zero being the hypothetical additon to that, which is the only plausible alteration that could be made (which is to say, no alteration or change). so then i thought... if only there were something, in the nothing, before i add nothing something later could happen. but the problem is, there is nothing. the only way that all that should come later could be, would be something before that. but that is a problem as well, seeing as it must have been created at one time itself. but, a hard concept that allowed in after really looking at it, is if infinite existance before hand (to say... always have been, but never became) always exists, (to say...came from infinite, and exists in that state now) and then will always exist, though this right at this time, scientifically is hard to proof worth, or why it should even need to be or exist (the need for always being there in the future). but, naturally, the infinite would have to be infinite in more than just existence, because existence itself is not power. so, infinite power. mind boggling, but when really looked at, makes sense, since, (wow, like that one) one can only conclude that something cannot come from nothing, and something can not come from something limited ... which now makes me think that maybe thats where the infinence forever to the future would be needed to make it work, because once things are set into motion, if that infinence was to no longer exist, we only have what was created, which may be relatively great to us, but to the concept of that infinence wanes in power. still, there would have to be thought upon that last concept. but honestly, there is a greater being, and i'll just go with calling him God for now, and perhaps delve deeper into why so many believe christianity, if i look into the facts, reading the bible, looking at where the original sources are from, where those got there meanings and reasonings, and comparing the time they were made (as best as we could scientifically prove.. perhaps using some sort of carbon dating, or what have you) and reading the prophecy that was revealed, and comparing it to what has happened, and seeing how they match up. but, indisputably in my mind, i am convinced of God, and though not everything can be discovered in science and in God for now, i will go by faith on the rest in God, and pair it with what i think i know, and understand.

Originally posted by Twisbee101
...but when really looked at, makes sense, since, (wow, like that one) one can only conclude that something cannot come from nothing, and something can not come from something limited...

Where did God come from?

Originally posted by Twisbee101
Ok, someone help me.... i was thinking, when i was hearing arguments about stuff like this about something i was disscussing with my youth pastor. I'm a Christian, (so you know where I am coming from) and this is what it was:
all this about evolution, is about one benifit piling on top of another, while the weaker species fall away... so i thought, if y ...[text shortened]... ow, i will go by faith on the rest in God, and pair it with what i think i know, and understand.

Wow, that's an amazing post! I had to copy it to Word and put in paragraphs before I could even read it.

Nemesio beat me to the whole 'what created God thing first'!!!

The problem with your argument regarding the Big Bang are twofold really. First, energy and matter are the same thing, although matter is a very very concentrated form of energy. Everything (and by that I'm assuming that you mean matter) could have been created by a huge energy discharge / point of concentration, although this is, of course, only hypothetical, we have no proof and it would still beg the question 'where did that energy come from?'

The second problem is with your assumption that things during the Big Bang obey the same physical rules that currently operate. This is thought not to be the case. Under the huge gravitational pull of a singularity not even time (the passage of light) can escape. Therefore there was no 'before the Big Bang' because time did not exist before the BB. It is plausible that the universe simply came into being with no 'cause' (there could be no cause, because nothing existed).

So in answer to your question, we don't know!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Where did God come from?

This has been covered before. 😉

Originally posted by mantawa
This has been covered before. 😉

And? What was the result? There are new people here - maybe they have a thought?